{"title":"非殖民化的潮流和知识非殖民化的危险","authors":"Leon Moosavi","doi":"10.1080/03906701.2020.1776919","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In recent years, ‘intellectual decolonisation’ has become so popular in the Global North that we can now speak of there being a ‘decolonial bandwagon’. This article identifies some of the common limitations that can be found in this growing field of intellectual decolonisation. First and foremost, it is suggested that intellectual decolonisation in the Global North may be characterised by Northerncentrism due to the way in which decolonial scholarship may ignore decolonial scholars from the Global South. In order to address this ‘decolonisation without decolonising’, this article offers an alternative genealogy of intellectual decolonisation by discussing some of the most important yet neglected decolonial theory from the Global South. Thereafter, five other common limitations which may appear in discussions about intellectual decolonisation are identified, which are: reducing intellectual decolonisation to a simple task; essentialising and appropriating the Global South; overlooking the multifaceted nature of marginalisation in academia; nativism; and tokenism. The objective of this article is to highlight common limitations which may be present in discussions about intellectual decolonisation so as to provide a warning that some manifestations of intellectual decolonisation may not only be inadequate but may even reinscribe coloniality.","PeriodicalId":46079,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Sociology-Revue Internationale de Sociologie","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"104","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The decolonial bandwagon and the dangers of intellectual decolonisation\",\"authors\":\"Leon Moosavi\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/03906701.2020.1776919\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In recent years, ‘intellectual decolonisation’ has become so popular in the Global North that we can now speak of there being a ‘decolonial bandwagon’. This article identifies some of the common limitations that can be found in this growing field of intellectual decolonisation. First and foremost, it is suggested that intellectual decolonisation in the Global North may be characterised by Northerncentrism due to the way in which decolonial scholarship may ignore decolonial scholars from the Global South. In order to address this ‘decolonisation without decolonising’, this article offers an alternative genealogy of intellectual decolonisation by discussing some of the most important yet neglected decolonial theory from the Global South. Thereafter, five other common limitations which may appear in discussions about intellectual decolonisation are identified, which are: reducing intellectual decolonisation to a simple task; essentialising and appropriating the Global South; overlooking the multifaceted nature of marginalisation in academia; nativism; and tokenism. The objective of this article is to highlight common limitations which may be present in discussions about intellectual decolonisation so as to provide a warning that some manifestations of intellectual decolonisation may not only be inadequate but may even reinscribe coloniality.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46079,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Review of Sociology-Revue Internationale de Sociologie\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"104\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Review of Sociology-Revue Internationale de Sociologie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/03906701.2020.1776919\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Sociology-Revue Internationale de Sociologie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03906701.2020.1776919","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
The decolonial bandwagon and the dangers of intellectual decolonisation
ABSTRACT In recent years, ‘intellectual decolonisation’ has become so popular in the Global North that we can now speak of there being a ‘decolonial bandwagon’. This article identifies some of the common limitations that can be found in this growing field of intellectual decolonisation. First and foremost, it is suggested that intellectual decolonisation in the Global North may be characterised by Northerncentrism due to the way in which decolonial scholarship may ignore decolonial scholars from the Global South. In order to address this ‘decolonisation without decolonising’, this article offers an alternative genealogy of intellectual decolonisation by discussing some of the most important yet neglected decolonial theory from the Global South. Thereafter, five other common limitations which may appear in discussions about intellectual decolonisation are identified, which are: reducing intellectual decolonisation to a simple task; essentialising and appropriating the Global South; overlooking the multifaceted nature of marginalisation in academia; nativism; and tokenism. The objective of this article is to highlight common limitations which may be present in discussions about intellectual decolonisation so as to provide a warning that some manifestations of intellectual decolonisation may not only be inadequate but may even reinscribe coloniality.
期刊介绍:
International Review of Sociology is the oldest journal in the field of sociology, founded in 1893 by Ren Worms. Now the property of Rome University, its direction has been entrusted to the Faculty of Statistics. This choice is a deliberate one and falls into line with the traditional orientation of the journal as well as of the Institut International de Sociologie. The latter was the world"s first international academic organisation of sociology which started as an association of contributors to International Review of Sociology. Entrusting the journal to the Faculty of Statistics reinforces the view that sociology is not conceived apart from economics, history, demography, anthropology and social psychology.