Indigenous Epistemology and Decolonizing Praxis in TESOL

CRITICAL INQUIRY IN LANGUAGE STUDIES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, 3(2 & 3), 147–167 Copyright © 2006, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Rethinking TESOL From a SOL’s Perspective: Indigenous Epistemology and Decolonizing Praxis in TESOL Hyunjung Shin OISE/University of Toronto In this paper, as a ‘SOL’ of TESOL, I examine the conjunction between TESOL and colonialism, its manifestation in the South Korean context, and how to create a counter-hegemonic space to envision decolonizing TESOL praxis through explication and repudiation of such colonial discourse in TESOL. In particular, I focus on decolonizing knowledge production in TESOL through “indigenous epistemology,” an epistemology of the colonized informed by indigenous ideas and local practices (cf. Dei & Asgharzadeh, 2000; Gegeo & Watson-Gegeo, 2002), as an alternative paradigm for TESOL analysis. Political evocation of indigenous epistemology to challenge the Western canon prevalent in TESOL contributes to academic decolonization of TESOL as a global industry, and ELT theories and pedagogies. Colonial constructions of [superior] Self and [inferior] Other, combined with factors such as race, gender, ethnicity, class, language, and others, have been constantly re/produced in TESOL (cf. Pennycook, 1998). These are constructions that can arguably be mapped onto the name TESOL itself: TE (for Self) and SOL (for Other). Despite the increasing ideological critiques of TESOL/applied linguistics (e.g., Norton, 2000; Pennycook, 2001), however, critiques of the neo-colonial role played by TESOL in the global context remain underrepresented in the field. This situation may arise, first of all, from the still prevalent view of English language teaching (ELT) as a neutral, objective disci- pline, which has nothing to do with societal power relations such as colonialism. It may also be due to the common spatial and temporal interpretation of the word “colonialism”: colonialism is a historical fact (e.g., British colonialism long past) and regional issue (e.g., experienced only by former colonies of the British empire). Additionally, we are living in an era when “the word globaliza- tion is substituted for the word imperialism” (Smith, 1999, p. 24), which further complicates contemporary manifestations of colonialism. Although it is not that Correspondence should be sent to Hyunjung Shin. E-mail: [email protected] 148 SHIN colonial history was about simple, brutal oppressions in contrast to the “complex presents” (Pennycook, 1998, p. 29), the complexities of the present day colonialism demand different kinds of understanding and resistance to it. In this paper, as a ‘SOL’ of TESOL , I challenge what I interpret to be the pessimistic side of Pennycook’s (1998) argument about possible oppositions to discourses of colonialism in the field and examine how we can create a counter- hegemonic space to envision decolonizing our praxis through explication and repudiation of current colonial discourses in TESOL. In particular, I focus on decolonizing knowledge production in TESOL through “indigenous epistemology,” an epistemology of the colonized informed by indigenous ideas and local practices (cf. Dei & Asgharzadeh, 2000; Gegeo & Watson-Gegeo, 2002), as an alternative paradigm for TESOL analysis. My interest in epistemology to discuss TESOL pedagogies is motivated by Reagan’s (2004) argument: any peda- gogical practice is fundamentally an epistemological issue in that “the way in which we think about knowledge and what it means to know” is essentially re- lated to “how we teach” (p. 51, emphasis in original). I first introduce the terms “postcolonial” and “indigenous knowledge/epistemology” and then briefly situate myself in this writing. I next discuss the conjunction between TESOL and colonialism and continue to illustrate it with the case of ELT in South Korea. I anchor my argument for decolonizing TESOL praxis informed by indigenous epistemology in findings from qualita- tive studies I conducted with Korean teachers and students, before I conclude. Colonialism has not left as yet: Defining “post-colonial(ism)” The term “post-colonial(ism)” remains a contested term, mainly because of the prefix “post”: the “post” (possibly) mistakenly implies that colonialism is “over, finished business” (Smith, 1999, p. 24) and dangerously connotes that we have made progress from the colonial past to a new, post-colonial world (of hybridity) despite the poverty and deprivation still prevalent in this new world (Dei & Asgharzadeh, 2000). So, many indigenous intellectuals have: the sneaking suspicion that the fashion of post-colonialism has become a strategy for reinscribing or reauthorizing the privileges of non-indigenous aca- demics