There have been a
number of articles, letters and social media rants whose central critique of
the movement to decolonise academia and its institutions revolves around the
lack of a coherent definition of decolonisation. As with any emerging
discursive niche, however, it is reasonable to expect that such a definition
would be a ‘working definition’ that is meant to evolve with the discourse over
time, and take shape within different spheres of academia (i.e. disciplinary,
institutional, cultural, etc.) in a manner that is relevant and appropriate to
each. This piece attempts to formulate a working definition that can be taken
up in these different spheres and implemented within them to further define
what the specifics of decolonisation would constitute within each of them. It
is not an exhaustive or closed definition and neither does it attempt to be; it
is an open, working definition of decolonisation that can be further developed
and refined or broadened as appropriate.
A Working Definition
As with any emerging discourse or discursive
niche, defining the central terminology around which the niche is evolving can
be difficult. Not long ago, terms such as sustainability, resilience,
disruption, and so forth were new and contested additions to both the popular
and academic realms. They are now commonplace in everyday language, and they
are deployed differently in different contexts. Even after they have become
mainstream ideas, they continue to find purchase in many differing problem spaces,
disciplines and practises.
It is therefore only fair to expect that the
term “decolonisation” is undergoing a similar evolution, and will eventually
demonstrate its usefulness in a variety of different spheres. Hence, any
working definition of decolonisation needs to be defined in as broad and
abstract terms as possible, so that it can be applied in the different spheres
of thought and practise that make up academia and ensures its reproduction.
The departure point for definition, as proposed
in this piece, is that decolonisation seeks to bring about systemic change in academia and society; change that helps break
with the influence and legacy of the colonial and imperial global projects on
the role of knowledge in academia and society. The institutional ‘commons’
underscored by Western academia, in this sense, remains that which can be
articulated as a settler enclave, to which access is restricted and where bias
towards different forms of knowledge is perpetuated[i].
The persistence of (Western) colonial effects on the role of knowledge and
institutions in society have and continue to enable undesirable impacts on the
societies and ecologies of the 21st Century. In this spirit, a
working definition of decolonisation is proposed as follows:
Decolonisation is (and
necessitates) the diversification and critical reappraisal of; (1) the sets of
inherited practises that govern academia and its reproduction, and (2) the
modalities through which these practises are implemented.
This definition of decolonisation identifies
and targets the ‘sets of practises’ and ‘modalities of implementation’ through
which academia functions and reproduces itself. In this respect and in simple
terms; ‘sets of practises’ can be described as the things we do, and the ‘modalities of implementation’ can be
described as how – and why – we do it.
We can, however, go into these in more detail,
as shown in the schematic below, and for the purposes of illustration it is
perhaps appropriate to do so:
1. The sets of practises that academia
operates by is concerned with how knowledge is produced and taught, and hence
includes the full gamut of disciplinary and institutional practises that
characterise academia. This includes; (1) disciplinary (and/or inter- and transdisciplinary)
formalisms, methodologies, epistemologies, ontologies, pedagogies and
historiographies, as well as (2) institutional practises as they relate to (or
are influenced by) bureaucracies, cultures, semiotics and aesthetics. Note that
these lists are not exhaustive or definitive in the absolute sense and can be
broadened or refined as necessary.
2. The modalities through which these
are implemented relate to (or are influenced by); (1) the context of
implementation (e.g. historical, current), (2) the intent of implementation
(i.e. to what purpose and envisioned future), and (3) the manner of
implementation. Taken together, implementation modalities then govern/shape how
these sets of practises exist and are
experienced both within academic
institutions and the societies they inhabit (i.e. the role of knowledge in
society).
***Please click on the schematic above to view it in more clarity and detail.
Implications of Definition of Decolonisation
Implications of Definition of Decolonisation
In this formulation, the sets of practises take
shape within different implementation modalities. It is self-evident that sets
of practises may be more fixed, while their modalities of implementation may
vary between different contexts. For example, the formalisms through which
abstract scientific disciplines such as mathematics and statistics (as well as
natural sciences such as physics, astronomy and biology) are formulated and
taught, may be more fixed. However, the modalities through which they are
implemented (e.g. to what problems and contexts they are applied, and to what
ends) may vary depending on the specific context (i.e. socio-cultural, political,
environmental, etc.) within which a particular academic institution is situated
or located. For example, mathematical and statistical problem solving may be
made more contextually relevant; instead of statistical problems focusing on
games of dice and cards – as is commonly the case in statistical textbooks –
they could instead be related to problems that are immediately relevant to the
social context within which students are located.
In the case of applied disciplines such as
economics – which is supported by abstract formalisms such as mathematics and
statistics, but are inextricably linked with technological, political, social
and environmental systems – the sets of disciplinary practises in economics may
need to be broadened to accommodate the complexities of implementation in
different contexts. For example, applying economic theory in developed and
developing world contexts requires acknowledging and accommodating their
differences. Whereas the economics of the developed world can largely be understood
and described through economic theory that applies to formal economic systems,
the economics of the developing world requires acknowledging the prevalence and
importance of dual formal-informal economic systems. In accommodating informal
economies, economics may have to draw on softer, more qualitative forms of
knowledge production and broaden its formalisms and methodological foundations
in order to do so i.e. its sets of practises may need to be broadened to
accommodate the different implementation modalities it is deployed in.
