Category: Theory Article Summaries

Introduction: “Decolonization is not a metaphor” by Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang

“Decolonization is not a metaphor” by Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang first appeared in Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society (Vol. 1, No. 1, 2012, pp. 1-40). It critically examines the co-optation of “decolonization” as a metaphor within social justice discourse, asserting that true decolonization requires the material repatriation of Indigenous land and life rather than symbolic or rhetorical gestures. Tuck and Yang highlight the dangers of turning decolonization into an abstract concept that erases the unique struggles of Indigenous peoples by subsuming them under broader social justice goals. Their work challenges settler complicity and “moves to innocence” that attempt to reconcile settler guilt without addressing systemic structures of settler colonialism. The article has significantly influenced contemporary literary theory, cultural studies, and critical pedagogy by exposing how settler colonial frameworks pervade disciplines and demanding an ethic of incommensurability, wherein decolonization is recognized as a distinct, non-negotiable process, unassimilable into other justice projects.

Summary of “Decolonization is not a metaphor” by Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang

Main Ideas:

1. Decolonization is a Material Process, Not a Metaphor:
   • Decolonization is fundamentally about the repatriation of Indigenous land and life (p. 1).
   • It is distinct from social justice or human rights projects, which often co-opt the language of decolonization without addressing its core demands (p. 3).
2. Critique of Settler Moves to Innocence:
   • “Settler moves to innocence” are strategies settlers use to alleviate guilt and maintain privilege while avoiding the demands of decolonization (p. 10).
   • Examples include:
     • Settler nativism: Claiming distant Indigenous ancestry to deflect accountability (p. 10–12).
     • Adoption fantasies: Romanticizing adoption of Indigenous cultures to justify settler presence (p. 13–16).
     • Colonial equivocation: Equating all forms of oppression with colonization, erasing the specificities of Indigenous struggles (p. 17–19).
     • Conscientization: Focusing on raising critical consciousness without addressing material restitution (p. 20–22).
     • “Asterisking” Indigenous Peoples: Rendering Indigenous communities as statistical outliers or marginal participants in broader social issues (p. 22–24).
     • Re-occupation and urban homesteading: Movements like Occupy reinforce settler colonialism by reasserting claims to Indigenous lands under the guise of redistribution (p. 25–27).
3. Settler Colonialism as a Structure, Not an Event:
   • Settler colonialism is an ongoing process that aims to erase Indigenous peoples and their relationships to land (p. 5–6). It is not a historical event but a continuing structure (Wolfe, 1999).
4. Incommensurability of Decolonization and Social Justice:
   • Decolonization cannot be aligned with other social justice frameworks because it fundamentally unsettles the foundations of settler societies (p. 29).
   • It requires dismantling settler sovereignty and property systems and prioritizing Indigenous sovereignty and futures (p. 31).
5. Ethic of Incommensurability:
   • Solidarity between decolonization and other movements is possible only through acknowledging the distinct and irreconcilable goals of decolonization (p. 29–32).
   • True solidarity must recognize the non-negotiable demands of Indigenous sovereignty and land return.
6. Critique of Settler Futurity:
   • Settler projects, even radical ones like Occupy, often aim to sustain settler futures, obscuring the necessity of returning land and power to Indigenous peoples (p. 33).
7. Unsettling Implications of Decolonization:
   • Decolonization involves an uncomfortable and disruptive process for settlers. It is not accountable to settler desires for reconciliation or inclusion but to Indigenous sovereignty (p. 36).

Key References:

• Tuck and Yang critique how educational and social justice frameworks metaphorize decolonization, erasing the material demands of returning land (p. 2–4).
• Patrick Wolfe’s concept that “settler colonialism is a structure, not an event” underpins their analysis of ongoing settler practices (p. 6).
• Indigenous sovereignty, as described in works like Red Pedagogy by Sandy Grande, is central to the decolonization process (p. 31).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Decolonization is not a metaphor” by Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang

Contribution of “Decolonization is not a metaphor” by Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Postcolonial Theory
   • Challenges postcolonial frameworks that ignore or sideline the ongoing realities of settler colonialism.
   • Highlights how settler colonialism is not an event of the past but an ongoing structure requiring the repatriation of land and life (p. 6).
   • Critiques the subsumption of Indigenous decolonial struggles into broader postcolonial analyses, which often center on empire without addressing settler permanence (p. 29).
2. Critical Race Theory
   • Introduces the concept of settler nativism to interrogate how settlers claim racial innocence through fabricated Indigenous ancestry (p. 10–12).
   • Examines the racialized construction of Indigenous peoples (e.g., through blood quantum) as a tool for erasure and maintaining settler dominance (p. 12).
   • Highlights the triadic structure of settler-native-slave, emphasizing how race and labor are central to settler colonial power (p. 7).
3. Feminist Theory
   • Links settler colonialism to heteropatriarchy, showing how colonial domination is reinforced by gendered and sexual hierarchies (p. 30).
   • Argues for Native feminisms as distinct from Western feminist frameworks, emphasizing Indigenous sovereignty and relationality (p. 31).
4. Ecocriticism and Environmental Humanities
   • Critiques settler understandings of land as property and emphasizes Indigenous epistemologies that see land as a relational entity (p. 25).
   • Highlights how settler environmental movements, such as urban homesteading, appropriate Indigenous relationships to land without addressing sovereignty (p. 25–26).
5. Social Justice Pedagogy and Critical Pedagogy
   • Critiques the use of “decolonization” as a metaphor in educational spaces, where it is often conflated with social justice or critical consciousness (p. 20–22).
   • Calls for pedagogical frameworks to prioritize the material aspects of decolonization, such as land repatriation, rather than solely focusing on conscientization (p. 22).
6. Narrative Theory
   • Explores the role of settler narratives (e.g., adoption fantasies) in legitimizing settler presence on stolen land and erasing Indigenous sovereignty (p. 13–16).
   • Examines how literary and cultural representations, such as James Fenimore Cooper’s The Last of the Mohicans, perpetuate the myth of the “vanishing Indian” to justify settler futurity (p. 14–15).
7. Critical Indigenous Theory
   • Positions Indigenous epistemologies, ontologies, and cosmologies as central to decolonial theory.
   • Highlights incommensurability, or the irreconcilable differences between decolonization and settler social justice projects, as essential for understanding Indigenous sovereignty (p. 29–31).
8. Cultural Studies
   • Critiques cultural appropriation through examples like settler fantasies of Indigeneity and the commodification of Indigenous identities in fashion and media (p. 11, p. 13).
   • Interrogates the “playing Indian” phenomenon, where settlers mimic Indigeneity to alleviate settler guilt and assert belonging to land (p. 10–12).
9. Marxist Theory
   • Highlights the intersections of capitalism and colonialism, particularly how land and labor extraction are fundamental to settler colonial wealth accumulation (p. 6–7).
   • Argues that Marxist frameworks often fail to address land as central to settler colonialism, focusing instead on labor alone (p. 18).
10. Abolitionist Theory
    • Links abolition to decolonization by emphasizing the abolition of both slavery and property, particularly land as property (p. 30).
    • Critiques frameworks of reparations that redistribute settler-colonized land without addressing Indigenous sovereignty (p. 30–31).

Examples of Critiques Through “Decolonization is not a metaphor” by Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang

Criticism Against “Decolonization is not a metaphor” by Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang

• Ambiguity in Practical Implementation:
  Critics argue that while the article makes a compelling theoretical case for decolonization as a material and non-metaphorical process, it offers little in terms of practical steps for implementing decolonization, particularly in settler-colonial contexts.
• Potential Alienation of Allies:
  The incommensurability framework and the critique of solidarity politics can alienate potential allies in social justice movements who may not fully understand or accept the distinct demands of decolonization.
• Overgeneralization of Settler Behavior:
  Some readers claim the text overgeneralizes settler actions and intentions, creating a binary that may overlook nuances in settler-Indigenous relationships or efforts at genuine reconciliation.
• Rejection of Metaphorical Use Limits Dialogues:
  By firmly rejecting the metaphorical use of decolonization, the article may dismiss educational, cultural, or academic efforts to use “decolonizing” methodologies in contexts where direct land repatriation is not immediately feasible.
• Exclusionary Approach to Coalition Building:
  The emphasis on incommensurability and rejection of shared goals between decolonization and other social justice movements (e.g., abolitionism, feminism) may undermine coalition building and broader systemic change.
• Lack of Nuance in Global Applications:
  The framework focuses heavily on the North American settler-colonial context, which some critics see as limiting when considering decolonization in postcolonial or Global South contexts with different historical trajectories.
• Moral Absolutism:
  Critics have noted that the text’s rigid moral stance on settler complicity and Indigenous sovereignty might discourage dialogue or introspection among settlers who could otherwise be allies in decolonization efforts.

