Content uploaded by Jan Orbie
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jan Orbie on Jan 24, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Editorial
Decolonizing Rather than Decentring ‘Europe’
Jan ORBIE
*
, Antonio Salvador M. ALCAZAR III, Anissa BOUGREA,SzilviaNAGY,
Alvaro OLEART,JonalynC.PAZ,RahelW.SEBHATU,TiffanyG.WILLIAMS &Izabella
WÓDZKA
Josep Borrell’s infamous 13 October 2022 speech, where he described the European
Union (EU) in terms of a ‘garden’versus the ‘jungle’outside, has received an unpre-
cedented amount of scrutiny. Yet the metaphor used by the High Representative of the
EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and European Commission Vice-President
in charge of ‘a stronger Europe in the world’was not new, nor was its underlying logic a
surprise. Various analysts have pointed out the colonial tropes in European policy-
makers’discourses over the past decades. In an influential essay that came out in 2000,
Sir Robert Cooper, who would later also become an advisor to the Council of the EU,
the European External Action Service, and the European Commission, pitched the
‘postmodern’EU where the rule of law is reigning versus ‘premodern’states where the
‘law of the jungle’prevails.
1
This illustrates how mainstream EU political discourse has
been, and remains, highly colonial in the way in which relations between the EU and its
presumed ‘others’in world politics are conceived.
More notable is the intensity of the debate and condemnation that Borrell’s
speech has generated within policy and scholarly circles. This reflects a growing
realization that the EU should be more modest about its so-called civilizational
achievements and acknowledge the long and dark shadow of its colonial past.
Against the background of clear challenges to (western) European dominance in
the world system, critical observers are ardently questioning Europe’s alleged moral
and sociopolitical superiority. Issues of racism within Europe have been increasingly
discussed in the wake of ‘Black Lives Matter’protests. Recent research has revealed
Orbie, Jan; Alcazar III, Antonio Salvador M.; Bougrea, Anissa; Nagy, Szilvia; Oleart, Alvaro; Paz, Jonalyn C.;
Sebhatu, Rahel W.; Williams, Tiffany G. & Wódzka, Izabella. ‘Decolonizing Rather than Decentring ‘Europe’’.
European Foreign Affairs Review 28, no. 1 (2023): 1–8.
© 2023 Kluwer Law International BV, The Netherlands
*
Jan Orbie is member of the Editorial Board of the European Foreign Affairs Review. All authors have
been involved in the activities of the EUROGLOT Research Network (https://www.southsouthmove
ment.org/projects/euroglot-research-network/). We are grateful to the participants of the Migration and
Governance Forum (UNU-CRIS, Bruges, 22 November 2022) and, in particular, to Nora El Qadim
and Laura Luciani for helpful feedback on an earlier draft and to participants of the EUROGLOT
Reading Group (26 October 2022) for sharing their insights. Email: Jan.Orbie@ugent.be.
1
R. Cooper, The Post-Modern State and the World Order (Demos 2000).
the colonial logics behind the creation of the European Economic Community.
2
Equally important, the idea of ‘coloniality’forces us to think through the persis-
tence of civilizational, economic, epistemic, gendered and racialized hierarchies
today despite the nominal act of decolonization.
3
These developments have not gone unnoticed in academia. Research agendas have
emerged around ‘decentring’,‘disrupting’and ‘decolonizing’the discipline of EU
(foreign policy) studies. For instance, papers, panels and roundtables on these issues
received prominent places in recent conferences of the European Union Studies
Association (Miami, May 2022) and the University Association for Contemporary
European Studies (Lille, September 2022). New handbooks in the discipline also include
chapters on decentring as well as decolonial and postcolonial perspectives.
4
Gurminder
K. Bhambra, a well-recognized professor, working in the field of postcolonial and
decolonial studies, wrote the Annual Lecture Article for the Journal of Common
Market Studies, a leading journal in EU studies.
