Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/13688790.2022.2030595
K. Smiet
ABSTRACT This article examines the commonalities and divergences between postcolonial and decolonial approaches to humanism and the question of the human, by way of an examination of the work of postcolonial scholar Edward W. Said and decolonial scholar Walter D. Mignolo. While at first glance, their stances may seem diametrically opposed, as the former is a staunch defender of humanism while the latter is a vocal critic, a closer examination reveals a more complex picture. The problem of universalism is key to understanding the difference: while the exclusionary and parochial universalism of Eurocentric colonial humanism is critiqued by both, the question that divides them is whether a universalizing gesture inherent in ‘speaking for the human’ can and should be avoided altogether. While Said explicitly embraces a concrete universalist humanism against the violent colonial history of Eurocentric, parochial humanism, Mignolo turns to the notion of pluriversality as an alternative to universality. However, I argue that this move disavows rather than avoids a universalizing gesture altogether. By getting out of the stalemate of picking a side for or against humanism, a path can be cleared for a critical reconfiguring of humanism and a productive reengagement with the question of the human.
本文通过对后殖民学者爱德华·萨义德(Edward W. Said)和非殖民学者瓦尔特·米尼奥洛(Walter D. Mignolo)的研究，探讨了后殖民和非殖民研究人文主义和人类问题的方法之间的共同点和分歧。乍一看，他们的立场似乎是截然相反的，前者是人文主义的坚定捍卫者，而后者是直言不讳的批评者，但仔细研究就会发现一个更复杂的画面。普遍主义的问题是理解两者区别的关键:尽管以欧洲为中心的殖民人文主义的排斥性和狭隘的普遍主义受到两者的批评，但将它们区分开来的问题是，“为人类说话”所固有的普遍姿态是否能够而且应该完全避免。赛义德明确地拥抱一种具体的普遍主义人文主义，反对以欧洲为中心的暴力殖民历史和狭隘的人文主义，而米尼奥洛则转向多元化的概念，作为普遍性的替代方案。然而，我认为这一举动完全否定了而不是避免了普遍化的姿态。通过走出支持或反对人文主义的僵局，可以为人文主义的批判性重新配置和与人类问题的富有成效的重新接触扫清道路。
{"title":"Rethinking or delinking? Said and Mignolo on humanism and the question of the human","authors":"K. Smiet","doi":"10.1080/13688790.2022.2030595","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13688790.2022.2030595","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article examines the commonalities and divergences between postcolonial and decolonial approaches to humanism and the question of the human, by way of an examination of the work of postcolonial scholar Edward W. Said and decolonial scholar Walter D. Mignolo. While at first glance, their stances may seem diametrically opposed, as the former is a staunch defender of humanism while the latter is a vocal critic, a closer examination reveals a more complex picture. The problem of universalism is key to understanding the difference: while the exclusionary and parochial universalism of Eurocentric colonial humanism is critiqued by both, the question that divides them is whether a universalizing gesture inherent in ‘speaking for the human’ can and should be avoided altogether. While Said explicitly embraces a concrete universalist humanism against the violent colonial history of Eurocentric, parochial humanism, Mignolo turns to the notion of pluriversality as an alternative to universality. However, I argue that this move disavows rather than avoids a universalizing gesture altogether. By getting out of the stalemate of picking a side for or against humanism, a path can be cleared for a critical reconfiguring of humanism and a productive reengagement with the question of the human.","PeriodicalId":46334,"journal":{"name":"Postcolonial Studies","volume":"31 1","pages":"73 - 88"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83127345","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/13688790.2022.2030587
G. Colpani
ABSTRACT This article stages a confrontation between postcolonial theory and the decolonial option on the terrain of their respective engagements with Marxism. While prominent decolonial critics accuse postcolonial theory of relying too much on ‘Eurocentric’ theories, including Western Marxism, the article argues that this critique ignores what has been in fact a long-standing debate between postcolonial theory and its Marxist critics. Thus, the article questions this decolonial characterization and locates postcolonial theory itself in the crossfire of Marxist and decolonial critiques. First, it outlines the main objections that Marxist critics have formulated against postcolonial theory. Next, it discusses the decolonial critiques of postcolonial theory with an emphasis on the role played by Marxism in this confrontation. Finally, it proposes a ‘relinking’ between postcolonial theory and Marxism, understood not as a closure of the debate between these two theoretical formations but rather as an effort to hold that debate open. The article identifies the space of this open debate between postcolonial theory and its Marxist critics as a vantage point from which to articulate a critical response to the decolonial intervention.
