The obvious difference is that while both theories criticize colonial rule on the so-called "Third-World" countries, each theory emerged in different socio-historical contexts. But the more important difference is that Decolonial Theory takes on a more profound approach to Colonialism than Post-colonial Theory. Among other things, Decolonialism proposes that "Coloniality of power" (Quijano, 2000) did not end with Colonialism, that is to say,  the Modern capitalist World-system imposes a racial/ethnic classification of people around the world as a basis of its power structures, and that directly relates to the international division of labor where places like (what is now called) Latin-America take on the roll of exporting primary resources. This process goes on long after direct Imperial rule (political rule) is abolished.

Capitalism is viewed as a system that only came to exist thanks to the colonization of (what is now called) Latin-America and the exploitation of its natural resources that served as the material basis of Europe’s industrial revolution, and also thanks to the construction of an “otherness” different from the white European subject that came with colonization, interpreting capitalist power structures as a "heterachy", not like a base/superstructure system in classic Marxist Theory, nor like a cultural significance system, like in Post-structural/colonial Theory. Here, Decolonialism is influenced by, on one side, Latin-American Marxist Dependence Theory and World-system Theory, and, on the other, by Post-colonial/Post-structural discourse critique, while at the same time challenging them for being rooted in Cartesian dualism that draws a binary opposition between discourse/economy and subject/structure. Culture and political economy are always intertwined, one is not derived from the other (Castro-Gomez, 2007).

Decolonialism also proposes that Coloniality is "the other side of the coin” of the European Modenity proyect, that territories like what is now called Latin-America are not “premodern”, but rather have been included in that same Modernity proyect but in a “subalternized” (not sure if that’s the correct word for it in English) position. Modernity cannot exist without Coliniality, just like in Capitalism there cannot be a wealthy class of people without a simultaneously empoverished class, and that happens at both the national and international level.

From the critique of European Modernity from this position, emerges a critique of political, economic, social and cultural thought constructions influenced by European epistemic criteria and a call for the construction of a new epistemology "from the South". Post-colonial Studies are challenged by Decolonialism for maintaining European points of reference (the above mentioned Cartesian dualism) even though they also criticize Modernity, with authors like Santiago Castro-Gomez calling for the need to “decolonialize postcolonialism”.

There are a lot more things to say about the differences between Decolonialism and Postcolonialism (for example, Decolonialism's roll on the critique of Development Theory as a whole) but I think these are, more or less, the main elements.

PS: Rajamanickam's comment (with all due respect) is a very good example of what Decolonialism criticizes. It also shows a fair amount of ignorance of Latin-American history, or better yet, a very colonialized knowledge.

No difference

There are certainly great overlaps between postcolonial and decolonial thought but I am somewhat hesitant to call decoloniality an adaptation or even a "copy" of postcolonial models because this would imply that decolonial approaches lack originality. So basically, I'd say that postcolonial and decolonial theorists and / activists are on a common struggle, but this commonality should not deflect our attention away from the huge historical-geographical-religious-cultural etc differences that exist between the (de-)colonization of Latin America and that of India.

Miriam has succinctly said what I am about to take the liberty of expanding. Before an answer is attempted, it is pertinent to see the characteristics of 'postcolonial' and 'decolonial' models.

1. In the case of India, the coloniser saw himself as the part of the world of which the colony became 'the other'. The coloniser can not exist if the other did not exist. To prove the racial, cultural, linguistic superiority, the coloniser had to tacitly accept the existence of its equals in the oriental society. After accepting its existence, then he (coloniser) proceeded to negativise it so as to claim the superiority of his own. Evidence of this can be found abundantly in literary/historical and all such other works of the 17th to 19th century.

2. In the case of the decolonised world, the coloniser ab initio did not even consider the natives worthy of recognition as humans (however inferior) and proceeded to eliminate them from the face of the earth. There was nothing in their language, culture or practices that prompted them to consider the necessity of examining and declaring them inferior. Examples of such a thinking not only prevailed in South America but were also seen in the manner in which the European-Americans (pardon my categorisation) dealt with Red Indian natives. Till date, such prejudices continue to exist in North America as may be seen from occasional media reports.

3. To a large extent, the Church was also responsible for such attitudes since colonisers came to both the part of the Earth (Asia and Americas) from the same continent of Europe. The Papal Bull issued by Pope Nicholas in 1454 is significant because it believed that India was already subject to Christ and it just needed to be reclaimed!! Till now, in my readings I have not come across any such belief in Europe that considered the natives of Americas to considered worthy of any such reclamation.

Keeping the above in mind, we may draw an inference as to the difference between colonisation of the East (particularly India) and Americas. The existence of the first has always been acknowledged for centuries before and Europe simply could not live without the idea of India - cotton, silk, spices and the exotic tales of Inida by Arab merchants and the detailed accounts of Megasthenes and his predecessors/successors were close to European hearts and lives. The Second simply did not exist and when found was monopolised.

Trust this at least gives some answer to the question that merits volumes of exploration!!

