Coloniality of knowledge
Author: Stefaniia Sidorova
Translation from Ukrainian: Galyna Kotliuk
Editor: Clemens Poole
The concept of the coloniality of knowledge was suggested by Aníbal Quijano [2] to describe how Euro- and Western-centric models of knowledge marginalized and replaced all other ways of knowing. The coloniality of knowledge affects how, where, by whom and what kind of knowledge is produced and legitimized today, and who is considered trustworthy and perceived as an expert. During the stage of their expansion, empires extracted the knowledge of conquered peoples, spread their own ideas about the world and ways of exploring it, and destroyed alternative forms of knowledge and imposing their own knowledge and power structures [3]. This is how the global coloniality of knowledge was created — today almost the whole world is forced to use the Western epistemological system. If the coloniality of knowledge is epistemic violence, then it can be opposed by epistemic resistance: in order to overcome the coloniality of knowledge, it is necessary to implement the project of epistemological decolonisation and deprovincialisation [4].
Characteristic features of the coloniality of knowledge are the inferiority complex of colonised communities, their intellectual and academic dependence on former colonisers, the internalisation of imperial narratives, the inability to, or struggle with, going beyond the framework of the dominant discourse, the absence of direct connections with the world not mediated by the metropolis, the lack of knowledge about their own history and culture, the impotence when imagining alternative world orders and worldviews, the destrution of means of expression (e.g., language), etc. Many of these features are typical in Ukraine. For example, even now a significant number of Ukrainians can access works of world literature only by the means of Russian translation, and know Russian culture better than their own, perceiving the Ukrainian language as inferior, etc. (see Colonial Erasure). An outstanding example of the coloniality of knowledge in Ukraine is the fact that, during the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian war, state-funded television programs continue to invite Russian experts because, for years, they have been — and sometimes still are — considered more credible than their Ukrainian counterparts [5].
Ukraine is situated at the borderline between Russian imperial knowledge and European modernity-coloniality-rationality [6]. The combination of these factors prevents Ukrainians from fully realizing that Ukraine was a colony. Thus, the belief in the myth of the cultural superiority of the West over the colonised nations has led many Ukrainians to the conclusion that metropolises are always more advanced than the people conquered by them. This belief, merged with the acknowledgement that Ukraine was no less culturally developed than the Russian Empire, as well as with the Russian narrative ofthe peace-loving nature of the Russian nation [7], led to the assumption that Ukraine could not have been a colony. This became a serious obstacle on the path toward Ukrainian epistemic emancipation.
After Ukraine became independent, epistemological decolonization did not fully begin. Only in 2015 the official decommunisation [8] campaign began. Although some public intellectuals associated the decommunisation laws [9] with the decolonial movement, for the most part decommunisation was not associated with decolonisation [10], and the laws were associated with the legacy of totalitarian regimes (Soviet and Nazi). This significantly limited the movement: for example, changing of toponyms exclusively affected Soviet, not imperial names [11]. Such a state of affairs testified either to a lack of awareness of the extent of imperial influence, or a reluctance to recognize it as foreign.
The full-scale war drew the attention of the wider public to the idea of decolonisation. In 2023, the law “On condemnation and prohibition of propaganda of Russian imperial policy in Ukraine and decolonisation of toponymys” was adopted, which demonstrates a qualitative change in the interpretation of history, and recognises the long-term consistent policies of the Principality of Moscow, the Russian Empire, the USSR, and the Russian Federation. At the same time, the legislation does not mention the status of Ukraine as a former colony. For many, the issue of the colonial nature of Ukrainian-Russian relations remains unresolved [12]. Derussification is a project that tries to overcome the consequences of colonialism without defining their colonial nature. Derussification processes seek to eradicate all forms of Russian influences — imperial or otherwise — but often fail to critically examine the consequences of other imperialist policies. As a result, various concepts circulate in Ukrainian discourses — decolonisation, decommunisation, derussification, and to a lesser extent desovietisation and deimperialisation. These terms serve to obscure rather than elucidate the colonialism of the past and the coloniality of the present. This terminological patchwork is indicative of the presence of the coloniality of knowledge, and its tendency to conceal itself.
The denial of the colonial status of Ukraine approaches the denial of the colonialism of the Russian state, or even the justification of imperialism as such. This not only prevents epistemological decolonisation, but also hinders the development of solidarity with other colonised nations. The unconscious coloniality of knowledge poses a risk of perpetuating imperial directions under the disguise of national narratives.
