By Alemu Tesfaye and Truphena Mukuna
2. Truphena Mukuna (biography)
What is the relationship between coloniality, forced displacement and knowledge production? How is this relevant to decolonization efforts?
The history of forced displacement can be traced back to the colonial era, during which European powers established colonies in various parts of the world, displacing and often subjugating indigenous populations. The displacement of indigenous peoples often involved the forced removal from their ancestral lands and the disruption of their social and cultural systems.
In this context, knowledge production was used to justify and legitimize the displacement of indigenous populations. European colonizers created and disseminated knowledge that portrayed indigenous peoples as “primitive” or “uncivilized,” and therefore in need of “civilizing” through the imposition of European values and systems. This knowledge served to legitimize colonial policies of forced displacement and cultural assimilation.
As colonialism gave way to the postcolonial era, forced displacement continued to be a significant issue, often taking the form of forced migration due to conflict, environmental degradation, or economic factors. In these contexts, knowledge production has continued to play a role, with dominant narratives often portraying displaced people as passive victims in need of assistance rather than as active agents with their own knowledge and perspectives.
The relationship between coloniality, forced displacement and knowledge production is therefore substantial, especially in creating ongoing power imbalances and epistemic violence.
In summary, key impacts include:
- Marginalization of indigenous knowledge: As discussed earlier, colonialism often suppressed or devalued the knowledge systems of indigenous peoples, leading to the loss of valuable knowledge about local environments, cultures, and social systems. This has had a lasting impact on the ability of displaced communities to draw on their own knowledge and experiences.
- Imposition of Western knowledge systems: European knowledge systems were often imposed on colonized peoples, often at the expense of local knowledge. This homogenized knowledge systems and marginalized local knowledge, which has continued to have an impact on the way knowledge is produced and disseminated.
- Creation of knowledge hierarchies: The imposition of Western knowledge systems created a hierarchy of knowledge in which Western knowledge was often seen as superior to local knowledge. This has had long-lasting effects on the way knowledge is produced and disseminated, with Western knowledge often given greater legitimacy and authority than local knowledge.
- Production of knowledge for colonial purposes: Knowledge production has often served colonial purposes, such as the exploitation of natural resources or the control of populations. This has led to biased and selective knowledge production that serves the interests of the powerful rather than the needs and perspectives of the displaced communities.
- Intellectual dependency: Colonialism created intellectual dependency among colonized peoples, which perpetuated a cycle of subjugation and limited the ability of displaced communities to produce and disseminate their own knowledge.
There is growing recognition of the need to decolonize knowledge production related to forced displacement, by centering the perspectives and knowledge of displaced communities and challenging dominant narratives that perpetuate colonial attitudes and power dynamics. This includes efforts to amplify the voices and knowledge of displaced people, support participatory research and knowledge co-production, and challenge dominant narratives through critical analysis and activism.
What has your experience been? Are there other aspects of forced displacement resulting from coloniality that need to be considered? Are there other consequences that should not be ignored? What examples are there of how decolonization has taken these impacts of forced displacement into account?
To find out more:
This i2Insights contribution is a lightly modified extract from Tesfaye, A. and Mukuna, T. (no date). Decolonizing Knowledge Production in Forced Displacement: Challenging Colonial Narratives and Amplifying Displaced Voices. Organization for Social Science Research in Eastern and Southern Africa (OSSREA). (Online): http://ossrea.net/images/DKS/PDFs/Impact_of_Coloniality_in_Knowledge_Production_in_Forced_Displacement_Context.pdf (PDF 806KB).
Biography: Alemu Tesfaye MBA is Regional Programs Manager (Research, Communication, Knowledge Management and ICT (Information and Communications Technology)) at the Organization for Social Science Research in Eastern and Southern Africa (OSSREA), in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. His interests include communication, knowledge management and translation, and community engagement.
Biography: Truphena Mukuna PhD is Executive Director at the Organization for Social Science Research in Eastern and Southern Africa (OSSREA), in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. She conducts transdisciplinary transformative research and feminist participatory action research on vulnerable populations to offer life-changing, cost-effective solutions and see improvement in people’s lives.
Hello Vladimir. Thanks for your categorisation of different ways of knowing that may be employed in the process of people generating would-be knowledge-claims. I am wary, though, or your statement that : “”Philosophical and scientific knowledge requires justification through logical and empirical evidence obtained by inductive or deductive methods. This knowledge is called speculative-type knowledge and empirical-type knowledge, respectively””.
As regards the definition of how scientific knowledge (or claims posed as knowledge) require justification through empirical evidence obtained by inductive or deductive methods, this statement of yours is linked to the Popperian view of science, which many authors have queried from different angles. Actually Popper argued that the logic of science is deduction (and not induction) – but he said that induction can play a role in formulating hypotheses that can then be tested (tentatively corroborated if they are not falsified) through empirical evidence. He recognised, though, that any empirical statement itself is ever finally proven – its acceptance depends on intersubjective agreement in whatever scientific community is making the observation statements . He speaks of observation statements rather an observation to make the point that they are never finally provable with reference to some outside reality.
My other concern is that you have not included the notion of abductive or retroductive logic, where those using this logic admit that there is never a direct way of connecting statements to so-called empirical evidence. Our statements about this link require us to make inferences, which again may not be agreed upon by all those participating in the scientific endeavor, but would depend on people agreeing on the inferences being made.