It is worth pointing out that simply applying
theories that have been formulated specifically for developed world contexts, to developing
world contexts can – and has – had disastrous consequences in many cases (e.g.
theories of development, planning, conservation and economics). This can be
inextricably linked to the projects of colonisation and ‘neo-colonisation’, but
that is a topic for another discussion and would distract from the objective of
this piece. Needless to say, the colonial and academic projects have a long and
entangled history as co-evolving projects that cannot easily be separated in
objective terms.
The working definition proposed here would also
prove relevant to studies of English literature, for example, where English
language writers from the ex-colonies of the British Empire have made
substantive contributions to the evolution of English literature and have
played a key role in innovating new and exciting niches. The same can be said
of the literature of other colonial empires such as the French, Spanish and
Portuguese empires.
In a similar vein, philosophy – as a discipline
– is often conflated with Western philosophy, where Greek philosophy is often
taught and/or written about as though it is the starting point of philosophy
i.e. where the tradition of philosophical thought began. Eastern philosophy,
and the philosophies associated with indigenous cultures and knowledge, for
example, are rarely taught in conjunction with Western philosophy, and the very
obvious historical and other links between Western and Eastern schools of
philosophical thought are not adequately acknowledged and/or taught. Instead,
they are taught as separate philosophical systems, and as a result,
philosophical inquiry remains pigeon-holed into artificial categories that
constrain the ability of the discipline to advance as anything more than a
Western white male preserve.
A simple example of how the teaching and
writing of histories are skewed is worth mentioning. While the travels of Marco
Polo to the East are well known – and even mythologised – in Western knowledge
systems, little mention is made of the Moroccan traveller Ibn Battuta, who
undertook extensive journeys in Africa, the Middle East and Asia. Why is it that
the journeys of Marco Polo are common knowledge in modern society while the
journeys of Ibn Battuta little known or taught outside of the Arab/Muslim
world? Is it not reasonable to acknowledge these deficiencies in our histories
and attempt to address them?
Moreover, if we broaden the concept of
colonisation to include more than just indigenous, enslaved and exploited peoples,
to include other species and ecosystems, we can then envision the importance of
identifying the anthropocentric modalities that have led to large-scale
destruction of the environment, the erosion of the natural resource base and
ecosystem services upon which human life depends, and the vast influence the
industrial era has had on global climate change. In this respect, decolonisation
would involve going beyond the false dichotomy between human and natural
systems that govern the modalities in which traditional disciplines have been
formulated, taught and implemented. It would involve making the systemic links
between human and natural systems explicit and considering how they co-evolve
as intimately coupled systems. Inter- and trans- disciplinarity become
important discursive niches in their own right when this perspective is
adopted, and rightly so, as the grand problematiques[ii]
of this era (e.g. climate change, natural resource depletion and degradation of
life-supporting ecosystems) are densely interconnected and related.
A Rationale for
Decolonisation
When considering the illustrative examples
provided above, it is self-evident that some level of diversification and
critical re-appraisal of academic practises and their implementation modalities
hosts potential to make academic practises more relevant to the various
contexts in which they are applied. Whether this potential is great or minimal
cannot be determined at this stage.
To be sure, there are many who would argue that
the need for establishing a discourse on decolonisation is self-evident and very
necessary. Others argue that there is no need for academia to undergo any
radical change, and that the conventional modalities through which academic
reproduction is currently undertaken is good enough. The reality is that only
by pursuing the discourse further – generating new knowledge and perspectives
on the topic, debating and interrogating them, and subjecting both old and new
discursive orientations to broad academic scrutiny – can the usefulness and
power of the concept of decolonisation be determined.
This should be self-evident to academics, but
it is often the case with new discursive niches that host the potential for
radical change that academics respond with fear, suspicion and derision. Change
is accompanied by uncertainty and variation. This threatens to destabilise; (1)
who is considered important or authoritative in certain fields, and
consequently (2) who holds power within institutions and society. When the
status quo is challenged in this manner it opens up spaces for innovation and
regeneration and a changing of the guard often follows suit. This, more than
anything, is what lies at the core of the discontent with the emerging
discourse on colonisation; it threatens to destabilise the hierarchies (i.e.
disciplinary and institutional) that have governed academic reproduction i.e.
especially throughout the late 20th century.
Yet it is fundamental to the academic project
itself that it embraces innovation, new knowledge and change. Indeed, without
that willingness, academic reproduction runs the risk of increasingly growing
out of touch with how society is changing, making its offerings increasingly
dangerous – in real terms – to society itself. Old ways of thinking and doing,
when applied to new and changing contexts, can result in undesirable and
destructive outcomes.