Representative Quotations from “Decolonization is not a metaphor” by Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “Decolonization is not a metaphor” by Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang

1. Day, Iyko, et al. “Settler Colonial Studies, Asian Diasporic Questions.” Verge: Studies in Global Asias, vol. 5, no. 1, 2019, pp. 1–45. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5749/vergstudglobasia.5.1.0001. Accessed 26 Jan. 2025.
2. Yang, K. Wayne. “Decolonization is not a metaphor by Daniel Krähmer May 16, 2016 All Articles.”
3. Sabzalian, Leilani. “Native Feminisms in Motion.” The English Journal, vol. 106, no. 1, 2016, pp. 23–30. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26359312. Accessed 26 Jan. 2025.
4. Cameron, Rose E., et al. “Critical Reflexivity on Indigenous Knowledge as a Mode of Inquiry.” International Review of Qualitative Research, vol. 9, no. 3, 2016, pp. 273–76. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26372208. Accessed 26 Jan. 2025.

Introduction: “Decolonization: A Brief History Of The Word” By Raymond F. Betts

“Decolonization: A Brief History of the Word” by Raymond F. Betts, first appeared in the book Beyond Empire and Nation: The Decolonization of African and Asian Societies, 1930s-1970s, edited by Els Bogaerts and Remco Raben and published by Brill in 2012. This chapter explores the origins, scope, and significance of the term “decolonization,” tracing its evolution from a primarily political phenomenon to a broader concept encompassing cultural, economic, and psychological dimensions. Betts highlights how decolonization, often perceived as an inevitable and volcanic force, reshaped the global order by dismantling European colonial empires and giving rise to new nation-states. He emphasizes the contested nature of the term, noting that while some scholars view it as a negotiated process, others, like Frantz Fanon, argue that it is inherently violent and transformative. Betts also underscores the cultural and intellectual dimensions of decolonization, particularly in literature and postcolonial theory, where figures like Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o have advocated for the decolonization of the mind and language. As Betts observes, “Decolonization is one of the great themes of our age” (Gifford & Louis, 1982, p. vii, as cited in Betts, 2012), reflecting its enduring relevance in understanding the legacies of colonialism and the struggles for independence and identity in the Global South. This chapter is a vital contribution to the literature on decolonization, offering a comprehensive historical and theoretical framework for analyzing its multifaceted impact on global history and culture.

Summary of “Decolonization: A Brief History Of The Word” By Raymond F. Betts

1. Origins and Definition of Decolonization:
   • Decolonization is described as a multifaceted process beginning before WWII and culminating after it, with political, economic, cultural, and psychological dimensions.
   • It is defined as “the creation of self-governing nation-states” (Hargreaves, 1996:244) and extended by Gardinier (1967) to encompass all elements of the colonial experience.
   • Early resistance and independence movements are likened to volcanic eruptions, illustrating the force and inevitability of decolonization (Delavignette, 1977:137).
2. Chronology and Processes of Decolonization:
   • Two stages: (1) Armed revolts (e.g., Haiti in 1791), (2) Diplomatic negotiations post-WWII, as in the Caribbean (Oostindie & Klinkers, 2004:9).
   • French scholars like Jean Suret-Canale argue that decolonization was neither voluntary nor planned by colonial powers but a reaction to mounting pressures (Suret-Canale, 1982:476).
   • Events such as WWII weakened colonial powers economically and politically, accelerating decolonization.
3. Role of International and Institutional Forces:
   • The United Nations played a crucial role, especially with the 1960 Declaration on Decolonization, emphasizing that “the process of liberation is irresistible and irreversible.”
   • Postwar global dynamics, including the decline of European power and opposition from the U.S. and USSR, further pressured colonial powers.
4. Cultural and Psychological Dimensions:
   • Decolonization also involved reclaiming cultural identity. Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o emphasized “decolonizing the mind” by prioritizing indigenous languages and cultural frameworks (Ngũgĩ, 1986).
   • Literature and arts emerged as tools to critique colonial legacies and reassert cultural autonomy, as argued in The Empire Writes Back (Ashcroft, Griffiths, & Tiffin, 1989).
5. Economic Legacy and Neocolonialism:
   • Independence did not equate to economic liberation. Figures like Walter Rodney and Kwame Nkrumah criticized ongoing economic exploitation through neocolonial structures (Rodney, 1974; Nkrumah, 1970).
   • Dependency theory emerged, critiquing the economic systems that kept former colonies subordinate to global capitalism (Frank, 1979; Amin, 1977).
6. Persistent Challenges and the Postcolonial Lens:
   • Decolonization’s outcomes are contested; many former colonies struggled with economic and political instability, exacerbated by global inequalities and internal divisions.
   • Postcolonial studies, such as Dipesh Chakrabarty’s Provincializing Europe (2000), argue for decentering Eurocentric narratives in understanding global history.
7. Decolonization in Popular and Academic Discourse:
   • The term has evolved to encompass broader topics such as cultural and intellectual liberation, often intertwined with postcolonial critiques.
   • Films like The Battle of Algiers and literature like Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth reflect the violence and complexities of decolonization (Fanon, 1966).
8. Aftermath in the Metropoles:
   • Decolonization led to reverse migration, as former colonial subjects moved to Europe, reshaping cultural and political landscapes. However, this migration also sparked racial tensions (e.g., Enoch Powell’s rhetoric in Britain).
9. Legacy and Modern Implications:
   • Decolonization remains relevant, shaping ongoing debates about historical memory, cultural representation, and global inequalities. The past is viewed as “prologue” to current struggles, as illustrated in academic and cultural discussions.

Key Quotes with References:

• “Decolonization fundamentally meant the ‘rejection of the civilization of the white man.'” (Delavignette, 1977:131).
• “The process of liberation is irresistible and irreversible” (UN Declaration on Decolonization, 1960).
• “The colonial order fell to pieces” (Darwin, 1988:4).
• “Decolonization is always a violent phenomenon” (Fanon, 1966:29).
• “Language and its uses are ‘central to a people’s definition of themselves'” (Ngũgĩ, 1986:4).
• “Economic exploitation continued unabated after the European flags were taken down” (Nkrumah, 1970:xi).
• “The oppressed and exploited of the earth maintain their defiance: liberty from theft” (Ngũgĩ, 1986:3).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Decolonization: A Brief History Of The Word” By Raymond F. Betts

Contribution of “Decolonization: A Brief History Of The Word” By Raymond F. Betts to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Postcolonial Literary Theory:
   • Betts contributes to the broader understanding of postcolonial theory by framing decolonization not just as a political process but also as a cultural and intellectual reawakening.
   • He explores how decolonization leads to the reevaluation and reformation of cultural norms, which has profound implications for literature. This includes the shift from European literary dominance to a resurgence of indigenous languages and perspectives.
   • Reference: “Language and its uses are ‘central to a people’s definition of themselves'” (Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o, 1986:4), illustrating the role of language in postcolonial literary identity.
2. Decolonizing the Mind (Cultural and Literary Focus):
   • One of Betts’ significant contributions is the emphasis on the decolonization of the mind, which connects the process of political freedom to intellectual liberation. This directly informs literary theory by highlighting the power of language in shaping postcolonial identities.
   • He cites Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o’s work on “decolonizing the mind,” which challenges the use of colonial languages in African literature, thus influencing postcolonial literary theory that advocates for linguistic and cultural reclamation.
   • Reference: “With Africa at the centre of things, […] things must be seen from the African perspective” (Ngũgĩ, 1986:94), reflecting the push for African voices and perspectives in literature.
3. Cultural Bomb and Representation in Literature:
   • Betts also incorporates Ngũgĩ’s concept of the cultural bomb, which is essential to postcolonial literary criticism. This concept emphasizes how colonizers used culture to dominate and erase indigenous identities, and how postcolonial literature works to restore and decolonize these identities.
   • Reference: “The mind had to be decolonized as well” (Ngũgĩ, 1986), which extends to literary representation where colonial narratives are critiqued and rewritten from the perspective of the formerly colonized.
4. Interrogation of Colonial Discourse:
   • Betts contributes to the critique of colonial discourse, a foundational element of postcolonial literary theory. The chapter reflects on how colonial narratives constructed the “Other” and how literature plays a role in subverting these narratives.
   • The comparison of European and non-European worldviews, highlighted by Dipesh Chakrabarty’s work on “provincializing Europe,” informs the way postcolonial literature questions the supremacy of Western thought in literary traditions.
   • Reference: “The task of ‘provincializing Europe’ is not one of discarding European thought but of finding ways in which ‘this thought… may be renewed from and for the margins'” (Chakrabarty, 2000:16).
5. Violence and Liberation in Postcolonial Literature:
   • The concept of violence in the process of decolonization, as emphasized by Frantz Fanon, finds a place in postcolonial literary theory. Fanon’s view that decolonization involves violence is incorporated into the narrative of liberation in postcolonial literature.
   • Postcolonial theorists have applied Fanon’s insights to examine how the trauma and violence of colonization are represented in literature, often through narratives of resistance and the reclaiming of agency.
   • Reference: “Decolonization is always a violent phenomenon” (Fanon, 1966), influencing the literary depiction of violent struggles for independence and self-determination.
6. Neocolonialism and the Continuing Legacy in Literature:
   • Betts brings attention to neocolonialism and its literary implications. The idea that colonization’s economic exploitation continued after political independence influences postcolonial narratives about the persistence of colonial legacies.
   • Postcolonial literature often critiques the ongoing exploitation of former colonies, a topic that is deeply woven into narratives exploring economic and political realities in the post-independence period.
   • Reference: “Neocolonialism was the ‘worst form of imperialism’ because it assumed no responsibility in the new states it was exploiting” (Nkrumah, 1970), which prompts literary explorations of postcolonial exploitation.
7. Colonial and Postcolonial Gaze:
   • Betts discusses the colonial gaze and its transformation in the postcolonial context. In literary theory, this is aligned with how writers from colonized regions reclaim space and power through representation.
   • The shift in literary depictions of colonized peoples from passive subjects to active agents reflects postcolonial critiques of the “imperial gaze,” a key concept in literary studies.
   • Reference: “The imperial gaze must be replaced” (Ridley, 1993), urging a critical reassessment of the portrayal of colonized lands and peoples in colonial literature.
8. Postcolonial Literary Spaces:
   • Betts highlights the importance of literary spaces in postcolonialism, where the concept of space itself—geographical, social, and cultural—is decolonized through narrative.
   • Writers from decolonized nations often write against the spatial legacies imposed by colonial powers, reshaping how land and identity are represented.
   • Reference: “Space itself was changed. Through exploration, invasion and settlement, Europeans recreated the shape and form of the world” (Punter, 2000), influencing how postcolonial writers interrogate and reimagine physical and cultural spaces.