Now my further point is that there are many ways of defining the practice of science. While some authors (such as Popper) argue that scientists must strive for objectivity in order to come closer to the truth (as he puts it) many scientists and philosophers of science contest that this is possible or desirable. They argue that as soon as we “”observe”, and as soon as we make inferences to more general statements, values are always at play. This was the point made by Alemu Tesfayu in one of his previous posts, where he cited a number of feminist authors and also Indigenous authors, who argue that the notion of objective science is subject to contestation. This also means that therefore the distinction between the ethnoscience developed in Indigenous communities as they have made inferences in regard to their dealings with the natural environment (which they revere and which they see as sacred) is not simply non-science, but is type of science where values (such as revering nature) are built into the practice of the science. This is the same idea espoused by ecological feminists, for example. So I am wary of classifications of ways of knowing that in effect define Western ways of doing science (striving for objectivity) as “science” and which do not regard, for instance, the ways of knowing developed over centuries and indeed millenia in Indigenous communities as they interact with each other and with natural life forces and share their experiences together, all in the quest to define valued ways of life.
I know that in one of the posts you did not agree with my urging for a recognition of ethnoscience (Indigenous ways of knowing in everyday life through a gentle approach to nature) as science, and you stated that this meant I was not being pluralist. But I am concerned that your classifications can still put ethnoscience (which you probably would not call science) on a different level in that the ensuing statements apparently do not require justification in the way that Western science (and philosophers of science) define this process. I am calling for all ways of knowing to be recognised as imbued with values – and to proceed to interact with this in mind.
I hope I have been able to offer some clarification of what I (along with myriads of authors questioning the notion of science as the quest for objectivity) have been suggesting. We need to be careful of our classifications, including our definitions of what “science”” entails.
All good wishes,
Norma
Dear Alemu Tesfaye and Trufena Mukuna,
You have raised a fundamentally important problem. Therefore, I hope that my arguments on this topic will be not only principled, but also practically useful.
The explanation of the connection between the production of knowledge and the effectiveness of decolonization efforts is an urgent problem of society at the present stage of its development. Therefore, today there is also a problem of the connection between the production of knowledge and the effectiveness of efforts for the technical, technological, moral and ethical modernization of the society of the former empires. Consequently, this problem requires a unique rethinking, first of all, by national thinkers (interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary specialists) within the logic of the mechanisms of knowledge production in the countries of the Global South.
Original reinterpretation involves the formation of meaning (general context). Within this context, the assessment of the truth and untruthfulness of existing and new knowledge, as well as the work of the mechanism of production of this knowledge, will be carried out.
It is necessary to remember that knowledge is a form of existence and systematization of the results of human cognitive activity. If there is a continent, a country, a nationality, then a priori there is a unique form of existence and systematization of the results of cognitive activity of a person – a carrier of national culture, way of thinking and systematization of cognitive activity of this country and this nationality. The basis of each state is a large group of people – carriers of national culture. This group is called the deep people. Consequently, rethinking and solving the problem of the connection between the production of knowledge and the effectiveness of efforts to decolonization should take place within the framework of the ideological and cultural principles of the deep people of a particular country. This conclusion suggests that the mechanisms of knowledge production have a unique fine-tuning. Simply put, in each particular country, for an objective reason, one of the four types of knowledge will have a fundamental and decisive influence: religious, mythical, philosophical and scientific. Religious and mythical knowledge does not require justification. Therefore, accordingly, they are called knowledge of the unconditional (absolute) type and knowledge of the intuitive type. Philosophical and scientific knowledge requires justification through logical and empirical evidence obtained by inductive or deductive methods. This knowledge is called speculative-type knowledge and empirical-type knowledge, respectively.
All of the above suggests that there is a fundamental solution to the problem of explaining the relationship between the production of knowledge and the effectiveness of decolonization efforts. This decision depends a lot on fine-tuning the knowledge production mechanism. When starting to rethink and solve this problem, national thinkers (interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary specialists) can use the appropriate methodological apparatus. This methodological apparatus should be configured to work in the context of the ideological and cultural principles of the deep people of a particular country. The scenario for solving this problem should be subjected to a risk analysis. This analysis should confirm that the national solution to this problem is in the mainstream of the general solution to the problems of the current stage of society’s development. It is important to understand that the national experience of solving the problem of the link between the mechanism of knowledge production and the effectiveness of decolonization efforts is unique. It will allow you to accurately draw an image of a prosperous State, to which the process of decolonization should lead. This experience cannot be shared with another country. But we can share an effective methodology that will allow each country to return to the natural settings of the mechanism of knowledge production and to complete the “permanent” process of decolonization. It is this circumstance that can serve as a reason for our cooperation.
Dear Vladimir Mokiy,
Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed response to our article on the interplay between coloniality, forced displacement, and knowledge production. We truly appreciate the depth and breadth of your analysis, and it is evident that you’ve given the subject matter careful consideration.
Your remarks on the importance of knowledge as a reflection of cognitive processes unique to specific cultures, nationalities, and regions provide a profound insight. The categorization of knowledge into religious, mythical, philosophical, and scientific, as well as your exploration of the nuances between them, indeed offers a comprehensive framework. This classification helps in understanding how different societies, especially those in the Global South, navigate the complexities of knowledge production within the context of decolonization.
Your emphasis on the “deep people” as the bedrock of national culture and the driving force behind unique knowledge systems resonates deeply with our sentiments. Each state, culture, and nationality possesses a distinct epistemological tradition, and any endeavor to decolonize knowledge must be rooted in these unique traditions and experiences.
Your call for national thinkers, equipped with appropriate methodological tools, to lead the charge in redefining and reshaping knowledge production mechanisms is compelling. Indeed, each nation’s journey to decolonization will be unique, shaped by its own historical, cultural, and social contexts. Yet, as you rightly pointed out, while the experience may be individual, the methodologies and insights can be shared, fostering mutual growth and understanding among nations.
Once again, thank you for engaging with our work so deeply.