2026/06/03 by Edward Schatz · 2 voices
Social Sciences · #Soviet and Russian History #China's Ethnic Minorities and Relations #Politics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle East
paper · pdf · doi:10.1017/s1537592726104708
With the term “decolonization” circulating widely and animating debates inside and outside the academy, how can we ensure that it retains analytic value? In this paper I show that the meanings that the term has acquired in practice complicate empirical analysis. Specifically, I contend that three problems emerge. First, the term’s usage in practical struggles leads a foregrounding of its normative power over analytic precision. Second, this tends to bracket ends, glossing any move away from colonial practices as decolonial, in turn affecting scholarly treatments. Third, the term’s usage often produces an analytic flattening, downplaying nuance, context, and historical specificity. Not inherent to the concept itself, these problems are stubbornly present, despite recent work that seeks to address them. To make the discussion concrete, I focus on political science interventions about a single world region: Central Asia. The relative newness of scholarly engagement with Central Asia’s colonial and decolonial experiences provides an opportunity for critical reflection.