It is interesting when you look at the work of scholars across fields and see the term post-colonial all over the place. I admit, I love post-colonial theory, because I think it is fascinating,. As a person of color, it has colored my world view and my academic experience. Even now, as I sit outside of the academy, it is something that remains an important aspect of my reading in terms of news, art, etc. There is a trend I have noticed though, especially in academia and GOs/NGOs. Often when people discuss regions or populations that are direct decedent of the legacy of colonialism, they are referred to as the “other” and they are not included (and if they are, they are not visible) in the high profile conversations outside of artist expression.
I think the use of the term “other” is so loaded. It implies an inherent dichotomy against the “standard” and keeps the relationship of the colonizer/colonized alive and kicking. I can’t help but wonder if this is more hurtful or helpful. I understand it is necessary to illustrate the power relationship, even in modern discussion, and binaries are the easy way. However, “other” does not have a clear opposite. It simply relegates people to being outsiders indefinitely because there is not a way to stop being “other”, no matter where you history takes you.
Art forms are extremely powerful as they are designed to be consumed by anyone who has access. They are a mode of communication that can be coded and read differently based on the origin of the reader. I love that throughout colonization people continued to make art that reflected their unique elasticities, even if they were influenced by the colonizer. I also love that the art is still a big part, and it kept traditions alive through the ritualistic aspects of creating and ingesting art. One of the best examples of this to me is music. Even when artists sang in the language of their colonizer, and when they often continue to today, they use traditional instruments, rhythms etc.
So, what happens outside of art (in the academy)? It is hard to tell. Institutions aren’t very open most of the time, and when they collaborate, it is behind closed doors. Now, I know there are plenty of people that are decedents of the colonized who are working in the academy. My hope is that they are included in collaborations as much as possible, and these collaborations don’t just happen between people in western universities. Now, I know they don’t, but a lot of times, that seems to be the case. I guess, what I am really wanting overall is to just see more diversity in the academy so that we get to hear more perspectives on what it means today to be in the post-colonial world.
Ok, I’m done rambling. I’m not even sure if all of this makes sense.