Exam Overview
Diversity and Power
Lecture 1: Introduction ‘Woke’ words and classification
Reading 1: Toebat- “Woorden veranderen is gewoon andere etiketten plakken op dezelfde
categorieën”
The article is an interview with Sibo Kanobana written by Toebat.
Sibo Kanobana argues that changing words alone is not enough to decolonize language. Real change
comes from understanding and challenging the social structures and power systems that shape how
language is used.
Main ideas
1. Language Shapes How We See the World
We use language to describe people and put them into groups (like “autochtoon” vs. “allochtoon”).
These labels often carry hidden judgments—some groups are seen as “normal,” others as “less than.”
This can support racism and inequality, even if we don’t mean to.
2. Changing Words Doesn’t Fix the Problem
Replacing negative words with new ones doesn’t solve the issue. The negative ideas stay the same,
just under a new name. Over time, even the new words can become negative if the deeper issues
aren’t addressed.
3. Meaning Depends on Context
A word’s meaning changes depending on who says it, when, where, and how. It’s not just what a
word means in the dictionary, but how it affects people. For example “wijf” (woman) can feel rude or
empowering depending on the situation.
4. Awareness is Better Than Censorship
Kanobana doesn’t believe in banning words. Instead, he wants people to become aware of how
language affects others. Real change starts with open conversations about language and its impact.
5. Look at Power Behind Words
We need to look at the history and power behind words. Words like “white” or “black” carry
meanings linked to racism and colonialism. When people learn this (through school, media, art), they
can start thinking differently.
,6. Rethink How We Categorize People
Don’t label people based on one thing, like race. It is better to look at relationships and life
experiences instead. Kanobana suggests we “recategorize” in ways that show people’s full humanity.
7. Language is a Tool, Not the Goal
Language helps us express ideas, but it’s not the final goal. The real goal is to change how we think
about the world. When we think differently, our language naturally changes too.
So, Changing offensive words doesn’t fix racism or inequality.
We need to understand the history, discuss the effects, and challenge the deeper social systems
behind language.
Reading 2: Durkheim, Emile, & Marcel Mauss 1963 [1903]. Primitive Classification.
Their essay “Primitive societies” refers to the way that early, so-called “primitive” societies organized
the world into categories using social and symbolic logic, rather than abstract scientific reasoning.
Early human societies tried to make sense of the world, like who belongs to which family, what
animals are sacred, what food is safe, etc. They did this not just based on observation, but by
grouping things together in ways that reflected their social relationships, myths, and rituals.
These are classifications, but they are based on social meaning, not science.
Durkheim & Maus argued that:
All human societies classify things, but early ones did so in ways deeply tied to their social
structure.
These classifications were not random, they reflected the society’s groupings of people (like
clans) and relationships to nature.
Over time, this evolved into scientific classification, but even today, social meanings still
influence how we group and understand things.
This challenged the idea that so-called “primitive” people were irrational. It showed that logic and
structure existed in all societies, even if their foundations were different. It laid the groundwork for
understanding culture, symbols, and how societies give meaning to the world.
,Reading 3: Pels – “Classification Revisited: On Time, Methodology and Position in Decolonizing
Anthropology”
Peter Pels critically revisits the role of classification in anthropology, especially in the context of
decolonizing the discipline. He argues that classification has historically shaped and reflected colonial
ideologies and must be re-examined through a time-sensitive and reflexive methodology to address
its enduring effects in contemporary anthropology.
Classification = a category into which something is put.
Problem of classification
Classification was central to racist and colonial anthropology in the 19 th century. But later
classification, becomes a critical tool for understanding cultural differences. But language still reflects
unequal ways of thinking, often favouring European ideas and views.
There were three ways of decolonialization. We are now in the third wave.
How to study classification?
Pels explains that we can study classification in three time-based ways:
Nominal-Descriptive: Naming and categorizing (e.g., racial or ethnic labels). How we
label and group things
Constructive: How these labels are created and change over time.
