Both decoloniality and postcolonialism have successfully challenged Western historical narratives and their theories have radical potential to unsettle knowledge production. Decoloniality emerged from South American authors that concerned themselves about European colonisation of American lands by Spanish and Portuguese empires, – as well as the relationship of coloniality and modern rationality – as the main historical event that shifted political, social and epistemological new [modern] world order. In this sense, Anibal Quijano, Walter Mignolo, Ramón Grosfoguel and Maria Lugonés can be considered some of the main exponents of decoloniality as a school of thought that overcomes postcolonialism.
Quijano points out that “the conquest of the lands that we now call Latin America began the constitution of a new world order, culminating five hundred years later, in global power covering the whole planet” (Bhambra, 2014:117) and its aftermaths can be explicitly and openly seen today around the world (Bhambra, 2014; Curiel, 2007). In this sense, modernity and colonialism cannot be separated and European self-realization is, as a matter of fact, constituted on other cultures. “Coloniality of power” – as a concept developed by Quijano – refers to domination logics and its connections with global capitalism, as well as knowledge production as a way to establish an ideological euro-centric hegemony. Within this concept, the space in which this power expresses itself is in the body: domination and exploitation – in one way or another - are put in practice within the limits of gender relations - in concepts such as sexual liberation, prostitution, traditional family organisation, racial division, etc. (Curiel, 2007). Therefore, Quijano establishes a relationship between social class structures and forms of labour exploitation, gender, sexuality and race conditions: all within one holistic concept [coloniality of power]. For instance, Castro-Gómez and Grosfoguel also collaborate in this idea affirming that “capitalism isn’t just an economic system and neither a cultural system, but a global power network integrated by economic, political and cultural processes that, in sum, maintain the whole system” (Medina Martín, 2013: 61). In addition, Quijano considers that eurocentrism in knowledge and ideology production is not an exclusive characteristic of Europeans o Western countries, but of all of those that are educated under its hegemony, including its power spheres and individuals around the globe. Coloniality of power, therefore, means understanding eurocentrism in social sciences as a colonial attitude, since peripheral knowledge has been excluded and ignored arguing that it was “pre-scientific” (Medina Martín, 2013).
Following this line of thought, Mignolo developed further Quijano’s work about the concept of “coloniality of power” through the conceptualization of “the colonial matrix of power [1]” which refers to the “combination of the rhetoric of modernity (progress, development, growth) and the logic of coloniality (poverty, misery and inequality)” (Bhambra, 2014:119) considered the main dynamic from which global inequalities emerge. For the author, the biggest “lie” – as he argues – is the belief that modernity is a step further from coloniality when, actually, modernity needs coloniality to reproduce (Medina Martín, 2013). What does this dynamic imply in knowledge production? To “decolonise knowledge” means identifying and highlighting sources of global inequality and recognising or giving credit to those knowledge practices and epistemologies that have been ignored because of this factor (Bhambra, 2014).
These authors argue that the main decolonisation processes have been incomplete: first, decolonisation processes were limited to the political and judicial independence of the peripheries; but the next one must be concerned with decolonisation of racial, sexual, gender, ethnic, economic and epistemic relationships. The world needs a full decolonisation process that finishes what the first process started - which maintained those relationships untouched – and cannot be limited only to legality or judiciary infrastructures, but a whole long-term process of knowledge shifting. This can only be accomplished through “heterarchy”[2] and challenging hierarchy; and that is the main task of decoloniality (Medina Martín, 2013). According to Gloria Anzaldúa, the “colonial wound” can only be overpassed through an epistemic disobedience breaking with the dichotomy “coloniality/modernity” and opening new discourses that go beyond the single European story (Medina Martín, 2013). Also, Grosfoguel proposes the necessity of a pluriversal thought, instead of a universal one (Medina Martín, 2013; Grosfoguel, 2011).
