This co-conspiratorial work is founded on a recognition of White complicity that involves a “refusal” (Tuck & Yang, 2014) to participate in “a deep and systematic form of forgetting about, or refusing to recognize, their [White peoples’] implication in relations of domination, subordination and privilege; and the injustice, cruelty, and suffering they cause” (Swan, 2017, p. 551).
This refusal involves “unsettling innocence” (Tuck & Yang, 2014) and reckoning with the “wilful ignorance” (Swan, 2017, p. 552) required by HE institutions that demand and reward service to the neocolonial state apparatus with, for example, funding for writing centre establishment through the U.S. DOS’s support for study abroad and scholarly exchange.
"Criticism, and the interpretation of cultures as criticism, will not free us from the relations of power inherent in all discourse, but at least they may help us to know the consequences of that power." (Spurr, 1993, p. 12)
What learning and unlearning work is required to "make a decolonial option a lived project of and in praxis?" (Garcia, 2024, p. 31)
WHAT IF writing centre internationalization narratives intentionally resisted rhetorics of coloniality and adopted conventions that prompt transparency and accountability?
WHAT IF readers and editors required the following genre conventions for WC internationalization:
Western writing centre scholars were expected to be explicit about the colonial context within which they're working and clarify whether their work addresses it? Would this help to disrupt wilful ignorance, the development of rhetorics of justification, the normalization of coloniality in writing centre praxis?
Example:
This international writing centre initiative takes place within a colonial context whereby anglicization and Americanization are processes of domination. This initiative does not disrupt colonial systems, prioritizing access to the centre of power and continuing relations of dependency...
Western writing centre scholars were expected to fully account for the violent coloniality of the English language? For the, "fundamental dilemma for many learners of English: English is both the language that will apparently bestow civilization, knowledge and wealth on people and at the same time is the language in which they are racially defined" (Pennycook, 1998/2002, p. 4)?
Western writing centre scholars were expected to account for the colonial nature of globalization and internationalization efforts, refusing cosmopolitan idealizations? Would this help to account for the urgent need for Anglicization and Americanization that creates demand for WC internationalization?
Western writing centre scholars were expected to present context about national interests in regions where there is government funding for their work. What if they presented information about the interests of funding agencies? How might this context force earnest engagement with power dynamics and neocolonial systems?
This information is often publicly available and widely known. For example, the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) is a funder of the African Studies Center and the Alliance for African Partnership at the University of Michigan. The ECA's interests are laid out in Functional bureau strategy: Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (2022). Here are some excerpts:
"The ECA "promote[s] English language learning as a gateway to educational and economic advancement... as well as program[s] dynamic American expert speakers to engage foreign audiences on topics of strategic importance to the United States... ECA is committed to ensuring that our bureau and programs effectively advance U.S. foreign policy and reflect the diversity of the United States and global society."
"ECA programs expose foreign participants to a plethora of American culture, knowledge, skills, and expertise. Through their participation, individuals are exposed to American values in communities and workplaces, and experience how these values influence decision-making processes."
"ECA will focus on building the world’s collective preparedness to prevent our [US] economy from diminished capacity to withstand future global shocks."
Western writing centre scholars were expected to fully detail the work done in the lead-up to international WC projects? How might this expectation (re)enforce the need to fully consult with, build relationships, and engage on co-constructed terms?
"there is much more to doing good work than “making a difference.” There is the principle of first do no harm. There is the idea that those who are being helped ought to be consulted over the matters that concern them." Teju Cole, 2012.
Western writing centre scholars and teachers were expected to engage in refusals to make way for "other forms of knowledge beyond the Western tradition" (Mignolo, 2003, p. 105)?
What if they were expected to shift some or all of their focus to changing the mechanisms by which the US controls the production of knowledge and forces the Anglicization and Americanization of the world?