Post-Colonialism Free Thinkers Essay by Sadie Kiefer
Introduction
Throughout the dissection and understanding of the thinkers, Ashis Nandy, Adom Getachew, Steven Feierman, and Arturo Escobar, it is known that the thinkers/philosophers contributed much to the period after decolonization. For Nandy, his depiction of the Indian mindset and how untangling of the mind is essential to decolonization of said minds. To understand Getachews’ worldmaking concept, we must have a deeper theory of decolonization or rather the idea that comes from colonization; which adopts a collective and non-collective view to develop a positive/negative republic liberty. In Feierman’s argument, he states that we need to hear voices of the collective as we write histories. Involving the argument of Arturo Escobar states that, regarding change and development, people should be involved in said development because in terms of Western hegemony, the West will try to conclude that progress and poverty are up to the Western European leaders, when not all are aiming to be like the West. All thinkers’ arguments represent that of the under-represented and those affected by the implications of decolonization and therefore colonization itself.
Ashis Nandy
First we have Ashis Nandy, who argued the untangling of the mind is essential to equate to the free mind, where colonization isn’t further involved. The discussion Nandy has in his Intimate Enemy states that “untermensch” is in short racial inferiority which he draws is the reason Euro-centric rulers tend to take over many places that had been previously preoccupied (Nandy, 1988, p. 11). In addition, Nandy’s book states that the colonized mind, where the “West is now everywhere, within the West and outside,” shows just how much of a psychological toll colonizers take upon a people (Nandy, 1988, p. 11). There isn’t just rule over the temporal and geographic, but also the minds, therefore meaning that brainwash can be inferred from said text. Nandy presumes that brainwash can be inferred in the example of Ksatriya culture, where it was mentioned in the text that colonialism was seen as a “product of one’s own emasculation,” rather than colonialism being the central and indoctrinating issue (Nandy, 1988, p. 10). Within the racial inferiority portion of Nandy’s argument, he states how there is this “defeat in legitimate power politics”; which is why rulers of India can’t produce any empathy for the ruled (Nandy, 1988, p. 10). Further, they lack the morality to do so. In conclusion, Nandy aided in the fight to untangle the psychological rule over Indian minds, in order to bring awareness to colonialisms’ lack of empathy.
Adom Getachew
The contribution Getachew made to the period after decolonization was that world making takes a different lense when confronting the theory of decolonization; which adopts a collective or non-collective view to develop a positive or negative republic liberty. Meaning we must look at the issues of today’s modern decolonization with a broader lense that encapsulates rejecting a world without the influence of imperial expansion. Getachew expresses “anti-colonial worldmaking (as) envisioned (by) dispersing and delegating sovereignty beyond the nation-state" (Getachew, 2019, Introduction, p. 11-12). Sovereignty beyond the nation-state, which is made possible through rejecting “a world after it’s (Western Europe) own image,” or rather imperial expansion (Getachew, 2019, Introduction, p. 4). World makers (for example, Universal Union Committee for Negro Workers) sought to focus on “an anti-colonial critique” that stood in “solidarity (and)... (secured) a right to self-determination (when) imagining a New International Economic Order” (Getachew, 2019, Introduction, p. 5). This deeper theory of adopting a collective/non-collective, positive or negative republic liberty requires self-mastery; freedom from arbitrary interference; and an opportunity concept. In conclusion, this deeper theory assisted in the period after decolonization due to the nation-states rejecting the “domestic exercise of self-government" and helped solidify the idea of “an egalitarian world order” (Getachew, 2019, Introduction, p. 11).
Steven Feierman
In Steven Feierman’s Africa in History, he states the importance of lifting up voices as we write history. On page 40, Feierman explains how “African history was... ignored by... the United States, until relatively recently” (Feierman, 1995, p. 40). Before the late 1970’s there hadn’t been an accurate depiction of African history; actually it was seen as something to be dissolved. Feierman explains how traditional single-narrative, historical articles, are “drawn from Europe,” where the historian claims that the non-European is “abnormal or primitive” (Feierman, 1995, p. 48). Therefore, we as historians must be accurate in “do(ing) justice to local... regional and... international levels where different stories will capture the authenticity of history- especially in Africa, as Feierman states Feierman, 1995, p. 53). In accurate analysis of a culmination of his ideas, Feierman contributes tools and misconceptions of Africa to historians (post-colonization). He offers these as a guide, so that historians may be aware of privilege that Euro-centric historians obtain. Further, once aware, Feierman shows that there is importance in lifting up voices in history, for the sake of local regional and the international reader; for proper analyses of individual voices will ring true in history. In conclusion, Feierman’s contribution to the period after decolonization, calls us to encapsulate and lift up voices which are under represented, especially when it comes to writing our different histories.