The obvious difference is that while both theories criticize colonial rule on the so-called "Third-World" countries, each theory emerged in different socio-historical contexts. But the more important difference is that Decolonial Theory takes on a more profound approach to Colonialism than Post-colonial Theory. Among other things, Decolonialism proposes that "Coloniality of power" (Quijano, 2000) did not end with Colonialism, that is to say,  the Modern capitalist World-system imposes a racial/ethnic classification of people around the world as a basis of its power structures, and that directly relates to the international division of labor where places like (what is now called) Latin-America take on the roll of exporting primary resources. This process goes on long after direct Imperial rule (political rule) is abolished.

Capitalism is viewed as a system that only came to exist thanks to the colonization of (what is now called) Latin-America and the exploitation of its natural resources that served as the material basis of Europe’s industrial revolution, and also thanks to the construction of an “otherness” different from the white European subject that came with colonization, interpreting capitalist power structures as a "heterachy", not like a base/superstructure system in classic Marxist Theory, nor like a cultural significance system, like in Post-structural/colonial Theory. Here, Decolonialism is influenced by, on one side, Latin-American Marxist Dependence Theory and World-system Theory, and, on the other, by Post-colonial/Post-structural discourse critique, while at the same time challenging them for being rooted in Cartesian dualism that draws a binary opposition between discourse/economy and subject/structure. Culture and political economy are always intertwined, one is not derived from the other (Castro-Gomez, 2007).

Decolonialism also proposes that Coloniality is "the other side of the coin” of the European Modenity proyect, that territories like what is now called Latin-America are not “premodern”, but rather have been included in that same Modernity proyect but in a “subalternized” (not sure if that’s the correct word for it in English) position. Modernity cannot exist without Coliniality, just like in Capitalism there cannot be a wealthy class of people without a simultaneously empoverished class, and that happens at both the national and international level.

From the critique of European Modernity from this position, emerges a critique of political, economic, social and cultural thought constructions influenced by European epistemic criteria and a call for the construction of a new epistemology "from the South". Post-colonial Studies are challenged by Decolonialism for maintaining European points of reference (the above mentioned Cartesian dualism) even though they also criticize Modernity, with authors like Santiago Castro-Gomez calling for the need to “decolonialize postcolonialism”.

There are a lot more things to say about the differences between Decolonialism and Postcolonialism (for example, Decolonialism's roll on the critique of Development Theory as a whole) but I think these are, more or less, the main elements.

PS: Rajamanickam's comment (with all due respect) is a very good example of what Decolonialism criticizes. It also shows a fair amount of ignorance of Latin-American history, or better yet, a very colonialized knowledge.

I agree on a many of the things that have been said, especially regarding those convergences when both challenging the historical narratives emanating from Europe, contesting and unmasking the colonial ‘inventions’ of the self and other, and defy the colonial world order established by European empires without falling prey to radical fundamentalisms. The goal of making universality becoming accountable. Divergences are many. One, historical-theoretical differentiation. Decolonials pulling back the time horizon. Two, an epistemological differentiation. The decolonial school claims to have different ‘sources’ that are from modernity’s exteriority. This idea of ‘from without’ is also presented in Dussel’s work in comparison to post-modernist and post-colonials not really ‘transcending’ but remaining as the last stage of Western modernity. Three, in the case of the decolonial school, there is no ‘the’ decolonial school, since it is a convergent and heterogeneous body of thoughts. Using ‘the’ school becomes assort of co-opted school by the colonial/universalist approach according to Grosofoguel.

Despite these divergences, I would add that FANON is a really key-BRIDGE! author to see convergences. One can pick Maldonado-Torres or Grosfoguel from Decolonials of Latin-America, and Achille Mbembe from Postcolonials in Africa, and there are thousands of similarities when they are articulating Fanon’s thoughts.

They are just two sides of the same coin.

See Mignolo's Introduction to Cultural Studies Vol 21, Issue 2-3, 2007. I agree that FANON is the link. In my own view it is the rediscovery of Fanon especially by postcolonial IR scholars that has made a big difference. These scholars place heavy emphasis on race and global power. 

While postcolonial and decolonial theory overlap, the two are certainly not the same. I will send you a comprehensive paper that shows fundamental distinctions between the two.

Prof. Moyo: If you could please make that document available to everyone, it would be very apreciated. 

They are two different terms. I will try to paraphrase.

