Double Critique Revisited, Or Does It Matter Who is the Most Legitimate Victim?
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0727-2098
Abstract
The full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine has accentuated the parallel existence of discordant and impervious narratives – the global anticolonial and the more local anti-Soviet/Russian. Caught up in their victimhood rivalry, both narratives demonstrate their inability to engage in pluriversal thinking and be ready to sacrifice their privileges, real or symbolic. The invasion has also shown the poverty of
the global theory that continues to flounder in the swamp of emasculated universalism or to grab on to the provincial and ignorant ”stand pointism” unable to practice solidarity with anyone and for anything. These are disturbing signs of a surrender to modern/colonial futureless agonistics that seeks to spite the enemy rather than to generate anything constructive. In its early years decolonial option stressed the importance of double critique. Today the double critique often shrinks to a one-sided rejection of the straw-manned collective west, while decolonial thinkers too easily pardon dictators and rogue states who manipulatively use their anti-Western rhetoric. Paradoxically, this bias reproduces the same modern/colonial paradigm which decoloniality claims to delink from while dismissing Ukrainians as mere victims or dispensable lives. The essay analyzes the reasons for this current dangerous binarization in decolonial thinking and reflects on possible ways for revamping the complexity of the double critique and hopefully, for reimagining decoloniality in the 21st century.
References
Bukowiecki, Ł., Wawrzyniak, J. and Wróblewska, M. (2020). Duality of decolonizing: artists’ memory activism in Warsaw. Heritage & society [online], 13:1-2, pp. 32-52. Available from: DOI:10.1080/2159032X.2021.1898076 [accessed 24 August 2025]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2159032X.2021.1898076
Coronil, F. (1995). Introduction. In: Ortiz, F. Cuban Counterpoint. tobacco and sugar. Durham: Duke University Press, pp. IX-IVII.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford law review [online], 43(6), pp. 1241-1299. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039 [accessed 24 August 2025]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039
Demirel, C. (2023). Analyzing competitive victimhood. Doctoral Dissertation, Södertörn University.
Esimde. (2014). A discussion platform for studying and understanding the events, facts, processes and “blank pages” that remain in the history and memory of the people [online]. Available from: https://ru.esimde.org/en/about-us-2 [accessed 17 August 2025].
Fry, T. (2017). Design for/by ‘the Global South’. Design philosophy papers [online], 15 (1), pp. 3-37. Available from: DOI: 10.1080/14487136.2017.1303242 [accessed 23 August 2025]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14487136.2017.1303242
Fry, T. and Tlostanova, M. (2020). A new political imagination. making the case. London: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003038221
Greer, M. R., Mignolo, W. and Quilligan, M., eds. (2007). Rereading the black legend: the discourses of religious and racial difference in the renaissance empires. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226307244.001.0001
Hendl, T. (2022). Towards accounting for Russian imperialism and building meaningful transnational feminist solidarity with Ukraine. Gender studies [online], 26, pp. 62–93. Available from: [accessed 23 August 2025].
Hendl, T., Burlyuk, O., O’Sullivan, M. and Arystanbek, A. (2023). (En)Countering epistemic imperialism: A critique of “Westsplaining” and coloniality in dominant debates on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Contemporary security policy, 45.2, pp. 171-209. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2023.2288468 [accessed 23 August 2025]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2023.2288468
Hill Collins, P. (2000). Black Feminist thought: knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York: Routledge.
Khatibi, A. (1983). Maghreb Pluriel. Paris: Denoёl.
Koobak, R., Tlostanova, M. and Thapar-Björkert, S., eds. (2021). Postcolonial and postsocialist dialogues. London: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003003199
Lim, J.-H. (2010). Victimhood nationalism in contested memories: national mourning and global accountability, In: Assmann, A. and Conrad, S., eds. Memory in a global age. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 138–162. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230283367_8
Lorde, A. (2007) [1984]. The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. In: Lorde, A. Sister outsider: essays and speeches. Berkeley, CA: Crossing Press, pp. 110-114.
Lotman, Y. (2002) [1989]. Problema Vizantiiskogo Vliyania na Russkuju Kulturu v Tipologicheskom Osveschenii [Byzantine Influence on the Russian culture in typological interpretation]. In: Lotman, Y. Istorija i Tipologia Russkoi Kulturi [History and Typology of Russian Culture]. Saint Petersburg: Iskusstvo SpB, pp. 47-55.