Grosfoguel, in this sense, defends three main points regarding decolonial epistemology. First, it needs to have a “broader canon of thought” than the Western one (even the ones in the Western left). Second, it needs to be based on “an abstract universal (…) but would have to be the result of the critical dialogue between diverse critical projects towards a pluriversal world” (Grosfoguel, 2011:6). Finally, the importance of taking into account “subalternized racial/ethnic/sexual spaces and bodies” from and with “perspectives/cosmologies/insights of critical thinkers from the Global South” (Grosfoguel, 2011:7). The author argues that the Eurocentric paradigm of “modernity/coloniality” and “capitalist/patriarchal” world system is what has been considered the most neutral, objective and scientific point of view. Nonetheless, peripheral feminism(s) brought important considerations related to this paradigm stating that “nobody escapes the class, sexual, gender, spiritual, linguistic, geographical and racial hierarchies” (Grosfoguel, 2011: 15).
To summarise, the brief introduction to decolonial theories presented here is just a short synthesis of how, why and what this epistemology is. Considering both dichotomies: modernity/coloniality and capitalism/patriarchy (or the colonial matrix of power) as main dynamics that structure the global “geopolitics of knowledge”, decolonising knowledge means to challenge this hegemonic epistemology. Thus, decoloniality refers to constant knowledge production processes for, from and with the “peripheries” to construct a plurality of “stories” (pluriversal and heterarchical) as an intersection of many social, economic, cultural, politics and sexual conditions. In this sense, authors from different feminism(s) brought and put on the table all these theoretical propositions with a clear emancipatory political project.
Decolonial feminism(s): proposals from the periphery and a critique to institutional feminism
Peripheral feminism genealogy such as black feminism, LGTB+, feminism and, especially, Chicana feminism and Islamic feminism have proposed a critical analysis highlighting the intersection[3] of classism, racism and heterosexual epistemology in order to decolonise knowledge, putting forward alternatives to capitalist/patriarchal structures – with the understanding that both dichotomies are basic elements that perpetuate colonialism and neoliberalism. The importance of sexualized, colonised and racialized bodies is central in their proposals since it is within “the body” – as a conception of space – where these inequalities are represented and expressed (Medina Martín, 2013).
Important contributions from decolonial feminism(s) introduced new epistemological and methodological proposals, as well as essential analysis such as intersectionality or the “epistemology of the borderlands” of Gloria Anzaldúa. Her text, “Borderlands” (1987) is an indispensable book to understand what it means to decolonise and it is especially important for the aim of this thesis, since it makes reference to the relationships between land and body: the impacts of patriarchy within women’s communities, tribe values, taboos and sexual challenges, homophobia… etc. The task of “overcoming the traditional silence” and what it means to be in “borderlands” – or, as she considers, the “intimate terrorism” – are all articulated under multiple oppressions (both from the outside and the inner-self), as she describes: “I want the freedom to carve and chisel my own face, to staunch the bleedings with ashes, to fashion my own gods out of entrails. And if going home is denied to me then I will have to stand and claim my own space, making a new culture with my own lumber, my own bricks and mortar and my own feminist architecture” (Anzaldúa, 1987: 1022). The author understands a “borderland” as “a vague and undetermined place created by the emotional residue of an unnatural boundary…a constant state of transition. Los atravesados live here…those who cross over, pass over, or go through the confines of the “normal” (Anzaldúa, 1987: 1021). Here it is interesting to highlight the concept of the “emotional residue of unnatural boundary” since it implies both dimensions of imposed limitations in many forms and shapes, from colonial impositions, capitalist, religious or heteropatriarchal reasons. The author defends that it is only when resistance acts are collective, they gain meaning, breaking isolations (Anzaldúa, 1987; Lugonés, 1992). In this sense, Chicana feminism established the “borderland” thought as a “trans-ontology” and what it means to be a “borderland” representing all kinds of divisions: of race, gender, class, sexuality…etc. It represents the space in which subordination or emancipation take place and the construction of identities as well as how geographic borders can be considered a metaphor of identity borders (Cantó, 2014; Medina Martin, 2013). As Maria Lugonés argued, “the civilizing transformation justified the colonisation of memory and people’s senses of self, of intersubjective relation, of their relation to the spirit world, to land, to the very fabric of their conception of reality, identity, and social, ecological and cosmological organisation”. (Lugonés, 2010:745). From Chicana feminism, to black, lesbian or Islamic feminism…etc: they all meet in these borders and it is these differences the ones that explain “cross-overs and pass-overs” with solidarity and coalitions.