The concept of coloniality of knowledge was developed to explain the global hegemony of the Western system and worldview. It can be used to analyse the enduring impact of Russian imperialism on the culture and identity of Ukrainians, yet the issues it highlights extend beyond the Russian-Ukrainian war. The coloniality of knowledge also criticises many other concepts that currently appeal to Ukrainians: European values, European modernisation, Europeanisation of science and education, as well as a general orientation towards Europe. There is an urgent need to expose the global coloniality of knowledge and to recognise the connection between both imperial Western and Russian ways of thinking.
Endnotes
02. Aníbal Quijano, “Coloniality and Modernity/Rationality,” Cultural Studies 21, no. 2–3 (March 2007): 168–78.
03. For example, Ramon Grosfoguel explains the global domination of European patriarchal cognitive practices by four epistemicides/genocides of the long 16th century: the extermination of the Jews and Muslims of Al-Andalus, the extermination of the indigenous people of the Americas, the extermination of the black population in Africa, and the extermination of women in Europe. Typical for decolonial thinkers is also criticism of Cartesianism, the Enlightenment, and other European projects that imposed European epistemological systems on the colonised. Oksana Zabuzhko calls similar phenomena “eliticide”, Oleksa Tykhiy used the term “intellectual genocide”. See Ramón Grosfoguel, “The Structure of Knowledge in Westernized Universities. Epistemic Racism/Sexism and the Four Genocides/Epistemicides of the Long 16 Century,” Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge 11, no. 1 (2013): 73–90.; Walter D. Mignolo, “Epistemic Disobedience and the Decolonial Option: A Manifesto,” Transmodernity: Journal of Peripheral Cultural Production of the Luso-Hispanic World 1 (2011): 3–23. Олекса Тихий, “Думки Про Рідний Донецький Край,” Голос України, 1972, olexa.org.ua/tvory/tvor01.htm; Матіяш, Дзвенислава, trans., Український палімпсест: Оксана Забужко у розмові з Ізою Хруслінською, 2nd ed. (Київ: Видавничий дім “Комора,” 2023).
04. Sabelo Ndlovu-Gatsheni, “The Dynamics of Epistemological Decolonisation In the 21st Century: Towards Epistemic Freedom,” The Strategic Review for Southern Africa 40, no. 1 (December 22, 2020). Compare with Yuriy Shevelyov calling provincialism one of the three deadly sins of Ukraine: Юрій Шевельов, Триптих Про Призначення України, ed. Сергій Вакуленко and Вікторія Склярова (Харків: Права людини, 2012).
05. See research by the independent media outlet Teksty
06. Galyna Kotliuk, for example, analyses a distorted image of Ukraine and Ukrainian women, which was created due to the double colonial lens. See Galyna Kotliuk, “Colonization of Minds: Ukraine between Russian Colonialism and Western Orientalism,” Frontiers in Sociology 8 (October 30, 2023): 1206320.
07. Мирослав Шкандрій, В обіймах імперії. Література й імперський дискурс від наполеонівської до постколоніальної доби (Комубук, 2023).
08. Unofficially, decommunisation began with a grassroots all-Ukrainian initiative, which became known as the “leninopad” [the word derives from the last name “Lenin” and a Ukrainian word “padaty”, which means “to fall”. Trans.] See Serhii Plokhii, “Goodbye Lenin: A Memory Shift in Revolutionary Ukraine,” Digital Atlas of Ukraine. Ukrainian Research Institute Harvard University, accessed 19 February, 2024.
09. Law No. 2558 “On condemning the communist and National Socialist (Nazi) totalitarian regimes and prohibiting propaganda of their symbols”; Law No. 2538-1 “Law on the legal status and honoring the memory of fighters for Ukraine’s independence in the 20th century”; Law No. 2539 “On commemorating the victory over Nazism in the Second World War 1939–1945”; Law No. 2540 “On access to the archives of repressive bodies of the communist totalitarian regime 1917–1991”. Only the latter addressed a non-symbolic dimension.