5
In it, Bhambra articulates a ‘decolonial
project for Europe’that necessarily begins with acknowledging the material structures
inherited from colonialism that are still present today and insists on the imperative of
postcolonial reparations. In 2023, the Journal of Contemporary European Research will
publishanentirespecialissueondisruptingEuropeanStudies,
6
with contributions
dedicated to, among others, decolonizing EU trade relations with the Global Souths
and decolonial approaches to curricular thought and praxis in European Studies.
It can only be applauded that such questions are gradually finding a place in
mainstream discussions on European foreign policy. That said, considerable
2
For example, P. Hansen & S. Jonsson, Eurafrica: The Untold History of European Integration and
Colonialism (Bloomsbury Publishing 2014); P. Pasture, The EC/EU Between the Art of Forgetting and
the Palimpsest of Empire, 26(3) Eur. Rev. 545–581 (2018); A. Van Weyenberg, ‘Europe’on Display: A
Postcolonial Reading of the House of European History, 66(4) Politique Européenne 44–71 (2019); G.
Garavini, After Empires (Oxford University Press 2021); M. Brown, The Seventh Member State. Algeria,
France, and the European Community (Harvard University Press 2022).
3
Compare A. Quijano, Coloniality of Power and Eurocentrism in Latin America, 15(2) Int’l Soc. 215–232
(2000); M. Lugones, Heterosexualism and the Colonial/Modern Gender System, 22(1) Hypatia 186–219
(2007); G. Ndlovu-Gatsheni, Coloniality of Power in Postcolonial Africa: Myths of Decolonization, Council
for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa (2013).
4
For example, C. Kinnvall, Postcolonialism,inThe Routledge Handbook of Critical European Studies 72–84
(Routledge 2020); N. Fisher-Onar & K. Nicolaïdis, The Decentring Agenda: A Post-Colonial Approach to
EU External Action,inThe External Action of the European Union: Concepts, Approaches, Theories 288–304
(Red Globe Press 2021); S. Keukeleire & S. Lecocq, Decentring European Foreign Policy Analysis,inThe
External Action of the European Union: Concepts, Approaches, Theories 297–312 (Red Globe Press 2021); T.
Haastrup, Critical Perspectives on Africa’s Relationship With the European Union,inThe Routledge Handbook of
Critical European Studies 511–522 (Routledge 2020); R. W. Sebhatu, Applying Postcolonial Approaches to
Studies on Africa-EU Relations,inThe Routledge Handbook on EU-Africa Relations (Routledge 2021).
5
G. K. Bhambra, A Decolonial Project for Europe, 60(2) J. Com. Mkt. Stud. 229–244 (2022); see also T.
Haastrup, R. Milner & R. G. Whitman, Who Creates the ‘Common Market’? The Gendered Practices of
Knowledge Production in a ‘European Studies’Journal, 21 Eur. Pol. Sci. 417–429 (2022).
6
M. David, M. Garcia, T. Haastrup & F. Mattheis, Disrupting European Studies?, J. Contemp. Eur. Res.
(forthcoming).
2EUROPEAN FOREIGN AFFAIRS REVIEW
challenges remain in teasing out the (meta)theoretical, methodological and empiri-
cal implications of ‘decentring’and ‘postcolonial’or ‘decolonial’approaches to EU
foreign policy. In the field of EU external action, the decentring agenda has been
conceptualized by Fisher-Onar and Nicolaïdis
7
in terms of three analytical dimen-
sions: provincialization (questioning Eurocentrism), engagement (exploring ‘non-
European’perspectives), and reconstruction (recalibrating EU policies). Building
on this, Keukeleire and Lecocq have further operationalized these three stages into
a research agenda that considers categories of space, time, polity and norms.
8
In this sense, the decentring agenda pluralizes modes of knowing EU/Europe
within a field grappling with Eurocentrism. However, there is much ambiguity on
how this increasingly popular scholarly enterprise relates to postcolonial perspec-
tives or, more alarmingly, how it subsumes the decolonial option. Although the
decentring project (rightly) claims to be ‘inspired’by postcolonial theories and
indeed borrows from thinkers and concepts within the diverse strand of postcolo-
nial thought, it does not have the same political commitments as the decolonial
project. If anything, it provides the EU with convenient epistemological leeway to
use the coloniality of power to thrive and serve its interests. The ambiguity with
which the decentring agenda navigates postcolonial work, in some cases conflating
the two strands of literature, can be interpreted as a way to recentre Europe in a
veiled way. Arguably, the decentring agenda may appropriate and weaponize
certain elements of postcolonial work against the decolonial project.