{"title":"Crossfire: postcolonial theory between Marxist and decolonial critiques","authors":"G. Colpani","doi":"10.1080/13688790.2022.2030587","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13688790.2022.2030587","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article stages a confrontation between postcolonial theory and the decolonial option on the terrain of their respective engagements with Marxism. While prominent decolonial critics accuse postcolonial theory of relying too much on ‘Eurocentric’ theories, including Western Marxism, the article argues that this critique ignores what has been in fact a long-standing debate between postcolonial theory and its Marxist critics. Thus, the article questions this decolonial characterization and locates postcolonial theory itself in the crossfire of Marxist and decolonial critiques. First, it outlines the main objections that Marxist critics have formulated against postcolonial theory. Next, it discusses the decolonial critiques of postcolonial theory with an emphasis on the role played by Marxism in this confrontation. Finally, it proposes a ‘relinking’ between postcolonial theory and Marxism, understood not as a closure of the debate between these two theoretical formations but rather as an effort to hold that debate open. The article identifies the space of this open debate between postcolonial theory and its Marxist critics as a vantage point from which to articulate a critical response to the decolonial intervention.","PeriodicalId":46334,"journal":{"name":"Postcolonial Studies","volume":"13 1","pages":"54 - 72"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86936160","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/13688790.2022.2030596
S. de Jong
ABSTRACT Exchange between postcolonial and decolonial thought has been hampered by intellectual and political divisions despite a shared concern with decentring colonial hegemonies. Against the grain, this article brings the work of Boaventura de Sousa Santos into conversation with Gayatri C. Spivak’s, centring on one key converging issue of concern – human rights. I argue that both thinkers share what I call a ‘reluctant commitment’ to a human rights framework, while recognizing its tainted history and current instrumentalization for hegemonic imperial ends. I identify and weave together the strands that form the basis for their reluctant commitment, their critique of human rights, and their proposals for a reconfigured framework of human rights. The article maps how Spivak and de Sousa Santos aim to reconfigure a liberal human rights frame by suturing it to alternative ethical systems, including responsibility-based systems and other conceptions of dignity. It shows common patterns in their work, including their concern that binary global divisions undermine the supposed universality of the human rights framework and the risks of equating law with ethics. Tracing the deconstructive and reconstructive strategies at work in Spivak’s and de Sousa Santos’ writing helps to break down the walls between decolonial and postcolonial scholarship.