Examples of Critiques Through “Decolonization: A Brief History Of The Word” By Raymond F. Betts

Criticism Against “Decolonization: A Brief History Of The Word” By Raymond F. Betts

1. Eurocentric Perspective:
   • The work, while comprehensive, tends to focus significantly on the perspectives of European colonial powers, with less emphasis on the voices and agency of the colonized populations.
   • Critics might argue that it lacks sufficient inclusion of indigenous viewpoints and resistance narratives.
2. Generalization of Decolonization Processes:
   • The book often generalizes the processes of decolonization across different regions, potentially overlooking the unique contexts and nuances of individual struggles for independence.
   • For example, the specific dynamics in Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean may require deeper analysis than is provided.
3. Underrepresentation of Non-Western Scholarship:
   • Betts primarily cites Western scholars and theorists, which could limit the diversity of perspectives. Scholars from the Global South, who provide more localized insights, are underrepresented.
4. Insufficient Attention to Economic Decolonization:
   • While Betts addresses neocolonialism and dependency theory, critics might argue that the economic dimensions of decolonization are not explored in enough depth, especially the enduring global inequalities stemming from colonial exploitation.
5. Neglect of Gendered Aspects of Decolonization:
   • The work largely ignores how decolonization intersected with gender issues, failing to account for the role and experiences of women in independence movements and their postcolonial realities.
6. Simplification of Cultural Decolonization:
   • Betts discusses cultural and intellectual decolonization but does not extensively analyze the complexity of reclaiming cultural identity, particularly in regions with hybrid or heavily syncretic cultures.
7. Limited Engagement with Postcolonial Theory:
   • Although the book touches on postcolonial themes, it does not deeply engage with foundational postcolonial theorists like Edward Said, Homi Bhabha, or Gayatri Spivak, potentially limiting its theoretical scope.
8. Minimal Discussion of Long-Term Impacts:
   • The analysis primarily focuses on the historical period of decolonization without adequately addressing the long-term effects on modern state formation, political instability, and global power dynamics.
9. Overemphasis on Political Dimensions:
   • Critics might point out that the work focuses heavily on the political aspects of decolonization while giving less attention to social, environmental, or psychological consequences.
10. Lack of Intersectionality:
    • The absence of an intersectional approach might limit the book’s analysis, as it does not explore how race, class, gender, and religion intersected in the decolonization process.

Representative Quotations from “Decolonization: A Brief History Of The Word” By Raymond F. Betts with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “Decolonization: A Brief History Of The Word” By Raymond F. Betts

1. BETTS, RAYMOND F. “Decolonization: A Brief History of the Word.” Beyond Empire and Nation: The Decolonization of African and Asian Societies, 1930s-1970s, edited by ELS BOGAERTS and REMCO RABEN, Brill, 2012, pp. 23–38. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1163/j.ctt1w8h2zm.5. Accessed 25 Jan. 2025.
2. Ward, Stuart. “THE EUROPEAN PROVENANCE OF DECOLONIZATION.” Past & Present, no. 230, 2016, pp. 227–60. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44014553. Accessed 25 Jan. 2025.
3. Gallagher, Maureen O. “TEACHING GERMAN IN THE SETTLER COLONIAL UNIVERSITY.” Scholars in COVID Times, edited by Melissa Castillo Planas and Debra A. Castillo, Cornell University Press, 2023, pp. 74–90. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctv30m1dp9.7. Accessed 25 Jan. 2025.
4. BETTS, RAYMOND F. “A brief history of the word.” BEYOND EMPIRE AND N ATION: 23.

Introduction: “Beyond Empire And Nation” by Els Bogaerts And Remco Raben

“Beyond Empire and Nation” by Els Bogaerts and Remco Raben first appeared in the edited volume Beyond Empire and Nation: The Decolonization of African and Asian Societies, 1930s–1970s (Brill, 2012). This work delves into the complexities of decolonization, challenging the conventional portrayal of it as a clear rupture between colonial and postcolonial eras. Instead, the authors propose that decolonization was a process marked by continuities, contradictions, and hybrid identities, reflecting broader societal reorientations rather than abrupt political or cultural shifts. By examining both colonial and postcolonial narratives, they reveal how nationalism often masked uncomfortable realities, such as the persistence of colonial structures and inequalities. Literary voices play a crucial role in uncovering these hidden dimensions, offering nuanced perspectives on identity, memory, and the disillusionment accompanying independence. As Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o (1986) poignantly argued, “Africa needs back its economy, its politics, its culture, its languages and all its patriotic writers” to fully “decolonize the mind.”

Summary of “Beyond Empire And Nation” by Els Bogaerts And Remco Raben

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Beyond Empire And Nation” by Els Bogaerts And Remco Raben

Contribution of “Beyond Empire And Nation” by Els Bogaerts And Remco Raben to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Beyond Empire And Nation” by Els Bogaerts And Remco Raben

Criticism Against “Beyond Empire And Nation” by Els Bogaerts And Remco Raben

• Overemphasis on Continuities: Critics may argue that the book’s focus on the continuities of colonial structures underplays the significance of genuine political and cultural ruptures brought by independence movements.
• Limited Scope on Local Agency: While the book highlights hybrid identities, it may not sufficiently explore the depth of local agency and resistance against colonial legacies beyond elite intellectual circles.
• Underrepresentation of Regional Diversity: The work provides examples primarily from Indonesia, Africa, and select Asian nations, potentially neglecting the unique decolonization dynamics in regions like the Middle East or Latin America.
• Critique of Postcolonial Literature Focus: The heavy reliance on postcolonial literary works may lead to an overgeneralization of the broader decolonization experience, ignoring non-literary forms of cultural and political expression.
• Ambiguity in Periodization: The argument that decolonization is an extended process, stretching beyond the formal transfer of power, might be viewed as too abstract, leaving the temporal boundaries of “decolonization” unclear.
• Elitist Perspective: The focus on intellectual elites, such as writers and philosophers, could be criticized for sidelining the voices and experiences of the broader population, particularly laborers and rural communities.
• Insufficient Attention to Gender: The book does not deeply engage with the gendered aspects of colonialism and decolonization, a gap in its exploration of postcolonial identities.
• Fragmented Narrative: Critics might argue that the thematic structure of the book, while comprehensive, sacrifices a cohesive narrative of decolonization, making it less accessible for general readers.
• Potential Bias Toward Asian Perspectives: With a strong emphasis on Indonesia and Southeast Asia, some might feel the book disproportionately represents Asian experiences at the expense of African or Caribbean perspectives.
• Terminological Ambiguity: The critique of the term “decolonization” as overworked (p. 17) might come across as too academic, failing to propose a practical alternative framework for studying the phenomenon.

