Ananya Sharma
Across the globe, decolonising the curriculum (DtC) has been the buzzword in higher education institutions as a result of movements such as Rhodes Must Fall (2015) at the University of Cape Town, with similar iterations in the UK. The Black Lives Matter movement (2020) further pushed for challenging the centricity of whiteness in the narratives that have shaped how we come to learn about the world. Many universities in the global north addressed the probing question: ‘why is my curriculum white?’ by establishing toolkits for module convenors, drafting manifestos and holding meetings and seminars addressing demands of BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) students. Scholars within the discipline of International Relations have been quite vocal in expressing concerns about the anglo-centric production and dissemination of knowledge claims in International Relations (Bhambra 2021; Go 2018; Santos 2014; Shilliam 2021; Smith 2012; Quijano 2007). Their attempts at decolonisation are based on acknowledging the racialised, capitalist and heteropatriarchal structures of power modeling global politics.
Decolonisation, entails challenging the intellectual mono-cultures stemming from positional superiority accorded to western knowledge systems that have treated (and continue to treat) indigenous and non-western knowledge(s) as raw materials and commodities to be discovered, extracted, appropriated and distributed (Smith 2012). Colonisation might be part of history but its afterlives model our classrooms in indelible ways. Whether engaging with international political economy through global financial imperialism or teaching security studies with reference to the Global War on Terror, the dominant frameworks of international politics remain tethered in western theories, histories and methodologies rooted in colonial legacies. The canon we teach as universal knowledge, the stories of conquest and echoes of empire are reflected in the hegemonic discourses taught in ‘standard’ courses.
No comments:
Post a Comment