Post Colonial Critique of International Relations - Research Paper Example

Post colonial critique of international relations The world from time immemorial till today has always been a place of incessant activity. This constant activity has been carried out due to the physical as well as mental activity of the people. This has resulted in the transformation of the world from an archaic one to a developed one. In course of history, this development made people to spread out and settle in new geographical territories. Those territories with the passage of time evolved into civilizations, kingdoms and now eventually into countries. Along with this evolution and development of territories, various political setups to rule those territories also evolved. That is, from ethnic and tribal based ruling, it has evolved to monarchy, democracy, etc. This development of various countries and their political or government setups contributed to the formulation of various theories as well as concepts by renowned thinkers, experts and researchers, which were compiled under the domain of International Relations. Thus, International Relations or IR for short, focuses on the relations between the earlier territories or the current countries of the world and how those relationships evolved and were handled from the various perspectives, including imperialistic or colonialist, diplomatic and military perspectives. Thus, under IR, the focus also has to on the earlier or historical happenings including the issues surrounding the colonialism, which was carried out in maximal manner till the second half of the 20th century. In the course of history, countries have always wished to dominate other countries or territories, and thereby ‘control’ various aspects of human life. In that way, countries in earlier times, explored many territories throughout the world, and then colonized them. In that context, colonialism and imperialism are used in synonymously. “Colonialism is a practice of domination, which involves the subjugation of one people to another. One of the difficulties in defining colonialism is that it is hard to distinguish it from imperialism. Frequently the two concepts are treated as synonyms.” (Kohn). With many countries of the world initiating colonialism or being colonized, their history and their international relationship with other countries have intertwined with that colonialism process. “By the 1930s, colonies and ex-colonies covered more than four fifths of the land surface of the globe, and colonialism formed a key transformative encounter for both the colonizer and the colonized.” (Loomba 1996). Because of that, it is important to understand the colonial or post-colonial concepts or theories to get a better understanding of the IR theories. That is, historical understanding of the postcolonial period (after colonialism, decolonization), during which the former colonies fought and gained formal independence has to be understood for better understanding of IR theories. “IR, where it has been interested in history at all, has misdescribed the origins and character of the contemporary international order, and that an accurate understanding of the ‘expansion of the international system’ requires attention to its colonial origins” (Seth 2011). Those colonized countries underwent major changes in its political, social and economic spheres, and as the effects of those changes are still having impacts or repercussions impacting not only their domestic affairs but also their international relations, those post-colonial aspects has to be focused. However, the critique against the IR in relation to the Post-colonialism is that majority of the IR theories have given much focus and emphasis on these Post-colonialism. In addition, the other critique is, these IR theories have been mostly Eurocentric, without focusing on the colonized countries or territories. So, this paper will discuss these critiques of the IR theories, by particularly discussing how the IR theories may miss the issue of how the current poor or deficient economic status of many colonized states is due to the colonization process. The concept of human development kick started with the origin of humans on this earth. That is, without delving too much into the various theories of how humans originated, the point is, when the human attained full form, the evolution did not stop there, it continued for further development. In the initial years of human origination, the concept of economy and economic development did not come into the frame of the human mind, but it changed quickly. That is, when the human became ‘humans’, and when extensive extension of population took place, the concept of economy and economic development became one of the keys for the better survival of an individual or a society or a country. And with the formation or delineation of countries, humans in the name or behalf of their countries worked and also fought for their economic development in the form of colonization or imperialism. Even this ‘works’ and ‘fights’, developed only few countries leaving a majority of countries in the lurch, particularly what came to be known as the Third World Countries. Third World countries generally constitute the countries in the continents of Africa and Asia. Although colonization