后殖民主义和非殖民主义思想之间的交流一直受到知识和政治分歧的阻碍，尽管他们都对去中心化的殖民霸权感到担忧。与此相反，本文将Boaventura de Sousa Santos的作品与Gayatri C. Spivak的作品进行了对话，聚焦于一个关键的共同关注问题-人权。我认为，这两位思想家都对人权框架有着我所谓的“不情愿的承诺”，同时也认识到人权框架的污点历史和当前被霸权帝国主义目的所利用。我找出并整理了构成他们不情愿的承诺、他们对人权的批评以及他们对重新配置人权框架的建议的基础的各种线索。这篇文章描绘了斯皮瓦克和德索萨·桑托斯是如何通过将自由主义人权框架与其他伦理体系(包括基于责任的体系和其他尊严概念)相结合，来重新配置自由主义人权框架的。它显示了他们工作中的共同模式，包括他们对二元全球划分破坏人权框架的所谓普遍性以及将法律与道德等同起来的风险的关注。追溯斯皮瓦克和德索萨·桑托斯作品中的解构和重建策略，有助于打破非殖民和后殖民学术之间的壁垒。
{"title":"Writing rights: suturing Spivak’s postcolonial and de Sousa Santos’ decolonial thought","authors":"S. de Jong","doi":"10.1080/13688790.2022.2030596","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13688790.2022.2030596","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Exchange between postcolonial and decolonial thought has been hampered by intellectual and political divisions despite a shared concern with decentring colonial hegemonies. Against the grain, this article brings the work of Boaventura de Sousa Santos into conversation with Gayatri C. Spivak’s, centring on one key converging issue of concern – human rights. I argue that both thinkers share what I call a ‘reluctant commitment’ to a human rights framework, while recognizing its tainted history and current instrumentalization for hegemonic imperial ends. I identify and weave together the strands that form the basis for their reluctant commitment, their critique of human rights, and their proposals for a reconfigured framework of human rights. The article maps how Spivak and de Sousa Santos aim to reconfigure a liberal human rights frame by suturing it to alternative ethical systems, including responsibility-based systems and other conceptions of dignity. It shows common patterns in their work, including their concern that binary global divisions undermine the supposed universality of the human rights framework and the risks of equating law with ethics. Tracing the deconstructive and reconstructive strategies at work in Spivak’s and de Sousa Santos’ writing helps to break down the walls between decolonial and postcolonial scholarship.","PeriodicalId":46334,"journal":{"name":"Postcolonial Studies","volume":"26 1","pages":"89 - 107"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78249099","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/13688790.2022.2050587
Joseph Confavreux
In his latest book, philosopher Achille Mbembe recasts the notion of ‘brutalism’ drawn from architecture in order to describe a contemporary situation in which humanity’s essence is transformed at the same time as its very existence is threatened. ‘Brutalism’s ultimate project is the transformation of humanity into matter and energy’, writes Mbembe in his latest book, entitled Brutalisme. His writing starts out ‘from racialized bodies’ – for which neoliberalism constitutes a ‘gigantic pumping and carbonization mechanism’. But it also seeks to bring both Western and non-Western epistemologies into play in order to release the energies and ideas that can help confront the contemporary feeling of vertigo. Indeed, under the effect of unprecedented technologies, separatist political projects and economic pressures straining bodies and deforming minds, humanity’s essence is being transformed at the same time as its very existence is threatened. In this interview, Mbembe also responds to the anxieties expressed in many a newspaper column over postcolonial and decolonial discourses, as well as the recent reconfigurations of identity politics.
{"title":"Decolonial anxieties in a postcolonial world: an interview with Achille Mbembe","authors":"Joseph Confavreux","doi":"10.1080/13688790.2022.2050587","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13688790.2022.2050587","url":null,"abstract":"In his latest book, philosopher Achille Mbembe recasts the notion of ‘brutalism’ drawn from architecture in order to describe a contemporary situation in which humanity’s essence is transformed at the same time as its very existence is threatened. ‘Brutalism’s ultimate project is the transformation of humanity into matter and energy’, writes Mbembe in his latest book, entitled Brutalisme. His writing starts out ‘from racialized bodies’ – for which neoliberalism constitutes a ‘gigantic pumping and carbonization mechanism’. But it also seeks to bring both Western and non-Western epistemologies into play in order to release the energies and ideas that can help confront the contemporary feeling of vertigo. Indeed, under the effect of unprecedented technologies, separatist political projects and economic pressures straining bodies and deforming minds, humanity’s essence is being transformed at the same time as its very existence is threatened. In this interview, Mbembe also responds to the anxieties expressed in many a newspaper column over postcolonial and decolonial discourses, as well as the recent reconfigurations of identity politics.","PeriodicalId":46334,"journal":{"name":"Postcolonial Studies","volume":"10 1","pages":"128 - 135"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78552512","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/13688790.2022.2030576
O. Rosenthal
ABSTRACT This article offers an overview of key debates that conditioned the reception of postcolonial and subaltern studies among Latin Americanist scholars. It begins by analysing the initial Latin American postcolonial debate, and it assesses the claims of academic colonialism and marginalization that were voiced in the course of the polemic. In particular, it considers how these arguments worked to distance Latin America from the wider, emerging field of postcolonial studies by highlighting the supposed incommensurability of the region’s colonial experience, and it foregrounds important misapprehensions about subaltern studies that conditioned the development of the Latin American Subaltern Studies group. It further traces how these claims paved the way for the emergence of Latin American decolonial scholarship, and it foregrounds key unresolved tensions that have shaped its development. By providing a detailed account of this contentious intellectual history, this article seeks to interrogate the foundations of Latin American decoloniality, and to contribute to a critical reassessment of that project.
