Chapter Two Theoretical Paradigms
2.1. Foucauldian Discourse Analysis
2.2.5. Other Postcolonial Voices
37 Extending her work, Connell (2010) highlighted the importance of mutual learning of social sciences on a world scale. But she rejected the “mosaic model”, the affirmation of the “equal value of all cultures, their right to exist and flourish” and the capacity to learn from one another (p.43). She argues this model considers “indigenous knowledge as a closed system”
(p.44) or static, which fits with the binary between “primitive” and “advanced” constructed by the West through the doctrine of “progress” in the nineteenth century. She argues that cultures are “much more fluid, interconnected, messy social processes” (p.44). She proposed the concept of mutual learning which suggests “mutual criticism as a learning mechanism”
(p.49). Thus the interchange in this mutual learning is based on the capacities of knowledge systems to develop, “to engage in self-criticism and to transform themselves in the pursuit of truth” (p.49). So Connell made ‘truth’ as the significant point of reference and self and mutual criticism as a technique to interrogate the dominance of the global North in the construction of the social sciences which was constituted with a colonial spirit. The implication of Connell’s position for my study is that I need to treat the lecturers’ subjectivities in AW and CCU courses as ‘fluid’ and ‘interconnected’ with other aspects such as cultural geographies, different regimes of truth, national polices, and university curriculum document and others. Another important implication is that ELT practices needs to be situated as a site of ‘self and mutual criticism’ between global North and South.
Connell (2013b) is herself aware that she was not the first to challenge the dominant social science paradigm. There are prior literatures which share, to some extent, a similar aim but with different emphasis for examples: Science, hegemony and violence (Nandy, 1988), Decolonizing methodologies (Smith, 2012), Provincializing Europe (Chakrabarty, 2000), Alternative discourses in Asian social sciences (Al-Atas, 2006), Eurocentrism, Racism and Knowledge (Araujo & Maeso, 2015), Counterhegemonic currents and internationalization of sociology (Keim, 2011), Decolonizing European Sociology (Rodriquez, Boatca & Costa, 2010).
38 the Renaissance as the basis of the theoretical construction of the majority social theorists has been challenged by “medievalists” and early modern historians especially those working in “printing revolution, global art historians and critics of comparative histories” (Bhambra, 2007, p.103). For example, the ‘discovery’ of ancient text, one of the dominant claims in the Renaissance was also found by “the scholars and Islamic worlds” (Bhambra, 2007, p.93) thus the claim that the ‘discovery’ of the ancient texts only belong to Europe is not adequate (see Bhambra, 2007, for details). Based on an insufficient understanding of European modernity in the dominant narratives, Bhambra (2007) proposed an understanding of modernity by adopting an historical approach to connected histories. Different understandings of modernity include “the contribution of non-European others and the contribution of European colonialism” (p.153) as they are connected (see Go, 2013). The idea of connected histories is the way to rethink our current situations in order to emphasize “the trajectories of change associated with them from multiple perspectives, rather than a dominant European one” (Bhambra, 2007, p.153). Extending her work, Bhambra (2013) proposed postcolonial perspectives of global sociology because the current issues of “multiple modernities paradigm”, “a global multicultural sociology” (p.295) and global cosmopolitanism are still problematic. However, I will only focus on Bhambra’s global multicultural sociology as it is the most relevant to my research.
