Decolonizing knowledge: neoliberalism beyond the three worlds

ABSTRACT

This article argues that critiques of neoliberalism tend to rely on and reproduce the coloniality of knowledge. It analyzes how recent academic scholarship has mobilized the notion of neoliberalism to make sense of postsocialist transformations and identifies in it an epistemological meta-geography that reproduces the three-worlds scheme, a specific Cold War era articulation of the colonial matrix of power. The article traces various ways in which this meta-geography has structured academic debates on postsocialist neoliberalism. It emphasizes the importance of moving beyond the spatial and temporal infrastructure of the three worlds, and identifies a set of epistemological alternatives that would enable decentering this infrastructure. In conclusion, the paper argues that although postsocialism has received relatively little attention in attempts to decolonize knowledge, it has potential to serve as a critical form of thought in destabilizing Eurocentric assumptions in theorizing neoliberalism and opening up spaces for imagining the world differently.

KEYWORDS:

• assemblage
• coloniality
• domestication
• hybridity
• liminality
• neoliberalism
• postsocialism
• three worlds

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributors

Anni Kangas is university lecturer in International Relations at the University of Tampere and a partner in the Finnish Centre of Excellence in Russian Studies. Among her research interests are theories of international relations, cultural political economy, and the role of art and popular culture in world politics. Her ongoing research focuses on the changing meta-geography of international relations (e.g. global cities).

Suvi Salmenniemi is associate professor of sociology at the University of Turku, Finland. Her research interests include political sociology, cultural studies, the sociology of class and gender, and (post)socialism. Her ongoing research examines the politics of therapeutic technologies of self-improvement and complementary and alternative health.

Notes

1. ‘Postsocialism’ has been variously employed to refer to a period of time, a geographical area, enduring institutional ‘legacies’, a historical-material condition of life, and a conceptual paradigm (Borelli and Mattioli 2013; Hann 2008; Chari and Verdery 2009).

2. In discussing the usefulness of postsocialism as a category, Caroline Humphrey argues that, although ‘actually existing socialism’ was an uneven phenomenon with diverse manifestations in different countries, ‘its structures had more in common than actually existing capitalisms’. However, she argues that divergences between the former socialist countries have been accentuated since the 1990s (Humphrey 2002, 12).

3. Our review draws on contributions published in major English-language academic fora, which to a great extent set the parameters for scholarly debate and thus exert an important influence on knowledge production. Most of the contributions in our analysis have focused on European postsocialism, including Russia, as well as postsocialist Asia.

4. For a recent critical discussion of the governmentality approach and Foucault’s relationship to neoliberalism, see Zamora and Behrent (2015).

5. For a cogent analysis of the complex relationship between economics and neoliberalism, see Venugopal (2015).

6. We wish to thank one of the anonymous reviewers for helping us to formulate this point.