because the field of ‘post-colonial’ discourse has been defined in ways which can still leave out indigenous peoples, our ways of knowing and our current concerns. (Smith, 1999, p. 24; see also Loomba, 1998; Moore-Gilbert, Stanton, & Maley, 1997) In this paper, I follow Loomba (1998) and broaden the scope of “post- colonial(ism)” to any kinds of “contestation of colonial domination and the legacies of colonialism” (p. 12) to include both historical anti-colonial resistance and contemporary opposition to dominant Western imperialism and culture rather than implying that which follows the end of colonialism. Accordingly, the fixity of “colonial” associated with the European classical colonialism should be RETHINKING TESOL 149 also problematized and extended to include “all forms of dominating and op- pressive relationships” (Dei & Asgharzadeh, 2000, p. 308) inherent in contemporary social structures of power and privilege. With the current “re- colonization processes” (p. 301) dictated by global capital, “there is nothing ‘post’ about colonialism” (p. 306). As Macedo (1999) claims, with “Third Worldization” of inner cities in North America and First World opulence in some sectors in Third World, the colonized and the colonizer are increasingly interrelated. To sum up, the language of colonialism “may have changed” and the targets of colonization “may have shifted,” but colonialism persists (Smith, 1999, p. 100). Indigenous knowledge/epistemology Just as the term “postcolonial” is controversial, “indigenous (knowledge)” also has multiple meanings in different historical, social, cultural, and political contexts. Hence, in advocating indigenous knowledge/epistemology in this paper, I do so with extreme caution. First, I do not mean to reject all Western scholarship, or attempt to create a hierarchical construct of good (Indigenous) and bad (Western) knowledge (Dei, 2000, p. 113). Furthermore, I recognize that notions of nation (and national identity), tradition, and historic past are controversial; notions of “indigeneity/indigenous knowledge” are sometimes used (rather dangerously) to promote essentialism based on historical ethno/nationalism at the expense of linguistic/cultural minorities (see, e.g., Ku- bota, 2002, for a discussion of the nihonjinron discourse in Japan). Additionally, as Kramsch (1998) rightly points out, with increasing hybridity of language learners (and teachers) in the current global context, the Self/Other binary is being replaced with presumably more productive notions such as “in-between” so that students and teachers can choose from multiple roles of their social identities in their own contexts. At the same time, however, promoting fragmentation (or hybridity) as a universal project for all (post)colonial contexts may be prob- lematic; for some (post)colonial subjects, fragmentation is what they are/need to be “recovering from” (Smith, 1999, p. 97; see also Loomba, 1998). Thus, we should not “essentialize essentialism itself” (Bucholtz & Hall, 2004, p. 376). My evocation of “indigenous knowledge” in this paper is a political (and strategic) project for colonial power often eradicates indigenous identities of the Other so that the colonized cannot use such identities as a source of resistance (Dei & Asgharzadeh, 2000). As Dei & Asgharzadeh contend, the Kurds in Tur- key were not allowed to be named “Kurds,” but only as “Mountain Turks” in the dominant discourse; therefore, reclaiming Kurdishness was essential to Kurdish activists as a means to resist the colonial power in Turkey. Similarly, the Japa- nese colonial power in Korea banned Korean language, culture, and names to annihilate the Koreanness of the Koreans; hence, minjokjuui (or nationalism) was the central ideology of many anti-colonial movements of Koreans to re- claim Koreanness(es) during colonial times. In light of this, a sense of “indigenousness” is acquired through continuous struggles and opposition against the 150 SHIN colonial power (Dei & Asgharzadeh, 2000) rather than pre-given. Indigenous knowledge should thus be conceptualized as “a process of constantly (re)theorizing, (re)creating, and (re)structuring knowledge” (Gegeo & Watson- Gegeo, 2002, p. 381). Hence, an introduced knowledge which has been trans- formed to fit local contexts (i.e., indigenized) is considered as indigenous, although not traditional (Gegeo & Watson-Gegeo). What should be highlighted is ways of constructing and theorizing indigenous knowledge (i.e., indigenous epistemology) and ways of applying such knowledge (i.e., indigenous critical praxis) rather than indigenous knowledge itself (p. 403). That is, the “indigenous” I adopt in this paper is not about romanticism with pure, pre-colonial past (cf. Spivak, 1988), but about strategic creation of such indigenousness as a

Load more