From lesbian feminism and queer theory, decolonisation of the “gender” category is also one important concern within this current of thought. Maria Lugonés developed the idea that “polarized gender identities – masculinity and femininity – were imported and forced on colonized peoples through colonialism” and that in “gender dichotomized cosmology of Eurocentric modernity everyone is racialized; whereas in other parts of the world, race and gender are not the central axes which dominance can be exerted” (Dietze, 2014: 267). Therefore, the universalization of this concept established a power structure that was translated and well spread to the rest of world. According to Judith Butler, the concept of gender is imposed through patriarchal domination systems reproduced – unconsciously – with the active participation of women (Butler, 2007; Suárez, 2008). Butler argues that the hegemonic feminist idea that feminism needs to be funded on a universal “identity” of all women ignored completely internal and external differences in these social group which leads to the question about binarism – since it is apparently, the specific characteristic that all women share. This binarism – division between men and women that legitimizes heterosexual reproductive aims – ignores the intersection of other categories (other power relations that construct an “identity”). This author defends that neither unity or universalism of this “subject” (i.e. women) are useful dimensions for approaching reality and, therefore, “subject identity[4]” should not be the base for feminist theory (Butler, 2007).
Islamic feminism and Arab feminism also constructed interesting and extensive proposals. It is an attempt from Muslim believers to connect modernity and equality within the Islamic context, reinterpreting Qur’anic dogmas from an anti-patriarchal feminist perspective, since they strongly defend that within Qur’an’s verses, important tools for gender equality and social justice can be found (or ijtihad). These theorists consider that religion is just one factor that affects inequality and it is socioeconomic factors, as well as State policies, education and other institutions that influence it the most. Consequently, this inequality would exist with or without Islam and, for this reason, religion and feminism can be linked (Tohodi, 2008), discrediting those voices that argued about the ontological incompatibility between Islam and critical thought (Eddouada, 2008). Many modernization projects convinced Arab women that Islam was an obstacle to their liberation and, therefore, if one wanted to be a feminist or fight for feminist ideals needed to act from secular frameworks of thought (Hatem, 2013). All these ideas are highly challenged by Islamic feminism and it has an important presence not only in Arab countries but also in Muslim communities of women born or raised in Western regions. Important authors need to be highlighted such as Souad Eddouada, Asma Barlas, Renata Pepicelli, Saba Mahmood, Leila Agmad, Riffat Hassan, Ziba Mir Hosseini or Jouili and Amir-Moazami who theorized about the sense of self-responsibility and the importance of their own education in the religion (instead of through a mediator) to be able to re-interpret and reform Islam. Fatima Mernissi, for instance, is an essential author within this current of thought and women’s rights in Muslim communities (Kynsilehto, 2008). Religious identity shaped identity politics and patriarchal agendas in different ways – mainly during the 90s - and many Muslim women participated in these movements adapting new perspectives. Currently, the movement is extensive with another generation of interesting feminist scholars as well. Important progress has been taken in practical issues because of Islamic feminism proposals and socio-political activism, just for instance, the “Family Law” (2004) that reformed divorce in Morocco (Badran, 2008; Eddouada, 2008).
