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

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

Term/Concept	Definition	Key Points
Decolonization	The process of repatriating Indigenous land and life, dismantling settler colonial structures.	Decolonization is distinct from social justice projects; it is not a metaphor or synonym for other forms of liberation (p. 1).
Settler Colonialism	A structure, not an event, that aims to eliminate Indigenous peoples to claim their land.	Settler colonialism continuously disrupts Indigenous relationships with land and is foundational to settler nations (p. 5–6).
Settler Moves to Innocence	Strategies that settlers use to alleviate guilt while maintaining privileges and avoiding decolonization.	Includes settler nativism, adoption fantasies, colonial equivocation, conscientization, asterisking, and re-occupation (p. 10–27).
Settler Nativism	Claiming Indigenous ancestry to deflect accountability and establish innocence.	Often relies on fabricated or romanticized genealogical ties to Indigenous peoples (p. 10–12).
Adoption Fantasies	The romanticized narrative where settlers “adopt” Indigenous culture, land, or identity.	Depicts settlers as “worthy” stewards of Indigenous lands, erasing Indigenous sovereignty (p. 13–16).
Colonial Equivocation	The conflation of all oppressions as colonization, erasing the specificities of settler colonialism.	Asserts that “we are all colonized” to obscure settlers’ roles in Indigenous land dispossession (p. 17–19).
Conscientization	Raising critical consciousness, often used as a substitute for material actions like land return.	Focus on decolonizing the mind can delay or substitute for actual decolonization efforts (p. 20–22).
Asterisking Indigenous Peoples	The marginalization of Indigenous peoples by rendering them statistical outliers in research and discourse.	Represents Indigenous peoples as “at-risk” or insignificant, erasing their sovereignty and distinctiveness (p. 22–24).
Re-occupation	Movements like Occupy that reassert settler claims to Indigenous lands under the guise of justice.	Occupation rhetoric erases the prior claims of Indigenous peoples to land (p. 25–27).
Incommensurability	The acknowledgment that decolonization is fundamentally unsettling and cannot align with settler goals.	Decolonization disrupts settler futurity and prioritizes Indigenous sovereignty (p. 29–32).
Settler Futurity	The drive to sustain settler sovereignty, identities, and systems of power into the future.	Settler efforts, even progressive ones, often aim to reconcile without relinquishing land (p. 33).
Anthropocentric Property	The settler colonial belief in land as property and human dominion over nature.	Contrasts Indigenous views of land as relational and non-commodifiable (p. 6, p. 25).
Ethic of Incommensurability	Recognizing the irreconcilable differences between decolonization and other justice projects.	True solidarity must respect the sovereignty and distinctiveness of decolonization (p. 31).

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

Literary Work	Critique through “Decolonization is Not a Metaphor”	Relevant Concepts/References
James Fenimore Cooper’s The Last of the Mohicans	Depicts the trope of the “vanishing Indian,” where Indigenous characters like Uncas and Chingachgook conveniently die or fade into extinction, leaving the settler protagonist (Hawkeye) as the inheritor of the land. The narrative reinforces settler adoption fantasies and erases Indigenous sovereignty.	Settler adoption fantasies, “vanishing Indian” (p. 14–16).
Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass	Whitman’s celebration of the American landscape excludes acknowledgment of Indigenous sovereignty and centers a settler perspective, framing the land as a space to be cultivated and celebrated by settlers. This reflects the settler colonial worldview, which normalizes settler relationships to stolen land.	Settler nativism, land as property, erasure of Indigenous epistemologies (p. 10–12, 25).
Margaret Atwood’s Surfacing	Atwood’s narrative explores Canadian identity through a wilderness journey but does not acknowledge the settler-colonial context of the land or its theft from Indigenous peoples. The protagonist’s attempt to “return to nature” represents a form of playing Indian and appropriates Indigenous relationships to land without addressing sovereignty.	Playing Indian, settler appropriation of land, incommensurability (p. 10–12, 29).
Jon Krakauer’s Into the Wild	The protagonist, Chris McCandless, embodies settler fantasies of homesteading and “returning to nature” by occupying land with no acknowledgment of Indigenous histories or sovereignty. The narrative perpetuates the settler myth of “empty wilderness” as a space for personal transformation and settler futurity.	Re-occupation, erasure of Indigenous land claims, settler futurity (p. 25–26).

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

Quotation	Explanation
“Decolonization is not a metaphor for other things we want to do to improve our societies and schools.”	Tuck and Yang emphasize that decolonization should be understood as the material repatriation of Indigenous land and life, not as a stand-in for general social justice or educational reform goals.
“Decolonization specifically requires the repatriation of Indigenous land and life.”	The authors clarify that decolonization is not a symbolic gesture or ideological framework but a tangible process tied to sovereignty, land restitution, and Indigenous resurgence.
“When metaphor invades decolonization, it kills the very possibility of decolonization.”	The misuse of decolonization as a metaphor for unrelated social movements or reforms dilutes its transformative power and re-centers settler interests, undermining Indigenous struggles for sovereignty and land.
“The settler comes with the intention of making a new home on the land, a homemaking that insists on settler sovereignty over all things.”	This explains how settler colonialism differs from other forms of colonialism: settlers seek to permanently replace Indigenous populations, asserting dominance over the land and its resources.
“The absorption of decolonization by settler social justice frameworks is one way the settler, disturbed by her own settler status, tries to escape or contain the unbearable searchlight of complicity.”	The authors critique settler guilt and the tendency to co-opt decolonization as a way to avoid responsibility for ongoing colonialism, maintaining settler privilege.
“Solidarity is an uneasy, reserved, and unsettled matter that neither reconciles present grievances nor forecloses future conflict.”	The authors argue that meaningful solidarity must embrace the discomfort and complexities of incommensurable goals, resisting easy solutions or reconciliatory narratives that erase differences.
“Decolonization does not have a synonym.”	This highlights the specificity of decolonization, distinguishing it from other social justice projects like anti-racism, feminism, or environmentalism.
“The settler, if known by his actions and how he justifies them, sees himself as holding dominion over the earth and its flora and fauna.”	The settler colonial mindset frames the land and its inhabitants as commodities to be controlled and exploited, perpetuating ecological and social hierarchies.
“Reconciliation is about rescuing settler normalcy, about rescuing a settler future.”	The authors argue that reconciliation efforts often prioritize settler comfort and continuity rather than addressing Indigenous sovereignty and reparations, perpetuating colonial systems.
“Decolonization is not obliged to answer [settlers’] questions—it is not accountable to settlers, or settler futurity.”	Tuck and Yang stress that decolonization prioritizes Indigenous sovereignty and futures over settler anxieties about what decolonization will mean for them, rejecting settler-centered frameworks.

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.