On Post-Colonialism

So I’m thinking of going back to school in January.

Which means that I have all these bureaucratic things to do, which is not good because bureaucracy kills people with ADHD and other mental illnesses daily. So it may well keep me from being able to go to school.

On the other hand, this gives me something to write about, as I read and react to lots of stuff I’m trying to wrap my head around while preparing to jump back into academia.

For example, I’m reading a lot of Critical Theory. Pretty much everyone studying at a high level in the Humanities (History, Philosophy, Literature, etc.), has to contend with. Forms of critical theory include critical race theory, postmoderist critical theory, and post-colonial theory.

Anyone who has done any reading of these things can attest to the fact that a lot of critical theory is pretty dense stuff. Over-long sentences are a common part of critical theory, and I often have forgotten the beginning by the time I reach the end. So I like to write responses to it was I read it to sort my brain out. 

Unfortunately, no pretty pictures for now. Just a lot of scribbling and half-formed thoughts.

 

Such as the following:

The history of Western academic discourse is one of oppositional ideas (history of
science, etc.).

Instead of trying to find the parts which are useful and relatable, one seeks to oppose and
disprove.

This is not always the case, but generally the exception is one of discipleship- other forms
of criticism seem to be distinctly oppositional. (see The Argument Culture (1998) by Deborah Tannen) 

It therefore seems contradictory to argue that indigenous forms of discourse tend to be
less oppositional- in effect, creating an indigenous versus Western dichotomy on the
one hand while arguing on the other hand that dichotomies are fundamentally a Western
construct and cannot be applied to indigenous forms of knowledge.

This is an example of the inherent problems in addressing indigenous knowledge in
an academic forum. It is not an impossible venture (to believe this would be a form
of essentialism), but it does create some difficulties. Essays and theses and academic
discourse generally have a very structured format, with their own basis of knowledge
and language, etc. This is not necessarily a negative description, as having a basis of
understanding is an important part of communication. However, many indigenous forms
of knowledge have to be modified, stretched, or trimmed to fit, awkwardly, into the set
format.

This awkwardness results in the same lack of clarity in language that has afflicted much
of post-structuralist thought- a form of in vitro translation and self-consciousness about
language that thwarts communication. To be blunt, how do you talk about how limited
and fraught Western language and ideas are, when you are using the same Western
languages and ideas as your only tools?

Do you invent words or compound expressions, as many post-structuralists have?

Do you use complicated and overlong sentence structure, as many post-structuralists (and
academics generally) do?

In order to write indigenous scholarship, can we use any non-indigenous language?

I would argue that this would be the ideal, since language is itself so fraught with cultural
significance.

Is it impossible to do otherwise? I certainly hope not. But it is inherently problematic.

Getting back to the idea of opposition as opposed to alliance, or dichotomy in dichotomy
with dialectics, or the binary versus the medicine wheel, it quickly becomes obvious how
metaphysical this discussion can become. The simple truth is that it is possible to be both
at the same time. It is possible to be in opposition in some areas, and allied in others. It
is possible that some things are dichotomous sometimes, but dialectical (interactive) at
other times. It is possible to have some black and white in the medicine wheel. (note how
immediately these binaries become political, fraught with histories of racism, etc)

In other words, there is a middle alternative to the opposition between opposition and
middle alternatives.

Is this illuminating, or obfuscating, or both at the same time?

Just because there is a broad bent towards cooperation does not mean that indigenous
ways of knowledge are absolutely and essentially cooperative, and never ever
confrontational.

Just because the ideal is alliance does not mean that opposition has no place.

This is something like Petronius’ Paradox: “Practice moderation in all things, including
moderation.”

So it is not necessarily a question of absolute truth versus relative truth. It is possible to
be both.