Representative Quotations from “Beyond Empire And Nation” by Els Bogaerts And Remco Raben with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “Beyond Empire And Nation” by Els Bogaerts And Remco Raben

1. BOGAERTS, ELS, and REMCO RABEN. “Beyond Empire and Nation.” Beyond Empire and Nation: The Decolonization of African and Asian Societies, 1930s-1970s, edited by ELS BOGAERTS and REMCO RABEN, Brill, 2012, pp. 7–22. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1163/j.ctt1w8h2zm.4. Accessed 25 Jan. 2025.
2. COOPER, FREDERICK. “Decolonization and Citizenship: Africa between Empires and a World of Nations.” Beyond Empire and Nation: The Decolonization of African and Asian Societies, 1930s-1970s, edited by ELS BOGAERTS and REMCO RABEN, Brill, 2012, pp. 39–68. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1163/j.ctt1w8h2zm.6. Accessed 25 Jan. 2025.
3. HACK, KARL. “Decolonization and Violence in Southeast Asia: Crises of Identity and Authority.” Beyond Empire and Nation: The Decolonization of African and Asian Societies, 1930s-1970s, edited by ELS BOGAERTS and REMCO RABEN, Brill, 2012, pp. 137–66. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1163/j.ctt1w8h2zm.9. Accessed 25 Jan. 2025.
4. BETTS, RAYMOND F. “Decolonization: A Brief History of the Word.” Beyond Empire and Nation: The Decolonization of African and Asian Societies, 1930s-1970s, edited by ELS BOGAERTS and REMCO RABEN, Brill, 2012, pp. 23–38. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1163/j.ctt1w8h2zm.5. Accessed 25 Jan. 2025.

Introduction: “Decolonizing Trauma Theory: Retrospect and Prospects” by Irene Visser

“Decolonizing Trauma Theory: Retrospect and Prospects” by Irene Visser first appeared in Humanities in 2015, offering a pivotal contribution to postcolonial literary theory by challenging Eurocentric assumptions inherent in classical trauma frameworks. Published in the journal’s volume 4 (pp. 250–265), the article underscores the need to expand trauma theory beyond Western Freudian psychoanalysis, emphasizing the inclusion of collective, culturally specific, and historically situated trauma experiences. Visser critiques the “depoliticizing and dehistoricizing tendencies” of dominant trauma theories, which fail to address the prolonged and systemic trauma of colonialism, and calls for an openness to non-Western belief systems and rituals. She highlights the limitations of early trauma theory, which, as Rothberg argued, “remains stuck within Euro-American conceptual and historical frameworks” and calls for transformative methodologies that resonate with the lived realities of postcolonial communities. Visser posits that achieving a truly decolonized trauma theory requires recognizing the curative power of narrative, resilience, and spiritual traditions in healing trauma. As she aptly states, “Openness to non-Western belief systems and their rituals and ceremonies in the engagement with trauma is needed in order to achieve the remaining major objectives of the long-standing project of decolonizing trauma theory.” This article remains essential for understanding the evolving intersections of trauma, culture, and literature in a globalized context.

Summary of “Decolonizing Trauma Theory: Retrospect and Prospects” by Irene Visser

Main Ideas

1. Need for Decolonization of Trauma Theory:
   • The article critiques traditional trauma theory, as conceptualized by scholars like Cathy Caruth and others, for its Eurocentric focus, event-based framework, and reliance on Freudian psychoanalysis (Visser, 2015, p. 253).
   • Trauma theory’s depoliticizing tendencies fail to address the prolonged and systemic trauma of colonialism (p. 254).
2. Origins of the Decolonization Project:
   • The call for decolonizing trauma theory dates back to 2008, when Michael Rothberg and others critiqued traditional trauma studies for neglecting the historical, political, and cultural dimensions of colonial and postcolonial traumas (p. 252).
3. Critique of Eurocentrism:
   • The traditional model’s focus on isolated, individual trauma is incompatible with the collective and enduring nature of colonial trauma, which spans generations (p. 254).
   • Early trauma theory’s emphasis on psychoanalysis excludes alternative cultural and spiritual frameworks for understanding trauma.
4. Rejection of Melancholia as the Sole Lens:
   • The insistence on melancholia and victimization, rooted in Caruth’s theories, limits the recognition of resilience, activism, and community recovery in postcolonial trauma narratives (p. 257).
   • The article supports reframing trauma as a process that allows for healing, resistance, and resilience.
5. Role of Narrative:
   • Contrary to traditional trauma theory’s emphasis on the inexpressibility of trauma, Visser highlights the therapeutic and empowering potential of narrative in addressing and integrating traumatic experiences (p. 257).
6. Expansion of Trauma Theory:
   • The article advocates for incorporating sociological, anthropological, and non-Western perspectives into trauma studies, moving beyond Freudian and deconstructionist frameworks (p. 258).
   • Collective trauma and indigenous belief systems are emphasized as critical areas for expanding trauma theory.
7. Inclusion of Spiritual and Cultural Practices:
   • Indigenous rituals, spirituality, and forgiveness are presented as vital elements of healing from trauma, which traditional trauma theory has largely ignored due to its secular Western bias (p. 261).
8. New Directions for Research:
   • The article calls for an inclusive, pluralistic approach that respects non-Western modes of understanding and healing trauma. This includes engaging with indigenous practices and conceptualizing trauma as both collective and historical (p. 263).
9. Key Contributions of Postcolonial Studies:
   • Postcolonial trauma studies have been instrumental in challenging dominant trauma theories and emphasizing cultural specificity and historicity (p. 264).

Key Quotations

• “Openness to non-Western belief systems and their rituals and ceremonies in the engagement with trauma is needed in order to achieve the remaining major objectives of the long-standing project of decolonizing trauma theory” (Visser, 2015, p. 250).
• “Trauma theory’s Eurocentric, event-based conception of trauma distorts the histories it addresses and threatens to reproduce the very Eurocentrism that lies behind those histories” (p. 254).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Decolonizing Trauma Theory: Retrospect and Prospects” by Irene Visser

Examples of Critiques Through “Decolonizing Trauma Theory: Retrospect and Prospects” by Irene Visser

Criticism Against “Decolonizing Trauma Theory: Retrospect and Prospects” by Irene Visser

1. Lack of Practical Applications for Non-Western Frameworks
   • Critics argue that while the article advocates for incorporating non-Western belief systems and rituals, it provides limited guidance on how these frameworks can be systematically integrated into mainstream trauma theory and literary critique.
   • Reference: Visser highlights the need for openness to non-Western systems but does not delve deeply into their practical application (Visser, 2015, p. 260).
2. Reliance on Western Theoretical Constructs
   • Despite critiquing Eurocentric foundations, the article itself heavily references Western theorists like Freud, Caruth, and LaCapra, raising questions about the extent of its departure from these paradigms.
   • Reference: Visser critiques Freud and Caruth but remains within their intellectual frameworks when discussing key aspects of trauma (Visser, 2015, p. 256).
3. Limited Exploration of Intersectionality
   • The theory’s focus on postcolonial and cultural trauma overlooks nuanced intersections of race, gender, class, and sexuality, which are critical to a comprehensive understanding of trauma in literature.
   • Reference: The article briefly addresses collective trauma but does not extensively engage with intersectional perspectives (Visser, 2015, p. 253).
4. Overemphasis on Narrative as Curative
   • Some critics argue that the emphasis on storytelling as a primary means of healing trauma may oversimplify complex psychological and sociocultural processes.
   • Reference: Visser discusses narrative as empowering but underexplores its limitations in certain contexts (Visser, 2015, p. 259).
5. Underrepresentation of Contemporary Global Trauma
   • The examples and critiques focus predominantly on historical colonial trauma and provide limited engagement with contemporary global traumas, such as climate change, refugee crises, or digital colonialism.
   • Reference: The article mainly discusses colonial trauma and its historical aftermath, with little focus on present-day issues (Visser, 2015, p. 257).
6. Challenges in Balancing Secular and Spiritual Frameworks
   • While advocating for recognition of spiritual practices in healing, the article does not adequately address how to reconcile these with secular academic paradigms, leading to potential theoretical tensions.
   • Reference: Visser calls for decolonizing secular trauma theory but does not fully address how to operationalize this shift (Visser, 2015, p. 261).
7. Ambiguity in Defining “Decolonization”
   • The article’s definition of decolonization in trauma theory is broad and lacks specificity, making it challenging to implement in literary critique or other academic disciplines.
   • Reference: The term “decolonizing” is used extensively but is not clearly operationalized in all contexts (Visser, 2015, p. 252).
8. Insufficient Critique of Caruthian Theory
   • Although Visser critiques Cathy Caruth’s emphasis on melancholia and the aporetic nature of trauma, critics suggest that these critiques are repetitive of existing scholarship and do not break significant new ground.
   • Reference: The article reiterates prior critiques of Caruth without offering entirely novel insights (Visser, 2015, p. 255).
9. Overgeneralization of Indigenous Practices
   • Critics contend that grouping diverse indigenous practices under broad terms like “rituals” and “belief systems” risks homogenizing unique cultural and regional differences.
   • Reference: The call for indigenous perspectives lacks specificity in addressing regional variations (Visser, 2015, p. 260).
10. Potential Disconnect from Literary Practice
    • While theoretically rich, the article may struggle to connect its concepts with practical literary analysis for scholars who work with diverse and hybrid texts.
    • Reference: The theory’s abstract nature poses challenges for its application in concrete literary interpretations (Visser, 2015, p. 254).