Mervat Hatem elaborates an important critique towards what she considers “the grand old men of Arab modernity” that represented national interests (or liberation, independence movements), since she considers that they aimed to pursue modernity – similarly to European illustration – ignoring gender, ethnic and class inequalities within Arab societies (Hatem, 2013). The author states that modernity and women’s rights are not an exclusively Western progress arguing that “the modern definition of women’s education, motherhood and domesticity occurred in a colonial context and was part of the goal of controlling the subject populations through their acceptance of the universality of the modernizing project and its definition of gender roles” (Hatem, 2013: 91). In addition, she also considers that after Arab states independence, policies for gender equality were only directed to upper and middle-class women as an excuse to cover their political authoritarianism (Hatem, 2013). However, it is important to acknowledge that nor Islamic feminism or secular feminism are two polarized postures since they share the same struggle and aims such as deconstructing the traditional patriarchy – backed by religious authorities – and respond to the colonialist concept of modernity. Without disqualifying their great achievements or their emancipatory power, as well as their scientific proposals, critiques from decolonial postures to hegemonic feminism articulate around the idea that – consciously or not – it fails to understand the difference between what is cultural and what is colonial.
All these currents of thought consider hegemonic feminist discourses to have an ethnocentric and Eurocentric bias when analysing other women and their own internal differences and varieties through a universalization process. For instance, feminist leaders in gender mainstreaming – institutionalised under international organisations such as the UN, IMF or the World Bank – encourage “gender mainstreaming policies” for the periphery from universal Western feminist proposals, ignoring, omitting or marginalizing “other” proposals – from poor, migrants, indigenous, lgtb+, Muslim, black women, etc., (Medina Martín, 2013)[5]”. Karina Bidaseca, for example, defends this idea arguing that “there’s a disturbing closeness between colonial discourses and some Western feminist leaders, that express themselves in “salvationist” terms throughout the Western model” (Media Martín, 2013: 58). The “rescue” logic and attitudes expressed in feminist discourses is what decolonial feminism criticises, as well as the fact that most of these feminists’ privileges come from the subordination of these “other” women caused by factors that go way beyond cultural differences – but economic, sexual, ethnic, etc. The feminist movement is not just one but many and what unifies them are not the categories, interpretations, ideologies or even epistemologies of different realities, but their fights for human dignity and women’s emancipation – that should never be left to elites nor masculine or feminine (Tohidi, 2008). At the same time, it is simplistic to draw Western feminism and peripheral feminism(s) as opposites or antagonistic poles – or even enemies -, but as a dialogue of critiques and contra-critiques in order to achieve an equality global societie(s).
[1]The arrival of a “European, capitalist, military, Christian, patriarchal, white, heterosexual, male to the Americas created a global hierarchy in time and space that perpetuated elements that exist today such as “an inter-state system of politico-military organisations controlled by males and colonial administrations”; “global racial/ethnic hierarchy that privileges European people over non-European”; “a gender hierarchy that privileges males over females and patriarchy forms of gender relations” ; “sexual hierarchy that privileges heterosexuals over homosexuals and lesbians”; “an ecological hierarchy where the Western conception of “nature” with its destruction of life is privileged considered superior over non-Western conceptions of the “ecology” such as Pachamama, Twhid or Tao” (Grosfoguel, 2011: 10).
[2] “Heterarchy may be defined as the relation of elements to one another when they are unranked or when they possess the potential for being ranked in a number of different ways (…). The focus on dynamics, flexibility of power relationships depending on social context and time (…) show(s) (…) places within a society where social change can originate. It provides a way to start developing models of internally generated social evolutionary change, rather than relying on factors such as trade, population growth or environmental change as the causal engines of change in equilibrium-based social systems.” (Stein,1998: 7).
[3] Theoretically, this concept is just provisional. They consider that the means (e.g., this concept) cannot be the end or aim, and avoid dogmatism in this space. It is only useful as long as it creates and makes possible new subjectivities and political possibilities (Medina Martín, 2013).
[4] In these sense, “gender is a complexity” and it is never complete in a specific point of time, since it is an open coalition of identitie(s) that exist or not according to their necessities or aims (Butler, 2007).
[5] Or as Eduardo Galeano would say, about “those who never came out in the picture. Expression referenced in his literary work: Galeano, E. (2010). Espejos/Mirrors: Una historia casi universal/Stories of Almost Everyone. Siglo XXI.
Commentaires