The following transcript is from a conference paper I presented in 2022 as part of the Making Diversity Interventions Count Annual Conference at the University of Braford. It is also an expansion of a previous paper I presented on decolonising zooarchaeology, and proposes a more institutional-wide approach to moving towards decolonisation.
Introduction
Since the 2020 revival of the Black Lives Matter movement, there has been a wave of institutional-level initiatives focused not only on equity, diversity, and inclusion, but also on decolonisation. Two years later, many of these initiatives have been shown to be simply performative in nature, prompting much critical discussion from academics and scholars in decolonial and post-colonial studies regarding the actualities of “decolonising” the university.
For example, despite the popularity of Tuck and Yang’s (2012) Decolonization is Not a Metaphor, the language associated with decolonial theory continues to be misused and co-opted to the point of being primarily metaphorical in nature. As such, decolonisation becomes a synonym for broader social justice movements in academia and is ultimately deprived of its original political and praxis-based orientation as resistance against colonisation (Pai 2021, Fúnez-Flores 2022).
Similarly, there has been much criticism with regards to the gradual decentring of decolonial work produced by theorists and scholars from the Global South. By ignoring the original historical contexts and traditions of Indigenous and African decolonial theory, those in the Global North have been able to, ironically, colonise decolonisation (Tuck and Yang 2012, Kumalo 2021 p. 163) and continue the colonial practice of extraction from the Global South (Grosfoguel 2013, Todd 2016), where research already suffers from devaluation due to inequitable practices of scholarship (Moosavi 2020).
These issues work cyclically, in that misuse of decolonial theory leads to its decoupling from its historical lineages, which in turn leads to further misuse and appropriation. Such degradation of decolonisation into something more “digestible” continues to move the concept further away from its radical roots as well, depriving it of its associated ethical and political commitments (le Grange et al. 2020, Opara 2021, Fúnez-Flores 2021a). Decolonisation is transformed into what Adebisi (2020) refers to as “tick-box exercises” that do little to disrupt “hierarchised epistemic hegemonies”, and instead act as what Tuck and Yang (2012, p.10) have referred to as “settler moves to innocence” that merely relieve settler-coloniser feelings of guilt and responsibility without actually conceding power or privilege.
Proposing a Framework of Action
Although it is vital that these critiques are seriously considered during the development of institutional-level decolonisation initiatives, there also is a sense of urgency for action within universities that has only intensified since 2020. As both Adebisi (2020) and Dhillon (2021) have both noted, while neoliberal institutions may be unable to truly decolonise, they can still cultivate environments that allow for robust discussion of colonialism and create the potentiality for decolonisation. Utilising these suggestions alongside Appleton’s (2019) recommendation that those who are not ready to commit to decolonial actions instead focus on planning on how they may do so in the future, I propose instead that we utilise a framework in which the aim is to move towards decolonisation. This framework was originally developed with regards to decolonial approaches to zooarchaeology (Fitzpatrick 2022) but has now been slightly expanded to consider the broader spectrum of institution-wide initiatives.
At one end of this framework are the performative forms of “decolonisation” that we are trying to avoid; this includes diversifying without structural change, misusing the terminology, unethical practices of citation and engaging with scholarship from the Global South, co-opting decolonial struggles for academic prestige, and producing unequal power dynamics. At the other end of this framework is decolonisation and what it would ideally entail for academia, although it is likely that we would ultimately need to move beyond the confines of our current institutions. This would include huge acts of transformation and change, such as the creation of new ways for ethical knowledge production, the dismantlement of all colonial institutions and their spheres of influence, and ultimately giving marginalised and colonised peoples autonomy over research related to culture and sovereignty over their colonised lands.
The main focus of this framework is found between these two ends, where we are avoiding performative actions and instead moving towards decolonisation using actions that are not themselves decolonial but still strive towards the values of decolonial practice. A major component of this framework would be in changing practices and structures to eliminate harmful power dynamics; this would involve reaffirming our positionality to the broader decolonial struggle, developing ways to use our resources as institutions in the Global North to support decolonial work in the Global South, and creating active and equitable partnership with marginalised and colonised peoples. In addition, the curriculum would need to be diversified and globalised, while also committing to the decentring of decolonial work situated in the Global North. Finally, accountability processes would need to be established by colonial institutions to make amends for past, present, and future harm through proactive restitution.
This framework is designed as a process because decolonisation itself is not a single event; rather, it is a complex and unsettling process of unlearning, self-reflecting, and relinquishing the powers and privileges that are obtained through colonial processes. Situated between ineffectual inaction and the complete dismantling of institutions, this framework of moving towards decolonisation encourages the maintenance of one’s positionality as an academic in the Global North while also providing ample space for developing the potentiality for decolonisation in the future.
Useful Action or Useless Semantics?