Postcolonialism explores issues that happen after colonialism but fail to realise that colonialism still exist in every sphere of life, including, academics, economic, religion, etcetera. Postcolonialism fails to acknowledge the fact that knowledge should be determined based on a locus of enunciation. A term coined by Mignolo (2007), Locus of enunciation means to think from where you are located. Decoloniality on the other hand proffers that coloniality still exist and it survives colonialism, while postcolonialism directly queries issues such as hybridity, class, order, the other, or colour domination. Decoloniality proposes that colonialism performed much evil than class or hybridity, and termed the aftermath of colonialism as coloniality. In simple term, coloniality explores the violence that colonialism caused rather than direct criticism of colonialism which postcolonialism achieved. Decoloniality also criticises present day order where knowledge is still being dictated by the Euro-North academy. Decoloniality as a perspective shows that the violence in excolonised world caused by colonialism still exist and it proposes three ways in which decoloniality can be understood. These three pillars of coloniality namely, coloniality of power, coloniality of knowledge, coloniality of being are not explained in postcolonialism. Coloniality of power, in simple term, means that the excolonised world is still suffering from the tenets of colonialism. For example, there will always be the zone of being and the zone of non-being. The alleged zone of being refers to Euro-North America. This is because they perceive everything that comes from this so-called zone as superior. On the other hand, the zone of non-being refers to the excolonies. The second concept, coloniality of knowledge, refers to how epistemology that emerges from the West is considered superior to those that spring up in the excolonies. Coloniality of knowledge focuses on 'teasing out epistemological issues, politics of knowledge generation, as well as questions of who generates which knowledge, and for what purpose’ (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2013:11). Ndlovu-Gatsheni opines that a typical African child begin a journey of alienation from their African context the very moment they step into the school, church and university door (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2013:10). And lastly, Coloniality of being assists in investigating how African humanity was questioned, as well as processes that contributed towards '“objectification”/ “thingification”/ “commodification” of Africans’ (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2013:12). Coloniality of being speaks of how African subjects were rearticulated according to the racialised stereotypes of otherness and how they are being made to feel inferior. Maldonado-Torres posits that ‘postcoloniality has left one of the stronger expressions of modernity/coloniality untouched’ (2008:382); although postcoloniality tends to oppose some tenets of colonialism, it still maintains the Eurocentric mentality. Postcolonialism does not understand modernity as causing violence, whereas decoloniality condemns modernity, still understanding it as coloniality. Decoloniality perceives modernity as the darker side of coloniality.

I think there are differences, both from an epistemological and ontological perspective, one does not ask, What is post-coloniality? and what is decoloniality?. But rather, taking a social ontology route (Searle, 2006), what can be observed as properties of both? In other words, what are the forms and mechanisms by which they two phenomenon manifest and express themselves?

I think decoloniality  using "atheism" is based on debunking colonialism- a contention aganist the old just as atheism is obsessed with the negation of existence and not non-existence. Using a Lennist term, I argue that it is reformist in nature. I will use Sub-Saharan African actors and the African diaspora as examples but in the Middle East and Northen Africa (MENA,actors like Abdul Nasser and Hassan Al- Tourabi would be interesting).  in this mold are people like scholars like Walter Rodney who lament about "How Europe under-developed Africa" and political practictioners like Mugabe who spent their time dining with the west and are now shouting at the west. In particular Mugabe who failed a transform a once thriving but elitist economy into a more democratic, inclusive and resilient economy that could schock his detractors but remains at the mercy of his detractors. Whilst the argument of decolonial thinkers are not necessarily wrong, they are not useful, there is no theory of change that underlines them. They are neither revolutionary nor evolutionary in perspective but static theories of victimisation that negates the power of causation in both individual and collective human agency as if things will or must always stay the same.

Whereas post-coloniality is based on individual and collective capability to influence the future, it is a progressive or a post modern perspective. Scholars like Cheikh Anta Diop (Senegalese)  and Lovemore Mbigi (Zimbabwean) fit into this mold. In political practice, people like Julius Nyerere, the founding president of Tanzania who build a monolithic society that shun institutionalisation of tribalism and Seretse Khama the founding president of Botswana would fit this mold. Particularly Khama, instead of shouting  at the British, he (an individual) and his country (the collective) decided to spend  their independence divident at becoming independent economically.

My key words decoloniality is static and reformist with an address in the past and post coloniality is progressive and evolutionary as a theory of change, to paraphrase Marx based on the believe that whilst we cannot choose circumstance through which history happened in the past, we change how the current circumstances and shape the future.

In summary, I think both philosophy of science taking Searle (2006) approach on social ontology and analytical sociology using mechanism based explanation (e.g Merton, 1948 cited in Hedström and Swedberg, 1998) could be useful to debunk decoloniality and post-coloniality to differentiate them.

Searle, J.R., 2006. Social ontology: Some basic principles. Anthropological theory, 6(1), pp.12-29.

Hedström, P. and Swedberg, R., 1998. Social mechanisms: An analytical approach to social theory. Cambridge University Press.

For me, the answer is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WUZTFIkb_4

Prof. Moyo, would also love to see that paper if you wouldn't mind sharing.

Me as well. Thank you in advance!

In terms of English language the two are different, in framework they are the same to a large extent

Hi everyone,

I am also interested in articles or paper dealing with the similarities and differences between postcolonial and decolonial theory. Any suggestions?

Hi David

You can read Professor Sithole Tendayi's doctoral thesis via this link

http://uir.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/14323

Thank you, Olutoba!

@Prof.Moyo, did you manage to share the paper? I need it. You (or anyone with it) can email it to [email protected]. My appreciation indvance.

A recently given lecture by Alana Lentin title "Decolonial Thought: A lecture for the Institute for Culture and Society Key Thinkers & Concepts series" has some interesting points related to this discussion. She writes that "Decolonizing approaches are useful because they focus not only on theoretical deconstructions of the colonial structures which many critics argue continue to shape relationships between states and peoples across the globe but also on the proposition of alternatives to them, sometimes through an appeal to the precolonial." And also highlights the need for an epistemic decolonial shift. She argues, that "unlike postcolonialism, decolonial thinkers like Mignolo are not calling for an analysis in terms of ‘neo’, ‘post’ or deconstructive colonialism which he says are ‘all changes within the same modern colonial epistemology’... Rather decolonising of the mind". The modernity/coloniality thread is also quite illustrative in her piece, but what I found most interesting, is putting the "basic human dignity" in the focus, and to be critical towards any western concepts (democracy or human rights), the "Eurocentric epistemologies" and to engage with Critical Border thinking.