10. See Микола Рябчук, “Декомунізація чи деколонізація? Що показали політичні дискусії з приводу ‘декомунізаційних’ законів?,” Наукові записки Інституту політичних і етнонаціональних досліджень ім. І. Ф. Кураса НАН України, no. 2 (2016): 104–17. Several examples can also be found here. On how artists perceive this white spot today, see “Artists are the Most Conscious Citizens”. Interview with Olha Balashova, Суспільне Культура, May 19, 2023, https://suspilne.media/culture/470519-hudozniki-ce-najsvidomisi-gromadani-intervu-z-olgou-balasovou/.
11. Erasing the presence of indigenous people from geographical and mental maps has long been a tactic of colonisers, the Russian Empire being no exception. Thus, renaming in the Crimea began already in 1783, when the city name Akyar was replaced by Sevastopol, and Aqmescit became Simferopol. The Russian authorities continue this process today.
12. According to the results of a survey by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology in January 2023, 64% of Ukrainians agree with the statement that Ukraine was a colony of the Russian Empire. The question of the colonialism of the USSR is even more controversial. At the same time, one of the most prominent Ukrainian historians recently denied the status of Ukraine as a colony “in the direct meaning of the word”, even during the time of the Russian Empire. See Ярослав Грицак, Нарис Історії України. Формування Модерної Нації ХІХ-ХХ Століття (Yakaboo Publishing, 2022), 144.
For further reference
Шкандрій, Мирослав. В обіймах імперії. Література й імперський дискурс від наполеонівської до постколоніальної доби. Комубук, 2023.
Dudko, Oksana. “Gate-Crashing ‘European’ and ‘Slavic’ Area Studies: Can Ukrainian Studies Transform the Fields?” Canadian Slavonic Papers 65, no. 2 (April 3, 2023): 174–89.
Grosfoguel, Ramón. “The Structure of Knowledge in Westernized Universities. Epistemic Racism/Sexism and the Four Genocides/Epistemicides of the Long 16 Century.” Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge 11, no. 1 (2013): 73–90.
Kotliuk, Galyna. “Colonization of Minds: Ukraine between Russian Colonialism and Western Orientalism.” Frontiers in Sociology 8 (October 30, 2023): 1206320.
Mignolo, Walter D. “Epistemic Disobedience and the Decolonial Option: A Manifesto.” Transmodernity: Journal of Peripheral Cultural Production of the Luso-Hispanic World 1 (2011): 3–23.
Ndlovu-Gatsheni, Sabelo. “The Dynamics of Epistemological Decolonisation In the 21st Century: Towards Epistemic Freedom.” The Strategic Review for Southern Africa 40, no. 1 (December 22, 2020).
Plokhii, Serhii. “Goodbye Lenin: A Memory Shift in Revolutionary Ukraine.” Digital Atlas of Ukraine. Ukrainian Research Institute Harvard University. Accessed February 19, 2024.
Quijano, Aníbal. “Coloniality and Modernity/Rationality.” Cultural Studies 21, no. 2–3 (March 2007): 168–78.
Грицак, Ярослав. Нарис Історії України. Формування Модерної Нації ХІХ-ХХ Століття. Yakaboo Publishing, 2022.
Гундорова, Тамара. Транзитна Культура. Симптоми Постколоніальної Травми: Есеї. De Profundis. Київ: Грані-Т, 2012.
Матіяш, Дзвенислава, trans. Український палімпсест: Оксана Забужко у розмові з Ізою Хруслінською. 2nd ed. Київ: Видавничий дім “Комора,” 2023.
Рябчук, Микола. “Декомунізація чи деколонізація? Що показали політичні дискусії з приводу ‘декомунізаційних’ законів?” Наукові записки Інституту політичних і етнонаціональних досліджень ім. І. Ф. Кураса НАН України, no. 2 (2016): 104–17. Постколоніальний Синдром: Спостереження. К.І.С., 2011.
Суспільне Культура. “‘Художники – Це Найсвідоміші Громадяни’. Інтерв’ю з Ольгою Балашовою,” May 19, 2023.
Тихий, Олекса. “Думки Про Рідний Донецький Край.” Голос України, 1972.
Шевельов, Юрій. Триптих Про Призначення України. Edited by Сергій Вакуленко and Вікторія Склярова. Харків: Права людини, 2012.
Шкандрій, Мирослав. В обіймах імперії. Література й імперський дискурс від наполеонівської до постколоніальної доби. Комубук, 2023.
Author
Stefaniia Sidorova
About the author