Representative Quotations from “Decolonizing Trauma Theory: Retrospect and Prospects” by Irene Visser with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “Decolonizing Trauma Theory: Retrospect and Prospects” by Irene Visser

1. Hout, Syrine. “Multilingualism, Trauma, and Liminality in The Bullet Collection: Contact Zones, Checkpoints, and Liminal Points.” Arab Studies Quarterly, vol. 43, no. 1, 2021, pp. 5–25. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.13169/arabstudquar.43.1.0005. Accessed 23 Jan. 2025.
2. ONAH, CHIJIOKE. “Decolonizing Trauma Studies: The Recognition-Solidarity Nexus in Uwem Akpan’s Say You’re One of Them.” ALT 41: African Literature in African Languages, edited by Chiji Akọma and Nduka Otiono, Boydell & Brewer, 2023, pp. 132–44. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.4303807.28. Accessed 23 Jan. 2025.
3. Lerner, Adam B. “Theorizing Collective Trauma in International Political Economy.” International Studies Review, vol. 21, no. 4, 2019, pp. 549–71. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/48557423. Accessed 23 Jan. 2025.
4. PETERS, ERIN, and CYNTHIA RICHARDS. “Reading Historical Trauma: Moving Backward to Move Forward.” Early Modern Trauma: Europe and the Atlantic World, edited by ERIN PETERS and CYNTHIA RICHARDS, University of Nebraska Press, 2021, pp. 1–28. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1tbhrhx.5. Accessed 23 Jan. 2025.

Introduction: “Introduction: Decolonzing Narrative Theory” by Sue J. Kim

“Introduction: Decolonizing Narrative Theory” by Sue J. Kim first appeared in the Journal of Narrative Theory, Volume 42, Number 3, Fall 2012, published by Eastern Michigan University. It examines the intersections of narrative theory with ethnic and postcolonial studies, exploring how colonial and racial ideologies shape, and are shaped by, narrative structures. He challenges the predominantly Western and Eurocentric roots of classical narratology, advocating for a “decolonized” approach that acknowledges the historical, cultural, and ideological contexts of narratives. Drawing from theorists like Frantz Fanon, she critiques the universalizing tendencies of traditional narratology, emphasizing the need to interrogate power dynamics and cultural specificities. Kim’s work underscores the importance of reimagining narrative theory not merely as an abstract tool but as one informed by global histories of colonialism and resistance. This contribution is vital for literary theory as it broadens the scope of narratological studies, integrating perspectives from ethnic and postcolonial frameworks to redefine the boundaries of narrative analysis in a globalized world.

Summary of “Introduction: Decolonzing Narrative Theory” by Sue J. Kim

• Purpose and Scope of the Issue:
  • The article explores the relationship between narrative theory and ethnic and postcolonial studies, highlighting the lack of sustained methodological engagement between these fields (Kim, 2012, p. 233).
  • It critiques the Eurocentric origins of classical narratology and calls for a “decolonization” of narrative methods and frameworks to better account for global histories of colonialism and imperialism (p. 235).
• The Concept of Decolonization:
  • Kim advocates for “decolonizing” not only narrative theory but also academic practices and methodologies to interrogate imperialist discourses shaping both the metropolitan and colonial peripheries (p. 234).
  • The term “historicizing” was deemed inadequate to address ideological formations rooted in race, colonialism, and capitalism (p. 234).
• Critique of Universality in Narrative Theory:
  • Drawing on Frantz Fanon, Kim critiques the presumption of universality in Western theoretical frameworks, arguing for the need to historicize supposedly universal theories like psychoanalysis and structuralism (p. 235).
  • Fanon serves as a model for integrating history and ideology into theoretical critiques (p. 236).
• Intersection of Narrative Theory and Postcolonial/Ethnic Studies:
  • Kim identifies two major critiques of narrative theory in relation to postcolonial and ethnic studies:
    1. The claim that postcolonial texts cannot be analyzed using Western-originated narrative theories, which overlooks the historical interplay of imperialism and world systems (p. 236).
    2. The uncritical application of Western narrative theories to minority texts, which perpetuates a critical hierarchy privileging Western universality over local particularity (p. 238).
• Challenges to Formalist Narratology:
  • The structuralist roots of classical narratology, which focus on taxonomies of narrative forms, are critiqued as insufficient to address contextual factors such as race, class, and imperialism (p. 239).
  • Poststructuralist or “postclassical” narratology, while more open to context, still struggles to integrate ethnic and postcolonial perspectives meaningfully (p. 240).
• Proposed Directions for Decolonized Narratology:
  • Kim emphasizes the need to develop a narratology informed by the material and ideological histories of colonialism and capitalism (p. 240).
  • Ethnic and postcolonial studies can reshape narrative theory by broadening its scope and addressing overlooked aesthetic and ideological elements (p. 241).
• Case Studies and Contributions:
  • The special issue includes essays addressing topics such as resistant subjectivity in Jessica Hagedorn’s Dogeaters, postcolonial descriptions in V.S. Naipaul’s Guerillas, and “unnatural” narrative techniques in Salman Rushdie’s Midnight’s Children (pp. 241–243).
• Conclusion and Future Work:
  • Kim calls for continued engagement between narratology and ethnic/postcolonial studies, emphasizing the need for interdisciplinary approaches to address global inequities embedded in narrative forms and theories (p. 243).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Introduction: Decolonzing Narrative Theory” by Sue J. Kim

Contribution of “Introduction: Decolonzing Narrative Theory” by Sue J. Kim to Literary Theory/Theories

• Decolonizing Narrative Studies:
  • Introduces the concept of decolonizing narrative theory by addressing how classical narratology is deeply rooted in Eurocentric traditions.
  • Advocates for interrogating and dismantling imperialist frameworks in narratology, aligning it with broader postcolonial and ethnic studies (Kim, 2012, p. 234).
• Integration of Postcolonial Critique:
  • Emphasizes the need for a postcolonial narratology that reflects the historical and material realities of colonialism and its global aftermath.
  • Critiques Gerald Prince’s notion of “postcolonial narratology” for its failure to engage adequately with postcolonial scholarship and its complexities (p. 237).
• Historicizing Theories of Narration:
  • Argues that narrative theory must move beyond abstract formalism to incorporate historical, cultural, and political contexts.
  • Uses Frantz Fanon’s critique of psychoanalysis as a model for situating theories within their historical and ideological contexts (p. 235).
• Intersection of Race and Narratology:
  • Highlights the inadequacy of narrative theory to account for race, ethnicity, and colonialism when treated in isolation from economic and political structures.
  • Demonstrates how race and colonialism are intertwined with global capitalism, influencing both narrative production and interpretation (p. 234).
• Critique of Universalism in Narratology:
  • Challenges the universalist assumptions of classical structuralist narratology, such as those proposed by Gérard Genette, for neglecting the diversity of narrative forms and cultural contexts (p. 239).
  • Proposes a more pluralistic approach to narrative theory that accounts for diverse global traditions and ideologies (p. 240).
• Contextualist Approaches to Narrative:
  • Advocates for contextualist narratology, which integrates historical, political, and ideological considerations into the analysis of narrative forms (p. 240).
  • Draws parallels with feminist narratology, which has successfully challenged the exclusion of gender and sexuality from classical narratology (p. 239).
• Ethnic Studies as Transformative for Literary Theory:
  • Positions ethnic studies as essential for reshaping literary theory to include diverse aesthetic forms and critical practices.
  • Argues that ethnic studies have expanded the understanding of what constitutes a text, making visible previously marginalized aesthetic forms (p. 236).
• Engagement with Cognitive Narratology:
  • Notes the contribution of cognitive studies scholars, such as Frederick Luis Aldama and David Herman, to expanding the purview of narratology.
  • Suggests that cognitive approaches, while seemingly universal, must also be historicized and contextualized (p. 240).
• Reassessing the History vs. Form Divide:
  • Critiques the long-standing division between formalist and historicist/contextualist approaches in narrative theory.
  • Proposes a synthesis that recognizes how historical and ideological conditions shape narrative forms and vice versa (p. 240).
• Advocating for Interdisciplinary Dialogue:
  • Calls for more sustained methodological engagement between narratology, ethnic studies, postcolonial studies, and Marxism.
  • Frames this interdisciplinary dialogue as vital for addressing the complexities of global literature and its socio-political contexts (p. 243).

