I have been asked this question several times. My answer was (more or less) that there is no real difference concerning the theoretical background - it is more about the geographical place, where the different ways of thinking were developed. The decolonial branch is Latin-american, closely tied to the "Grupo Modernidad/Decolonialidad" (even if it does not exist, as its members claim) around people such as Mignolo or Quijano. The postcolonial branch is older and has been developed in India and/or by Indians, tied to groups such as the "Subaltern Studies Group". What do you say? Is post-colonial and decolonial thinking basically the same? Is the decolonial branch a copy, an adaptation of the Indian theories?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
@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
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Sociology