Bhambra (2013) discusses “global multicultural sociology” to address the social epistemological issues in the contexts of multiple modernities. The discussion of global multicultural sociology for Bhambra (2013) echoes the discussion of “indigenisation” of sociology which resonates with Akiwowo’s (1986; 1999) articles. However, for Bhambra this indigenising project which is expected to provide “spaces for alternative voices” (p.303) has little impact on “the hierarchies of the discipline” (Kiem, 2011, p.128). Further Bhambra (2013) reported that the debates on indigenization were followed by discussions of
“autonomous or alternative social science traditions” (Alatas, 2010; 2006), Sinha’s (2003) decentred social science enacted through personal act and choices, and Connell (2007) calls for “multiple, globally diverse, origins of sociology” (p.304). Bhambra (2013) argues that, although these scholars have different arguments in general their positioning was “centred on” the belief that autonomous or alternative, social science traditions are importantly constructed by the context of civilizations (p.203). This positioning, Bhambra argues
39
“intentionally or not” situates Europe as the reference point. In the case of multiple modernities, autonomous traditions were reported to “have little discussion of what the purchase would be” for a global sociology other than “a simple multiplicity” (Bhambra, 2013, p.304). Bhambra (2013) critiqued the existing understanding of multiple modernities for example the one proposed by Eisenstad (2000). Eisenstad (2000) proposes multiple modernities as a “certain view of the contemporary world – indeed of the history and the characteristics of the modern era … it goes against the views of the “classical” theory of modernisation” (p.1). The problem lies in the fact that Western modernity remains the centre that others are encouraged to emulate as recorded in this statement: “Western patterns of modernity … enjoy historical precedence and continue to be a basic referent point for others”
(Einsenstad, 2000, p.3, emphasis added). In that regard, Bhambra (2013) extends Alatas’
(2006) and Connell’s (2007) argument by proposing and defining the idea of multiple modernities.
Understanding the ‘mosaic’ model of global sociology from different angles, Bhambra (2014) critiqued Connell’s (2010) position towards the mosaic model of knowledge system.
Bhambra argues that although Connell argued against the mosaic model, her argument is
“not argued historically” (p.96). Bhambra suggested that there is a need to reconstruct the model by looking “backwards as much as forwards” by giving serious examination to the interconnections of “alternative histories” (p.96) to argue for an adequate global sociology, one which can address the “deficiencies and the limitations” of the dominant understandings and one which “enables more productive insights in the future” (p.156). Bhambra appeared to have made a critical and interconnected historical analysis as a way to interrogate the dominant narratives of Sociology and create more dialectic and promising spaces of the future of this discipline. In my study, the lecturers’ subjectivities in AW and CCU courses will need to be seen from the interconnections between the historical spread of ELT in Indonesia (Dardjowidjojo, 2000), how this spread might have shaped lecturers’ subjectivities in their courses as well as looking forward to a more liberating teaching space.
Addressing the critiques of postcolonial theories to dominant sociology, Go (2016) proposed that postcolonial theories and sociology can mutually support each other. Go (2016) conceptualised what he called postcolonial perspectival realism (pp.143; 192, emphasis original) which is a third wave of postcolonial theory. Go (2016) argues that postcolonial
40 perspectival realism takes inspiration from two different sociological approaches, postcolonial relationalism and the subaltern standpoint (p.188). Postcolonial relationalism is inspired by Edward Said’s (1993) contrapunctal approach10 (emphasis added) and the second wave critiques of postcolonial social theory, namely imperial binarism. The goal, Go (2016) argues, is to foreground the “connectedness of being”, that is to “trace the mutually constitutive and independent character of social identities and entities” (p.188). He argues that postcolonial realism captures “the relations among peoples, places and processes across global space” which usually has been unobserved (p.188). It also goes beyond the nature of essentialism, repressed agency and binarism or “analytic bifurcation” (p.188). The other approach the subaltern standpoint draws from is standpoint theory. It accordingly
“correlates” to perspectival realism to avoid universalism in social science (p.188). The subaltern standpoint is reported to be inspired by Fanon’s and Du Bois’ approaches that start the analysis from the experiences of the peoples who are “subjugated by the geopolitical relations of power” and then trace the “larger relations and connections” which shape the subjugated peoples’ experiences. The subaltern standpoint initiates from “the being of connectedness” (emphasis original) (p.188). Go asserts that these two approaches are not new but “immanent” to postcolonial social theory (p.188). He calls these two approaches “a generative postcolonial social science” (emphasis original) (p.188).