{"title":"Academic colonialism and marginalization: on the contentious postcolonial–decolonial debate in Latin American Studies","authors":"O. Rosenthal","doi":"10.1080/13688790.2022.2030576","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13688790.2022.2030576","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article offers an overview of key debates that conditioned the reception of postcolonial and subaltern studies among Latin Americanist scholars. It begins by analysing the initial Latin American postcolonial debate, and it assesses the claims of academic colonialism and marginalization that were voiced in the course of the polemic. In particular, it considers how these arguments worked to distance Latin America from the wider, emerging field of postcolonial studies by highlighting the supposed incommensurability of the region’s colonial experience, and it foregrounds important misapprehensions about subaltern studies that conditioned the development of the Latin American Subaltern Studies group. It further traces how these claims paved the way for the emergence of Latin American decolonial scholarship, and it foregrounds key unresolved tensions that have shaped its development. By providing a detailed account of this contentious intellectual history, this article seeks to interrogate the foundations of Latin American decoloniality, and to contribute to a critical reassessment of that project.","PeriodicalId":46334,"journal":{"name":"Postcolonial Studies","volume":"75 1","pages":"17 - 34"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77374476","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/13688790.2022.2041695
G. Colpani, Jamila M. H. Mascat, K. Smiet
ABSTRACT In the last decade, the terms ‘decolonial’ and ‘decoloniality’ have been deployed in an expansive manner and have gained increasing traction across many theoretical and political domains. Therefore, a critical assessment of the specific decolonial vocabulary is both timely and necessary. The relationship between the decolonial and the postcolonial especially requires more critical scrutiny than it has received so far. This special issue takes a step in this direction by staging critical dialogues between postcolonial and decolonial approaches on different terrains. While decolonial theory tends to operate as an expansive and centripetal force, pulling within its orbit a variety of other theoretical and political formation, our focus is on the original formulation of ‘decoloniality’ – or the ‘decolonial option’ – within the Modernity/Coloniality/Decoloniality (MCD) group. In this introduction, we outline some of the main objections that decolonial critics have formulated against postcolonial theory, and we argue that these critiques have been instrumental in defining the decolonial option itself. While advocates of decoloniality have been very vocal in their critiques of postcolonial theory, we note among postcolonial critics – with some exceptions – a predominant tendency either not to respond to these charges or to downplay them in favour of reconciliatory moves. As an alternative to this tendency, we stress the value of a postcolonial critical response to the decolonial intervention. We argue that postcolonial theories still have something to offer to a critique of the present and the past. In the face of the decolonial claim to have radicalized or surpassed postcolonial theory, we suggest that the postcolonial must speak back and reclaim the value of its critical apparatus in the context of the unfinished struggle for decolonizing knowledge and the social unconscious of postcoloniality.