A good grounding will be for you to access and immerse yourself with these three fundamental seminal texts:

1."The Colonizer and the Colonized" by phiosopher Albert Memi and

2." A Dying Colonialism" by the revolutionary psychiatrist Frantz Fanon and

3."The Post Colony" by philosopher Achille Mbembe

Confining the deference to geographical spaces is very undermining.

Decolonialisation is based on a different mindset. It starts from a point in time and in thought that has preceded colonisation. It is not concerned with unveiling colonial practices/legacies as it is with post colonialism, but rather it aims at freeing the colonised mind from epistemology profoundly affected by the history of colonisation.

Its objective is to not only legitimise an alternative view of the world free from colonial histories, but one that identifies and benefits from a world suppressed and neglected under centuries of colonial practice.

A decolonial approach does not go into a research project with predefined views, it explores the possible indigenous perspectives and makes them visible.

Check out my forthcoming work titled:

"Decolonization and its Psychoneurotic Discontents"

In my opinion, postcolonial and decolonial thinking has a significant difference in the genesis and, accordingly, mental consequences. Postcolonial thinking consists in the fact that in its deepest layers it is permeated by the cultural layer of the metropolis and in modern (postcolonial) conditions, the style of thinking that was characteristic of the colonial period is still preserved. Decolonial thinking is a return to the colonial style of thinking. Here, on the contrary, in the deep layers, a pre-colonial style of thinking is observed, and in the current layers - a new (superficial) colonial cultural layer. It may be possible to speak in this sense of neocolonial thinking, which develops in independent communities, which, however, are greatly influenced by more developed cultures.

so Dr. Vitaly,what in your opinion are the essential ingredients of what you term a "more developed culture?"

It will depend on which theory you have in mind when you speak about post or de colonial...

I think both prefixes are the play of history.(History which is never fixed in its terminology)

colonialism, post colonialism and decolonialsim do not exist and never had been.

If we say colonialism is the rule of Great Britain over Third world countries , we might not be consistent in our claims. America is not a third world but had been a colony. Muslims in Spain had been colonial but lost their rule. Can such a power be called colonial which in its end loses its rule and power over its " subjects"?

Now, post colonial, how many disguised babies of post colonialism are still circumferential around the world i.e. globalization, cultural hegemony and the noise of modern technology. if all these are the oppressive structures and invisibly operative in the world, there is no need to add prefix post with colonialism. concurrently, there is no need to celebrate post coloniality. De-colonialism is abrogation to the values of " masters" which is impossible as "masters" affects unconscious of oppressed for centuries i.e. white supremacy is still prevailing.

Does really the Third World refers to the countries powerless and without resources? . if so,the incident of 9/11 becomes miracle and perpetrators of third world prove innocent.

colonialism is more a desire to rule other and De-colonialism is a strategy to counter this desire. colonialism and de-colonialism encounter each other. complex power relations and relativity had been the rule the world.

The main difference is each theory emerged in different socio-historical contexts.

Familiarise yourself with the seminal work of one of worlds greatest writer

Ngugi W'Athiongo " Decolonizing the Mind"

not only the "first generation" after that most ravageuos,the most psycho-/religo-cultural damages and corrosive effects]on humans of colonialization but the several generations and even those generations yet unborn

Darder 2019 and Liegh Patel 2016 work on decolonizing research shed light on understanding the differnece between the two.

every human origin particularly those of the south/south regional domicility suffer every minute from the existential rut on the residuals of colonization and decolonization discontents

I find converations about Edward Said’s work missing from this conversation even though his work is foundational in the Orientalism branch of postcolonial theory. There axilogical differences between postcolonial theory and decolonial theory. These theories complement each other. Also, neither of which assume that colonialism has ended. Postcolonialism cannot be seen as a time-line like post-modernism or post-structuralism...etc at least from ans Edward Said school of thought perspective.

in my opion, `postcolonial suggest a certain attachement to the concept of colonization. it means we can accept that the present of the coloniser in the colonised territory is not predominant anymore but that the people and the way the understand and manage theirselves is still linked to the perception and the discourse made by the coloniser.

This question might need a major academic conference to effectively deal with it. But as a scholar of colonialism in Africa, my personnel observation is that there is no difference between colonial and post colonial thinking in Africa. Most Africans have a continuation process and have not waked up from the colonial era.

from my point of view, although it depends on each author, decolonial refers to a critical review process in order to deconstruct the concepts and the colonial era. Post-colonial refers to what remains after a colonization process.