Interventionist: How they shape social realities and power structures.
Historical Reassessment of Thinkers
Durkheim and Mauss aimed to create universal social theories, but their work on “primitive
classification” was shaped by colonial biases. Today, their ideas are being re-evaluated with this in
mind.
Historical reassessment = re-examining past ideas, events, or people with new perspectives. It’s
taking a fresh, critical look at history to understand it more fully and fairly.
In this case: Pels looks at the work of Durkheim and Mauss again to see how it was influenced by
things like colonialism or outdated beliefs.
Peter Pels revisits "primitive classification" to:
Show how Durkheim and Mauss's ideas were influenced by colonial beliefs.
Argue that classifications shaped reality and had real-world effects. (it was not just
descriptive, but also constructive (they shaped reality) and interventionist (they had real
effects)
Call for a reflexive and time-sensitive method to understand classification, one that critiques
colonial legacies and racial categories.
(Call for a thoughtful approach to classification that challenges colonial legacies and racial
categories, considering time and context.)
,Countervoices in Anthropology
Anténor Firmin: A Haitian thinker who used science to challenge racist ideas in European
anthropology.
W.E.B. Du Bois: Introduced “double consciousness” to show how racialized people feel divided—
excluded by society but still connected to its values.
Double consciousness = idea that explains what it feels like to live with two identities at the same
time, especially as a Black person in a society dominated by white norms. Dubois: “Seeing yourself
through your own eyes and also through the eyes of a society that sees you as inferior” So one
identify as an American, and one identity as a black person, constantly judged and marginalized. The
society tells you that your blackness is a problem, but inside, you know your value and humanity. You
are torn between how you see yourself and how others see you and treat you.
Decolonization and Time
Classifications often unfairly divide people by time (e.g., “modern” vs. “primitive”).
Pels says we should include time in how we understand people—not use it to judge them. This means
seeing people in their historical context, avoiding stereotypes, and allowing space for change and
hope.
Main Argument:
To decolonize anthropology, scholars must:
Critique the historical origins of classification systems.
Use a self-reflective approach that considers time and context.
See knowledge as influenced by context, not as universal or neutral.
Conclusion:
Anthropologists should recognize that classifications are built, not fixed. By doing so, they can
challenge colonial legacies and create a more inclusive, equitable anthropology.
,Lecture notes 1
The most important skill is operationalisation. Use in the exam concrete examples from the text and
the lectures!
Political tension about woke
Classifications are just words we use to describe things. But the moment we start using words that
describe differences between people, we need to be very careful. There's always the question: Who is
“we” and who is “they”?
We live in strange time. There is a lot of anti-woke movements.
The idea of woke and to teach about woke on university is to encourage students to think critically
and conduct research skills. Teacher do not teach students what to think.
But in this anti-woke movement universities are forbidden to teach about these topics. This makes
the world feel more confusing and even dangerous. A teacher’s job should be to help students learn
how to think, how to ask questions, how to do research—not to tell them what to think. But now,
some governments say it’s okay to tell people what to think. They say opinions should decide our
policies, not facts or research.
So now, some teachers feel like they have no choice. They have to take a political stand—even when
they don’t want to.
This is part of the growing pushback against so-called "woke" ideas.
Woke
The word “woke” is more important than many people realize. It originally comes from African
American culture. The musician Lead Belly used it in a song, warning people to “stay woke”—
meaning: be alert, be careful, because racism is part of everyday life in society.
Many African American parents still tell their children: don’t draw attention to yourself, even for small
things like traffic violations. You never know how dangerous it could become.
(If you want to understand this feeling, the book “Between the World and Me” gives a powerful
insight.)
Sibo Kanobana, a sociolinguist at Ghent University, explains that the meaning of woke has changed
over time.
At first, it meant being aware of racism and injustice.
Later, around 2010, it became a word for people who speak out about those injustices.
But now, especially among conservatives, “woke” has become a negative word—an insult.