Indeed, merely applying more of the same
perspectives and prescriptions to newly emerging and changing contexts
constitutes a blue-print for an insanity of sorts. One where problem contexts
are straight-jacketed into standard disciplinary frameworks, with potentially
disastrous results (e.g. applying steady-state equilibrium models to economic
and natural systems that – in reality – occupy stability regimes very far away
from equilibrium through strong feedback mechanisms and controls.
It is critical that the entire system of
academic reproduction exist in a constant state of reflection upon itself, lest
it lose its ability to innovate and engender broader societal relevance by
existing in a mode of bureaucratic reproduction that churns out knowledge for
the sake of itself and its own survival. The quest for the decolonisation of
academia is hence not solely concerned with the political or historical
dimensions of academia, but rather can serve as a framing for radically
re-envisioning the role of academia within society. For this reason it should
be awarded its proper place, alongside other emerging discursive niches, that
seek to interrogate and redefine the academic project itself.
When the fears of new knowledge take root
within academia, this fear – to some extent – reveals the degree to which old
knowledge and systems of reproduction have become sanctified. This is not only
anti-intellectual, it runs the risk of ossifying the processes of academic
reproduction until the only option for it to evolve necessitates catastrophic
release. Sea changes have occurred before in academic and intellectual thought;
visionaries such as Galileo, Copernicus and Darwin fundamentally changed the
role that religious belief played in intellectual thought and how we envisioned
the world. When their ideas were finally accepted, they shattered the status
quo, and ended the censorship role that religion played in intellectual inquiry
and thought. Can it reasonably be argued that these developments were
antithetical to the spirit of intellectual inquiry?
It is beyond doubt that the world would be a
poorer place without these contributions. And so we must endeavour to maintain
an open-mindedness – and criticality – while entertaining new and novel
concepts and ideas. Engaging in a new discursive niche does not necessarily
amount to an abdication of all that comes before it; to assert that this is the
case is foolish and unreasonable. To attribute the notion of decolonisation
solely to the Fallist movement is also ridiculously uninformed and ahistorical.
The term “decolonisation” has been around for a long time, much longer before
the Fallists of today were born. Perhaps it is only rising to significance now
because the time for its germination is ripe and society and academia is more
ready to take it up in a meaningful way.
It is a great pity indeed that this emerging
discursive niche has been met with such intense – even irrational – opposition,
even before it has had a fair chance to develop. It is quizzical that the most
intense opposition has emerged in South Africa, a country with a clear
historical prerogative to undo the evils and injustices of its past, many of
which were conceived of and/or justified and promoted by academia itself. That
there can be such resolute pig-headedness towards the notion of decolonisation
speaks volumes for the failures of cosmetic transformation of South African
society, and should serve as a clear warning to all those within it. In the
quest to resist and quell a necessary and inevitable discursive movement that
seeks to interrogate how the past manifests in the present, we may achieve
little else but to obscure and disrupt the capacity to envision new
intellectual and societal trajectories.
Simply put, we may be shackling ourselves to
the very systems of knowledge that were used to enslave, oppress and
disenfranchise the majority instead of revising them and building upon them to
improve how we see the role of academia and intellectual pursuit within our
society. We need to be bolder and more open-minded even as we remain critical;
to do otherwise is to abdicate from the process of intellectual pursuit itself,
it is to sanctify a set of practises as though they should remain untouched
forever. This is clearly a ludicrous and ridiculous stance to adopt, given the
very clear need that exists to build a new future for South African society,
and to locate its systems of knowledge production within that new future.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the emerging discourse around
decolonisation should be regarded as part of a set of agonistic engagements
with the shortcomings of the academic project in its current state. It sits
alongside, and is related to, other discursive movements such as systems theory
and thinking, complexity theory, transdisciplinarity and posthumanism; all of
which seek to transform the disciplinary and institutional sets of practises in
academia, as well as the implementation modalities of academia and its role in
society. The discourse on decolonisation should not be regarded as the single
panacea to the woes of the modern academic project, but rather a complementary
and co-evolving agonistic engagement with the academic status quo.
The definition of decolonisation that is
proposed in this piece seeks to directly address the systemic reproduction of
exclusionary and biased practises within academic disciplines and institutions.
It seeks to help establish a framework that can comprehensively address the
role of the academic project in society and in particular, to make it more
relevant to the diverse implementation contexts that academic knowledge is
deployed in. In particular, it achieves this by enabling transformative actions
to be conceived of and undertaken in both the disciplinary and institutional
practises of the academic project. It draws on transdisciplinary thinking to
establish a definitive framework for decolonisation that enables systems
knowledge, target knowledge and transformative knowledge to emerge from the
consideration of the (disciplinary and institutional) practises and
implementation modalities that dominate traditional academia. There are surely
other ways of defining decolonisation, ones that seek to address different, but
complementary ends; hence this definition should be taken as a contribution to
be read alongside them where appropriate and/or useful.
