Linguistic activism: Why intersectionality matters

Our paper discusses why the extant activism against linguistic hegemony has not attained its decolonialisation ambition yet, and how it can be rendered more pluriversal. Within management and its sub-fields (for example, within the CSR subfield, where we conducted our work), discussions about linguistic imperialism have focused on the hegemonic status of the English language (see, e.g., Tietze, 2004; Alves & Pozzebon, 2013; Chanlat, 2015; Blanchet & Berrier-Lucas, 2022), the massive diffusion of the American representation of management (Faria et al., 2010; Alcadipani & Rosa, 2011), and the domination of "concepts, models, and theories originated in the Anglo-Saxon World" (Gantman et al., 2015: 126). Most critics drew explicit attention to the danger of this persistent hegemony, both for scholars on the periphery and for the knowledge itself. They argued that bias towards English and the sidelining of perspectives developed out of the Anglosphere or by non-native English-speakers are conducive to epistemic colonialism (Ibarra-Colado, 2006; Ljosland, 2007), inequalities and exclusions (Tietze & Dick, 2012; Alcadipani & Faria, 2014; Horn, 2017), parochialism (Ventriss et al., 2010; Gantman et al., 2015), lack of diversity and innovation (Battilana et al., 2010; Chanlat, 2014), closure of meaning, dependency, mediocrity, and irrelevance (De Rond & Miller, 2005; Merilänen et al., 2008; Thomas et al., 2009; Alves & Pozzebon, 2013). Some of them accounted for the development of alternatives (Ibarra-Colado et al., 2010; Faria et al., 2010; Alcadipani & Rosa, 2011) or suggested strategies of resistance and disruption (Berry, 2006; Alves & Pozzebon, 2013; Gantman et al., 2015; Sliwa & Johansson, 2015; Blanchet & Berrier-Lucas, 2022). That English is a global lingua franca is undisputedly a fact. However, activists have overlooked: 1) hegemony within subalternised linguistic communities and 2) intersectionality. This paper addresses these issues by focusing on what we have observed from our position as French-speaking CSR scholars. We will first refer to the power relations between Metropolitan France and the other members of the Francophonie, most of whom are on the African continent and in the Caribbean. Drawing from critics of the Françafrique system and the Francophone CSR literature, we highlight how praxis and scholarship in the Francophonie epitomises dependency and mimetism. We then explain that, while doing and publishing research in French is a form of activism, it has not prevented French-speaking CSR scholars from reproducing racial and gender exclusions. We point to the striking absence of inquiry into how linguistic hegemony often operates simultaneously with racial and gender biases and violences. In fact, fields representing such simultaneous oppressions are absent from the Francophone CSR works, including the decolonialised ones. We argue that intersectionality is a relevant perspective that may allow linguistic activists in our subfield and in management in general to enhance pluriversality and more inclusion.