politics, could be reinterpreted and reassessed in a historical context where formal empires largely ceased to exist. The imperial formation of modernity is a major issue for postcolonialists, while the capitalist drive for imperialism remains the ground for a long debate among Marxists. Our main argument profits from both. We suggest empires should not be analytically understood only by their formal political institutions, but also by the articulation they have historically produced between the colonial difference and accumulation by dispossession. The examination of
7) – in the recent Australian media coverage. 1 I use the Australian case to extend the existing scholarship on global education policy movements, specifically the debate on the constitution of reference societies and projection in the field of comparative and international education. By bringing to the fore the critical roles of racialization and colonial difference in the discursive constitution of East Asian education in the PISA related Australian and international media and scholarly debate, the chapter exposes the limits of the current conceptualization of
nation through memorialisation ( García, 2016 ), reiterating the processes of colonisation through the promotion of a project of political, linguistic and cultural expansion and homogenisation. One of the basic aspects of the colonising process is the establishment of colonial difference through a set of narratives, artefacts and technologies that geopolitically classify populations in terms of inferior/superior, irrational/rational, primitive/civilised or traditional/modern ( Mignolo, 2010 ) – a process of ‘coloniality of being’ that constructs and maintains a pattern
of law and the rule of colonial difference Partha Chatterjee has posited that the ‘rule of colonial difference’ 47 underlies all colonial legal systems. In other words, despite the supposed liberal ideology of the coloniser and their promises of equality, liberty and the ‘gift’ of law, the colonial systems could only operate through a preservation of the superiority of the ruling group. Thus, the hierarchy between the coloniser and the colonised was intrinsic to the system. We find that the application of law in the colonies was dependant on the so
, largely confining its research gaze to the study of US society. At the same time, European (and especially British) sociology imported this US sociology, especially structural functionalism. Yet, this narrative fails to account for the ongoing sociological production of colonial difference that, as we have seen, British and US sociology fostered. Moreover, as both Meghji and Samson make clear, Western sociology operating within a “global” scope remains today hypocritically complicit in promoting and exporting the idea that former Western colonial and settler
S. Oldfield and J. Robinson (eds) The Routledge Companion to Cities of the Global South , Abingdon: Routledge. McCann , E. and Ward , K. ( 2011 ) Mobile Urbanism , Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Mignolo , W. ( 2000 ) ‘The geopolitics of knowledge and the colonial difference’, South Atlantic Quarterly , 101(1): 57–96. Mignolo , W. ( 2009 ) ‘Epistemic disobedience, independent thought and de-colonial freedom’, Theory, Culture and Society, 26(7–8): 1–23. Miraftab , F. ( 2009 ) ‘Insurgent planning: situating radical planning in the
on decolonial theoretical frameworks to examine concrete cases of global education policy movement in the past and the present. Takayama (see Chapter 12 ) looks at the process of racialization of East Asian academic achievement in the media and scholarly discussion of East Asian PISA success. His chapter brings to the fore the constitutive roles of racialization and colonial difference in the discursive constitution of East Asian education in Australian media and scholarly discussion. He uses the Australian case to expose the limits of the current
Post-colonial legacies continue to impact upon the Global South and this edited collection examines their influence on systems of policing, security management and social ordering. Expanding the Southern Criminology agenda, the book critically examines social harms, violence and war crimes, human rights abuses, environmental degradation and the criminalisation of protest.
The book asks how current states of policing came about, their consequences and whose interests they continue to serve through vivid international case studies, including prison struggles in Latin America and the misuse of military force. Challenging current criminological thinking on the Global South, the book considers how police and state overreach can undermine security and perpetuate racism and social conflict.
ethnic-cultural context—reveals what Walter Mignolo (2000) 215 calls the “colonial difference,” a notion that unmasks many of the myths of the intercultural relations of contemporary neoliberal states with their indigenous peoples. In this sense, the Mapuche nation, whatever degree of sociocultural negotiation they have achieved with Chilean modernity, are situated (not only geographically but also) epistemologically in the subalternity of the Mapuche communities from the south. But Cayuqueo does not lose the opportunity to remind the Chileans, and the Mapuche
’ (Mignolo and Escobar 2009). This allows us to break with Eurocentrism and foreground the colonial difference as a privileged epistemological and political space. Critical knowledge – and that includes Marxism – needs to be in this space if it is to remain or regain critical relevance. Marxism needs to question its embeddedness in the universal metanarratives of modernity, progress and liberation. GLOBAL DISCOURSE 261 Many other critical and revolutionary currents – from feminism to ecology and from indigenous to post-structuralist thinking – have enriched the theory and
