The Colonizing Power of Discourses

In this essay, I examine the famous piece “The West and the Rest: Discourse and Power” by Stuart Hall (1992) and the recently published “Rhetorical Contexts of Colonization and Decolonization” by Tiara R. Na'puti (2020) and their efforts to make sense of the role of communication in the historical development of colonialism/imperialism, its relation to our contemporary situation, and how Communication Studies might lead the way to decolonization.

To Hall, a discourse, or appropriate way of talking about things according to an established ideology, is “part of the way power circulates and is contested” and is the mechanism through which European powers colonized the “new world” (Hall, 1992, p. 205). European explorers marched forward, emboldened by their convictions made material by the discourse of “the West and the Rest”. This discourse allowed European colonizers to describe themselves as 'Explorers, Missionaries, etc.' and the inhabitants of these new lands as “Others, Savages, Heathens, etc.” Terms like these provided the ideological justification that made colonialism morally permissible and legally justified from colonizing eyes. An 'Other' is necessarily not one's kin, and need not be treated as such. A 'Savage' needs to be 'civilized'. The soul of a 'Heathen' needs 'saving'. And so 'Explorers' and 'Missionaries' could be motivated to colonize. This discourse-based theory of why Western powers exterminated, enslaved, and colonized inhabitants of the 'new world' stands in contrast to other more material theories.

One of the most popular explanations of Western expansion is found in Jared Diamond’s “Guns, Germs, and Steel” (1997). In this Pulitzer Prize-winning book Diamond argues that the technologies of invaded peoples were no match for European weaponry. Stone and copper were powerless against gunpowder and steel. The problem with such a hypothesis, Hall would argue, is that it largely omits any role for ideology or discourse as a key impetus for the colonizers. By opting for a sort of geographic determinism - where the West's superior weapons technologies were simply an inevitable consequence of the geographic situation afforded Europe - Diamond removes human agency from the equation, and thus, culpability (Wilcox, 2010). Such theories also encourage us today to wash our hands clean of any responsibility of colonization. Instead, Hall's discourse-centred theory forces us to examine the role our beliefs, discourses, and language play in colonization.

Yet, Hall fails to effectively chart out the boundaries of discursive influence, making it difficult to assess the key factors in colonization and the effective solutions to empowering those it most exploits. For example, why do the colonizer’s discourses so easily erase those of the colonized? If the discourse of the colonizers were the source of their power, then shouldn't the colonized peoples have been capable of offering equally resistant counter-discourses? This quickly reduces the conflict to a game of rhetoric. Do we really want to suggest that colonized peoples simply couldn’t persuade themselves to survive? Clearly, technological prowess, or environmental happenstance, must play some role in exerting one discourse upon the other. Maybe a more successful explanation would be “Guns, Germs, Steel, and Discourse”.

While charting the historical development of colonialism is critical, it can erase our sense of participation and culpability in the contemporary setting. Na’puti outlines some of the ways in which colonialism defines our current system and the roles we play in supporting it. Neocolonialism may now be our new reality which operates in more discrete ways “through cultural, economic, and political control” (Na’puti, 2020, p. 7). Colonial systems and their actors generate meaning in service to colonial interests. We can reverse this, Na’puti explains, by “centering the Indigenous” in the re-meaning-making process and supporting their autonomy through “strategies of decolonization” like sovereignty, self-determination, and survivance (2020, p. 23).

As Hall says, “one of the surprising places where [the discourse of “the West and the Rest”] effects can still be seen is in the language, theoretical models, and hidden assumptions of modern sociology itself” (Hall, 1992, p. 205). This makes me ponder the extent to which Communications Studies can actually decolonize considering the Western epistemological foundations and institutional structures on which it stands. Even Hall is steeped in the classic academic “tendency to frame different concepts in a dualistic binary” (Wang, 2011). Would we really be willing to take a step back, to hand over the reins, and allow Communication Studies and the whole academic system to be “‘changed from the bottom up’, a change that is ‘willed, called for, demanded’ by the colonized” (Na’puti, 2020, p. 22)? Even if that means a possible erasing of our own work and traditions? I’m doubtful. From my experience with university science faculties and their work to “Indigenize”, while they are overwhelmingly eager to recruit more Indigenous students, maybe even faculty, any radical deconstruction of the curriculum, systems, or enlightenment values are not appreciated. Communications Studies probably shares such reservations.

By adopting a discourse-based theory of colonialism which also accounts for the technological and geographic affordances at play, Communication Studies, with its interest in the processes of meaning-making, meaning-proliferation, and meaning effects might be best poised to uncover how colonization occurred, how it operates today, and how discourses can be reformed in ways that contribute to some sort of decolonization.

References

Diamond, J. M. (1997). Guns, germs, and steel: the fates of human societies. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

Hall, S. (1992). The West and the Rest: Discourse and Power. In S. Hall & B. Gieben (Eds.), Formations of Modernity (pp. 184–227). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315094526-6

Na’puti, T. R. (2020). Rhetorical Contexts of Colonization and Decolonization. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.156

Wang, G. (2011). Beyond de-Westernizing communication research An introduction. In De-westernizing communication research : Altering questions and changing frameworks (pp. 1–17). Taylor & Francis Group.

Wilcox, M. (2010). Marketing conquest and the vanishing Indian: An indigenous response to Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel and Collapse. Journal of Social Archaeology, 10(1), 92–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469605309354399