Examples of Critiques Through “Introduction: Decolonzing Narrative Theory” by Sue J. Kim

Criticism Against “Introduction: Decolonzing Narrative Theory” by Sue J. Kim

• Insufficient Integration of Postcolonial Scholars:
  • While the article critiques the exclusion of postcolonial perspectives in narratology, it does not fully engage with foundational postcolonial theorists such as Edward Said, Gayatri Spivak, or Homi Bhabha beyond surface-level references.
• Overemphasis on Theory Over Practical Application:
  • The article focuses heavily on theoretical critique but provides limited practical examples of how a “decolonized” narrative theory might function across a wide range of texts or methodologies.
• Ambiguity in Decolonization Framework:
  • The term “decolonization” is used broadly without clearly defining what it entails in specific academic or literary practices, which may leave readers uncertain about its concrete implications.
• Eurocentric Lens of Critique:
  • Ironically, the critique of Eurocentrism in narratology is itself grounded largely in Western academic traditions, with limited engagement with non-Western critical traditions or frameworks.
• Limited Scope of Texts Analyzed:
  • The examples provided focus primarily on Anglophone and postcolonial texts, which limits the reach of the discussion to other global literatures, particularly non-Anglophone or Indigenous traditions.
• Overgeneralization of Classical Narratology:
  • Classical narratology is critiqued as overly Eurocentric without sufficient acknowledgment of how it has already been revised and expanded in some contemporary studies.
• Potential Oversimplification of Race and Colonialism:
  • The article tends to conflate race, ethnicity, and colonialism as intersecting categories without fully unpacking their unique and often divergent histories and impacts on narrative forms.

Representative Quotations from “Introduction: Decolonzing Narrative Theory” by Sue J. Kim with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “Introduction: Decolonzing Narrative Theory” by Sue J. Kim

1. Visser, Irene. “Decolonizing trauma theory: Retrospect and prospects.” Humanities 4.2 (2015): 250-265.
2. Cameron, Emilie, et al. “Indigeneity and Ontology.” Cultural Geographies, vol. 21, no. 1, 2014, pp. 19–26. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26168538. Accessed 23 Jan. 2025.
3. Hopkins, A. G. “Rethinking Decolonization.” Past & Present, no. 200, 2008, pp. 211–47. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25096724. Accessed 23 Jan. 2025.
4. BETTS, RAYMOND F. “Decolonization: A Brief History of the Word.” Beyond Empire and Nation: The Decolonization of African and Asian Societies, 1930s-1970s, edited by ELS BOGAERTS and REMCO RABEN, Brill, 2012, pp. 23–38. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1163/j.ctt1w8h2zm.5. Accessed 23 Jan. 2025.

Introduction: “Decolonizing The University: New Directions ” by Achille Joseph Mbembe  

“Decolonizing the University: New Directions” by Achille Joseph Mbembe first appeared in Arts & Humanities in Higher Education in 2016 (Vol. 15, Issue 1, pp. 29–45). It critically examines the constraints on decolonization initiatives within universities, emphasizing the pervasive influence of neoliberalism on higher education. In fact, Mbembe interrogates whether decolonization is synonymous with Africanization, positing that decolonization involves more than symbolic gestures, such as renaming buildings or removing statues. While, it demands the transformation of epistemological foundations and institutional frameworks rooted in Eurocentric and colonial ideologies, Mbembe also argues, “to decolonize implies breaking the cycle that tends to turn students into customers and consumers,” highlighting the commodification of education under neoliberal policies.

The article is significant in literary theory and broader humanities discourse because it bridges postcolonial thought with critical university studies. By invoking thinkers like Frantz Fanon and Ngugi wa Thiong’o, Mbembe calls for a re-centering of African epistemologies and the creation of a “pluriversal” space of knowledge production that transcends the Eurocentric academic canon. Through its incisive critique and practical orientation, the article provides a roadmap for reimagining the university as a space of intellectual and social liberation, resonating profoundly with contemporary debates on decolonization in education and society.

Summary of “Decolonizing The University: New Directions ” by Achille Joseph Mbembe  

• Critique of Colonial and Neoliberal Structures in Universities
  • Mbembe identifies universities as spaces dominated by Eurocentric and colonial legacies that perpetuate exclusion and inequality. He critiques the “Westernized” epistemic canon that “attributes truth only to the Western way of knowledge production” (p. 32).
  • He highlights how neoliberalism commodifies education, turning students into “consumers of vendible educational commodities” and replacing the pursuit of knowledge with the pursuit of market-oriented credentials (p. 30).
• Democratizing Access and Belonging
  • Decolonization involves addressing systemic barriers to access and creating inclusive spaces where marginalized groups feel they belong: “Access is not simply about demographic representation; it is about the ability to inhabit a space as a home” (p. 30).
  • He critiques South Africa’s low investment in higher education, calling its 0.6% of GDP expenditure “an embarrassment” (p. 30).
• Symbolism and Material Infrastructure
  • The removal of colonial symbols, such as statues, is critical for addressing “states of humiliation” faced by Black students: “The figures they represent are figures of people who truly believed that to be Black was a liability” (p. 30).
  • He also emphasizes the importance of physical and intellectual infrastructure, calling apartheid-era campus architecture “not conducive to breathing” (p. 30).
• Decolonizing Knowledge Production
  • Mbembe advocates for a pluriversal approach to knowledge that values diverse epistemic traditions, moving beyond the “hegemonic notion of knowledge production” rooted in Eurocentric frameworks (p. 32).
  • Decolonization requires challenging the detachment of knowledge from lived experience: “Western epistemic traditions… claim detachment of the known from the knower” (p. 32).
• Curriculum and Language
  • Curriculum reform is essential to center African perspectives and knowledge systems: “The African university of tomorrow will be multilingual… teaching in African languages such as Swahili, isiZulu, and Yoruba” (p. 35).
  • He draws on Ngugi wa Thiong’o’s idea of “re-centering” African identity, arguing for education that begins with Africa as its focal point (p. 34).
• Critique of Bureaucratization
  • Universities are increasingly governed by “business principles and statistical accountancy,” which Mbembe views as barriers to intellectual freedom. Faculty are burdened by administrative tasks and assessment metrics, reducing their focus on the “preservation of the intellect” (p. 30).
• Globalization and Knowledge Mobility
  • He critiques the influence of global capitalism on higher education, highlighting the “denationalization” of universities into entities serving transnational elites (p. 36).
  • Mbembe proposes creating “diasporic intellectual networks” and fostering African academic connections to counter the dominance of Eurocentric models (p. 41).
• Decolonization as an Intellectual Project
  • Decolonization, for Mbembe, is a deeply intellectual endeavor requiring the development of “radically new concepts” to address contemporary challenges (p. 31). He calls for rethinking the university itself, questioning whether it remains a viable institution for decolonized knowledge (p. 36).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Decolonizing The University: New Directions ” by Achille Joseph Mbembe  

Contribution of “Decolonizing The University: New Directions ” by Achille Joseph Mbembe  to Literary Theory/Theories

• Postcolonial Theory
  • Mbembe expands postcolonial thought by addressing the legacy of colonialism in knowledge production and institutional structures, emphasizing the need for decolonization of the academic canon:
    “A Eurocentric canon… disregards other epistemic traditions and portrays colonialism as a normal form of social relations” (p. 32).
  • He connects postcolonialism to institutional practices, arguing for a shift from colonial legacies to inclusive frameworks:
    “Decolonization requires dismantling the symbols, curricula, and knowledge systems inherited from colonialism” (p. 30).
• Critical Theory
  • The article critiques neoliberalism’s commodification of education, resonating with critical theory’s focus on the intersection of culture and capitalism:
    “Students have become consumers of vendible educational commodities… substituting free pursuit of knowledge for the pursuit of credits” (p. 30).
  • Mbembe questions the bureaucratic and market-driven restructuring of universities, which aligns with critical theory’s critique of systemic rationalization and control.
• Decolonial Theory
  • Mbembe’s work is a cornerstone in decolonial theory, addressing the need to disrupt epistemic coloniality and reimagine knowledge:
    “To decolonize the university is to reform it with the aim of creating a less provincial and more open critical cosmopolitan pluriversalism” (p. 36).
  • He introduces the concept of the pluriversity, advocating for a plurality of knowledge systems rather than the dominance of Eurocentric epistemology:
    “A pluriversity is… a process of knowledge production open to epistemic diversity” (p. 36).
• Posthumanism
  • By engaging with the Anthropocene, Mbembe extends literary theory into posthumanist frameworks, rethinking the human in relation to non-human entities and the environment:
    “We have entered an entirely new deep, geological time, that of the Anthropocene… the dualistic partitions of mind from bodies or nature from culture can no longer hold” (p. 42).
• Intersectionality
  • The article explores the intersection of race, class, and access to knowledge, connecting to theories of intersectionality:
    “The doors of higher learning should be widely opened… access is not simply demographic but about creating a sense of belonging” (p. 30).
  • Mbembe’s critique of racialized exclusion in academia highlights the need for structural reforms to address historical and systemic inequities.
• Reader-Response Theory
  • Mbembe’s focus on memory versus history aligns with reader-response theory’s emphasis on interpretation and subjectivity in engaging with texts:
    “Memory is the way in which we put history to rest, especially histories of suffering, trauma, and victimization” (p. 30).
• Globalization and World Literature
  • The article’s critique of the global restructuring of universities as market-driven institutions engages with theories of globalization and their impact on world literature:
    “A global restructuring of higher education… links universities to transnational flows and knowledge markets” (p. 37).
• Ngugi wa Thiong’o’s Decolonizing Framework
  • Building on Ngugi’s work (Decolonizing the Mind), Mbembe advocates for curriculum reform that centers African languages and epistemologies:
    “Crucial in this regard was the need to teach African languages… The African university of tomorrow will be multilingual” (p. 35).