في نظري ان الكولونيالية هي فكرة غربية جاءت مع الاستعمار الفرنسي والانجليزي والاسباني والهولندي والايطالي والالماني للقارة الافريقية والاسيوية والامريكا الجنوبية ، والمفهوم الثاني ضد الكولونيالية هو مفهوم جديد اسسته منظمات لتدافع عن مواقفها بهذا المفهوم ضد الكولونيالية الجديدة وشكرا

I think post-colonial thinking refers to the attitudes and the structures that represent and sustain such attitudes in the colonised though may be presented in different forms by the political or aristocratic class to maintain the statue quo after colonialism while de-colonial thinking is a system that tends to restructure the internalised colonial culture to indigenous way of life to reflect the totality of the people in question.

the difference in simple words is, post colonial thinks the process of decolonization were naturally and the decolonial thinks that, that process were artificial and planted by a plan.

Post colonial theory and praxis includes exorcising the colonially oppressive names by our colonizers to our natural nation ally identifiables

"Postcolonial" indicates "after the colonization" and "postcolonialism" suggests the "postcolonialist theory," which is highly critical of the colonization process.

I have found this thread very interesting, with its multiple perspectives and various nuanced understanding of these two terms. Over time, I have come to understand the difference in this way: Postcolonial refers to a theoretical perspective that arose after the fall of colonialism and which looked at the effects that colonial systems had and continue to have on the societies and people who were colonized as well as, to a lesser extent, the effect on on the perpetrators (see Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism). Postcolonialism as a perspective of critique aims to gain a deeper understanding of the systems involved. Decolonial, on the other hand, takes into account postcolonial thinking and is aimed at political action to dismantle lingering colonial structures and thinking. Hence, one could conduct research using a postcolonial theoretical lens to interpret decolonial policies and activities.

I have not read through responses yet but wanted to chime in. From this side of the Atlantic...post-colonial would philosophically be considered after colonization and the resulting theory. Whereas decolonial, I would interpret, as a deconstruction of theory, breaking it down and conducting a comparative study. Now, what do the other responses say....???

Post colonial praxis engages us in the deconstruction,detoxification and dissambling the cultural bomb that was intentionally planned by the marauding imperialists.It requires us to exorcise that existentential nueroticisms that visits and eats us up us colonized eaily in our sleeps and wakesvry dayd

"Post-colonial" refers to the historical period that falls after an imperial colony has achieved independence from the empire that subjugated the indigenous natives.

"De-colonize" refers to the action whereby imperial forces take their leave from the colony they have been occupying and exploiting.

Probably the easiest way of explaining this is to focus on the idea of coloniality (as opposed to colonialism). Much of de-colonial lit makes a point to demonstrate how national independence movements and other "post-" colonial events are still operating by and furthering colonial logic. Many de-colonial theorists also situate the encounter with/colonization of America as laying the groundwork for subsequent acts of European colonization in Africa, Mid East, and Asia. Post-colonial lit coming out of these other parts of the world assume a Eurocentrism afforded by the colonization of America. This also explains why modernity is often parsed differently depending on what phase of European colonization one is concerned with.

Postcolonial thinking may either be colonial thinking (embracing colonial mindset) or decolonial thinking (fighting colonial mindsets) taking place in a former colony.

Decolonial thinking challenges colonial thinking. May be evident in a colony (calling for all forms of decolonization, material, mental etc.). It may also be evident in a postcolony calling for mental decolonization.

My perspective is post-colonialism considers the lived experiences of humans in societies or disciplinary domains after the legal minimisation of some colonial societies.

Decoloniality, on the other hand, is the deliberate attempt to reverse social injustices and inequalities which generated slavery, settlerism and apartheid practices across the globe.

In higher education decolonisation entails de-centering western epistemologies from the curriculum and implementing epistemic plurality to reflect human diversity.

Oscar Eybers --you are spot on "in higher education decolonization entails decentering western epistemologies from the curiculum and implementing epistemic plurality to reflect human diversity" I would add to give humans that very much needed fresh unadulterated air and restore humanity

I would just ask if you also consider the Balkan countries as "colonial" from the point of view of the past and of the present/recent global imperialistic logic and practices (USA and the European Union)? I certainly do so!!!

Antoanela Petkovska, this article may interest you: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09502380601162571

I think that they share but a tenuous link but at the same time intertwined. Whereas post colonial thinking can be. said to be concerned with readings and writings about the aftermaths of comical encounter both in areas of hybridity, alienation, political instability and the rest. Decolonialism, on the other hand, concerns itself with the the writings of the havoc done on Africans by the colonial masters. While the former focuses more on Africans after their colonial encounter, the former deals with precolonial experience, (the Westerners still in their midst), the I'll treatment of Africans by the colonizers.

The two concepts of post colonial and decolonial are co-terminus. While post colonial especially applied to writings evolve from different countries experiences after their independence from their colonial masters, such writings capture the ugly, hazardous and bitter experiences of the colonised while also capturing the blind imitation of the colonisers way of life by the colonised. Be that as it may, time and contexts are of the essence in the divergence or convergence between post-colonised and decolonised. Even in the 21st century, any writings that deconstruct colonial theories and contextualize theories in the sociocultural milieus of a people thereby bringing about a paradigm shift from colonial is taken to be decolonised and post-colonised.

Please read 1) Chinweizu et al. Towards the Decolonization of African Literature (London: KPI, 1985). 2) Stephen Eyeh (reseachgate). Literary Criticisms and Scholarship: The Role of African Critics.