Arturo Escobar
In Arturo Escobars’ Encountering Development, he states this idea of critique of Chilé. The critique or argument is that the idea of development should be a political goal and a metric of success. He also explains the idea of developmentalism, which was taking over the world after the Cold War, and was rooted within the history of European colonialism. In another breath, he explains how property to the colonizer, is something not needing any permission from anyone. Contradictorily, he explains how labor connects us to ownership of this acquisition. As long as we’re improving the land in our own terms (i.e., development), we can call it our own property. However, we have to get the property in question, to a certain stage, in order to be considered fully formed, and to accept/exercise our freedoms. Escobar describes the state of people’s lives, stating, “the fact that most people’s conditions not only did not improve, but deteriorated with the passing of time did not seem to bother most experts” (Escobar, 1995, Introduction, p.5). In another excerpt Escobar states that the imperial expansion of the modern West, creates a “marginalization and disqualification” of anyone or thing non-Western (Escobar, 1995, Introduction, p. 6). Escobar requires that we “transition... from the modern understanding of the world as universe, to the world as a “pluriverse”” (Escobar, 1995, 2012 Preface, p. 10). This requires an open ended concept that involves “ontological” and accurate capacities of thinking in terms of the world (Escobar, 1995, 2012 Preface, p. 10). Escobar contributed to the period after decolonization by setting an example of what it means to live a “pluriverse” and thus, by placing an emphasis on protecting the world or planet as we know it (also known as: “planetarization”) (Escobar, 1995, 2012 Preface, p. 10).
Conclusion
Understanding the thinkers from Parts 2-5 help us in the fight against injustices that happen all across the world. For Ashis Nandy, it was his words about the Ksatriya culture that rang true in “legitimate power politics,” and why rulers of India can’t produce any empathy for the ruled because they lack the morality to do so (Nandy, 1998, p. 10). He explained the importance of eliminating, via rejecting imperialism, the idea of brainwash and psychological control over one’s own mind. Rather than accepting “one’s own emasculation” (Nandy, 1998, p. 10). Nandy helping to untangle the illegitimate and psychological rule over Indian minds, in order to bring awareness to colonizers’ lack of empathy, is a roadmap for our success over rule and control. In Getachew’s, Worldmaking After Empire, shows us how vital it is to focus on our right to “self-determination (when) imagining a New International Economic Order” (Getachew, 2019, p. 5). A deeper theory of adopting our own image of how we want our world to look, rather than determining that we should just accept the world around us for what it is (after Western Europe’s expansion image). Afterall imperial expansion, is in short, as Nandy states, created with the racial inferiority aspect ingrained within itself. In short, Getachew assisted anti-colonial nation-states in rejecting the “exercise of self-government" and helped solidify the idea of “an egalitarian world order” (Getachew, 2019, p. 11). For Feierman, the importance of lifting up unheard voices when transcribing of history is a call to action for historians. African history, as Feierman states has been ignored by the United States, until recently, where it had been something to be dissolved. Feierman’s contribution to the period after decolonization is important because we can’t just overlook the efforts of many for the sake of status quo of Western European agenda. We must do justice to all levels, albeit local, regional and international, especially of Africa. He offers these ideas as a guide, so that historians don’t make the same intentional mistake that their Euro-centric counterparts have made. Therefore, we must lift up voices in history, for the sake of the reader, for proper analyses of individual voices that will ring true in history. As for Escobar, his contribution is important in taking ownership or at least linkage to our own property, through labor, which is what connects us to its’ ownership. We must accept and exercise these freedoms, in order to overcome that which confines us (the theoretical idea of ownership, which the West tries to uphold). Escobar requires that we “transition... from the modern understanding of the world as universe, to the world as a “pluriverse”; which requires an expanded mindset and theory of movement that involves ontological (and accurate) aptitudes in terms of the world (Escobar, 1995, 2012 Preface, p. 10). In his contributions, after the period of decolonization, Escobar lays out the idea of the pluriverse being something attainable, and thus, by placing an emphasis on protecting the world or planet as we know it, he also states “planetarization” can be possible as well. In conclusion, the four thinkers above, contributed much to the period after decolonization, which we could all learn from, and carry out in our daily lives, as the injustices of Euro-centric continue to withhold our resiliency, that will ultimately persevere.
Resources
1. Escobar, A. (1995). INTRODUCTION: DEVELOPMENT AND THE ANTHROPOLOGY OF MODERNITY. In Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World (STU-Student edition, pp. 3–20). Princeton University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7rtgw.5
2. FEIERMAN, S. (1995). Africa in History: The End of Universal Narratives. In G. Prakash (Ed.), After Colonialism: Imperial Histories and Postcolonial Displacements (pp. 40–65). Princeton University Press.
3. Getachew, Adom. Worldmaking after Empire: The Rise and Fall of Self-Determination, Princeton University Press (2019)
4. Nandy, Ashis. The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of Self Under Colonialism. E-book, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1988