was carried out by the Western countries on the so-called Western countries as well, majority of the countries, which were colonized are the Third World Countries. Thus, post-colonial or colonial aspects mainly relate to these Third World Countries, so much they are sometimes used synonmoulsy when viewed from historical context. This was validated by Mukhopadhyay, who stated that “there is no shred of doubt that in PCT (Post-colonial theories) the word "post-colonial" is not just viewed as synonymous with the Third World, but is regarded as a better successor term.” (cited in Basu et al. 2007). The reasons for this uneven development in these Third World countries are plenty, but one of key reason is the exploitation of the resources of those countries by the colonizers for their own development. However, this perspective has not been given much focus as part of the IR theories. “The replay of colonial imagery establishes failed states as deficient, abnormal, and lacking, and thereby reinforces the identity of the West as democratic, rational, and morally superior. It also serves to absolve the West from responsibility for the conditions associated with state failure, as the perceived chaos and failure is presented as an expression of otherness.” (Griffiths 2007) From the earliest times, kingdoms or territories or even private groups of people have been carrying out trade or business with one another, with the intention of selling their products and getting profits. This trade or economic relations only led to colonization or imperialism in the later states. It all started with the discovery of lands and new sea routes by the early adventures. With the founding of sea routes and the establishment of the ship building industry, the economic relations started. After Vasco da Gama found the sea route to India, circumventing the Cape of Good Hope, major European countries from the initial years of 1500’s moved in large numbers to develop trade relations. (Gopinath 2008). Due to the Renaissance, seventeenth century scientific revolution, and the eighteenth-century enlightenment, Western countries set themselves free of their drawbacks and pulled forward through their hard work and exploration. At that time, only many European countries particularly United Kingdom reached zenith of their growth. “The United Kingdom was the lead country in terms of labor productivity in the nineteenth century and played a strongly diffusionist role in world development through export of capital and free trade”. (Maddison 2005). Although, one perspective is, it is due to the ability of Britons that they were able dominate the world and claim that “sun never sets on the British empire”, it is also a known fact, that UK’s development is directly proportional to many Asian and African countries exploitation.” (Salomons 1999). That is, UK and all the major European countries from the initial years of 1500’s, after Vasco da Gama found the sea route to India, moved in large numbers to develop trade relations. But this trade turned into imperialist leanings due to the weakness of the Asian as well as African countries. So, defeating the native rulers and crushing any resistance, European countries were able to rule them. The rule of the country does not stop with administration; it went to exploitation of resources, both natural and human. All these countries had plentiful natural resources like iron, gold, cotton, etc., but all were used as the raw materials for the industries in western countries. That is, with the industrial revolution happening side by side with imperialism, the industries of England and other European countries were in dire need of raw materials. The industrial revolution is the term given to the heightened activity that was witnessed in various industries in the Great Britain in the 19th century. New technologies were developed in that period, and majority of them had applications in the various industrial sectors. (Ling 2002). Importantly, Great Britain’s foreign policy strategy of colonialism or imperialism also provided the impetus for the industrial revolution to run. With the Asian and African countries providing good amount of raw materials, all the industries in Great Britain functioned in full swing during the Industrial revolution, there by positively impacting the British economy and importantly elevating the standard of life of the British people. However, on the other side, these Third World countries or Asian and African countries became the unwilling supplier with no benefits to them. Thus, colonization established “Third World countries as objects of intervention, and normalizes the right of the North to intervene and control, adapt and reshape the structures, practices, and ways of life of the South. The ability of the rich industrialized countries to set standards for what constitutes development” in a way demeaned the Third World countries. (Griffiths 2007). This is one of the crucial things, why most of the Asian countries and African countries could not raise above poverty and underdevelopment and become a rich country. That is, if the imperialist forces avoided invading these countries they could have used their rich resources and could somehow become developed. In a way capitalistic policies followed by the colonial powers led