Chinweizu is spot on with his text:Towards decolonization of African Literature:

I add : "Towards the Decolonization of African violently Imposed and imperial Religions" as my argument on the decolonization process.

I just published an article speaking precisely to this question: Article The politics of positionality: the difference between post-,...

Here is the abstract to the article:

This essay works at the intersection of two trends, one longstanding and one relatively more recent. First, it takes place against the background of the overwhelming influence that the category of ‘identity’ exercises on both contemporary knowledge production and political practice. Second, it responds to what has been called the ‘decolonial turn’ in theory. We compare the work of Gayatri Spivak, Aijaz Ahmad, and Walter Mignolo in terms of the following question: What kind of reflexive method do they deploy in response to their recognition of the politics of knowledge production, that is, the existence of a relationship between social position and epistemic position? We then develop a novel distinction between post-colonial, anti-colonial, and de-colonial perspectives, one based not on backward-looking intellectual genealogies but on forward-looking political practices.

///

I am happy to discuss further how we make these distinctions. Feel free to email me--my contact information can be found on my website: https://benjaminpdavis.com.

Decolonial thinking is more concerned with coloniality, its expansion, power structure and administration and aims at the deconstruction of it all. Decolonial efforts start at the onset of colonization in the form of constant resistance to it (violent or not). Postcolonial theories include all the concerns of the decolonial modality, but they examine the aftermath of colonization, including the post-independence era and neocolonial efforts on the part of the ex-colonizer, such as monetary and commercial dependence of the ex-colonies. Whereas decolonial thought is often centers on the binary opposition of the colonizer and colonized, postcolonial theories introduce a more nuanced thinking that remove the binary discursive model from its recurring vicious circle and focuses on the mixture of elements of both participants, such as racial métissage and cultural hybridity, both in tangible and discursive forms. The methods used by decolonial thinking are confrontational given the antagonistic nature of its framework. Postcolonial thought, nevertheless, reflects a more subtle analysis of the anatomy of colonization and its aftermath.

I think the main difference between Latin American and Indian colonialism is that of so-called "settler" (Latin America) and "exploitative" colonization (India) whereby the English did not settle permanently and did not mix with the Natives but created a "buffer class" (Macaulay) to task them to manage the exploitation of the subcontinent. In Latin America, however, the Spaniards, the Portuguese (and to some extent, the French and the Dutch) settled permanently and vehemently imposed their religion (which was not done in India) and endeavored to make faithful Spanish subjects from the groups they considered worthy to do so - through education.

I also think that there is no real difference concerning the theoretical background

Colonial thinking remains the same, whether before or after colonialism, and the mentality of the colonial administration that does not accept neglecting tribal gains makes it think about new methods of the aforementioned ambitions.

You might be interested in Nikita Dhawan's insights on the topic. "Decolonial" acknowledges the contemporary quality of colonial structures, and the need to tackle them as such (colonial heritage), whereas "postcolonial" fails to acknowledge colonial structures, semiotics and content as still ongoing and present. Also, post-colonial might be interested in the dynamics and status quo that come after the full success of decolonizing processes.

These are distinct concepts. Postcolonial refers to a temporal analysis of the rupture of territorial domain relations when the state is established over a given spatiality. In fact, there is a central problem in this process. The question is whether we can deal with "colonialism" when relations are no longer established between metropolis and territory (colony), since domination occurs between state structures, for which the concept of imperialism would have greater explicative capacity. In turn, the colonial dimension gains a broader characteristic of domination, ideological, political, military, but not necessarily administrative, as the concept of colonial (metropolis-colony) demands. This fact makes us question its explanatory capacity in the context of geopolitical relations, above all.

On the other hand, the postcolonial, of a more chronological character, such as the overcoming of the colonial, does not make explicit at what levels this overcoming and/or rupture is established, from the point of view of structural power relations, being able to maintain the same forms of domination, but based on an internal bourgeoisie (Poulantzas), eliminating the national bourgeois project and maintaining a subordinate and dependent insertion in the world scene. It is observed that - in this field (post-colonial) - we are aligning with a scale of interstate relations. But it is not in this field that the decolonial concept works, that is, it wants to operate in the field of the rupture of micro-relations of power and of a new epistemological conception (sic) considering the effects of domination in relation to knowledge (even scientific knowledge). I particularly prefer authors who operate with the concept of anti-colonialism, because they deal with the structures that remain, even if we are no longer subordinated to colonial management models. These authors seek relative ruptures, but not only, they seek to break with the structures of class, of state power, but also incorporate gender, ethnicity and forms of knowledge (ethno-knowledge, popular knowledge, etc.). In this field are Frantz Fanon, Quijano, Paulo Freire, Nanci Fraser, Mariátegui, among others.

It is imperative to point out that "decolonial" is a "movement" and not an epistemological dimension. It rarely encompasses an "ontognosiological" understanding, although discursively they are close. It does not bring with it the understanding of the social being, but of the individualities and their performances (both of the subjects who analyze, and of the researchers themselves, who are extremely performatic). Often this posture is rooted in a certain epistemological pluralism, which produces a negation of method. Thus, conceptions of postmodern narratives are on the borderline with decolonial discourse.

