The Coloniality of Gender as a Radical Critique of Developmentalism

Icaza, Rosalba; Vázquez, Rolando

doi:10.1007/978-1-137-38273-3_5

Cited by 47 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, a “coloniality of gender” power, put forth by decolonial feminist Maria Lugones, asks us to think from an embodied experience but also insists we fuse decolonial, black and postcolonial feminists projects to interrogate how gender serves as a “mechanism of colonial domination” over Indigenous and Black women (Asher 2013; Lugones 2007). Indeed, “Lugones helps us to understand the historical moment in which this specific gender system became a form of subjugation, a concrete mechanism of transforming and governing everyday life through the control of the bodies and subjectivities of the colonized” (Icaza and Vázquez 2016:66; Lugones 2007). These theorisations help reveal that, even before lands and territories are seized upon or snatched from communities, the imagined and discursive geographies of whose bodies (and concomitant land uses) lie therein condition future encounters (King 2019; McKittrick 2013; Mollett 2016, 2017; Morgan 2004; Saldaña‐Portillo 2016).…”

Section: Centring the Entanglements Of Lands‐and‐bodies In Political mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, this precarity is the legacy of a “coloniality of gender”. As decolonial feminists reflect, “the formation of a gender system that determined the borders of humanity continued within a normative heterosexuality” (Icaza and Vazquez 2016:67). These borders rendered Indigenous and Black women as “animals in the deep sense, ‘without gender’ sexually marked as female but without the characteristics of femininity” including a presumed in ability to suffer (Lugones 2007:202–203; Morgan 2004).…”

Section: Defensoras In Latin America: the Brutal Legacies Of A “Colonmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Hemispheric, Relational, and Intersectional Political Ecologies of Race: Centring Land‐Body Entanglements in the Americas

Mollett

2020

Antipode

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this Afterword, I reflect on the themes of race and coloniality in political ecology highlighted by this Symposium. I draw upon and place in conversation scholarly work on Latin America to demonstrate how, notwithstanding disparate social‐historical contexts, Indigenous and Black communities encounter strikingly similar struggles for land and territorial control across the Americas. I build my comments from a fusion of postcolonial, decolonial and black feminist thinking to bolster the importance of intimate and inseparable entanglements between people’s lands and their bodies within political ecological analyses. In the following, I shape this commentary into three co‐constitutive discussions: first, that political ecologies of race are hemispheric; second, that race and coloniality condition the lives of Indigenous and Black peoples relationally in the Americas; and third, that these multiple and mutually constituted ideologies, namely intersectional forms of power, shaping land and land control are profoundly material and embodied.

show abstract

Section: Centring the Entanglements Of Lands‐and‐bodies In Political mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Defensoras In Latin America: the Brutal Legacies Of A “Colonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hemispheric, Relational, and Intersectional Political Ecologies of Race: Centring Land‐Body Entanglements in the Americas

Mollett

2020

Antipode

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This process is better described by the concept of "border thinking," which was first used by Gloria Anzaldúa (1987) in her book, "Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza," and has subsequently been developed by decolonial thinkers, most prominently by Walter Mignolo. It is based on the idea that one sits in an embodied consciousness to show how the corporeal and, material existence of bodies is deeply embedded in political relations including coloniality (Icaza, 2017, Icaza andVázquez, 2016;Lugones, 2010).…”

Section: "Border Thinking" or "Other Thought"? A Strategic Tool For Decolonizing Research Agendamentioning

confidence: 99%

Decolonizing Arab organizational Knowledge: “Fahlawa” as a Research Practice

Yousfi

2021

Organization

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article draws attention to how management scholars “the outsiders within” who are structurally positioned within the academies of dominant powers might negotiate the complexities of producing a locally rooted and meaningful knowledge, emancipated from the U.S. hegemony while carrying organization studies in Arab countries. Drawing upon my different ethnographic journeys as a researcher, brought up in an Arab country with a Francophone intellectual mindset and studying Arab management practices, I will discuss both the potential for and the difficulties of critical engagement with a decolonizing management research agenda. Then, and building on critical border thinking tradition, I will propose the Egyptian term “Fahlawa” as a metaphor for better describing the challenges of a decolonizing research practice that privileges contestation and perpetual bricolage over formal and universal design. Finally, I will conclude by highlighting the potential of “Fahlawa” as a survival/resistance practice to theorize what is unthought and invisible in management literature and to build situated knowledge less organized by U.S. domination.

show abstract

“…Queer and Decolonial IR, for example, are critical of the discipline in quite different ways, respectively concerned with IR’s heteronormativity and coloniality. It is possible to connect these two concerns, but thinking this connection requires theory-building so as to explain how heteronormativity may be linked to coloniality across different contexts (Icaza and Vazquez, 2016; Schramm, 2012). Such intra-minor theoretical alliances must be constructed, yet the minor disturbance of settled assumptions does not itself provide any reliable synthetic tools (Katz, 1996: 224).…”

Section: Beyond Ir?mentioning

confidence: 99%

What is a minor international theory? On the limits of ‘Critical International Relations’

Michelsen

2020

Journal of International Political Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article argues that ‘Critical International Relations’, often counterpoised to ‘mainstream IR’, has come to function as a major theoretical category in its own right. It argues that critique involves ‘minor theorising’, defined as the practice of disturbing settled theoretical assumptions in the discipline. The article examines the role and significance of ‘minor theories’ in the context of ongoing debates about Critical IR. It argues that critique is defined by context, and is politically and ethically ambiguous. The article concludes that the scope for critique could be advanced if the terms ‘Critical IR’ and ‘Critical IR Scholar’ are dropped from scholarly parlance.

show abstract

The Coloniality of Gender as a Radical Critique of Developmentalism

Cited by 47 publications

References 6 publications

Hemispheric, Relational, and Intersectional Political Ecologies of Race: Centring Land‐Body Entanglements in the Americas

Hemispheric, Relational, and Intersectional Political Ecologies of Race: Centring Land‐Body Entanglements in the Americas

Decolonizing Arab organizational Knowledge: “Fahlawa” as a Research Practice

What is a minor international theory? On the limits of ‘Critical International Relations’

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About