No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
How to avoid the liaison dangereuse between post-colonialism and postmodernism
Abstract
Post-colonial theories present narratives of discontent based on resentment toward colonial exploitation and cultural hegemony. The substance matter of post-colonial narratives (their first-order argument) is sound. Post-colonial theories often rely on a post-modern philosophical argumentative structure (their second-order argument). The second-order argument is not able to support the first-order argument. In particular, the nihilist consequences of post-modernism make impossible the construction of a (post-colonial) discourse through which the discontent is transformed in a basis for a reasonable political action. The lack of such a discourse is a source of intellectual despair and predisposes to political fragmentation. Moreover, protest without arguments often coincides with violence. Within a liberal view of justice it is possible to represent post-colonialism as a critical stance.
... Liberalism and individualism are still prevalently a Western history and postcolonialism tends to be rather sceptical about them and more oriented towards some form of identity politics (Maffettone 2011). But what exactly is the relationship between the individual and communities in non-Western contexts? ...
Liberalism believes that individuals are endowed a priori with reason or at least agency and it is up to that reason and agency to make choices, commitments and so on. Communitarianism criticizes liberalism’s explicit and deliberate neglect of the self and insists that we attain a self and identity only through the effective recognition of significant others. However, personal autonomy does not seem to be a default position, neither reason nor community is going to provide it inevitably. Therefore, it is so important to go beyond the liberal–communitarian divide. This article is analysing various proposals in this direction, asks about the place of communities and the individual in times of populism and the pandemic and provides a global perspective on the liberal–communitarian debate.
This chapter discusses whose histories matter, what the purpose of history is, how representation is used in nation building, the role of knowledge and power, and how Indigenous communities resist dominant discourses of representation through decolonial processes. We will look at Malidoma Somé’s “Of Water and the Spirit” text through a Fanonian lens to understand and theorize what has been lost. The terms “knowledges” and “histories” refer to the multiplicities of past events, standpoints, and understandings of our lived reality that have been disputed and created by—and for—Indigenous and European settler communities. I argue that the use of history, representation, language, and power by European colonizers has dehumanized Indigenous communities by creating distorted myths and knowledge claims. Resistance to these distortions is crucial, and suggestions for decolonization are explored. Decolonization requires the re-centring of Indigenous knowledges through the reclaiming of history and healing of our individual and collective Siè.
The study of Eurocentrism has become a hallmark of postcolonial International Relations theories. Of particular concern in this literature has been the resilience of Eurocentrism despite conscious efforts to move towards a post-Eurocentric understanding of world politics. This study argues that while existing works have highlighted many of the reasons why Eurocentrism persists today, it has not been sufficiently identified and conceptualised. In particular, why some policy actors, who have a vested interest in moving beyond Eurocentrism, inadvertently reproduce Eurocentrism? This article proposes to distinguish between different types of inadvertent reproductions. In particular it highlights rhetorical critique, deconstruction, decentring and dehierarchising, as different ways to critique, inadvertently reproduce and partially modify Eurocentrism. To illustrate this situation, this article looks at Turkey's migration policies and documents how Turkish governing elites have openly claimed the need to upend the Eurocentric order, yet have reproduced it in practice.
In this chapter I explore the potentials of the Rawlsian idea of conjecture for presenting a native theory of political liberalism for post-Islamist Muslim-majority societies. Although this Rawlsian idea can play a key role in uniting political liberalism and post-Islamism into one coherent project, it has been almost completely neglected in the existing post-Islamism literature. While Rawls’s own treatment of conjecture was very brief, Ferrara and March have independently extended this idea to demonstrate politically liberal discourse’s ability to accommodate the concerns of highly conservative religious groups in affirming democratic hyperpluralism (Ferrara) or liberal citizenship (March). Both authors view conjecture as a particular justificatory tool to overcome moral conflict between liberal values and any comprehensive religious or secular doctrine, especially Islam. The chapter ends with a discussion on Soroush, Shabestari and Kadivar’s possible critical reactions to March’s Treatment of Islamic Jurisprudence.
The culture wars over homosexuality in the Middle East are studied here in the context of the theoretical debate on culture in International Relations and, more specifically, through a critical examination of postcolonial international theory. The paper argues that, although postcolonialism can offer a useful framework, it also has, in its poststructuralist variants, significant limitations in addressing the controversial issues surrounding homosexuality as cultural battleground in the Middle East. These limitations derive from an unconvincing interpretation of the relationship between the Middle East and modernity; and a problematic approach towards moral agency. The paper serves a dual purpose. Through the use of the empirical material, it furthers the debate within postcolonial international theory by bringing evidence to bear in support of its humanist or materialist strands. The theoretical discussion, in turn, by highlighting the intertwining of culture and power in the debates on homosexuality, strengthens the case for respecting homosexual rights in the Middle East region.
This paper distinguishes between the concepts of justification and legitimation with a view to offering a normative standard for global justice compatible with cultural pluralism. According to this distinction, justification is presented as an idealized, substantive and top-down enterprise rooted in the moral and metaphysical substrate of a specific culture. On the other hand, legitimation has a procedural and factual connotation and derives its strength from the success of some culturally independent but historically situated practice (bottom-up approach). Building on this distinction, I argue that justification and legitimation should be made complementary for the sake of cross-cultural dialogue.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.