It is a process of maturation. The concept of anti-colonialism presents greater methodological robustness and is sustained more conclusively, since it is an ideological/philosophical position that does not break with the dimension of the method. Where it seems that many "decolonialists" lose and incorporate a discourse of rupture, but do not put it more propositively.

In this process, in a very dangerous way, they embrace a discourse of counterpoint to "science" as if it were, a priori, geographical, white, hetero, homophobic, among others. In fact, science is a human construction and its appropriation, not its destruction, is what consolidates an effective rupture. This can be a misconception about "decolonial", and that it can walk, dangerously, towards anti-intellectualism, negationism, among other consequent conceptions. I am not saying that they are in this field, but they are close to the generalization of science, taking it, a priori, as domination. Paulo Freire has already stated that knowledge liberates. Thus, greater care is needed, especially when moving away from a revolutionary and merely discursive project about science and method. When they do not make clear the intentionalities (teleologies).

I think decolonial and postcolonial are both approaches that can be applied to analyse different context. I agree with some perspectives above that relate postcolonial more with a geographical analysis of the results of colonial process. Decolonial has been more related with the reivindication of possible remained "cultural elements". For the analysis of colonialism in Latin America I would like to recommend "La patria del criollo" of Severo Martínez Peláez and "Ch'ixinakax utxiwa. Una reflexion sobre practicas y discursos descolonizadores" of Silvia Rivera Cusicanqui (fair to mention she has made interesting critiques towards Mignolo).

Hi,

interesting notions and you could have more insights by watching this short video https://vimeo.com/502429701

about decolonial Art Curator, Alanna Lockward https://www.researchgate.net/search.Search.html?type=publication&query=Alanna%20Lockward

by semiotician Walter Mignolo

Article Aiesthesis Decolonial

For me the theorical background is the same for both expressions but with few differences due to the scope:

• post-colonial is relative to the period after colonial period in an area (situation vs. (geographical) context)
• where decolonial thinking is not relative only to colonial history and like explained in the video, opens on a new conception of aesthetics in a global & mondial perspective because Aesthetics and ART come from Europe. When you work on past African artifacts for example and on Art in new contexts and new cultures, you need to build new notions and concepts and shift the western Aesthetics (delinking or "Learning to unlearn").

Colonialism appears as structural heterogeneity, that is, it does not have the same configurations throughout the world. A particular difference is that "postcolonialism" indicates an overseas geographical configuration based on the configuration of global hegemonies through the creation of colonial settlements, but where power continues to be held in the colonial metropolis. The form of exercise of colonialism acquires another connotation in Latin America, this is exercised mainly by the National States themselves, as a continuity of the power structures that has been imposed by the Spanish colonialism on the continent, also called "internal colonialism" . Therefore, the decolonial point rather indicates the internal fracture of the National States, and the search for control of the internal borders where the other is located.

The significance of the prefix "post-" in "postcolonial" is a matter of contention. It is difficult to determine when colonialism begins and ends, and therefore to agree that "postcolonial" designates an era "after" colonialism has ended. Colonial history unfolds in overlapping phases: Spanish and Portuguese expansion begins in the 15th century; British, French, Dutch and German colonization unfold from between the 16th and 18th centuries until the independence movements of Asia, Africa and the Caribbean in the mid-twentieth century. It is also difficult to determine the postcolonial status of settler colonies such as Australia and Canada, or that of pre-colonial-era colonies such as Ireland. Neocolonialism and the effects of imperialism (i.e. the western attitudes that justify colonial practices), which persist even after the end of colonialism (i.e. the practice of securing colonies for economic gain), make it difficult to determine whether a colonizer's physical evacuation guarantees post-colonial status.

Evolution of the term

Before the term "postcolonial literature" gained currency, "commonwealth literature" was used to refer to writing in English from countries belonging to the British commonwealth. Even though the term included British literature, it was most commonly used for writing in English produced in British colonies. Scholars of commonwealth literature used the term to designate writing in English that dealt with colonialism's legacy. They advocated for its inclusion in literary curricula, hitherto dominated by the British canon. However, the succeeding generation of postcolonial critics, many of whom belonged to the post-structuralist philosophical tradition, took issue with the Commonwealth label for separating non-British writing from "English" literature produced in England. They also suggested that texts in this category had a short-sighted view of imperialism's impact.

Other terms used for the writing in English from former British colonies include terms that designate a national corpus of writing such as Australian or Canadian Literature; "English Literature Other than British and American", "New Literatures in English", "International Literature in English"; and "World Literatures". These have, however, been dismissed either as too vague or too inaccurate to represent the vast body of dynamic writing emerging from the colonies both during and after colonial rule. The term "colonial" and "postcolonial" continue to be used for writing emerging during and after colonial rule respectively.

The decolonial movement include diverse forms of critical theory, articulated by pluriversal forms of liberatory thinking that arise out of distinct situations. In its academic forms, it analyzes class distinctions, ethnic studies, gender studies, and area studies. It has been described as consisting of analytic (in the sense of semiotics) and practical “options confronting and delinking from [...] the colonial matrix of power"[2]:xxvii or from a "matrix of modernity" rooted in colonialism.[3][4] It considers colonialism "the underlying logic of the foundation and unfolding of Western civilization from the Renaissance to today," although this foundational interconnectedness is often downplayed (Mignolo 2011:2). This logic is commonly referred to as the colonial matrix of power or coloniality of power. Some have built upon decolonial theory by proposing Critical Indigenous Methodologies[5] for research.