to economic growth for these powers, while leads to ‘under growth’ in poor countries. “Capitalism as a world system has developed unevenly, with the operations of the “free market” determined by unplanned but (after analysis) “lawful” tendencies of accumulation of surplus value.” (Juan 1998) When viewed from another perspective, it can be said that imperialism and the related exploitation are not only reasons for the under-development or poor economic and social conditions of these Third World Countries. Many domestic or indigenous issues also contributed towards the restricted development. Although, this perspective holds true, the role of colonizers in the impeding the development of these countries due to their restrictions and exploitations cannot be ruled out or whisked away easily. In a way, all the colonizing powers by taking away the natural resources, and preventing the Third World countries to develop, in a way changed their terrain. “Colonial power not only changed the ways of imposing and maintaining rule in the colonial territories, but also transformed the terrain and discourses within which colonized people could respond to domination. For example, the terrain of the nation-state and the discourse of nationalism came to occupy an increasingly hegemonic status as the basis for effective resistance”. (Griffiths 2007). More importantly, this perspective was not fully focused under the IR theories, and that forms a key criticism against it. This being the case, many thinkers was of the opinion that post colonial or colonial aspects should be understood to give a deeper meaning to the current International relations as well as its related IR theories. This perspective was supported by Chatterjee (1986) who stated that the colonial history and experience has to be accorded a special status and should be regarded as an indispensable aspect for understanding of the contemporary IR. Apart from this non-focus on the economic aspects, IR theories have also minimally focused on the cultural aspects, and how those aspects were impacted by colonialism. That is, when the European colonial powers invaded or moved into those Third World Countries, the first difference that was visible is the different culture and other related social traditions. All these countries had unique and distinct cultures based on their ethnicity, religion and other historical factors, and there were no major commonalities with the cultures of the European powers. For example, the colonization process in Africa was not a smooth affair as the colonizers had to use violence, and also indulge in peaceful ‘persuasions’ to strengthen their hold. As part of this ‘persuasion’ process and importantly to govern the colonies, the colonizers utilized the services of local Africans. Most of the locals naturally opposed the colonizers, and even fought them militarily. However, certain sections of the local population in Africa collaborated with the colonizers for personal motives and also due to colonizers’ compulsions. As the colonizers unaware of the colonized territories’ culture, tradition, customs, etc., the local Africans were involved to aid them in various aspects of the colonization process. So, as part of the colonization process, the powers carried out a two-pronged approach. One is, understanding the local cultures with the help of few local liaisons and acting accordingly and the second approach is making or even forcing the locals follow their culture in a maximal manner. As it was difficult for minor number of foreign administrators to govern large population of local or ‘different’ people, the colonial powers involved the locals, particularly the interpreters. (Krishna 2001). These approaches worked aptly in certain places, with the remnants or effects of those successful approaches still prevailing in many Third World countries like languages (English, French, etc), lifestyle, dresses, etc, etc. However on the other hand, these approaches also provoked the local people in a stronger manner against the colonial powers leading to heightened nationalistic struggles. The bottom line in both these approaches is that the impact of colonial powers is still having impacts on the cultural sphere of the Third World countries and their international relations, which was again focused minimally by the IR theories or theorist. (Ling 2002). The other key cultural specific area of post-colonialism which was also non-focused as part of the IR theories is the hybridized form of cultures and cultural practices, which formed because of the interactions of two dissimilar cultures. When the people in the colonized countries tried to balance their indigenous cultures with the introduction of the foreign cultures, it kind of lead to hybridization is number of cases. This phenomenon and its less focus on IR was brought out by Juan (1998), who stated given the “ontological priority to the phenomenon of cultural difference between colonized and colonizer”, in a produced hybridization of identities, which was minimally focused as part of the IR theories. This was further validated by the Indo-British critic Homi Bhabha (1994), who stated “It is in the emergence of the interstices—the overlap and displacement of domains of difference—that the intersubjective and collective experiences of