Calling All Cyborgs and Allies: Reflections on Building Affinity Groups
“There is nothing about being ‘female’ that naturally binds women. There is not even such a state as ‘being’ female…but there has also been a growing recognition of another response through coalition – affinity, not identity.” (Haraway 1987: 14)
Equity, diversity, and inclusion (referred to hereafter as EDI) continue to be important organizational goals in higher education. Consulting firms, conferences, workshops, courses, and entire programs have been developed to illumine the many dynamics that can engender or stymie this tri-part objective. Although the focus on EDI has waned in many organizations over the past few years, a strong argument can be made that efforts to advance this goal are crucial now more than ever.
A common misconception is that the most effective approach to develop work groups or ad hoc committees to spearhead projects that foster EDI is to bring people together from the same or similar social groups. There may be some benefits to organizing homogeneous groups to accomplish certain objectives (for example, to gain deep insights and common themes for that collective). But given the complexities and opportunities associated with diverse spaces, it is important to be open to various approaches to thoughtfully respond to EDI-related topics. The use of affinity groups is one such approach.
Affinity groups celebrate heterogeneity. They are designed to be diverse in terms of dynamics such as social identities, belief systems, and demographics. For example, an ad hoc committee that consists of lecturers, assistant, associate, and full professors as well as staff and students from different disciplines, degree-conferring institutes, places of origin, and social identities such as ethnicity, age, race, and gender would approach a campus-wide project in a dramatically different way than a committee in which this level of difference is absent. Because members of such groups are different, they bring a wealth of views, beliefs, ideas, experiences, and expertise to the table.
In the groundbreaking chapter, “A Manifesto for Cyborgs: Science, Technology, and Socialist Feminism in the 1980s,” Donna Haraway introduces the concept of a cyborg – an entity that intentionally blurs boundaries – as an exemplar of the potential effectiveness of affinity groups. Haraway describes blurred boundaries in three ways, between; human and animal, organism and machine, and the physical and non-physical. According to Haraway, societal change is often hampered due to essentialism that suggests that members of certain social groups are automatically aligned. She posits, “There is nothing about being ‘female’ that naturally binds women. There is not even such a state as ‘being’ female…but there has also been a growing recognition of another response through coalition – affinity, not identity” (Haraway 1987: 14). Extending this principle means that there is nothing essential about socially constructed identities such as ethnicity, sexuality, and race that automatically unite people. My grandmother said it best – all skin-folk aren’t kinfolk. Rather than an indictment, this observation encourages us to look beyond our usual groups to identify and forge varied kinships, alliances, and allies. Blurred boundaries also remind us of what is possible when we proactively reach across chasms that may have developed across time and place.
The concept of a cyborg reflects the innovation and multi-facetness at the heart of an affinity group. An affinity group works because, despite differences, its members make up a conscious coalition. Simply put – they work because individuals make up their mind to do so. Affinity groups can build bonds and trust over time as people coalesce around an agreed-upon goal. Their profiles differ, but their goal is the same. And unity around a shared goal makes all the difference. The group is committed and focused on accomplishing its objective in a guileless way. Laying aside personal agendas, recognizing the benefits of their varied profiles, and proactively striving to minimize biases mean affinity group members are willing to do the hard work and work together to accomplish a task. They also recognize that, because of their differences, it may take more time to meet that objective. Yet, in doing so, such work is more likely to accomplish multiple goals – reaching the committee objective as well as building long-term relationships that will exist beyond the project end. This latter outcome is central to lasting community-building in organizations and institutions – and what makes affinity groups so salient.
Affinity group work can create enduring allies. What are allies and how are they connected to building affinity groups? Despite the multiple benefits of affinity groups, it takes intentionality and hard work to develop and sustain them. Individuals must commit to become allies to the group initiative and to each other. Utt’s (2013) op-ed piece provides insights. It reminds us of the centrality of: participatory listening; understanding that allyship is a verb rather than a noun; consistent work on EDI-related topics; and, being comfortable serving in non-leadership roles. Also, taking the learning and expertise discovered in affinity groups back to our family-, friendship-, and work-networks, which are often homogeneous, will help promote a cyborg-mindset in other spaces. Principles around affinity groups can be applied to: developing and sharing teaching and advising strategies to meet diverse student needs; expanding research teams to perform forward-facing scholarship; and, developing nuanced decision-making required to better address concerns in an increasingly global society.
It is important to stress that it may take longer to build trust; people will need time to get to know each other. Perseverance is key, as is the ability to identify seemingly small successes that show that the group is making progress towards both its tangible objectives as well as intangible goals associated with relationship-building. And what outsiders may consider to be conflict may actually be the group working out differences and getting to know each other. A watchful eye is needed to assess when the group is learning to work together, rather than when progress is not being made. Haraway’s metaphor of the cyborg challenges us to reimagine what allyship and cross-coalition building can mean. These same principles may be applicable in other contexts such as in religious organizations and businesses. Increased innovation, creative strategies and best practices, and ultimately, long-term relationships, are more apt to be forged when we participate in affinity groups.
References
Haraway, Donna. 1987. “A Manifesto for Cyborgs: Science, Technology, and Socialist Feminism in the 1980s.” Australian Feminist Studies 2(4):1-42.
Utt, Jamie. 2013. “So You Call Yourself an Ally: 10 Things All ‘Allies’ Need to Know.” Everyday Feminism (https://everydayfeminism.com/2013/11/things-allies-need-to-know/).