Although formal and explicit colonization ended with the decolonization of the Americas during the eighteenth and nineteenth century and the decolonization of much of the Global South in the late twentieth century, its successors, Western imperialism and globalization perpetuate those inequalities. The colonial matrix of power produced social discrimination eventually variously codified as racial, ethnic, anthropological or national according to specific historic, social, and geographic contexts (Quijano 2007: 168). Decoloniality emerged as the colonial matrix of power was put into place during the 16th century.[citation needed] It is, in effect, a continuing confrontation of, and delinking from, Eurocentrism (Quijano 2000: 542).

Decoloniality is synonymous with decolonial "thinking and doing", (Mignolo 2011:xxiv) and it questions or problematises the histories of power emerging from Europe. These histories underlie the logic of Western civilization (Quijano 2007: 168). Thus, decoloniality refers to analytic approaches and socioeconomic and political practices opposed to pillars of Western civilization: coloniality and modernity. This makes decoloniality both a political and epistemic project (Mignolo 2011: xxiv-xxiv).

Decoloniality has been called a form of "epistemic disobedience" (Mignolo 2011: 122-123), "epistemic de-linking" (Mignolo 2007: 450), and "epistemic reconstruction" (Quijano 2007: 176). In this sense, decolonial thinking is the recognition and implementation of a border gnosis or subaltern (Mignolo 2000: 88), a means of eliminating the provincial tendency to pretend that Western European modes of thinking are universal (Quijano 2000: 544). In less theoretical applications—such as movements for Indigenous autonomy​—decoloniality is considered a program of de-linking from contemporary legacies of coloniality (Mignolo 2007: 452), a response to needs unmet by the modern Rightist or Leftist governments, (Mignolo 2011: 217), or, most broadly, social movements in search of a “new humanity” (Mignolo 2011: 52) or the search for “social liberation from all power organized as inequality, discrimination, exploitation, and domination” (Quijano 2007: 178).

Decoloniality

Decoloniality or decolonialism is a school of thought used principally by an emerging Latin American movement which focuses on untangling the production of knowledge from a primarily Eurocentric episteme. It critiques the perceived universality of Western knowledge and the superiority of Western culture. Decolonial perspectives see this hegemony as the basis of Western imperialism.[1]:174

Decoloniality is often conflated with postcolonialism, decolonization, and postmodernism. However, decolonial theorists draw clear distinctions. Postcolonialism is often mainstreamed into general oppositional practices by "people of color", "Third World intellectuals", or ethnic groups (Mignolo 2000: 87). Decoloniality—as both an analytic and a programmatic approach—is said to move "away and beyond the post-colonial" because "post-colonialism criticism and theory is a project of scholarly transformation within the academy" (Mignolo 2007: 452).

This final point is debatable, as some postcolonial scholars consider postcolonial criticism and theory to be both an analytic (a scholarly, theoretical, and epistemic) project and a programmatic (a practical, political) stance (Said 1981: 8). This disagreement is an example of the ambiguity—"sometimes dangerous, sometimes confusing, and generally limited and unconsciously employed"—of the term "postcolonialism," which has been applied to analysis of colonial expansion and decolonization, in contexts such as Algeria, the 19th-century United States, and 19th-century Brazil (Mignolo 2007: 87).

Decolonial scholars consider the colonization of the Americas a precondition for postcolonial analysis. The seminal text of postcolonial studies, Orientalism by Edward Said, describes the nineteenth-century European invention of the Orient as a geographic region considered racially and culturally distinct from, and inferior to, Europe. However, without the European invention of the Americas in the sixteenth century, sometimes referred to as Occidentalism, the later invention of the Orient would have been impossible (Mignolo 2011: 56). This means that postcolonialism becomes problematic when applied to post-nineteenth-century Latin America (Mignolo 2007: 88).

The post-colonial approach, approach, concepts are those that take into account the derivatives of colonialism, i.e. socio-economic and institutional-political, cultural, etc. systems developing after the colonial era, in which specific effects of the colonial era can be found. On the other hand, the approach, decolonial conceptions are those in which the policy of reducing colonialism and its effects is applied.

Regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

I thought postcolonial as an adjective describe the phenomenon and decolonise as a verb transforms things that had been colonised.

Postcolonial deals with all manifestations of the colonizer/colonized paradigm whether it is anti-colonialist or colonialist. Decolonialism must be solely an anti-colonialist reading or production of texts.

I don't believe that 'postcolonial' is a term even relevant in the context of the continent colonially known as Australia. If, as suggested, it is about the social and political world after colonisation, and the colonial structures that create the 'norms', then that cannot fit in this context. Colonisation has not ended here. The government continues to 'acquire' our traditional lands when it suits them and the policy arena is rife with rhetoric-type policies designed to 'govern' and assimilate Aboriginal peoples. I prefer to ascribe to neocolonialism. It is every bit as insidious, but guised under contemporary terminology such as diversity. I'm sorry I haven't answered the question directly, but I saw a gap in the responses that I feel very strongly about.