非殖民化的潮流和知识非殖民化的危险

Leon Moosavi
{"title":"非殖民化的潮流和知识非殖民化的危险","authors":"Leon Moosavi","doi":"10.1080/03906701.2020.1776919","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In recent years, ‘intellectual decolonisation’ has become so popular in the Global North that we can now speak of there being a ‘decolonial bandwagon’. This article identifies some of the common limitations that can be found in this growing field of intellectual decolonisation. First and foremost, it is suggested that intellectual decolonisation in the Global North may be characterised by Northerncentrism due to the way in which decolonial scholarship may ignore decolonial scholars from the Global South. In order to address this ‘decolonisation without decolonising’, this article offers an alternative genealogy of intellectual decolonisation by discussing some of the most important yet neglected decolonial theory from the Global South. Thereafter, five other common limitations which may appear in discussions about intellectual decolonisation are identified, which are: reducing intellectual decolonisation to a simple task; essentialising and appropriating the Global South; overlooking the multifaceted nature of marginalisation in academia; nativism; and tokenism. The objective of this article is to highlight common limitations which may be present in discussions about intellectual decolonisation so as to provide a warning that some manifestations of intellectual decolonisation may not only be inadequate but may even reinscribe coloniality.","PeriodicalId":46079,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Sociology-Revue Internationale de Sociologie","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"104","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The decolonial bandwagon and the dangers of intellectual decolonisation\",\"authors\":\"Leon Moosavi\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/03906701.2020.1776919\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In recent years, ‘intellectual decolonisation’ has become so popular in the Global North that we can now speak of there being a ‘decolonial bandwagon’. This article identifies some of the common limitations that can be found in this growing field of intellectual decolonisation. First and foremost, it is suggested that intellectual decolonisation in the Global North may be characterised by Northerncentrism due to the way in which decolonial scholarship may ignore decolonial scholars from the Global South. In order to address this ‘decolonisation without decolonising’, this article offers an alternative genealogy of intellectual decolonisation by discussing some of the most important yet neglected decolonial theory from the Global South. Thereafter, five other common limitations which may appear in discussions about intellectual decolonisation are identified, which are: reducing intellectual decolonisation to a simple task; essentialising and appropriating the Global South; overlooking the multifaceted nature of marginalisation in academia; nativism; and tokenism. The objective of this article is to highlight common limitations which may be present in discussions about intellectual decolonisation so as to provide a warning that some manifestations of intellectual decolonisation may not only be inadequate but may even reinscribe coloniality.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46079,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Review of Sociology-Revue Internationale de Sociologie\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"104\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Review of Sociology-Revue Internationale de Sociologie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/03906701.2020.1776919\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Sociology-Revue Internationale de Sociologie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03906701.2020.1776919","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 104

摘要

近年来,“知识非殖民化”在全球北方变得如此流行,以至于我们现在可以说是一股“非殖民化潮流”。本文确定了在这个不断发展的知识非殖民化领域中可以发现的一些常见限制。首先,由于非殖民化学术可能忽视来自全球南方的非殖民化学者,因此认为全球北方的知识非殖民化可能以北方中心主义为特征。为了解决这个“不去殖民化而去殖民化”的问题,本文通过讨论全球南方一些最重要但却被忽视的去殖民化理论,提供了另一种思想去殖民化的谱系。此后,在关于知识非殖民化的讨论中可能出现的其他五个常见限制被确定,它们是:将知识非殖民化简化为一项简单的任务;对全球南方进行本质化和挪用;忽视了学术界边缘化的多面性;先天论;和象征主义。本文的目的是强调在关于知识非殖民化的讨论中可能存在的共同限制,以便提供一个警告,即知识非殖民化的某些表现不仅可能是不充分的,甚至可能重新引入殖民主义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The decolonial bandwagon and the dangers of intellectual decolonisation
ABSTRACT In recent years, ‘intellectual decolonisation’ has become so popular in the Global North that we can now speak of there being a ‘decolonial bandwagon’. This article identifies some of the common limitations that can be found in this growing field of intellectual decolonisation. First and foremost, it is suggested that intellectual decolonisation in the Global North may be characterised by Northerncentrism due to the way in which decolonial scholarship may ignore decolonial scholars from the Global South. In order to address this ‘decolonisation without decolonising’, this article offers an alternative genealogy of intellectual decolonisation by discussing some of the most important yet neglected decolonial theory from the Global South. Thereafter, five other common limitations which may appear in discussions about intellectual decolonisation are identified, which are: reducing intellectual decolonisation to a simple task; essentialising and appropriating the Global South; overlooking the multifaceted nature of marginalisation in academia; nativism; and tokenism. The objective of this article is to highlight common limitations which may be present in discussions about intellectual decolonisation so as to provide a warning that some manifestations of intellectual decolonisation may not only be inadequate but may even reinscribe coloniality.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: International Review of Sociology is the oldest journal in the field of sociology, founded in 1893 by Ren Worms. Now the property of Rome University, its direction has been entrusted to the Faculty of Statistics. This choice is a deliberate one and falls into line with the traditional orientation of the journal as well as of the Institut International de Sociologie. The latter was the world"s first international academic organisation of sociology which started as an association of contributors to International Review of Sociology. Entrusting the journal to the Faculty of Statistics reinforces the view that sociology is not conceived apart from economics, history, demography, anthropology and social psychology.
期刊最新文献
Urban vernacular landscapes: toward a visual pedagogy of the ordinary ‘I say it’s spinach, and I say the hell with it’: an exploratory study of the single-panel cartoon and the comic mode in society From social integration to social emplacement: perspectives from Italian rural areas Social construction of places as meaningful objects: a symbolic interactionist approach Divided we stand, united we fall? Structure and struggles of contemporary German sociology
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1