Advertisement

Doing Area Studies in the Americas and Beyond: Towards Reciprocal Methodologies and the Decolonization of Knowledge

  • Olaf Kaltmeier
Chapter

Abstract

The entanglement of knowledge, space and power in Area Studies is the topic of this chapter, which aims to provide an outline for a reconceptualization of the Americas as a space of entanglement as well as elements for the decolonization of knowledge. The chapter begins with a short discussion on the emergence and dynamics of Area Studies in and on the Americas. Thereby the construction of the “area” of the Americas is analyzed in terms of coloniality. In the main part, this contribution discusses two aspects that are highly relevant to Area Studies: space and knowledge. First, it proposes a framework to rethink hemispheric Area Studies in terms of the—still fuzzy—concept of the Americas as a space of entanglement. Second, it criticizes the hegemonic geopolitics of knowledge and proposes dialogical, entangled methodologies. The chapter ends with a plea for a relational and pluri-topic Area Studies that reflect power relations and that do not fix or define the meaning of areas.

Keywords

Knowledge Production Academic Field Indigenous Research Academic Capital Latin American Study 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Bibliography

  1. Corona Berkin, S. (2007). Entres voces … Fragmentos de educación “entrecultural.” Guadalajara: Universidad de Guadalajara.Google Scholar
  2. Corona Berkin, S. (2012). Horizontale Methoden. Im Dialog mit Jugendlichen wixáritari in Jalisco, Mexiko. In O. Kaltmeier & S. Corona Berkin (Eds.), Methoden dekolonialisieren. Eine Werkzeugkiste zur Demokratisierung der Sozial- und Kulturwissenschaften (pp. 43–58). Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot. [A Spanish version of this book has been edited simultaneously: Corona Berkin, S. & Kaltmeier, O. (Eds.). (2012). En diálogo. Metodologías horizontales en Ciencias Sociales y Culturales. Barcelona: gedisa.].Google Scholar
  3. Crapanzano, V. (1977). On the Writing of Ethnography. Dialectical Anthropology, 2(1–4), 69–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Denzin, N., Lincoln, Y., & Smith, L. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  5. Derrida, J. (1990). Some Statements and Truisms About Neologisms, Newisms, Postisms, Parasitisms and Other Small Seismisms. In D. Carroll (Ed.), The States of Theory: History, Art, and Critical Discourse (pp. 63–95). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Fabian, J. (1983). Time and the Other. How Anthropology Makes Its Object. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Kaltmeier, O., & Corona Berkin, S. (Eds.). (2012). Methoden dekolonialisieren. Eine Werkzeugkiste zur Demokratisierung der Sozial- und Kulturwissenschaften. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot.Google Scholar
  8. Kaltmeier, O. (2012). Methoden dekolonialisieren: Reziprozität und Dialog in der herrschenden Geopolitik des Wissens. In O. Kaltmeier & S. Corona Berkin (Eds.), Methoden dekolonialisieren. Eine Werkzeugkiste zur Demokratisierung der Sozial- und Kulturwissenschaften (pp. 7–24). Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot.Google Scholar
  9. Kaltmeier, O. (Ed.). (2013). Transnational Americas. Envisioning Inter-American Area Studies in Globalization Processes. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
  10. Kaltmeier, O. (2014). Inter-American Perspectives for the Rethinking of Area Studies. Forum for Inter-American Research, 7(3), 171–182.Google Scholar
  11. Kaltmeier, O., & Thies, S. (2012). Specters of Multiculturalism: Conceptualizing the Field of Identity Politics in the Americas. Latin American and Caribbean Studies, 7(2), 223–240.Google Scholar
  12. Kapoor, I. (2004). Hyper-Self-Reflexive Development? Spivak on Representing the Third World “Other.” Third World Quarterly, 25(4), 627–647.Google Scholar
  13. Kapoor, I. (2008). The Postcolonial Politics of Development. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Kuhn, T. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Ludden, D. (2003). Why Area Studies? In A. Mirsepassi, A. Basu, & F. Weaver (Eds.), Localizing Knowledge in a Globalizing World (pp. 131–137). New York: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
  16. McClennen, S. (2005). Inter-American Studies or Imperial American Studies? Comparative American Studies, 3(4), 393–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mignolo, W. (2000). Local Histories/Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges and Border Thinking. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Mignolo, W. (2014). Decolonial Reflections on Hemispheric Partitions: The “Western Hemisphere” in the Colonial Horizon of Modernity and the Irreversible Historical Shift to the “Eastern Hemisphere.” Forum for Inter-American Research, 7(3), 41–58.Google Scholar