Some people use “woke” to attack others, saying that woke people are the real racists.
In some American universities, talking about race is now discouraged—or even banned. The strange
idea is that talking about racism is itself considered racist.
, We'll talk more later about how ideas around diversity developed in American culture. But for now,
it’s important to ask:
Why do we talk so much about diversity, but things often don’t seem to really change?
The link between diversity and power can make people feel hopeless. But we shouldn’t give up. If we
care about building a more equal world in the long run, then we need to keep fighting against fake
news and the rejection of scientific knowledge.
There has been progress. For example, the protests in the Netherlands against Zwarte Piet (Black
Pete) brought the idea of woke to Europe. That’s one of the successful stories of change.
So yes, the meaning of woke has shifted—but that also shows us something:
Meanings can change, and change creates opportunity.
The Euphemism Treadmill – Why Words Keep Changing
In an interview, sociolinguist Sibo Kanobana talks about how people try to change things by using
new words. The goal is often to replace old words that carry negative feelings or meanings. But
there’s a problem:
“You can create a new word because the old one has bad connotations—but the negative ideas
often come along with the new word too.”
This is what we call the euphemism treadmill
= you replace a word, but the meaning behind it doesn’t really change, because the power structures
stay the same.
For example:
In English: the shift went from the n-word, to Negro, to Black, to Afro-American, to African
American.
In Dutch: from gastarbeider (guest worker), to allochtoon, to mensen met een
migratieachtergrond (people with a migration background).
The first word, gastarbeider, already suggested that people were just here to work—and
should leave afterward.
So what do we do?
What if science tells us race doesn’t really exist in a biological sense?
What if male/female doesn’t fully describe your gender or sexuality?
Is simply changing the words enough?
For example:
Saying enslaved person instead of slave puts the focus on the fact that someone was forced
into slavery.
Saying minoritized group instead of minority reminds us that power structures actively make
some groups smaller or weaker in society.
This is why we need to think deeply about the classifications we use.
Diversity and Power
Lecture 1: Introduction ‘Woke’ words and classification
Reading 1: Toebat- “Woorden veranderen is gewoon andere etiketten plakken op dezelfde
categorieën”
The article is an interview with Sibo Kanobana written by Toebat.
Sibo Kanobana argues that changing words alone is not enough to decolonize language. Real change
comes from understanding and challenging the social structures and power systems that shape how
language is used.
Main ideas
1. Language Shapes How We See the World
We use language to describe people and put them into groups (like “autochtoon” vs. “allochtoon”).
These labels often carry hidden judgments—some groups are seen as “normal,” others as “less than.”
This can support racism and inequality, even if we don’t mean to.
2. Changing Words Doesn’t Fix the Problem
Replacing negative words with new ones doesn’t solve the issue. The negative ideas stay the same,
just under a new name. Over time, even the new words can become negative if the deeper issues
aren’t addressed.
3. Meaning Depends on Context
A word’s meaning changes depending on who says it, when, where, and how. It’s not just what a
word means in the dictionary, but how it affects people. For example “wijf” (woman) can feel rude or
empowering depending on the situation.
4. Awareness is Better Than Censorship
Kanobana doesn’t believe in banning words. Instead, he wants people to become aware of how
language affects others. Real change starts with open conversations about language and its impact.
5. Look at Power Behind Words
We need to look at the history and power behind words. Words like “white” or “black” carry
meanings linked to racism and colonialism. When people learn this (through school, media, art), they
can start thinking differently.
,6. Rethink How We Categorize People
Don’t label people based on one thing, like race. It is better to look at relationships and life
experiences instead. Kanobana suggests we “recategorize” in ways that show people’s full humanity.
7. Language is a Tool, Not the Goal
Language helps us express ideas, but it’s not the final goal. The real goal is to change how we think
about the world. When we think differently, our language naturally changes too.
So, Changing offensive words doesn’t fix racism or inequality.