{"title":"Postcolonial responses to decolonial interventions","authors":"G. Colpani, Jamila M. H. Mascat, K. Smiet","doi":"10.1080/13688790.2022.2041695","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13688790.2022.2041695","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In the last decade, the terms ‘decolonial’ and ‘decoloniality’ have been deployed in an expansive manner and have gained increasing traction across many theoretical and political domains. Therefore, a critical assessment of the specific decolonial vocabulary is both timely and necessary. The relationship between the decolonial and the postcolonial especially requires more critical scrutiny than it has received so far. This special issue takes a step in this direction by staging critical dialogues between postcolonial and decolonial approaches on different terrains. While decolonial theory tends to operate as an expansive and centripetal force, pulling within its orbit a variety of other theoretical and political formation, our focus is on the original formulation of ‘decoloniality’ – or the ‘decolonial option’ – within the Modernity/Coloniality/Decoloniality (MCD) group. In this introduction, we outline some of the main objections that decolonial critics have formulated against postcolonial theory, and we argue that these critiques have been instrumental in defining the decolonial option itself. While advocates of decoloniality have been very vocal in their critiques of postcolonial theory, we note among postcolonial critics – with some exceptions – a predominant tendency either not to respond to these charges or to downplay them in favour of reconciliatory moves. As an alternative to this tendency, we stress the value of a postcolonial critical response to the decolonial intervention. We argue that postcolonial theories still have something to offer to a critique of the present and the past. In the face of the decolonial claim to have radicalized or surpassed postcolonial theory, we suggest that the postcolonial must speak back and reclaim the value of its critical apparatus in the context of the unfinished struggle for decolonizing knowledge and the social unconscious of postcoloniality.","PeriodicalId":46334,"journal":{"name":"Postcolonial Studies","volume":"48 1","pages":"1 - 16"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85626044","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/13688790.2022.2030600
G. Spivak, G. Colpani, Jamila M. H. Mascat
Gianmaria Colpani (G.C.) and Jamila M.H. Mascat (J.M.): Let us start this conversa-tion from a rather conventional place: the matter of pre fi xes, which relates to substantial problematics of periodization and historiography. As we know, the ‘ post ’ in ‘ postcolonial ’ has long been debated, especially through the 1990s. 1 From those debates two key under-standings of the ‘ post ’ emerged. On the one hand, it has been argued that the postcolonial is also post-anticolonial, that is, postcolonial theory inherits a world radically trans-formed not only by the processes of decolonization but also by their limits and failures. On the other hand, the ‘ post ’ in ‘ postcolonial ’ is paradoxical as it registers both ruptures and continuities between the colonial past and the postcolonial present. There has not been an equivalent debate about the ‘ de ’ in ‘ decolonial ’ , so less e ff ort has been put into clarifying the periodizing and historiographical work performed by this di ff erent pre fi x. Could you situate yourself in this discussion and speak about the frictions you see between the two approaches?
{"title":"Epistemic daring: an interview with Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak","authors":"G. Spivak, G. Colpani, Jamila M. H. Mascat","doi":"10.1080/13688790.2022.2030600","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13688790.2022.2030600","url":null,"abstract":"Gianmaria Colpani (G.C.) and Jamila M.H. Mascat (J.M.): Let us start this conversa-tion from a rather conventional place: the matter of pre fi xes, which relates to substantial problematics of periodization and historiography. As we know, the ‘ post ’ in ‘ postcolonial ’ has long been debated, especially through the 1990s. 1 From those debates two key under-standings of the ‘ post ’ emerged. On the one hand, it has been argued that the postcolonial is also post-anticolonial, that is, postcolonial theory inherits a world radically trans-formed not only by the processes of decolonization but also by their limits and failures. On the other hand, the ‘ post ’ in ‘ postcolonial ’ is paradoxical as it registers both ruptures and continuities between the colonial past and the postcolonial present. There has not been an equivalent debate about the ‘ de ’ in ‘ decolonial ’ , so less e ff ort has been put into clarifying the periodizing and historiographical work performed by this di ff erent pre fi x. Could you situate yourself in this discussion and speak about the frictions you see between the two approaches?","PeriodicalId":46334,"journal":{"name":"Postcolonial Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":"136 - 141"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84383797","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/13688790.2022.2030906
L. Ballestrin
ABSTRACT The encounter between postcolonialism and feminism, since the 1980s, has brought about important theoretical and political contributions to both fields, reverberating in the debate on gender to the present day. This article examines how the geopolitical division between North and South has influenced the global feminist debate, engendering a conflictual feminist discourse. This article intends to highlight the political dimension of conflict in those feminist representations brought forward by postcolonial and decolonial interventions, which denounce colonial dynamics inside the movement and question the scope of its representational capacity. I propose the term ‘subaltern feminisms’ to understand these internal dynamics, as put forward by Third World feminisms, in their postcolonial and decolonial diversity. I first explore the theoretical and political transformations that facilitated the encounter between postcolonialism and feminism. I go on to develop the concept of ‘subaltern feminisms’, proposing it as an analytical category that highlights the conflictual dimension within the global feminist agenda. I then argue that decolonial feminism assembles different Latin American subaltern feminisms by articulating and reinstating decolonization as a political project. Finally, I critically examines the concept of ‘coloniality of gender’ as a feminist contribution to the ‘decolonial turn’.