Go also aims to address the critiques of postcolonial theory that suggest that “postcolonial theory rejects realism” (p.190). Postcolonial perspectival realism (Go, 2016) accordingly aims to address the critiques posed to Southern theories which include Connell’s (2007) ideas, Al Atas’ (2006) Alternative Social Sciences, Santo’s (2014) alternative epistemologies and others which have been criticised because of “limited lenses of indigenous sociology” as they are grounded in the standpoint of individuals which fail to “illuminate larger institutions and structures”. Furthermore, Go (2016) highlighted Southern theories’ inability to question what makes Southern Sociology distinctly Southern. Go argues that indigenous and Southern theories have “obscure epistemic warrants” “at best”, that do not suggest alternatives to positivistic ideas of objectivity, sciencetivity, and universality, and instead only rely on identity
10 Contrapunctal approach is “a simultaneous awareness both of the metropolitan history that is narrated and of those other histories against which (and together with which) the dominating discourse acts” (Said, 1994, p.51).
41 based arguments. Go (2016) argues that we are left without criteria for adjudicating knowledge claims between the theories in the South and North.
With regard to the existing criticisms documented by Go (2016), I would argue that Go (2013) might be partly right given his interest in framing sociology from “larger institutions and structures” as indicated in his (2008; 2011) research on American and British Empires. In the case of Al Atas (2006), who discussed historical sociology based on the ideas of Ibnu Khaldun, Go’s (2016) claim that indigenous sociology is grounded in the standpoint of individual is true.
However, the case of Akiwowo’s (1986) work, which aims to contribute African oral poetry to sociology contradicts Go’s (2016) claim. Indigenous sociology may not have sufficient access to material resources to provide critical assessment of the larger structure of the global North (see Connell, 2007, Canagarajah 2002c). Addressing the issue of how to define the Southernness of Southern Sociology, I would argue that the Sociology becoming Southern can empower colonised countries in the global South. In concurrence with this, Connell’s (2013b) reference to her 2007 book on activist knowledge also focuses on empowerment. I also agree with Santos (2016) who defines the global South as a metaphor of the victims of colonialism and capitalism rather than a “geographical concept”; “the South [is] a metaphor for the human suffering caused by capitalism and colonialism on the global level, as well as for the resistance to overcoming or minimising such suffering” (p.18).
That Southern theories are also criticized because they perpetuate the existing binarism between North versus South, I would argue, is an unavoidable irony when challenging categories such as the construction of East and West (see also Holliday, 2010). This is where language fails us and is insufficient. But what is more important I would argue is not the category itself but rather the theorists’ support for the colonised and subjugated. With regard to what is claimed as epistemic obscurity in the Southern theories, they need to be seen from their own knowledge systems not from the global North (Connell, 2013b; Nakata, 2007). In this regard I would question Go (2016) about whether the comparison needs to be made if the theories from the South and North are based on different knowledge systems. If there is still insistence on comparing this, I would further ask about the purpose of the comparison. I would argue that Santos’ (2009; 2014) concept of ecology of knowledge and Connell’s (2007) advocacy for multi centred social science is more appropriate. It appears that claims that Southern Theories are subjectivist and relativist are only the extension of old debates about
42 objectivism and subjectivism (Bourdieu, 1990; Swartz, 1997) and I would argue Southern Theories also have their own ways of knowing (see Santos, 2014; 2016).
In response to Go’s (2016) criticism of the individual focus of Southern theories, I have designed my study to not only focus on examining the individuals’ teaching practices but also how these individuals’ practices are entangled in larger structures such as the policy documents from the universities, from Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education, the President’s decree, and other possible networks such as the selected Asian Development Bank and World Bank Documents. Furthermore, my work reconciles theories from both the global South and North, which resonates with Go’s (2016) postcolonial perspectival realism.
