Nila Kartika Wati
Naming serves as a fundamental site of power and a mechanism for establishing legitimacy within social, political, and economic systems. In the context of the modern social sector, the act of naming—whether applied to individuals, geographic locations, or systemic conditions—functions as a tool for both reclamation and erasure. As philanthropic institutions and democratic movements navigate a period of intense volatility, the ability to define reality through language has emerged as a primary strategy for achieving equity and structural reform. This process is exemplified by the emergence of the "Ebony Edge," a term coined to describe the specific, compounded pressures faced by Black women in leadership roles during times of institutional crisis. By examining the intersection of personal identity, historical nomenclature, and current leadership trends, it becomes evident that the future of democracy and resource distribution is inextricably linked to who possesses the authority to name the conditions of the world.
The Historical and Sociological Context of Naming
Throughout history, the naming of land and people has been a central component of colonial expansion and state-building. The practice of renaming colonized territories was intended to erase Indigenous histories and impose the language and frameworks of the colonizer. A prominent example is found in the history of Puerto Rico, which has undergone four distinct naming iterations. Originally known as Borikén by the Indigenous Taíno people, the island was renamed San Juan Bautista by Christopher Columbus in 1493. Following the Spanish-American War, it was briefly referred to as Porto Rico under United States administration before eventually becoming Puerto Rico.
Despite these official changes, the name Borikén persists in oral traditions, cultural memory, and resistance movements. Sociologists argue that the refusal to abandon original names is a form of political defiance that maintains a link to ancestral lineage. In a democratic framework, naming remains a contested terrain because it dictates what a society recognizes as real and what demands a policy response. When movements successfully name a condition—such as "segregation" or "discrimination"—they transform an amorphous experience into an actionable political objective.
The Evolution of Leadership: Defining the Ebony Edge
In the social sector, the naming of leadership phenomena has provided a framework for understanding why certain demographics face higher rates of professional attrition. In the early 2000s, researchers Michelle K. Ryan and Alexander Haslam identified the "glass cliff," a phenomenon where women are more likely to be appointed to leadership roles during periods of crisis or downturn, when the risk of failure is highest.
However, recent analysis suggests that the glass cliff does not fully capture the intersectional challenges faced by Black women. Sadé Dozan, a prominent voice in wealth work and philanthropy, introduced the term "Ebony Edge" to describe the intensified version of the glass cliff experienced by Black female leaders. Between 2020 and 2021, a significant number of Black women were elevated to executive positions within nonprofits and corporations amidst a global pandemic, a racial justice reckoning, and economic instability.
The Ebony Edge characterizes a cycle where these leaders are tasked with stabilizing organizations under extreme conditions, often with fewer resources and less institutional support than their predecessors. When systemic issues—many of which predated their arrival—are not resolved immediately, these leaders often face disproportionate blame and are pushed out of their roles. Data from the 2023 "Women in the Workplace" report by McKinsey & Company and LeanIn.Org indicates that Black women leaders are significantly more likely than their peers to have their judgment questioned and to be overlooked for sponsorship, contributing to a higher rate of "voluntary" departures that are often the result of unsustainable professional environments.
Chronology of Linguistic Strategy in Social Movements
The strategic use of naming has evolved through several distinct phases within American social movements:
- The Civil Rights Era (1950s-1960s): Movement leaders focused on naming "Jim Crow" and "institutionalized racism" to make invisible power structures visible to the broader public.
- The Rise of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (1990s-2010s): Organizations began adopting formal language to address workplace disparities, though critics argue this period often prioritized "legibility" over structural change.
- The Post-2020 Reckoning: Following the murder of George Floyd, there was a surge in explicit naming of "White Supremacy" and "Anti-Blackness" within institutional strategic plans.
- The Current Backlash (2023-Present): In the wake of the 2023 Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action in higher education, a "counter-naming" movement has emerged. Opponents of equity initiatives have repurposed language like "equality" and "neutrality" to challenge programs specifically designed to support marginalized groups.
This chronology demonstrates that language is not static; it is a weaponized tool used to either advance or dismantle progress toward equity.
Data and Trends in Philanthropic Resource Flow
The impact of naming extends directly into how capital is distributed. Philanthropy has historically relied on a concept of "readiness" or "impact" that is often defined by Western, academic frameworks. When community-led initiatives do not use the specific nomenclature favored by large foundations, they are frequently excluded from funding.
Research into "giving circles" illustrates this disconnect. For decades, Black, Indigenous, and immigrant communities practiced informal resource pooling—sharing funds and decisions to support local needs. It was only after these practices were formally named "giving circles" and codified by organizations like the Asian Women Giving Circle and the Latino Community Foundation that the broader philanthropic sector began to recognize them as a legitimate and scalable model of "responsive capital."
Recent data suggests that when philanthropy shifts its definitions of "impact" to align with the names and practices used by communities themselves, the flow of resources becomes more equitable. For example, groups like Geaux Girl Giving have utilized community-centric naming to modernize approaches to capital, ensuring that the language of the funder does not supersede the lived reality of the recipient.
Professional Identity and the Friction of Legibility
The struggle for naming also manifests at the individual level, where professionals of color often face pressure to "edit" their names or identities to fit institutional norms. Yolanda F. Johnson, founder of Women of Color in Fundraising and Philanthropy (WOC)®, has highlighted how even a single initial—the "F." in her name—serves as a critical marker of identity and brand. The omission of such markers by institutions is often framed as a minor error, but for the individual, it represents a failure of recognition.
Dozan’s own narrative regarding her name—Sadé Nicolasa Dozan—reflects a broader systemic issue. The persistent mispronunciation or renaming of individuals in professional spaces creates a "burden of correction." Leaders must constantly weigh the cost of being fully seen against the cost of the social friction caused by insisting on their correct name. This friction is a micro-level reflection of the macro-level challenges faced by organizations that refuse to conform to standard philanthropic "legibility."
Analysis of Institutional Implications
The social sector is currently at a crossroads regarding its relationship with language and power. If institutions continue to demand that those most impacted by systemic issues translate their experiences into "palatable" terms, they risk reinforcing the very hierarchies they seek to dismantle.
Experts suggest several shifts are necessary for institutions to move from performative naming to democratic belonging:
- Redefining Readiness: Institutions must interrogate who decided what "readiness" looks like. Funding should be directed toward efforts that are already working, regardless of whether they fit existing academic theories of change.
- Embracing Discomfort: Democracy requires the ability to move through discomfort when encountering unfamiliar names, identities, or strategies.
- Behavioral Adjustment: Naming must be followed by changes in behavior, specifically in how institutional power is shared and how resources are moved to those who have been historically "unnamed" in the halls of power.
Conclusion: Naming as a Prerequisite for Liberation
The act of naming is a prerequisite for any movement seeking liberation or democratic reform. By naming the "Ebony Edge," leaders like Dozan have provided a shared language for a phenomenon that was previously experienced in isolation. This visibility is the first step toward collective action and institutional accountability.
As the social sector moves forward, the challenge will be to resist the instinct to dismiss what is not immediately legible. The future of democracy depends on a society’s willingness to listen to the names people choose for themselves and their conditions, and to change in response to what those names reveal. Naming is not merely a linguistic exercise; it is an assertion of existence and a demand for a world where everyone has the power to define their own reality.