{"title":"Postcolonial and decolonial subaltern feminisms","authors":"L. Ballestrin","doi":"10.1080/13688790.2022.2030906","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13688790.2022.2030906","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The encounter between postcolonialism and feminism, since the 1980s, has brought about important theoretical and political contributions to both fields, reverberating in the debate on gender to the present day. This article examines how the geopolitical division between North and South has influenced the global feminist debate, engendering a conflictual feminist discourse. This article intends to highlight the political dimension of conflict in those feminist representations brought forward by postcolonial and decolonial interventions, which denounce colonial dynamics inside the movement and question the scope of its representational capacity. I propose the term ‘subaltern feminisms’ to understand these internal dynamics, as put forward by Third World feminisms, in their postcolonial and decolonial diversity. I first explore the theoretical and political transformations that facilitated the encounter between postcolonialism and feminism. I go on to develop the concept of ‘subaltern feminisms’, proposing it as an analytical category that highlights the conflictual dimension within the global feminist agenda. I then argue that decolonial feminism assembles different Latin American subaltern feminisms by articulating and reinstating decolonization as a political project. Finally, I critically examines the concept of ‘coloniality of gender’ as a feminist contribution to the ‘decolonial turn’.","PeriodicalId":46334,"journal":{"name":"Postcolonial Studies","volume":"61 1","pages":"108 - 127"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87399076","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/13688790.2022.2030582
Josias Tembo
ABSTRACT The growing influence of Latin American decolonial thought has animated several African scholars in Africa, especially South Africa. As a result of this influence, numerous articles have been published calling for the decolonization, through the decolonial turn, not only of university curricula but also of the processes of knowledge production. But there has been silence on the impact of decolonial theory on African postcolonial theory. With the decolonial call for the decolonization of postcolonial theory and its influence on African scholarship, what is the position of African postcolonial theory in these decolonial interventions? With a focus on African postcolonial theory, this article interrogates Ramón Grosfoguel’s call to decolonize postcolonial theory, thereby establishing a critical epistemological dialogue between decolonial theory and African postcolonial theory.