  19. Pinto Passos, M., & Ribes Pereira, R. (2012). Rassismus und Identität in Brasilien. Über Begegnungen und Freundschaften in der Forschung mit afro-brasilianischen Kindern. In O. Kaltmeier & S. Corona Berkin (Eds.), Methoden dekolonialisieren. Eine Werkzeugkiste zur Demokratisierung der Sozial- und Kulturwissenschaften (pp. 116–127). Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot.Google Scholar
  20. Pratt, M. (1991). Arts in the Contact Zone. Profession, 91, 33–40.Google Scholar
  21. Quijano, A. (2000). Colonialidad del poder, eurocentrismo y América Latina. In E. Lander (Ed.), La colonialidad del saber: eurocentrismo y ciencias sociales. Perspectivas Latinoamericanas (pp. 201–246). Buenos Aires: Clacso.Google Scholar
  22. Raab, J., & Thies, S. (Eds.). (2008). E Pluribus Unum? National and Transnational Identities in the Americas/Identidades Nacionales y Transnacionales En Las Américas. Münster: Lit.Google Scholar
  23. Rabinow, P. (1986). Representations Are Social Facts: Modernity and Post-Modernity in Anthropology. In J. Clifford & G. Marcus (Eds.), Writing Culture (pp. 234–261). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  24. Randeria, S., & Conrad, S. (Eds.). (2002). Jenseits des Eurozentrismus. Postkoloniale Perspektiven in den Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
  25. Raussert, W. (2014). Mobilizing “America/América”: Toward Entangled Americas and a Blueprint for Inter-American “Area Studies.” Forum for Inter-American Research, 7(3), 59–97.Google Scholar
  26. Riaño, Y. (2012). Die Produktion von Wissen als Minga. Ungleiche Arbeitsbeziehungen zwischen Forschenden und “Beforschten” überwinden? In O. Kaltmeier & S. Corona Berkin (Eds.), Methoden dekolonialisieren. Eine Werkzeugkiste zur Demokratisierung der Sozial- und Kulturwissenschaften (pp. 77–95). Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot.Google Scholar
  27. Roth, J. (2014). Decolonizing American Studies: Toward a Politics of Intersectional Entanglements. Forum for Inter-American Research, 7(3), 135–170.Google Scholar
  28. Rufer, M. (2012). Sprechen, zuhören, schreiben. Postkoloniale Perspektiven auf Subalternität und Horizontalität. In O. Kaltmeier & S. Corona Berkin (Eds.), Methoden dekolonialisieren. Eine Werkzeugkiste zur Demokratisierung der Sozial- und Kulturwissenschaften (pp. 25–42). Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot.Google Scholar
  29. Said, E. (1994). Kultur und Imperialismus. Einbildungskraft und Politik im Zeitalter der Macht. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
  30. Schlehe, J., & Hadaya, S. (2014). Transcultural Ethnography: Reciprocity in Indonesian-German Tandem Research. In M. Huotari, J. Rüland, & J. Schlehe (Eds.), Methodology and Research Practice in Southeast Asian Studies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  31. Smith, L. (1999). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  32. Smith, N. (2010). Remapping Area Knowledge. In T. Wesley-Smith & J. Goss (Eds.), Remaking Area Studies: Teaching and Learning across Asia and the Pacific. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
  33. Spivak, G. (1990). The Post-Colonial Critic. Interviews, Strategies, Dialogues. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Tedlock, D. (1995). Fragen zur dialogischen Anthropologie. In E. Berg & M. Fuchs (Eds.), Kultur, soziale Praxis, Text. Die Krise der ethnographischen Repräsentation (pp. 269–287). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  35. Waldenfels, B. (1987). Ordnung im Zwielicht. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  36. Wesley-Smith, T., & Goss, J. (Eds.). (2010). Remaking Area Studies: Teaching and Learning across Asia and the Pacific. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
  37. Wilson, S. (2009). Research Is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing.Google Scholar
  38. Wilson, W., & Yellow Bird, M. (2005). For Indigenous Eyes Only: A Decolonization Handbook. Santa Fe: Sar-Press.Google Scholar
  39. Yellow Horse Brave Heart, M. (2005). From Intergenerational Trauma to Intergenerational Healing [pdf]. Wellbriety, 6(6). Available at: http://www.whitebison.org/magazine/2005/volume6/wellbriety!vol6no6.pdf [Accessed 15 Apr. 2012].

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olaf Kaltmeier
    • 1
  1. 1.University of BielefeldBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations