Paper short abstract:

This paper proposes that “decolonial anthropology" should be in dialogue with "decolonizing academia" or “decolonizing knowledge” as I argue that “colonial anthropology” is not the disease but a symptom of the disease, hence, the disease needs to be diagnosed critically.

Paper long abstract:

The inextricable linkage between European colonialism/imperialism and anthropology has been scrutinized by many scholars in the late 20th century (Asad 1973; Lewis 1973; Stauder 1974; Stavenhagen 1971; Remy 1976; Pathy 1981; Said 1978; Fabian 1983; Owusu 1979). In the last few decades, we have been observing new shifts or transitions in anthropology, to name a few, “transformative anthropology” and “decolonizing anthropology” (Harrison 1991), “antiracist anthropology” (Mullings 2005), “abolitionist anthropology” (Shange 2019), “historicizing anthropology” (Trouillot 2003), “fugitive anthropology” (Berry et al. 2017), “letting anthropology burn” (Jobson 2019) and so on. The aim of this paper is threefold: first, it traces the history of the relationship between colonialism/imperialism and anthropology; second, it engages with the shifts in anthropology within the last few decades especially with the discourse of the decolonial move. Lastly, this paper proposes that “decolonial anthropology” should be in dialogue with “decolonizing academia” or “decolonizing knowledge” as I argue that “colonial anthropology” is not the disease but a symptom of the disease, hence, the disease needs to be diagnosed critically. In this symptom-disease analysis, I view anthropology as one of the products (such as sociology, economics, political science, etc.) of modern academia rooted in “scientific” hierarchization of knowledge and without a revolutionary change in our epistemic orientation, anthropology cannot be radically transformed or reformed so as not to serve neo-colonial and imperialist ideology.