Post-Colonialism Compared: Potentials and Limitations in the Middle East and Central Asia

Abstract

The term “post-colonial” is a relative newcomer to the jargon of Western social science. Although discussions about the effects of colonial and imperialist domination are by no means new, the various meanings attached to the prefix “post-” and different understandings of what characterizes the post-colonial continue to make this term a controversial one. Among the criticisms leveled against it, reviewed comprehensively by Hall (1996), are the dangers of careless homogenizing of experiences as disparate as those of white settler colonies, such as Australia and Canada; of the Latin American continent, whose independence battles were fought in the 19th century; and countries such as India, Nigeria, or Algeria that emerged from very different colonial encounters in the post-World War II era. He suggests, nevertheless, that “What the concept may help us to do is to describe or characterise the shift in global relations which marks the (necessarily uneven) transition from the age of Empires to the post-independence and post-decolonisation moment” (Hall 1996, 246). Rattansi (1997) proposes a distinction between “post-coloniality” to designate a set of historical epochs and “post-colonialism” or “post-colonialist studies” to refer to a particular form of intellectual inquiry that has as its central defining theme the mutually constitutive role played by colonizer and colonized in shaping the identities of both the dominant power and those at the receiving end of imperial and colonial projects. Within the field of post-colonial studies itself, Moore-Gilbert (1997) points to the divide between “post-colonial criticism,” which has much earlier antecedents in the writings of those involved in anti-colonial struggles, and “post-colonial theory,” which distinguishes itself from the former by the incoporation of methodological paradigms derived from contemporary European cultural theories into discussions of colonial systems of representation and cultural production. Whatever the various interpretations of the term or the various temporalities associated with it might be, Hall claims that the post-colonial “marks a critical interruption into that grand whole historiographical narrative which, in liberal historiography and Weberian historical sociology, as much as in the dominant traditions of Western Marxism, gave this global dimension a subordinate presence in a story that could essentially be told from its European parameters” (Hall 1996, 250). In what follows, I will attempt a brief discussion of some of the circumstances leading to the emergence of this concept and interrogate the extent to which it lends itself to a meaningful comparison of the modern trajectories of societies in the Middle East and Central Asia.

The end of postsocialism (as we knew it): Diverse economies and the East

“…Our comparison of two countries as different as Czechia and Kyrgyzstan under the label of postsocialism might conceal a similar supposition. Being aware of this risk, the main commonality we want to highlight is not an essential characteristic, but rather a condition of marginalisation, a shared position(ality) within global hierarchies of valuation and knowledge production (Jehlička, 2021; Kandiyoti, 2002; Trubina et al, 2020). In addition, our empirical work could suggest that both cases share what are considered the typical features of postsocialist societies (Theesfeld, 2019): predominance of informal arrangements over formalised institutions or importance of exchanges within kinship and friendship networks.…”

“…Mutually reinforcing layers of exclusion, shaped by dichotomies such as tradition-modernity, nature-culture and indeed noncapitalism-capitalism, can be traced in the case of Czech FSP (Jehlička, 2021; Sovová and Krylová, 2019). In the case of Kyrgyzstani farmers, the multiple exclusions are further reinforced by the fact that the Central Asian region remains marginalised even within the scholarship on postsocialism, which is mostly centred on CEE (Kandiyoti, 2002).…”

Kazakhstan’s climate change policy: reflecting national strength, green economy aspirations and international agenda

“…But as 'the arrival of post-colonialism in Central Asian studies is long over-due' (Heathershaw, 2010, p. 1), recently one can observe a growing body of this type of research (e.g. Beissinger & Young, 2002;Edgar, 2006;Kandiyoti, 2002;Khalid, 2006) as well as specific application of post-colonialism to environmental issues in the region (Adams, 2008;Dubuisson, 2020;Kudaibergenova, 2016b;Sharipova, 2019). Inspired by this theoretical discussion, we look at how Kazakh political elites construct the image of the country within climate change discourse and whether the country's postcolonial past is affecting its current responses to climate change.…”

Introduction

“…The European Community/Union is often seen as a new kind of actor which has emerged from the ashes of the Second World War, a departure from its temporal "other" in the past (Waever, 1996). However, from the viewpoint of the Middle East, through first an "anti-colonial" (Mohamedou, 2018;Gani, 2019;Salem, 2020) and then a "postcolonial" lens (Azeez, 2019;Ball and Mattar, 2018;Kandiyoti, 2002;Göçek, 2012;Bilgin, 2018), both hope and doubt have been shed on this development. Have relations really changed substantially, or is there actually more continuity than usually assumed?…”