Who decides? In whose name? For whose benefit? Decoloniality and its discontents.

Autor/inn/en	Stein, Sharon; Andreotti, Vanessa; Souza, Lynn Mario; Ahenakew, Cash; Susa, Rene
Titel	Who decides? In whose name? For whose benefit? Decoloniality and its discontents.
Quelle	In: On education, 3 (2020) 7, 6 S.Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei Link als defekt meldenVerfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	2571-7855
DOI	10.17899/ON_ED.2020.7.1
Schlagwörter	Kritische Theorie; Dekolonisation; Wissenschaftssystem; Wissenschaftlicher Dialog; Diskurs
Abstract	"The growing traction of decolonization as a discourse and practice within and beyond the context of academic scholarship has generated important spaces for critical, self-reflexive engagements with the role of systemic, historical, and ongoing colonial violence in the foundations of various scholarly fields. Although the overarching area of decolonial critique contains a considerable range of perspectives, both complementary and contradictory, overall these perspectives challenge the common assumption that colonialism is over, pointing instead to the ways that it has persisted and shapeshifted both in settler colonial countries (where the colonizing power never left), as well as in purportedly decolonized countries that are nonetheless characterized by patterns of power that emerged as a result of colonialism, but that define culture, labor, intersubjective relations, and knowledge production well beyond the strict limits of colonial administrations (Maldonado-Torres, 2007, p. 243). In addition to denaturalizing and historicizing the colonial present that is, the ways that colonial relations continue to organize everyday contemporary life decolonial critiques also gesture toward alternative possibilities for knowing, being, and relating. These alternatives are not sanctioned by, and in fact are often ignored or actively suppressed within, mainstream institutions and discourses. While decolonial critique has been around for a long time, arguably since the onset of European colonialism in the 15th century, its recent growing popularity has prompted many critical responses. These responses range from Indigenous scholars who express frustration with how decolonization has been conflated with other social justice projects premised on representation, recognition, and redistribution within a reformed but still-colonial system (Tuck & Yang, 2012), to the vitriolic backlash of right-wing groups who warn that decolonial critiques are nefarious efforts to eradicate white, western ways of life. Yet beyond these two highly visible perspectives are perhaps the more common responses from researchers who question claims about the enduring character of colonialism and challenge the legitimacy of decolonial critiques in more subtle ways. Rather than dismissing them outright, they offer seemingly reasoned engagements with decolonial critiques that nonetheless ultimately conclude that the critiques are premised on scholarship that does not hold up to careful scrutiny, nor meet accepted (Eurocentric) standards of academic rigour, rationality, and social impact. Although these approaches are much less direct in their dismissal than those that attack decolonial critique on principle, ultimately, they tend to come to a similar conclusion that suggests these critiques are of little social or scholarly value. Because these engagements are articulated within the standard discourse and political orientation of mainstream scholarly critique, they tend to carry significant weight both within and beyond higher education institutions, and thus, they warrant a response. This is what we offer here." (INCHER/text adopted).
Erfasst von	International Centre for Higher Education Research, Kassel
Update	2021/1