Pratt’s (2008) contact zone, Chakrabarty’s (2000) provincializing Europe, and Manathunga’s (2015) cultural geography are also critical to my study. Pratt (2008) explained the transcultural aspects of “contact zones” in coloniser/colonialised relations. Transculturation, “the reciprocal influences of modes of representation and cultural practices of various kinds in colonies and Metropoles” (Aschroft, Griffiths & Tiffin, 2000, p.213), is possible in “contact zones” because the lecturers and students need to “operate sensitively” in the production and exploration of “cultural exchange and integrated knowledge creation” (Manathunga, 2009, p.165). Transculturation suggests “a highly productive pedagogy” (Manathunga, 2014, p.18). Pratt (2008) argues that these are “social spaces where disparate cultures meet, clash and grapple with each other, often in highly asymmetrical relations of domination and subordination” (Pratt, 2008, p.7). So, rather than being seen as passive subjects, the lecturers and students in my study, following Pratt’s notion, may do their own “knowing” and
“interpretation” of Western discourses about writing in English as “subordinated or marginal groups select and invent from materials transmitted to them by dominant metropolitan culture” (Pratt, 2008, p.7).
Chakrabarty (2000) argues that European history and philosophy are valuable to understand the production of historical knowledge. However, in postcolonial settings, power and knowledge play out differently. For example, in the “modern European political thought and social science”, humans are believed to be “ontologically singular”, “gods and spirits” are considered as “social facts” in that the “social somehow exists” before the human (p.16). He argues that the “logical priority of the social” is not applicable in the Indian context as for him
43 being humans suggests, quoting Ramachandra Gandhi, “the possibility of calling upon God [or gods] without being under an obligation to first establish his [their] reality” (p.16).
Furthermore, he argued that “European thought” is open to be “renewed from and for the margins” (p.16). Using Chakrabarty’s critiques of European history and philosophy above, Manathunga (2014) explored the “secular and religious sense of time” to propose important questions for intercultural postgraduate supervision on the possibilities of exploring “myths, legends … rituals and ceremonies, oral histories” (p.79) as evidence of “time, place, and knowledge” (p.78).
Manathunga (2015) used the term cultural geography along with other “eclectic” resources such as postcolonial, indigenous, feminist, and social theories about “time, place and knowledge” to provide alternative readings of intercultural doctoral education. She elaborates her identity and positioning before discussing her concept of intercultural doctoral education. Drawing from the existing studies such as Massey (1997), Nakata (2007), Penetito (2009), Sommerville (2010) and others, Manathunga (2015) argues for the need to “locate place and geography at the heart of research and intercultural supervision”11 (see also Manathunga, 2014). In that context, Manathunga has placed her own cultures, place and geography as important in her constitution of research and intercultural supervision. I would argue that the network of culture, place and geography as Manathunga (2015) argues is important to understand Indonesian lecturers’ subjectivities in English Language Teaching as the lecturers have experiences between geographical locations and bring with their own histories.
All of this theoretical work has significant methodological implications for my study. Firstly, this thesis is designed to accommodate and extend the local subjugated knowledges reflected in lecturers’ discourses: the Islamic, local Javanese, and other forms of discourses usually marginalised in global studies of ELT. It is proposed to represent them through this thesis and disseminate them to a wider audience.
Secondly, I am open to the possibility that some of the lecturers will operate within the dominant understanding of knowledge, including the possibility of marginalising Southern
11 No page number is available in the article.
44 knowledge. Furthermore, I need to situate the lecturers’ teaching practices into a larger discursive policy network such as the universities, the ministry, and the President’s decree, as well as other larger forces such as the selected Asian Development Bank and World Bank Document (accessible online).
Another possible methodological implication of my conceptual framework is that I need to treat the lecturers’ own choice of alternative ELT methods (methods) and what they do in the classroom as legitimate in their own right. I need to be open to different forms of the dominant ELT Methods, eclectic Methods, and alternative methods the lecturers apply in the classroom. Furthermore, I treat the lecturers’ ELT Methods and methods in an equal way in the analysis. In that regard, adapting Connell’s (2007) ideas, I have enacted a multicentered social science approach. This will further be discussed in Chapter Seven (The Constructions of ELT Methods).
The next possible implication is that lecturers may use a variety of Englishes in the classroom as legitimate in their own right. World Englishes theoretical framing appreciates all varieties of Englishes such as Inner, Outer, and Expanding circles as well as the hybrid use of Englishes.
This will further be discussed in Chapter Eight (The Constructions of World Englishes).