The denotation of the term “decolonize” is given as follows in the Oxford Dictionary Online:
“(of a State) withdraw from (a colony), leaving it independent” (“Decolonize”, 2018)
The explanation that is given is unusual in several ways. The language that is used appears disjointed – much of the definition is bracketed, and the explanation reads incoherently. It appears to be a draft version of an idea rather than a final, decisive dictionary entry. The definition also ascribes agency to “a State” which enacts the process of decolonization, or “withdraw[al]”, thus leaving the colony in an “independent” state.
According to this phrasing, it is only the colonial power that can withdraw (note the capitalized “State”) and not the colonized territory (written in lowercase, and clearly occupying a passive role), which is also cast as a dependent territory by implication. If we take the dictionary definition at its word, independence is only thus achieved at the behest of the colonial power as it ‘withdraws’. There is no suggestion of revolution here; it is all very orderly and intentional. This is an example of how the totalising power of a dominant narrative can shape the meaning of a term, or set of terms, to match its view of the world.
It is also important to bear in mind the role of the dictionary here, which to an extent is complicit in propagating the narrative by encoding the words it defines with a particular cultural message: we refer to it in order to understand how to read the meaning of a word which in turn colours how we interpret a passage of text. It’s also not insignificant that the dictionary in question is the Oxford Dictionary, which has a place of special prominence in the English-speaking world.
Fortunately, other competing narratives exist, along with other texts, which tell a different story. We know from revolutionary writings that decolonization is not usually achieved as a result of any voluntary withdrawal of the colonizing power; it is usually achieved as a result of the subjected peoples rising up and reclaiming their country from the grip of foreign exploitation. A country’s independence is not usually secured peaceably but through struggle against mighty odds and against an adversary which uses every advantage at its disposal to maintain its hold on power.
As Frantz Fanon puts it in his first-hand account of decolonization in Algeria:
“National liberation, national renaissance, the restoration of nationhood to the people, commonwealth: whatever may be the headings used or the new formulas introduced, decolonization is always a violent phenomenon” (1990: 27).
While the battle for physical territory may be a fait accompli as ‘colonies’ become ‘independent’, the ideological conflict is far from over. A second struggle is waged over control of representational narratives and the meanings of words which have historical and political implications. In this sense, the newly independent countries must reclaim the terms ‘colonize’ and ‘decolonize’ and reinterpret them from a post-colonial, struggle perspective; they must assert their agency in securing their hard-won independence in order to write their own version of history which gives an account of events from their own experience. Here, ‘decolonization’ changes its meaning from being something voluntary that the colonizer does to becoming a powerfully political act that the colonized nation performs of its own accord, and by its own strength. In short, a national consciousness must arise. The act of liberation is not merely a passive change of state from ‘dependent’ to ‘independent’ but is also a psycho-political, that is to say a discursive, victory over the oppressor in which it seeks to wrest back control of the language of representation.
The ideological battle for control of representational narratives should not be underestimated. Even as the previously colonized nation throws off its chains, it is at risk of returning to bondage. While securing its independence from domination, the new order often merely adopts the old system and thereby perpetuates the misery of its citizens under a familiar mode of oppression. The agents of oppression may have changed seats, but the colonial edifice remains in place. Baholo himself makes reference to this in is interview in the conclusion below when he refers to “white men with their faces painted black”. He is referring to the tendency for a black elite to arise and to imitate their white colonial forebears without effecting real structural change.
The educational system of a colonizing power typically endures far beyond the physical reclamation of a territory, and thus perpetuates the values and ideological views (that is to say, the historical-political narrative) of its point of origin. It is thus unsurprising that UCT has come under scrutiny as one of the enduring loci of colonial-era cultural hegemony. The problem is compounded by the fact that, for the majority of South Africans, economic disenfranchisement remains a reality.
The student protesters’ calls for decolonizing campus are linked to a vociferous identity politics, which in the context of a foreign colonial education system seems inevitable. What is less clear is the extent of the transformation that is being called for. This uncertainty is proving deleterious as radical elements of the movement seize the opportunity to vent personal prejudices and cause the destruction of property to the detriment of all on campus.
Through such actions the term ‘decolonization’ has also become subsumed as a kind of political buzzword by various interest groups. While the history of the term that is described in the paragraphs above invests the term with great weight, its subsequent use as a blanket term of condemnation for all disagreeable aspects of life under a post-colonial regime has also emptied the term of much of its efficacy.
It should not be forgotten that the university has in fact made efforts to redress the imbalances of the past. The narrative of decolonization that is being advanced fails to acknowledge this, choosing to resort to older apartheid-era protest narratives which it applies unfairly to an institution that spoke out against the injustices of the time.
Navigate through this project using the site index.
Curating the Absence 