We need to understand the history, discuss the effects, and challenge the deeper social systems
behind language.
Reading 2: Durkheim, Emile, & Marcel Mauss 1963 [1903]. Primitive Classification.
Their essay “Primitive societies” refers to the way that early, so-called “primitive” societies organized
the world into categories using social and symbolic logic, rather than abstract scientific reasoning.
Early human societies tried to make sense of the world, like who belongs to which family, what
animals are sacred, what food is safe, etc. They did this not just based on observation, but by
grouping things together in ways that reflected their social relationships, myths, and rituals.
These are classifications, but they are based on social meaning, not science.
Durkheim & Maus argued that:
All human societies classify things, but early ones did so in ways deeply tied to their social
structure.
These classifications were not random, they reflected the society’s groupings of people (like
clans) and relationships to nature.
Over time, this evolved into scientific classification, but even today, social meanings still
influence how we group and understand things.
This challenged the idea that so-called “primitive” people were irrational. It showed that logic and
structure existed in all societies, even if their foundations were different. It laid the groundwork for
understanding culture, symbols, and how societies give meaning to the world.
,Reading 3: Pels – “Classification Revisited: On Time, Methodology and Position in Decolonizing
Anthropology”
Peter Pels critically revisits the role of classification in anthropology, especially in the context of
decolonizing the discipline. He argues that classification has historically shaped and reflected colonial
ideologies and must be re-examined through a time-sensitive and reflexive methodology to address
its enduring effects in contemporary anthropology.
Classification = a category into which something is put.
Problem of classification
Classification was central to racist and colonial anthropology in the 19 th century. But later
classification, becomes a critical tool for understanding cultural differences. But language still reflects
unequal ways of thinking, often favouring European ideas and views.
There were three ways of decolonialization. We are now in the third wave.
How to study classification?
Pels explains that we can study classification in three time-based ways:
Nominal-Descriptive: Naming and categorizing (e.g., racial or ethnic labels). How we
label and group things
Constructive: How these labels are created and change over time.
Interventionist: How they shape social realities and power structures.
Historical Reassessment of Thinkers
Durkheim and Mauss aimed to create universal social theories, but their work on “primitive
classification” was shaped by colonial biases. Today, their ideas are being re-evaluated with this in
mind.
Historical reassessment = re-examining past ideas, events, or people with new perspectives. It’s
taking a fresh, critical look at history to understand it more fully and fairly.
In this case: Pels looks at the work of Durkheim and Mauss again to see how it was influenced by
things like colonialism or outdated beliefs.
Peter Pels revisits "primitive classification" to:
Show how Durkheim and Mauss's ideas were influenced by colonial beliefs.
Argue that classifications shaped reality and had real-world effects. (it was not just
descriptive, but also constructive (they shaped reality) and interventionist (they had real
effects)
Call for a reflexive and time-sensitive method to understand classification, one that critiques
colonial legacies and racial categories.
(Call for a thoughtful approach to classification that challenges colonial legacies and racial
categories, considering time and context.)
,Countervoices in Anthropology
Anténor Firmin: A Haitian thinker who used science to challenge racist ideas in European
anthropology.
W.E.B. Du Bois: Introduced “double consciousness” to show how racialized people feel divided—
excluded by society but still connected to its values.
Double consciousness = idea that explains what it feels like to live with two identities at the same
time, especially as a Black person in a society dominated by white norms. Dubois: “Seeing yourself
through your own eyes and also through the eyes of a society that sees you as inferior” So one
identify as an American, and one identity as a black person, constantly judged and marginalized. The
society tells you that your blackness is a problem, but inside, you know your value and humanity. You
are torn between how you see yourself and how others see you and treat you.
Decolonization and Time
Classifications often unfairly divide people by time (e.g., “modern” vs. “primitive”).
Pels says we should include time in how we understand people—not use it to judge them. This means
seeing people in their historical context, avoiding stereotypes, and allowing space for change and
hope.
