非殖民化理论的一些缺陷

George Hull
{"title":"非殖民化理论的一些缺陷","authors":"George Hull","doi":"10.36615/thethinker.v89i4.691","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Decoloniality theory, with its signature concepts coloniality of power and coloniality of knowledge, initially emerged in Latin America. It has been developed further in southern Africa, where it now has significant influence in some universities. Decoloniality theory has to be distinguished from the broader endeavour of intellectual decolonization. The latter includes all intellectual efforts to free theory and ideology from distorting bias which is the effect of colonial or neocolonial power relations. Intellectual decolonization in this broader sense (e.g., in the writings of Anthony Appiah and Kwasi Wiredu) is truth-oriented: it aims to expose incorrect claims which are the result of bias, replacing them with correct theoretical conclusions. By contrast, contemporary decoloniality theory (e.g., in the writings of Walter Mignolo and Sabelo Ndlovu-Gatsheni) embraces several contentious metaphysical ideas, among which is rejection of the very possibility of universal truth. When decoloniality theory first emerged (in Aníbal Quijano’s innovative writings) out of the discipline of political economy, however, it exemplified the broader, truth-oriented sense of intellectual decolonization. Quijano, and later Ramón Grosfoguel, were concerned to expose several false theoretical claims in social science which are a legacy of Eurocentric bias. Here I argue that tracing the steps by which contemporary decoloniality theory developed from this starting point can reveal some of its principal shortcomings. I seek to show that several of the distinctive metaphysical ideas in contemporary decoloniality theory are founded on drastically undermotivated, hyperphilosophising inferences from empirical premises. Even considered purely on its own terms, I argue, contemporary decoloniality theory exhibits a number of weaknesses and contradictions.","PeriodicalId":34673,"journal":{"name":"The Thinker","volume":"48 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Some Pitfalls of Decoloniality Theory\",\"authors\":\"George Hull\",\"doi\":\"10.36615/thethinker.v89i4.691\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Decoloniality theory, with its signature concepts coloniality of power and coloniality of knowledge, initially emerged in Latin America. It has been developed further in southern Africa, where it now has significant influence in some universities. Decoloniality theory has to be distinguished from the broader endeavour of intellectual decolonization. The latter includes all intellectual efforts to free theory and ideology from distorting bias which is the effect of colonial or neocolonial power relations. Intellectual decolonization in this broader sense (e.g., in the writings of Anthony Appiah and Kwasi Wiredu) is truth-oriented: it aims to expose incorrect claims which are the result of bias, replacing them with correct theoretical conclusions. By contrast, contemporary decoloniality theory (e.g., in the writings of Walter Mignolo and Sabelo Ndlovu-Gatsheni) embraces several contentious metaphysical ideas, among which is rejection of the very possibility of universal truth. When decoloniality theory first emerged (in Aníbal Quijano’s innovative writings) out of the discipline of political economy, however, it exemplified the broader, truth-oriented sense of intellectual decolonization. Quijano, and later Ramón Grosfoguel, were concerned to expose several false theoretical claims in social science which are a legacy of Eurocentric bias. Here I argue that tracing the steps by which contemporary decoloniality theory developed from this starting point can reveal some of its principal shortcomings. I seek to show that several of the distinctive metaphysical ideas in contemporary decoloniality theory are founded on drastically undermotivated, hyperphilosophising inferences from empirical premises. Even considered purely on its own terms, I argue, contemporary decoloniality theory exhibits a number of weaknesses and contradictions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34673,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Thinker\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Thinker\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.36615/thethinker.v89i4.691\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Thinker","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36615/thethinker.v89i4.691","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

以权力殖民主义和知识殖民主义为标志性概念的非殖民化理论最初出现在拉丁美洲。它在非洲南部得到了进一步的发展,现在在一些大学里有很大的影响。非殖民化理论必须与更广泛的知识非殖民化努力区分开来。后者包括将理论和意识形态从殖民主义或新殖民主义权力关系的扭曲偏见中解放出来的所有智力努力。广义上的知识非殖民化(如Anthony Appiah和Kwasi Wiredu的著作)是以真理为导向的:它旨在揭露因偏见而产生的错误主张,用正确的理论结论取而代之。相比之下,当代的非殖民化理论(例如,在Walter Mignolo和Sabelo Ndlovu-Gatsheni的著作中)包含了几个有争议的形而上学思想,其中包括拒绝普遍真理的可能性。然而,当非殖民化理论首次从政治经济学学科中出现时(在Aníbal Quijano的创新著作中),它体现了更广泛的、以真理为导向的知识非殖民化意识。Quijano和后来的Ramón Grosfoguel,致力于揭露社会科学中一些错误的理论主张,这些主张是欧洲中心主义偏见的遗产。在此,我认为,追溯当代非殖民化理论从这一起点发展起来的步骤,可以揭示它的一些主要缺点。我试图表明,当代非殖民化理论中一些独特的形而上学思想是建立在从经验前提中完全缺乏动力的、超哲学化的推论之上的。我认为,即使纯粹从它自己的角度考虑,当代非殖民化理论也显示出许多弱点和矛盾。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Some Pitfalls of Decoloniality Theory
Decoloniality theory, with its signature concepts coloniality of power and coloniality of knowledge, initially emerged in Latin America. It has been developed further in southern Africa, where it now has significant influence in some universities. Decoloniality theory has to be distinguished from the broader endeavour of intellectual decolonization. The latter includes all intellectual efforts to free theory and ideology from distorting bias which is the effect of colonial or neocolonial power relations. Intellectual decolonization in this broader sense (e.g., in the writings of Anthony Appiah and Kwasi Wiredu) is truth-oriented: it aims to expose incorrect claims which are the result of bias, replacing them with correct theoretical conclusions. By contrast, contemporary decoloniality theory (e.g., in the writings of Walter Mignolo and Sabelo Ndlovu-Gatsheni) embraces several contentious metaphysical ideas, among which is rejection of the very possibility of universal truth. When decoloniality theory first emerged (in Aníbal Quijano’s innovative writings) out of the discipline of political economy, however, it exemplified the broader, truth-oriented sense of intellectual decolonization. Quijano, and later Ramón Grosfoguel, were concerned to expose several false theoretical claims in social science which are a legacy of Eurocentric bias. Here I argue that tracing the steps by which contemporary decoloniality theory developed from this starting point can reveal some of its principal shortcomings. I seek to show that several of the distinctive metaphysical ideas in contemporary decoloniality theory are founded on drastically undermotivated, hyperphilosophising inferences from empirical premises. Even considered purely on its own terms, I argue, contemporary decoloniality theory exhibits a number of weaknesses and contradictions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信