Critiquing coloniality, ‘epistemic violence’ and western hegemony in comparative education–the dangers of ahistoricism and positionality

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Claims regarding Western neo-colonial domination over scholarship in Comparative and International Education (CIE) have recently commanded much attention–for example in a 2017 special issue of the journal Comparative Education Review (CER) on the theme of ‘contesting coloniality.’ Stressing their marginal ‘positionality,’ the contributors to that special issue relate their critique to a narrative of ‘epistemic violence’ seen as underpinning ‘Western’ or ‘Northern’ hegemony in the CIE field and beyond. Adopting a historical perspective, I argue here that positing a dichotomy between a colonialist ‘Western modernity’ and a uniformly victimised ‘non-West’ is empirically unsustainable, and involves its advocates in propagating just the kind of essentialism and Eurocentrism that they condemn. I also argue that the centrality of ‘positionality’ and ‘opacity’ in postcolonialist or decolonial arguments, as expounded in the CER special issue, impedes meaningful and constructive scholarly dialogue. Scholarship in this vein threatens to divide the CIE field, undermine its wider credibility and distract from analysis of the pressing problems that confront us today. Comparativists need to balance critical scholarship concerning the implications of ‘colonialism’ with greater attention to the comparative study of its history.

Original languageEnglish
JournalComparative Education
DOIs
Publication statusAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

hegemony
comparative education
violence
Eurocentrism
education
colonial age
domination
credibility
modernity
dialogue
narrative
history

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Education

Cite this

@article{ccb361560f104028b145173c997fea34,
title = "Critiquing coloniality, ‘epistemic violence’ and western hegemony in comparative education–the dangers of ahistoricism and positionality",
abstract = "Claims regarding Western neo-colonial domination over scholarship in Comparative and International Education (CIE) have recently commanded much attention–for example in a 2017 special issue of the journal Comparative Education Review (CER) on the theme of ‘contesting coloniality.’ Stressing their marginal ‘positionality,’ the contributors to that special issue relate their critique to a narrative of ‘epistemic violence’ seen as underpinning ‘Western’ or ‘Northern’ hegemony in the CIE field and beyond. Adopting a historical perspective, I argue here that positing a dichotomy between a colonialist ‘Western modernity’ and a uniformly victimised ‘non-West’ is empirically unsustainable, and involves its advocates in propagating just the kind of essentialism and Eurocentrism that they condemn. I also argue that the centrality of ‘positionality’ and ‘opacity’ in postcolonialist or decolonial arguments, as expounded in the CER special issue, impedes meaningful and constructive scholarly dialogue. Scholarship in this vein threatens to divide the CIE field, undermine its wider credibility and distract from analysis of the pressing problems that confront us today. Comparativists need to balance critical scholarship concerning the implications of ‘colonialism’ with greater attention to the comparative study of its history.",
author = "Edward Vickers",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/03050068.2019.1665268",
language = "English",
journal = "Comparative Education",
issn = "0305-0068",
publisher = "Routledge",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Critiquing coloniality, ‘epistemic violence’ and western hegemony in comparative education–the dangers of ahistoricism and positionality

AU - Vickers, Edward

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Claims regarding Western neo-colonial domination over scholarship in Comparative and International Education (CIE) have recently commanded much attention–for example in a 2017 special issue of the journal Comparative Education Review (CER) on the theme of ‘contesting coloniality.’ Stressing their marginal ‘positionality,’ the contributors to that special issue relate their critique to a narrative of ‘epistemic violence’ seen as underpinning ‘Western’ or ‘Northern’ hegemony in the CIE field and beyond. Adopting a historical perspective, I argue here that positing a dichotomy between a colonialist ‘Western modernity’ and a uniformly victimised ‘non-West’ is empirically unsustainable, and involves its advocates in propagating just the kind of essentialism and Eurocentrism that they condemn. I also argue that the centrality of ‘positionality’ and ‘opacity’ in postcolonialist or decolonial arguments, as expounded in the CER special issue, impedes meaningful and constructive scholarly dialogue. Scholarship in this vein threatens to divide the CIE field, undermine its wider credibility and distract from analysis of the pressing problems that confront us today. Comparativists need to balance critical scholarship concerning the implications of ‘colonialism’ with greater attention to the comparative study of its history.

AB - Claims regarding Western neo-colonial domination over scholarship in Comparative and International Education (CIE) have recently commanded much attention–for example in a 2017 special issue of the journal Comparative Education Review (CER) on the theme of ‘contesting coloniality.’ Stressing their marginal ‘positionality,’ the contributors to that special issue relate their critique to a narrative of ‘epistemic violence’ seen as underpinning ‘Western’ or ‘Northern’ hegemony in the CIE field and beyond. Adopting a historical perspective, I argue here that positing a dichotomy between a colonialist ‘Western modernity’ and a uniformly victimised ‘non-West’ is empirically unsustainable, and involves its advocates in propagating just the kind of essentialism and Eurocentrism that they condemn. I also argue that the centrality of ‘positionality’ and ‘opacity’ in postcolonialist or decolonial arguments, as expounded in the CER special issue, impedes meaningful and constructive scholarly dialogue. Scholarship in this vein threatens to divide the CIE field, undermine its wider credibility and distract from analysis of the pressing problems that confront us today. Comparativists need to balance critical scholarship concerning the implications of ‘colonialism’ with greater attention to the comparative study of its history.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85073796651&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85073796651&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/03050068.2019.1665268

DO - 10.1080/03050068.2019.1665268

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85073796651

JO - Comparative Education

JF - Comparative Education

SN - 0305-0068

ER -