Examples of Critiques Through “Decolonizing The University: New Directions ” by Achille Joseph Mbembe  

Criticism Against “Decolonizing The University: New Directions ” by Achille Joseph Mbembe  

• Overemphasis on Western Hegemony
  • Critics may argue that Mbembe overgeneralizes the dominance of Eurocentric epistemologies, overlooking instances where non-Western knowledge systems have been integrated or valued in modern academia.
• Ambiguity in Defining Decolonization
  • While Mbembe calls for decolonization, some critics may point out a lack of clarity or concrete steps on how to achieve this transformation, particularly in diverse institutional contexts.
  • For instance, his call for a “pluriversity” may be critiqued as idealistic without providing a practical framework for implementation (p. 36).
• Insufficient Engagement with Practical Constraints
  • The article may be critiqued for insufficiently addressing practical challenges, such as funding, administrative resistance, and global competition, which hinder decolonization efforts.
  • Mbembe’s critique of neoliberalism could be seen as ignoring the reality that market-driven approaches often sustain higher education systems.
• Potential Romanticization of African Epistemologies
  • Some critics might argue that Mbembe’s focus on re-centering African knowledge risks romanticizing certain traditions without critically engaging with their limitations or contradictions.
  • For instance, the assertion that “Africa has to be placed in the center” (p. 34) might be seen as overly simplistic in the context of global interconnectedness.
• Neglect of Internal Inequalities within African Contexts
  • The article may be critiqued for insufficiently addressing the internal inequalities in Africa, such as ethnic or class disparities, that can affect the feasibility of decolonization within universities.
• Overgeneralization of Neoliberal Critique
  • While Mbembe critiques the commodification of education, some might argue that this critique does not account for the potential benefits of globalized education, such as increased access and mobility.
• Reliance on Abstract Terminology
  • Mbembe’s use of theoretical and abstract language, such as “pluriversalism” and “epistemic coloniality,” might be critiqued for being inaccessible to broader audiences or policymakers who need to enact change.
• Underestimation of Globalization’s Complexities
  • The critique of globalization as primarily detrimental to universities might be seen as reductive, ignoring the ways in which globalization has fostered cross-cultural academic exchanges and collaborations.
• Limited Focus on Non-African Decolonization Movements
  • The article focuses heavily on African contexts and may be critiqued for not sufficiently engaging with decolonization movements in other parts of the world, such as Asia or Latin America.

Representative Quotations from “Decolonizing The University: New Directions ” by Achille Joseph Mbembe  with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “Decolonizing The University: New Directions ” by Achille Joseph Mbembe  

1. Parker, Kendra R. “Introduction: Decolonizing the University: A Battle for the African Mind.” CLA Journal, vol. 60, no. 2, 2016, pp. 164–71. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26355914. Accessed 23 Jan. 2025.
2. Mount, Liz. “Teaching in Unfamiliar Terrain: Empowering Student and Teacher Learning through a Photography Assignment.” Teaching Sociology, vol. 46, no. 1, 2018, pp. 54–61. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26429257. Accessed 23 Jan. 2025.
3. Botha, Louis, et al. “Epistemological Decolonization through a Relational Knowledge-Making Model.” Africa Today, vol. 67, no. 4, 2021, pp. 50–73. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/africatoday.67.4.04. Accessed 23 Jan. 2025.
4. Connell, Raewyn. “Decolonizing Sociology.” Contemporary Sociology, vol. 47, no. 4, 2018, pp. 399–407. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26585853. Accessed 23 Jan. 2025.

Introduction: “Decolonizing Global Theories Today” by Malini Johar Schueller

“Decolonizing Global Theories Today” by Malini Johar Schueller first appeared in Interventions: International Journal of Postcolonial Studies in 2009. This pivotal essay critiques the universalizing tendencies of contemporary global theories, as exemplified by theorists such as Hardt, Negri, Agamben, and Butler. Schueller argues that these theories, despite their radical intents, often replicate the Eurocentrism and colonial logic they seek to dismantle. She underscores the ethical imperative to resist and decolonize such frameworks, emphasizing that “global theories can operate as colonizing forces which it is our ethical task to resist.” The essay holds profound significance in literary and cultural theory for challenging the dominance of Western-centric paradigms and advocating for a more nuanced, context-sensitive approach that acknowledges colonial difference. It provides a critical lens for examining the intersections of postcolonial critique, sovereignty, and the ongoing impacts of globalization.

Summary of “Decolonizing Global Theories Today” by Malini Johar Schueller

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Decolonizing Global Theories Today” by Malini Johar Schueller

Contribution of “Decolonizing Global Theories Today” by Malini Johar Schueller to Literary Theory/Theories

• Critique of Universalism in Contemporary Theory:
  • Schueller identifies the resurgence of universalist paradigms in global theories by scholars such as Hardt, Negri, Agamben, and Butler. She argues these theories replicate colonial-era universalism, marginalizing non-Western epistemologies (“like the tradition of colonial knowledge production, universalizing, albeit in different ways”).
  • This critique contributes to postcolonial literary theory by interrogating the Eurocentric assumptions embedded in many global frameworks and narratives (p. 236).
• Intersection of Postcolonial Studies and Globalization Theories:
  • Schueller highlights how globalization theories often erase the material realities of colonialism and neo-imperialism. This perspective broadens the postcolonial critique of modern global power systems (“colonial difference continues to be central in knowledge construction, particularly in theory”).
  • This intersection provides a framework for analyzing global cultural texts, focusing on colonial histories and their lingering effects on sovereignty and resistance (p. 237).
• Challenging Agamben’s Concept of Bare Life:
  • Schueller critiques Agamben’s Homo Sacer for its lack of attention to colonialism and the racialized construction of sovereignty and bare life (“we need to move not only from prison to camp but also from prison and camp to colony”).
  • This challenge contributes to theories of biopolitics by advocating for a decolonial lens that accounts for how racialized bodies are marked as bare life in colonial and postcolonial contexts (p. 242).
• Reevaluation of Judith Butler’s Vulnerability:
  • While recognizing Butler’s contributions to feminist and ethical theories, Schueller critiques the universalization of vulnerability as an ethical foundation. She argues this concept ignores structural inequalities tied to colonial and racial histories (“some vulnerabilities are more vulnerable than others”).
  • This critique informs feminist and intersectional theories, encouraging a more situated understanding of ethics and relationality (p. 248).
• Decolonization as an Ongoing Theoretical Practice:
  • Schueller emphasizes the necessity of continually decolonizing theoretical frameworks, asserting that colonial logics persist in contemporary global theories (“Decolonizing theory, if it has to mean anything, must be a continual process, a dialectical one of critique and self-critique”).
  • This contribution enriches postcolonial and critical theories by positioning decolonization as a reflexive and evolving methodology (p. 252).
• Critique of the World Social Forum’s Universalist Logic:
  • Schueller critiques the WSF for neglecting issues of colonialism, race, and indigeneity, highlighting the limitations of its universalizing anti-capitalist agenda (“Whose global resistance and for whom are questions we should continue to raise”).
  • This critique contributes to cultural studies and theories of global resistance by emphasizing the importance of intersectional approaches to global justice movements (p. 250).
• Advocacy for Polyversality and Ambiguous Universality:
  • Drawing on theorists like Zillah Eisenstein and Etienne Balibar, Schueller advocates for alternatives to universalism, such as polyversality and ambiguous universality. These concepts promote multiplicity and situatedness in theory (“all of us have local histories, but only for some of us can those local histories become global designs”).
  • This contribution provides tools for literary and cultural theorists to engage with global frameworks while avoiding imperialist and Eurocentric tendencies (p. 253).
• Colonial Difference as Central to Modernity:
  • Schueller underscores the role of colonial difference in shaping modernity and contemporary theoretical frameworks (“the racial fracture at the heart of modernity, is alive and well today”).
  • This insight advances postcolonial theory by affirming the inseparability of modern global structures and colonial histories (p. 249).
• Critical Engagement with Enlightenment Humanism:
  • Schueller critiques the neo-Enlightenment humanism embedded in contemporary theories, which often obscures historical inequalities under the guise of universalism (“a new humanism that doesn’t recognize the ongoing unequal history of humanism is susceptible…to forms of neo-Enlightenment humanism”).
  • This critique informs literary theory by challenging the assumptions underlying global literary narratives and theoretical frameworks (p. 248).

