The Coloniality of Language and the possibilities of a Decolonial Communication

 

This week, Rosa presented the article "A coalitional approach to theorizing decolonial communication", written by Gabriela Veronelli. We have wondered previously on the thought- how would a decolonial communication look like (especially how to communicate such that we do not appropriate the epistemologies, cosmologies in the margins). More importantly, how can a dialogue be facilitated amongst the marginalized groups. In both cases, we have seemed to come to a sort of impasse. This article was selected with such an existing dialogue and prevalent narrative in our minds.

The article draws on a decolonial approach to communication. It involves in the understanding of possibilities of an inter-cultural dialogue. It raises important questions that seem long due (and yet which govern) the decolonial logistics in communication. The author does a great job of assuming possibilities in various frame-works of decolonial thinkers but also being equally critical of them, thus showing us (pushing us) for the need to a new model to re-think our ways of negotiations in relating to Self-Other and hence of communication. She clearly invokes a transcendence from merely an epistemic conceptual talk about an ‘intercultural approach’ to what would such a dialogue look like, in the real world with what she refers as ‘real people’. The author takes on the frameworks of Dussel and Mignolo for her analysis (but we in our discussions do not go in a very detailed analysis of that part). We understand and note that the author’s position is primarily of taking these decolonial scholars and establishing a fine critique of their epistemic positionality.  And by pointing out how they operate significantly at a macro level of epistemic projects, Gabriela Veronelli creates a special space for recognizing what she terms as the common people, the real people. It is in this move, that we go back and reflect on her deeper take on the notion of communication here.

On page 405, the author notes (and Rosa directed us there) to some pertinent question, essential to the navigation of this project.

Decolonial futures don’t have words yet; they don’t have a “how”: How would these networks of exchange of people thinking and living against coloniality be formed? What are the conditions of possibility of this pluriversal movement? Would it be necessary to establish conditions for these dialogues? Among whom would they be? Would they include the oppressor? What languages would be spoken? How would nonverbalized knowledge be recognized? The call for plurality and critical intercultural dialogue is there; the idea of pluriversality is there. It is a nice idea. The question is how to go about it. Is it necessary to decolonize dialogue itself.

 

It seems that the author suggests that coloniality restricts and limits our modalities of communication. Once we understand that, there is a need to re-imagine a new form of dialogue. Talking about coloniality of language and speech on page 408, the author throws light on the linguistic element and coloniality of power. She teases out, quite brilliantly, how the process of racialization affects the consolidation of language. Not only that, there is pernicious attempt of dehumanization, racialization, and linguist stripping through coloniality – all processes disfiguring the birth of not only existence but speech. Thus, the author outlines how a space of fracture and birth of a seemingly new subjectivity happens through the consequence of colonial difference. Teasing out the challenges with coloniality of language, the author points to the production of coloniality of mistrust. And the choice of mediation through the colonizer, a state utterly problematic (as elaborated on page 411). The author proposes a nondialogical understanding of communication that moves beyond the colonial and rationalistic understanding of the encounter of two logos (dia-logue), moving to a more emotional and affective perspective with Lugones and Glissant. We noted that Glissant is not only helpful here to illuminate a different understanding of ‘relations’ but that in his thinking we might find possibilities of averting a teleological method of communicating (which is helpful because it does not allow the colonial logic to replicate itslef further).

 

We opened the floor with some important question based on the readings above. We tried to gauge if Gabriella in her article has underestimated the project that Dussel or Mignolo had in mind. To elaborate further, we wondered if the realm of sensibilities of the real people that the article seems to indicate as the space where organic exchange ought to happen at the cost of the political? Clearly, Dussel and Mignolo have political considerations here when they talk about decoloniality. We also looked at a particular quote on page 417, to understand what the author makes of communication to be this organic, non-willful exchange that is happening in what she has seemed to indicate as a different space. “There is no need to think here of willfulness or resistant consciousness. The possibility that the "Echos-monde” opens to engaging complex communications is neither a linear nor agential sense of communication, but, rather, an uncertain one. Opacities need to be preserved and one is never sure of understanding them.”

 

We had different views on this quote. Some of us felt that this quote signifies to a crack that is often left out in the larger discourses guided by larger structures of power. Things that are not said because they cannot be said does not mean that they do not have agency. In fact, it is a limit of defamiliarization in communication and perhaps the inability our epistemic positionality to grasp. We discussed how the quote challenges a theory that arises bereft of community. Often, we take theory to the margins, whereas perhaps the author is throwing light to an important element by saying that communication is already, always happening. Outside academia and theory, in various forms, through art and literature, preservation by being ordinary. The need to let these communications unfold. We at the same time wondered about the lack of what we from our positionality might term as ‘the political project’ (what some of us think as Glissant’s position.) We also wondered if her and Glissant’s position is normative or descriptive.

 

We came to understand rather that it is a synthesis of both. The moment we idealize Glissant’s position, we fall ourselves into the trap of a colonial linear idea of time where we think of solutions as mostly normative. Linearity of time is not helpful to think when it comes to coloniality. Maybe Glissant is opting out of this framework by/through/via his writing. We also recognize that we might be in a trap. We operate under both forms of time- linear and cyclic as we think about coloniality. Hence, we struggle to find a ‘political solution’ to the project of decoloniality and at the same time understand that relationality is happening (organically) at some level for some individuals and even for us. Our worlds are, as precursors, as forerunners, because of our history- a parable of two times. A linear modernity with a need of politics and a cyclic time where we are continually operating through this struggle.

 

There is another question that arises in terms of understanding Glissant, and the notion of rootedness and indigeneity. We conclude that Glissant’s position on relationality is difficult to grapple with, but if understood in its entirety and complexity, will show us how it is an appeal to a rhizomatic thinking. He is never writing devoid of the relationality with the land and language. Everything is coming together in his process of understanding relationality- the historical process, the land, the language, modes of being, etc.

 

We understand that this relationality that is operating through various forms of time translates itself in communication and resistance in various ways. It manifests in different areas in different situations. And this different translation reiterates a point made previously too, that how not only communication but decolonization will appear to manifest differently in different parts of the world. Say for someone it might mean, political juridical decolonization, for some bodies, it might mean economic reforms. For some other bodies it might mean claiming back language, revitalization, re-establishing cultural signifiers. This also suggests how and what we understand as ‘political’ might mean different things on the map given where we are located and what we do.

 

However, we do understand that underlining all this is an idea of a ‘community’. But we also wonder about how decolonization would looks for those geo-political spaces where there is multiple position of subjects such that there is still no community formed. Here we discuss about the dangers of national narratives that run through the logic of blatant homogenization of communities. We feel that in case of varied multiplicity, if establishing a commune is dreary, what can still count as a way of unification is deciding what are we against. We do not know if such a thinking will appeal to all bodies, singularities, and subjectivities but we recognize that solidarity across myriad differences have happened. We think the history of solidarity would be a useful literature to turn to, to understand how communities based on understanding solidarity were actually and materially established. Next week, we plan to tease out the notion of community further.

(Notes taken by Puja)