Main Argument:
To decolonize anthropology, scholars must:
Critique the historical origins of classification systems.
Use a self-reflective approach that considers time and context.
See knowledge as influenced by context, not as universal or neutral.
Conclusion:
Anthropologists should recognize that classifications are built, not fixed. By doing so, they can
challenge colonial legacies and create a more inclusive, equitable anthropology.
,Lecture notes 1
The most important skill is operationalisation. Use in the exam concrete examples from the text and
the lectures!
Political tension about woke
Classifications are just words we use to describe things. But the moment we start using words that
describe differences between people, we need to be very careful. There's always the question: Who is
“we” and who is “they”?
We live in strange time. There is a lot of anti-woke movements.
The idea of woke and to teach about woke on university is to encourage students to think critically
and conduct research skills. Teacher do not teach students what to think.
But in this anti-woke movement universities are forbidden to teach about these topics. This makes
the world feel more confusing and even dangerous. A teacher’s job should be to help students learn
how to think, how to ask questions, how to do research—not to tell them what to think. But now,
some governments say it’s okay to tell people what to think. They say opinions should decide our
policies, not facts or research.
So now, some teachers feel like they have no choice. They have to take a political stand—even when
they don’t want to.
This is part of the growing pushback against so-called "woke" ideas.
Woke
The word “woke” is more important than many people realize. It originally comes from African
American culture. The musician Lead Belly used it in a song, warning people to “stay woke”—
meaning: be alert, be careful, because racism is part of everyday life in society.
Many African American parents still tell their children: don’t draw attention to yourself, even for small
things like traffic violations. You never know how dangerous it could become.
(If you want to understand this feeling, the book “Between the World and Me” gives a powerful
insight.)
Sibo Kanobana, a sociolinguist at Ghent University, explains that the meaning of woke has changed
over time.
At first, it meant being aware of racism and injustice.
Later, around 2010, it became a word for people who speak out about those injustices.
But now, especially among conservatives, “woke” has become a negative word—an insult.
Some people use “woke” to attack others, saying that woke people are the real racists.
In some American universities, talking about race is now discouraged—or even banned. The strange
idea is that talking about racism is itself considered racist.
, We'll talk more later about how ideas around diversity developed in American culture. But for now,
it’s important to ask:
Why do we talk so much about diversity, but things often don’t seem to really change?
The link between diversity and power can make people feel hopeless. But we shouldn’t give up. If we
care about building a more equal world in the long run, then we need to keep fighting against fake
news and the rejection of scientific knowledge.
There has been progress. For example, the protests in the Netherlands against Zwarte Piet (Black
Pete) brought the idea of woke to Europe. That’s one of the successful stories of change.
So yes, the meaning of woke has shifted—but that also shows us something:
Meanings can change, and change creates opportunity.
The Euphemism Treadmill – Why Words Keep Changing
In an interview, sociolinguist Sibo Kanobana talks about how people try to change things by using
new words. The goal is often to replace old words that carry negative feelings or meanings. But
there’s a problem:
“You can create a new word because the old one has bad connotations—but the negative ideas
often come along with the new word too.”
This is what we call the euphemism treadmill
= you replace a word, but the meaning behind it doesn’t really change, because the power structures
stay the same.
For example:
In English: the shift went from the n-word, to Negro, to Black, to Afro-American, to African
American.
In Dutch: from gastarbeider (guest worker), to allochtoon, to mensen met een
migratieachtergrond (people with a migration background).
The first word, gastarbeider, already suggested that people were just here to work—and
should leave afterward.
So what do we do?
What if science tells us race doesn’t really exist in a biological sense?
What if male/female doesn’t fully describe your gender or sexuality?
Is simply changing the words enough?
For example:
Saying enslaved person instead of slave puts the focus on the fact that someone was forced
into slavery.
Saying minoritized group instead of minority reminds us that power structures actively make
some groups smaller or weaker in society.
This is why we need to think deeply about the classifications we use.