In proposing this framework, we must also consider its theoretical strengths and weaknesses in being useful to invoking change in the university. On one hand, the framework provides smaller, more actionable steps towards decolonisation while also allowing space to imagine decolonial futures that may expand beyond the confines of the university. In addition, this framework allows for acts of solidarity within our neoliberal institutions for decolonial actions occurring externally, encouraging those of us in the Global North to provide resources and support to work being done in the Global South. Ultimately, this framework echoes Adebisi (2020) in supporting the decolonisation of minds and scholars through changes in curriculum and practices, which may eventually support the development of mechanisms for decolonisation that breach the limitations of the university.
However, much of this is idealistic at best and highlights some of the weaknesses of this proposed framework. Any decolonial or decolonial-adjacent approach will ultimately be limited by the confines of the neoliberal university, which is already implicated in the “coloniality of power, knowledge, and being” (Fúnez-Flores 2021b, p.187). The risk of co-option and misuse also remains, as any decolonial theory produced through the academy ultimately feeds into what Fúnez-Flores refers to as a “political economy of ideas emanating from privileged epistemic, social, institutional, and geographic positions” (ibid, p. 193). There is also the notion that such a framework is too preoccupied with semantics, thus risking complacency and a lack of action due to its focus on curriculum and literature (Tuck and Yang 2012, p. 19).
Although the usefulness of such a framework is still unclear, I would argue that it at least highlights two important points of consideration for academics interested in decolonial approaches: that we must approach such work with honesty of intent and positionality, and that we must also accept the fact that our current institutions may inherently limit the work we attempt to do. While I would argue that we as academics in these institutions have a moral imperative to work towards decolonisation in the ways that we can, I would also stress that we must actively work against being used as tools of neo-colonialism through the appropriation of this work. Decolonisation is not a single event, but a process of struggle and if we are committed to the cause, we must also accept that it will require deep reflection of ourselves, of our work, and more importantly, of our place in the greater geopolitics of knowledge production and liberation.
References
Adebisi, F. (2020). Decolonisation is not about ticking a box: It must disrupt. University World News.
Appleton. N.S. (2019) Do Not ‘Decolonize’…if You’re Not Decolonizing: Progressive Language and Planning Beyond a Hollow Academic Rebranding. Critical Ethnic Studies.
Dhillon, S. (2021). An immanent critique of decolonisation projects. Philosophical Inquiry in Education, 28(3), 251-258.
Fitzpatrick, A. (2022) Gesturing Beyond Bones: Proposing a Decolonised Zooarchaeology. Approaches to Decolonising Research. Liverpool John Moores University.
Fúnez-Flores, J.I., (2021a). With such a pyramidal academic structure, it’s not surprising that concepts advanced by decolonial theorists in the Global South tend to be emptied of their ethical & political commitments once re-articulated in the Global North. Twitter. https://twitter.com/Jairo_I_Funez/status/1473663451696300036
Fúnez-Flores, J. I. (2021b). Toward a transgressive decolonial hermeneutics in activist education research. The Handbook of Critical Theoretical Research Methods in Education, 182–198. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429056963-12
Fúnez-Flores, J.I. (2022). I sometimes think the use of “decolonization is not metaphor” is paradoxically becoming a metaphor…. Twitter. https://twitter.com/Jairo_I_Funez/status/1526529719713546240
Grosfoguel, R. (2013). The structure of knowledge in westernized universities: Epistemic racism/sexism and the four genocides/epistemicides of the long 16th century. Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge, 11(1), 73.
Kumalo, S. H. (2021). Distinguishing between ontology and ‘decolonisation as praxis’. Tydskrif vir letterkunde, 58(1), 162-168.
le Grange, L., du Preez, P., Ramrathan, L., Blignaut, S. (2020). Decolonising the university curriculum or decolonial-washing? A multiple case study. Journal of Education 25–48. https://doi.org/10.17159/2520-9868/i80a02
Moosavi, L. (2020). The decolonial bandwagon and the dangers of intellectual decolonisation. International Review of Sociology, 30(2), 332-354.
Opara, I.N. (2021). It’s Time to Decolonize the Decolonization Movement. Speaking of Medicine and Health. URL https://speakingofmedicine.plos.org/2021/07/29/its-time-to-decolonize-the-decolonization-movement/ (accessed 2.8.22).
Pai, M. (2021). Decolonizing Global Health: A Moment To Reflect On A Movement. Forbes. URL https://www.forbes.com/sites/madhukarpai/2021/07/22/decolonizing-global-health-a-moment-to-reflect-on-a-movement/
Todd, Z. (2016) An Indigenous Feminist’s Take on the Ontological Turn: “Ontology” is Just Another Word for Colonialism. Journal of Historical Sociology, 29(1), pp. 4-22.
Tuck, E., Yang, K.W. (2012). Decolonization is Not a Metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education, and Society 1.
If you’re financially stable enough, why not donate to help out marginalised archaeologists in need via the Black Trowel Collective Microgrants? You can subscribe to their Patreon to become a monthly donor, or do a one-time donation via PayPal.
My work and independent research is supported almost entirely by the generosity of readers – if you’re interested in contributing a tiny bit, you can find my PayPal here.
animalarchaeology.com 