Decentring scholarship mostly aims to build bridges between academia and
policy practitioners by presenting legitimate (including post/decolonial) concerns
through less provocative vocabularies. From this perspective, decentring could
contribute to a more ‘self-reflective’,‘adapted’or ‘recalibrated’European foreign
policy that is more suited to the increasingly complex and fast-changing world,
which could be realized through training EU civil servants and diplomats in the
Commission and the European External Action Service (EEAS).
9
Decentring
scholarship is more concerned about the possibilities of changes within existing
structures through pragmatic policy measures and discussions with those already in
positions of power; decolonial thought would have a more antagonistic approach
towards existing institutions and rather orient the conversation towards and engage
with wider social justice movements and aim for a longer-term paradigm change.
Instead of the changes that come with an ‘increasingly connected, contested and
7
N. Fisher-Onar & K. Nicolaïdis, The Decentring Agenda: Europe as a Post-Colonial Power, 48(2) Coop.
Confl. 283–303 (2013); Fisher-Onar & Nicolaïdis, supra n. 4.
8
S. Lecocq & S. Keukeleire, Decentring the Analysis of EU Foreign Policy and External-Internal Legitimacy:
(Re-)introducing Polity, 4(2–3) Global Aff. 341–351 (2016); Keukeleire & Lecocq, supra n. 4; S.
Keukeleire & S. Lecocq, Operationalising the Decentring Agenda: Analysing European Foreign Policy in a
Non-European and Post-Western World, 53(2) Coop. Confl. 277–295 (2018).
9
Compare Keukeleire & Lecocq, supra n. 4, at 307, 317.
EDITORIAL 3
complex world’
10
or ‘an increasingly non-European and post western order’,
11
decolonial thought stresses colonial continuities over the past centuries and the
persistence of coloniality of power in our societies.
Thus, there exist not only significant differences but, in fact, contradictions
between such approaches. By defining the distinctions between decentring and
decolonial approaches in a more discernible way (see table below), we aim to provoke
much-needed dialogues on (the study of) the EU in the world. With this purpose in
mind, we admittedly synthesize the vast diversity of the decentring and decolonial
perspectives with a view to juxtaposing their differences. Our insights on the decen-
tring agenda rely mainly on a number of key publications
12
and on public discussions
with its key proponents.
13
Table Decentring and Decolonial Agendas in EU Foreign Policy Studies?
Stylized Comparison
Decentring Decolonizing
General Key works Fisher-Onar & Nicolaïdis
14
;
Keukeleire & Lecocq
15
Sebhatu
16
; Bhambra
17
;
Rutazibwa
18
; Staeger
19
; Alcazar
III et al
20
; Evans & Ionescu
21
Origins –(Mainstream) political science,
EU studies and International
Relations (IR)
–Universities
–Critical social theory and
sociological approaches
–Geopolitically situated
struggles
Approach General Research agenda Political agenda
Posture –Constructive
–Connecting with policy-
makers
–Disruptive and dismantling
–Social justice movements
10
Ibid., at 307.
11
Fisher-Onar & Nicolaïdis, supra n. 4, at 297.
12
Fisher-Onar & Nicolaïdis, supra n. 7 and supra n. 4; Keukeleire & Lecocq, supra n. 4 & supra n. 8.
13
UACES Roundtable (Lille 5 Sep. 2022); RELATE Seminar #3, online (26 Oct. 2022).
14
Supra n. 8, supra n. 4.
15
Ibid.
16
Supra n. 4.
17
Supra n. 5.
18
O. Rutazibwa, What If We Took Autonomous Recovery Seriously? A Democratic Critique of Contemporary
Western Ethical Foreign Policy, 20(1) Ethical Persps. 81–108 (2013).
19
U. Staeger, Africa-EU Relations and Normative Power Europe: A Decolonial Pan-African Critique, 54(4) J.
Com. Mkt. Stud. 981–998 (2016).
20
A. S. M. Alcazar III, C. Nessel & J. Orbie, Disruption as Dialogue: Decolonising EU Trade Relations With
the Global Souths?, J. Contemp. Eur. Res. (forthcoming).
21
A. M. F. Evans & D. P. Ionescu, Unlearning and Relearning Europe: Theoretical and Practical Approaches to
Decolonizing European Studies Curricula, J. Contemp. Eur. Res. (forthcoming).
4EUROPEAN FOREIGN AFFAIRS REVIEW
Decentring Decolonizing
Process –Ticking the box
–Framework
–Heuristic device
–Boxing
–Work
–Critique
Goals Main goal –Pluralize
–Effectiveness and legitimacy
–Decolonize
–Justice and emancipation
For whom EU
(researchers; practitioners)
Subaltern, Postcolonial subjects/
subjecthood, Colonized and
racialized Others, Indigenous
communities
Material –Improve power
–Adapt and recalibrate policies
–Reshuffle power
–System change, destroy colo-
nial/modern hierarchies, return
of Indigenous land and life
Epistemic –Know more
–Knowledge can be neutral
–Unknow, re-know, unlearn to
relearn
–Knowledge is always embo-
died and political
Firstly, the distinction becomes most visible in the general posture of the presented
writings. The decentring agenda reads like a constructive undertaking, which aims
to ultimately contribute to a more diverse and inclusive world.
22
This becomes
especially clear in the third step of ‘reconstruction’. Interestingly, such bridge-
building attempts do not necessarily imply a negation of EU interests. Quite the
contrary, it is suggested that decentring of knowledge can, by being more aware of
other perspectives, contribute to the effectiveness and even to the legitimacy of EU
foreign policy.
23
Eurocentrism is problematic not only because of moral reasons
but because it is ‘self-defeating’,
24
‘counterproductive’and ‘ineffective’for EU
foreign policy. In turn, these can be illustrated by referring to the EU’s failure to
anticipate the Russian war against Ukraine
25
and many abstentions within the UN
on this issue which diminish the EU’s power.
26
Decentring here appears as the
22
For example, Fisher-Onar & Nicolaïdis, supra n. 4, at 294; Fisher-Onar & Nicolaïdis, supra n. 7, at 29;
S. Wolff, D. Gazsi, D. Huber & N. Fisher-Onar, How to Reflexively Decentre EU Foreign Policy:
Dissonance and Contrapuntal Reconstruction in Migration, Religious and Neighbourhood Governance, 60(6) J.
Com. Mkt. Stud. 1620 (2022).
23
Keukeleire & Lecocq, supra n. 4, at 317. The authors also point out that decentring can ‘contribute to
the EU’s efforts at resilience building’.
24
Fisher-Onar & Nicolaïdis, supra n. 4, at 293.
25
Keukeleire & Lecocq, supra n. 4, at 306, 316.
26
Fisher-Onar, supra n. 13.
EDITORIAL 5
academic variant of spying in diplomacy. The logic is the same: by better under-
standing its presumed others, the EU is better equipped to pursue its (geo)political
agendas in world politics. Ironically, the preoccupation with the EU’s knowledge
of the Other also serves to recentre Europe in the writings. Rather than mean-
ingfully decolonizing the role of the EU in the world from geopolitically situated
struggles and forms of resistance, in some ways it in fact reinforces it and enables its
continuation.
Instead, the decolonizing agenda is critical of projects of inclusion into the
existing dominant order.
27
It is explicitly and purposely disruptive, even to the
point of inviting the uncomfortable feelings that may arise when the status quo is
challenged. As fiercely and regretfully pronounced in Fanon’s call for violence and
de-linking from the (former) colonial oppressor,
28
decolonial authors have often
pursued fundamental changes to the existing system. These changes should not
only be of an epistemic nature –material dimensions should be stressed too.
Importantly, the decentring agenda pays much attention to the knowledge dimen-
sion and the need to acknowledge different voices. However, it is less outspoken in
terms of material redistributions of power,
29
let alone redress for colonial injuries
and transgenerational injustices. Decolonial thought and praxis have more
unflinchingly advanced the abolishment of existing institutions that inhibit the
coloniality of power. The latter could involve, for instance, calls for the abolition
of Economic Partnership Agreements with the EU,
30
reparations for formerly
colonized peoples,
31
or ‘autonomous recovery’and de-linking from the Western
(aid) system.
32
In contrast, decentring authors emphasize the need for enhanced
partnership, better conversations and engagement, with the EU still holding the
upper-hand.
Secondly, and closely related, we notice the widely varying perspectives on
the role of science. The decentring agenda presents itself as a research programme
27
L. Luciani, Decentring EU Human Rights Promotion. Three Civil Society Struggles and the Geo-politics of the
EU’s Interventions in the South Caucasus 158 (2022), https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Laura-
Luciani/publication/365508302_Decentring_EU_human_rights_promotion_Three_civil_society_
struggles_and_the_geo-politics_of_the_EU’s_interventions_in_the_South_Caucasus/links/
6377b1d237878b3e87bfc7f0/Decentring-EU-human-rights-promotion-Three-civil-society-struggles-
and-the-geo-politics-of-the-EUs-interventions-in-the-South-Caucasus.pdf (accessed 25 Nov. 22).
28
F. Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth (Grove Press 1961).
29
Fisher-Onar & Nicolaïdis (supra n. 7, at 294) do emphasize the need for a ‘systematic mitigation of
wealth and power asymmetries in international politics’, but they do this in the context of the
‘imperative of mutuality’which characterizes EU integration and should be ‘translated from a norm
prevailing inside the Union to a basic norm governing relations with the rest of the world’.
30
Compare Sebhatu, supra n. 4; M. Langan & S. Price, Migration, Development and EU Free Trade Deals:
The Paradox of Economic Partnership Agreements as a Push Factor for Migration, 7(4) Global Aff. 505–521
(2021).
31
Compare Bhambra, supra n. 5.
32
Compare Rutazibwa, supra n. 18.
6EUROPEAN FOREIGN AFFAIRS REVIEW
that can at least to some extent (specifically, in the first and second phases) be
‘neutral’. As stated by Keukeleire and Lecocq:
a clear distinction should be made between the Decentring Agenda as an analytical or
heuristic tool on the one hand, and as a normative judgment on the other. The aim is to
assist scholars in detecting, labeling and understanding concepts, ideas and practices that do
not fit within the usual frames of reference, without making a priori normative
judgements.
33
Much effort has gone into developing and operationalizing ‘frameworks’that
serve as ‘heuristic devices’and ‘tools’for academics who want to decentre their
research from Eurocentrism. A key part of the purported problem is indeed the
‘inadequacy …to understand and explain the EU’s role and the outcome of its
foreign policy’in a complex world.
34
But from a decolonial perspective, it’s
important to recall that historically ‘objective’research has been used to cement
the existing power relations as ‘natural’.
35,36
Therefore, while the decentring agenda seems to entail a practical dimension
that can be credited for enhancing the applicability and comprehensibility for
students and stakeholders, there is a risk of falling into methodic, ‘ticking the
box’exercises that obfuscate the complexities that are inherent to postcolonial
developments and continuing colonialities. It also carries the risk that the latter
becomes depoliticized. Instead, decolonial agendas aim to politicize ‘local space’:
37
they are more explicitly normative from the outset, but the decentring agenda is
no less normative in spite of its veil of ‘objectivity’and ‘neutrality’. Our decolonial
standpoint requires acknowledging the historical epistemological injustices, prior-
itize the voices and narratives about ‘Europe’of those communities that have been
historically subjugated,
38
and positioning ourselves politically while also unveiling
33
Keukeleire & Lecocq, supra n. 8, at 280. