Toward an Equivocal Translation of Decolonial Theory

• In Event: Inter-Epistemic Dialogues With Decolonial Studies From Latin America

Abstract

Purpose
In this paper, we inquire into our experiences as early-career scholars translating decolonial theory across languages, places, concepts, and fields. Although we both studied our doctoral degrees in the US, our previous engagement with decolonial scholars and texts reflect our personal and intellectual rooting (sentipensamientos enraizados) in Latin America (LA). In our analysis, we engage in translation to make visible the disjuncture between discourses that are not saying the same thing (Sousa Santos, 2009; 2018; Viveiros de Castro, 2004). We hope this exercise makes the geopolitics of knowledge production visible, specific and personal.
Perspectives
This paper draws on decolonial theory from LA as explicated by Paper 1.

Method:
Viveiros de Castro proposes controlled equivocation as a reflexive and conceptually subversive method to “avoid transforming what is dissimilar into the same” (De la Cadena, 2015, p. 27). Equivocation may be understood hermeneutically as the surplus meaning of discourse (Ricoeur, 1974), or negatively as that which is erroneous. Different from being mistakes, equivocations are evidence of “a relation with an exteriority” (Viveiros de Castro, 2004, p. 11) and are a “communicative disjuncture in which, while using the same words [and concepts], interlocutors are not talking about the same thing” (p. 9). Critiques of colonialism, e.g., articulated by de-anti-postcolonial thought seem to be talking about the same thing, yet irreducible differences rightfully persist.

By elevating situated knowledge practices to the level of conceptual reason, controlled equivocation engages in translation that is both conceptually subversive and creative (e.g., negative/deconstructive and positive/reconstructive). It takes as its object of study Other concepts to translate them in such a way that it betrays the social analyst by revealing their conceptual threshold and ontological/epistemological limitations. It is, in other words, the intentional disfigurement of the analyst’s conceptual world, thereby opening reality to ambiguity or equivocation.

Results/conclusion/significance
Although decolonial theory from LA has been referenced more frequently in anglophone contexts in the past five years, we (Author 1 and 2) engaged postcolonial and decolonial scholarship for the first time when we were still rooted in LA. The relevance of questions raised by postcolonial studies (e.g., how does the experience of colonialism constitute our present? How are our theoretical imaginations, quotidian practices, bodies, and geographies discursively constituted?) and questions raised by decolonial scholarship (e.g. how do we change not only the contents but the terms of the conversation about knowledge production, ways of being in the world and geopolitical relations of power?) are central to our world-views and ethico-political commitments. Becoming doctoral students and subsequently becoming assistant professors in the US brought the challenge of translating our contextual/conceptual/linguistic worlds into a different context.

This paper thus situates our experiences of translating across theories, conceptual frameworks, inquiries, and problems as we live in the interstices of distinct languages and material and symbolic worlds. Hopefully, this exercise grounds theoretical discussions into practice. As we write, we think about young scholars who share similar experiences in crossing physical, intellectual, and symbolic boundaries, and who may recognize themselves in our experiences.

Authors

• Ana Carolina Diaz Beltran, University of Texas, Rio Grande Valley

• Jairo I. Fúnez-Flores, Texas Tech University