Lugones, M. (1994). Purity, impurity and separation. Signs[online], 19(2), pp. 458-479. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3174808 [accessed 23 August 2025]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/494893
Lugones, M. (2003). Pilgrimages/Peregrinajes: theorizing coalition against multiple oppression. Lanham, MD.: Rowman & Littlefield. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9798216385264
Matsuda, M. J. (1991). Beside my sister, facing the enemy: Legal theory out of coalition. Stanford law review [online], 43, pp. 1183-1192. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/1229035 [accessed 23 August 2025]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1229035
Mernisi, F. (2000). Scheherazade goes west: different cultures, different harems. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Mignolo, W. (2009). Epistemic disobedience, independent thought and de-colonial freedom. Theory, culture & society [online], 26(7–8), pp. 1–23. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409349275 [accessed 15 August 2025]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409349275
Mignolo, W. and Ch. Mattison. (2012). Delinking, decoloniality & dewesternization: interview with Walter Mignolo (Part II). Critical legal thinking [online], 2 May. Available from: https://criticallegalthinking.com/2012/05/02/delinking-decoloniality-dewesternization-interview-with-walter-mignolo-part-ii/ [accessed 18 August 2025].
Mignolo, W. (2023). It is a change of era, no longer the era of change. Postcolonial politics, January 29. Available from: https://postcolonialpolitics.org/it-is-a-change-of-era-no-longer-the-era-of-changes/ [accessed 18 August 2025].
Mignolo, W. and Schiwy, F. (2003). Transculturation and the colonial difference. Double translation. In: Maranhão, T. and Streck, B., eds. Translation and ethnography. the anthropological challenge of intercultural understanding. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, pp. 3-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1vg7p6r.5
Mignolo, W. and Tlostanova, M., eds. (2006). Double critique: knowledges and scholars at risk in post-Soviet societies. SAQ, 105, July 10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1215/00382876-2005-008
Mujeres Creando. (2020). Available from: https://mujerescreando.org/ [accessed 18 August 2025].
Ortiz, F. (1995) [1940]. Cuban Counterpoint, tobacco and sugar. Durham: Duke University Press.
RCMC. (2025). Rohingya Cultural Memory Center [online]. Available from: https://rohingyaculturalmemorycentre.iom.int/ [accessed 18 August 2025].
Stoler, A. L. (2016). Duress. Imperial durabilities in our times. Durham: Duke University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv125jn2s
Decolonial International Network. (2022). Decolonial Dialogues #20 with Sandew Hira and Ramon Grosfoguel on Ukraine [video online]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujRroWTvBu0 [accessed 18 August 2025].
Tlostanova, M. (2010). Gender epistemologies and Eurasian borderlands. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230113923
Tlostanova, M. (2012). From Ortiz to the decolonial option: transculturation and border epistemology in contemporary sociocultural thought. Annales universitatis paedagogicae cracoviensis. studia sociologica [online], IV.(1), pp. 9-16. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/11716/13586 [accessed 15 August 2025].
Tlostanova, M. (2015). Can the Post-Soviet think? on coloniality of knowledge, external imperial and double colonial difference. Intersections [online], 1(2) pp. 38-58. Available from: https://doi.org/10.17356/ieejsp.v1i2.38 [accessed 20 August 2025].
Tlostanova, M. (2022). Discordant trajectories of the (post-)Soviet (post)colonial aesthetics. Interventions: international journal of postcolonial studies [online], 24(7), pp. 995-1010. Available from: DOI: 10.1080/1369801X.2022.2054003 [accessed 17 August 2025]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369801X.2022.2054003
Tlostanova, M. (2023a). Decoloniality: between a travelling concept and a relational onto-epistemic political stance. In: Suarez Krabbe, J. and Groglopo, A., eds. Coloniality and decolonisation in the Nordic Region. London: Routledge, pp. 145-163. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003293323-9
Tlostanova, M. (2023b). Can methodologies be decolonial?: Towards a relational experiential epistemic togetherness. In: Lykke, N., Koobak, R., Bakos, P., Arora, S. and Mohamed, K., eds. Pluriversal Conversations on transnational feminisms: and words collide from a place. London: Routledge, pp. 125-138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003378761-13
Tlostanova, M. (2023c). Narratives of unsettlement. being out-of-joint as a generative human condition. London: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003344964
Tlostanova, M. and Mignolo, W. (2011). Learning to unlearn. decolonial reflection from Eurasia and the Americas. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.
Wynter, S. (1995). 1492. A new world view. In: Lawrence Hyatt, V. and Nettleford, R., eds. Race, discourse, and the origin of the Americas: a new world view. Washington: Smithsonian Institution, pp. 5-57.
Downloads
Article Metrics Graph
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.