Naming the Politics of Coloniality

• In Event: 34.082 - Decolonizing Interpretive Research: A Subaltern Methodology for Social Change

Abstract

The compounding experiences of colonial miseducation of youth of color, neoliberal policies and logics in urban communities, colonial logics that render the role of spirituality in social movements as invisible, and adultism in legal and social institutions constrain the transformative possibilities of youth agency in social movements. Through a deep examination of the process to develop the transformative youth organizing framework (Bautista, 2018) that employed the decolonizing interpretive methodology (Darder, 2015b), this study explored and provides researchers with more clarity on the decolonizing interpretive methodology (Darder, forthcoming) principle of “naming the politics of coloniality.” Thus, this study seeks to assist researchers with understanding the epistemological foundations for the decolonizing interpretive methodology and the role the principle “naming the politics of coloniality” plays with guiding scholarship that resists epistemological violence and supports efforts for social change. The research was conducted through a decolonizing interpretive research methodology (Darder, 2015b) and utilized the interrelated lenses of critical pedagogy and decolonizing pedagogy, in order to situate how centering Emily Bautista’s lived experience as a subaltern education organizer and scholar while employing an interpretive methodology that sought to gain a historicity of scholarly discussions about the logics of coloniality, social movement theories, and youth-organizing frameworks across various texts in Bautista’s (2018) dissertation can provide more clarity on the decolonizing interpretive methodology principle “naming the politics of coloniality.”
While the forceful and insidious processes of colonialism have taken place under varying contexts and realities and thus, the decolonization process cannot be essentialized (Tuck & Yang, 2012), colonialism is a means to implement and sustain the European imperial project around the globe (Smith, 1999). By utilizing the decolonizing interpretive methodology and decolonizing and critical pedagogy theoretical frameworks, this study found that naming the politics of coloniality is a critical component of the decolonizing interpretive research approach, where an examination of literature with a critical lens unveils the impacts of colonialism on the epistemicides of indigenous ideologies (Quijano, 2007), knowledge production rooted in Western epistemologies (Mignolo, 2007), and the perpetuation of exploitative political economies (Chilcote, 2000), racism (Mignolo, 2007), heteropatriarchy (Arvin, Tuck, & Morrill, 2013), and colonial education (Shahjahan, Wagner, & Wane, 2009) that sustain colonial power and privilege. Given the different ways in which colonialism is manifested across the globe, this study also found that scholars from postcolonial, decolonial, anticolonial, indigenous, and decolonizing backgrounds (which arise from varying contextual conditions) contest different ways to engage the impacts of coloniality in research and knowledge production. Thus, naming the politics of coloniality helps unveil colonial logics that are deeply embedded in positivist traditions and approaches that deem theory as abstract and independent of lived realities. Naming the politics of coloniality in decolonizing interpretive research methodologies brings to light the epistemological violence inflicted on indigenous communities and their descendants who continue to be impacted by contemporary coloniality. By asserting that theory created by subaltern scholars is inextricably tied to their lives, the decolonizing interpretive methodology situates their right to honor their lived experiences and the knowledge that comes with it.

Author

• Emily Bautista, YouthBuild Charter School of California (YCSC)