{"title":"Do African postcolonial theories need an epistemic decolonial turn?","authors":"Josias Tembo","doi":"10.1080/13688790.2022.2030582","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13688790.2022.2030582","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The growing influence of Latin American decolonial thought has animated several African scholars in Africa, especially South Africa. As a result of this influence, numerous articles have been published calling for the decolonization, through the decolonial turn, not only of university curricula but also of the processes of knowledge production. But there has been silence on the impact of decolonial theory on African postcolonial theory. With the decolonial call for the decolonization of postcolonial theory and its influence on African scholarship, what is the position of African postcolonial theory in these decolonial interventions? With a focus on African postcolonial theory, this article interrogates Ramón Grosfoguel’s call to decolonize postcolonial theory, thereby establishing a critical epistemological dialogue between decolonial theory and African postcolonial theory.","PeriodicalId":46334,"journal":{"name":"Postcolonial Studies","volume":"9 1","pages":"35 - 53"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87562857","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-27DOI: 10.1080/13688790.2021.1996916
Jill Didur
ABSTRACT This article turns to Mulk Raj Anand’s Two Leaves and a Bud (1937) to better map the dynamics of the Plantation (ocene) within the history of the colonial tea industry in India. Drawing on the work of Sylvia Wynter, Katherine McKittrick, Kathryn Yusoff and Ian Baucom, I argue that Anand’s novel provides an ‘alterglobal’ inroad into the world of the tea plantation as a site where the ‘biocentric subject’ and the racialized Other are co-implicated in an ‘energy intensive’ context characteristic of the Anthropocene. The global demand for tea as a commodity is linked by the narrative to the local mesh of human and botanical transplantation, and the resulting transformation of environmental, political and cultural practices in the region. Through a polyvocal narrative approach, Anand's novel works to dismantle the discourse of social and environmental improvement that framed colonial management of the tea plantation and makes visible the ‘plot and plantation’ dynamic of the imperial tea industry and its correlative in the Indian novel in English. The turn to the plantation archive in postcolonial studies provides an opportunity to imagine more just ‘plantation futures’ in an era of environmental crisis shaped by the plantation’s political, economic, environmental and cultural aftermath.
本文以穆尔克·拉吉·阿南(Mulk Raj Anand)的《两叶一芽》(Two Leaves and a Bud, 1937)为例，更好地描绘了印度殖民茶业历史中种植园(新世)的动态。借鉴西尔维娅·温特、凯瑟琳·麦基特里克、凯瑟琳·尤索夫和伊恩·鲍康的作品，我认为阿南德的小说为茶园世界提供了一个“另类全球”的入口，在这里，“以生物为中心的主体”和“种族化的他者”在人类世的“能源密集型”背景下相互关联。茶叶作为一种商品的全球需求通过叙事与当地的人类和植物移植网络以及由此导致的该地区环境、政治和文化实践的转变联系在一起。阿南德的小说通过一种多元的叙事方式，解构了社会和环境改善的话语，这些话语构成了殖民地对茶园的管理，并在印度英语小说中揭示了帝国茶业的“情节和种植园”动态及其相关内容。在后殖民研究中，转向种植园档案提供了一个机会，让我们在一个由种植园的政治、经济、环境和文化后果塑造的环境危机时代，想象更公正的“种植园未来”。
{"title":"Reimagining the Plantation (ocene): Mulk Raj Anand’s Two Leaves and a Bud","authors":"Jill Didur","doi":"10.1080/13688790.2021.1996916","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13688790.2021.1996916","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article turns to Mulk Raj Anand’s Two Leaves and a Bud (1937) to better map the dynamics of the Plantation (ocene) within the history of the colonial tea industry in India. Drawing on the work of Sylvia Wynter, Katherine McKittrick, Kathryn Yusoff and Ian Baucom, I argue that Anand’s novel provides an ‘alterglobal’ inroad into the world of the tea plantation as a site where the ‘biocentric subject’ and the racialized Other are co-implicated in an ‘energy intensive’ context characteristic of the Anthropocene. The global demand for tea as a commodity is linked by the narrative to the local mesh of human and botanical transplantation, and the resulting transformation of environmental, political and cultural practices in the region. Through a polyvocal narrative approach, Anand's novel works to dismantle the discourse of social and environmental improvement that framed colonial management of the tea plantation and makes visible the ‘plot and plantation’ dynamic of the imperial tea industry and its correlative in the Indian novel in English. The turn to the plantation archive in postcolonial studies provides an opportunity to imagine more just ‘plantation futures’ in an era of environmental crisis shaped by the plantation’s political, economic, environmental and cultural aftermath.","PeriodicalId":46334,"journal":{"name":"Postcolonial Studies","volume":"25 1","pages":"340 - 360"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83125630","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：