Examples of Critiques Through “Decolonizing Global Theories Today” by Malini Johar Schueller

Criticism Against “Decolonizing Global Theories Today” by Malini Johar Schueller

• Overgeneralization of Global Theories as Eurocentric
  Schueller critiques global theories like Hardt and Negri’s Empire or Butler’s vulnerability frameworks as inherently Eurocentric but does not fully engage with the nuances or attempts by these theorists to address power imbalances and imperialism.
• Limited Engagement with Non-Western Theorists
  The essay critiques Western-centric universalism but does not sufficiently draw from non-Western thinkers or frameworks to illustrate alternative models of theorizing global resistance.
• Ambiguity in Operationalizing “Decolonization”
  While Schueller emphasizes the need to decolonize theory continually, the essay lacks concrete strategies or examples of how this process might be systematically implemented in global academic or activist frameworks.
• Simplistic Dismissal of Universalism
  Schueller’s rejection of universalist theories risks overlooking their potential to foster solidarity and shared ethical principles across global struggles, which might weaken her critique.
• Potential Overshadowing of Intersectionality
  Although Schueller discusses the importance of particular striations like race and colonial difference, the emphasis on colonial critique sometimes sidelines the equally crucial dimensions of gender, class, and intersectionality.
• Undermining the Practical Utility of Global Theories
  By critiquing global movements like the World Social Forum for their Eurocentric tendencies, Schueller risks undermining the pragmatic value of such platforms in creating tangible networks for global resistance.
• Excessive Focus on Western Academia
  The analysis heavily centers on Western intellectual traditions and their critiques, leaving less room for exploring how non-Western or indigenous movements theorize resistance and power.
• Limited Consideration of Temporal Evolution
  Schueller’s critique does not adequately acknowledge how contemporary global theories have evolved since their inception to incorporate critiques of Eurocentrism and address colonial legacies.
• Selective Application of Postcolonial Theories
  The essay applies postcolonial critiques to universal theories without equally interrogating how some postcolonial frameworks might inadvertently reinforce binaries or cultural essentialisms.

Representative Quotations from “Decolonizing Global Theories Today” by Malini Johar Schueller with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “Decolonizing Global Theories Today” by Malini Johar Schueller

1. Richards, Patricia. “Decolonizing Globalization Studies.” The Global South, vol. 8, no. 2, 2014, pp. 139–54. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2979/globalsouth.8.2.139. Accessed 19 Jan. 2025.
2. Lawrence, Bonita, and Enakshi Dua. “Decolonizing Antiracism.” Social Justice, vol. 32, no. 4 (102), 2005, pp. 120–43. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/29768340. Accessed 19 Jan. 2025.
3. Millan, Anna, and Ali Can Yildirim. “Decolonizing Theories of Global Justice.” Decolonizing Enlightenment: Transnational Justice, Human Rights and Democracy in a Postcolonial World, edited by Nikita Dhawan, 1st ed., Verlag Barbara Budrich, 2014, pp. 195–208. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvddzsf3.11. Accessed 19 Jan. 2025.
4. Kim, Sue J. “Introduction: Decolonizing Narrative Theory.” Journal of Narrative Theory, vol. 42, no. 3, 2012, pp. 233–47. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24484772. Accessed 19 Jan. 2025.

Introduction: “Decolonizing Culture: Toward a Theory for Postcolonial Women’s Texts” by Ketu H. Katrak

“Decolonizing Culture: Toward a Theory for Postcolonial Women’s Texts” by Ketu H. Katrak first appeared in MFS Modern Fiction Studies, Volume 35, Number 1, Spring 1989, published by Johns Hopkins University Press. In this seminal work, Katrak critiques the Eurocentric dominance in literary theory and underscores the need for theoretical frameworks that emerge from and address the realities of postcolonial societies, particularly focusing on women writers. Katrak argues for a historically situated approach that incorporates Frantz Fanon’s and Mahatma Gandhi’s perspectives on decolonization, while challenging their limitations regarding gender. Central to her thesis is the idea that postcolonial theory must resist intellectual hegemony and act as a strategy for social change, integrating women’s voices and cultural expressions often excluded from traditional academic discourse. Katrak writes, “We need to find theoretical models that will challenge what Chandra Mohanty aptly calls ‘a discursive colonization,'” calling for inclusivity and resistance in literary criticism. This article remains pivotal in discussions on decolonizing literary spaces and elevating the intersection of postcolonial and feminist thought.

Summary of “Decolonizing Culture: Toward a Theory for Postcolonial Women’s Texts” by Ketu H. Katrak

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Decolonizing Culture: Toward a Theory for Postcolonial Women’s Texts” by Ketu H. Katrak

Contribution of “Decolonizing Culture: Toward a Theory for Postcolonial Women’s Texts” by Ketu H. Katrak to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Decolonizing Culture: Toward a Theory for Postcolonial Women’s Texts” by Ketu H. Katrak

Explanation of Concepts:

1. Linguistic and Cultural Violence: The use of the colonizer’s language to suppress indigenous identity.
2. Resistance through Literature: Postcolonial writers reclaim culture and identity through transformed literary forms.
3. Intersection of Gender and Colonialism: Women’s dual oppression under colonial and patriarchal systems.
4. Oral Traditions as Resistance: Using indigenous oral forms to challenge Western literary traditions.

Criticism Against “Decolonizing Culture: Toward a Theory for Postcolonial Women’s Texts” by Ketu H. Katrak

• Overemphasis on Western Theoretical Hegemony
  • Critics argue that Katrak focuses excessively on the dominance of Western academia, potentially neglecting the contributions of non-Western theorists who also engage with postcolonial literature.
• Limited Exploration of Intersectionality
  • While Katrak discusses the intersection of gender and colonialism, some suggest that the analysis does not sufficiently address other dimensions of identity, such as class, ethnicity, and sexuality, within postcolonial contexts.
• Generalization of “Postcolonial Women’s Experience”
  • The text is critiqued for homogenizing the experiences of women across diverse postcolonial societies, potentially ignoring region-specific nuances and localized histories.
• Neglect of Male Contributions in Postcolonial Discourse
  • Katrak’s focus on women writers and their struggles may overlook the collaborative dynamics between male and female writers in challenging colonial and patriarchal structures.
• Idealization of Indigenous Traditions
  • Some critics feel Katrak romanticizes indigenous traditions and oral forms without fully critiquing the patriarchal and exclusionary practices embedded in many pre-colonial cultures.
• Selective Application of Fanon and Gandhi
  • Katrak’s interpretation of Fanon’s advocacy for violence and Gandhi’s nonviolent strategies has been criticized for being selectively applied, which may simplify their complex theoretical and political frameworks.
• Insufficient Engagement with Contemporary Feminist Theory
  • Critics suggest that the essay does not engage deeply with evolving feminist theories, particularly transnational feminism, which might have provided a more dynamic lens for analyzing postcolonial women’s texts.
• Reliance on Existing Western Academic Frameworks
  • Although the text advocates for resisting Eurocentric models, some argue that it still operates within the confines of Western literary theory and academic discourse, limiting its ability to propose alternative theoretical paradigms.

Representative Quotations from “Decolonizing Culture: Toward a Theory for Postcolonial Women’s Texts” by Ketu H. Katrak with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “Decolonizing Culture: Toward a Theory for Postcolonial Women’s Texts” by Ketu H. Katrak

1. Katrak, Ketu H. “DECOLONIZING CULTURE: TOWARD A THEORY FOR POSTCOLONIAL WOMEN’S TEXTS.” Modern Fiction Studies, vol. 35, no. 1, 1989, pp. 157–79. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26282988. Accessed 19 Jan. 2025.
2. Kim, Sue J. “Introduction: Decolonizing Narrative Theory.” Journal of Narrative Theory, vol. 42, no. 3, 2012, pp. 233–47. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24484772. Accessed 19 Jan. 2025.
3. Go, Julian. “For a Postcolonial Sociology.” Theory and Society, vol. 42, no. 1, 2013, pp. 25–55. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23362893. Accessed 19 Jan. 2025.
4. De, Esha Niyogi. “Decolonizing Universality: Postcolonial Theory and the Quandary of Ethical Agency.” Diacritics, vol. 32, no. 2, 2002, pp. 42–59. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1566286. Accessed 19 Jan. 2025.
5. Nichols, Jennifer J. “‘Poor Visitor’: Mobility as/of Voice in Jamaica Kincaid’s ‘Lucy.'” MELUS, vol. 34, no. 4, 2009, pp. 187–207. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20618106. Accessed 19 Jan. 2025.