nationness, community interest, or cultural value are negotiated”. Thus, it can be implied that cultural aspects of post-colonialism was also maximally missed by the IR theories One of the main critiques, which are correlated to the above discussed IR’s non-focus on the colonialism in the Third World countries, is the resultant Eurocentric bias. “The Western or Eurocentric bias of IR is thus reproduced as the discipline is repeatedly packaged and presented.” (Jones 2006). That is, with IR theories focusing less on colonialism and its resultant social, cultural and importantly economic impacts on the colonized countries, it leads to a opinion that IR theories has directed their focus on the European countries, who initiated that colonization. They focused on the intentions and initiatives of those colonial powers, and how went on with their colonization process, thus making impacts on the international relations of theirs. The negative impacts of that process, and how it continues impact the standing of those Third World countries and their international relations is minimally focused. With some thinkers even opining that certain IR theories or theorist because of this Eurocentric bias have severely ignored the history and the people of these Third World or colonized countries. “The routine reproduction of Eurocentric forms of social inquiry is parasitic on widespread ignorance of world history, including the histories of colonialism and imperialism and, even more so, the histories of non-European peoples.” (Jones 2006). Due to this bias, several concepts, structures or even the ideology of the IR theories including the international relations between countries are managed from the perspective of the European nations or colonial powers even now. This was further validated by Jones (2006) who stated that this Eurocentric bias “is rooted far deeper in the consciousness of the discipline and the scholarship that dominates and is embedded in the very structures of international order.” With such strong and valid critiques against the IR theories and theorist in relation to the post colonial happenings or aspects, there have strong calls to avoid this Eurocentric bias and give importance to the colonial period and the perspective of the Third World Countries for better understanding of the IR theories. Theorists Philip Darby and A.J Paolini understanding this necessity has been writing for over a decade about the need to bridge the gap between postcolonialism and IR. “They called for an end to the neglect of imperialism in IR and for recognition of knowledge and representation as important forms of power.” (Darby and Paolini 1994). The need for bridge-building between postcolonialism and IR has been initiated by various researchers or thinkers and that has resulted in the publication of a number of path breaking works, which have subjected the Eurocentric concepts to apt postcolonial criticism, thereby leading to more balanced IR theories (Ling 2002; Barkawi and Laffey 2002; Krishna 2001). Thus, when this connection between postcolonialism and IR are established, it can enrich the IR theories, providing in-depth and valid perspectives about the history and its relation to current events or issues, which will aid in the better management of International relations. References Bhabha, HK., 1994. The Location of Culture, Routledge, London. Barkawi, T and Laffey, M., 2002. Retrieving the Imperial: Empire and International Relations, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 109-127. Chatterjee, P., 1986. Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World, Zed Books, New York. Darby, P and Paolini, AJ., 1994. Bridging International Relations and Postcolonialism, Alternatives, vol. 19, pp. 371-397. Gopinath, C., 2008. Globalisation: A Multidimensional System, Sage Publications, London Griffiths, M., 2009. International Relations Theory for the Twenty-First Century: An Introduction, Taylor & Francis, New York. Jones, BG., 2006. Decolonizing International Relations, Rowman & Littlefield, New York. Juan, ES., 1998. The Limits of Postcolonial Criticism: The Discourse of Edward Said, [Online] Available at http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/1781(Accessed on April 6, 2012) Kohn, M., 2011. Colonialism, [Online] Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/colonialism/ (Accessed on April 6, 2012) Krishna, S., 2001. Race, Amnesia, and the Education of International Relations, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 401-423. Ling, LHM., 2002. Postcolonial International Relations: Conquest and Desire between Asia and the West, Palgrave, New York. Loomba, A., 1996. Colonialism/Postcolonialism, Routledge, London. Maddison, A., 2005. Growth and Interaction in the World Economy: The Roots of Modernity, AEI Press, Washington. Mukhopadhyay, A. “In Theory: Post-Colonialism, International Relations and World Futures.” In: P. Basu, P. Bhattacharya, R. Das, A. Ghosh and KC. Sarkar ed. 2007. State, Nation and Democracy: Alternative Global Futures. Concept Publishing Company, pp.314-48. Salomons, E., 1999. The 1900s, Weigl Educational Publishers, London. Seth, S., 2011. Postcolonial Theory and the Critique of International Relations, Millennium - Journal of International Studies, vol. 40, no. 1, 167-183 Read More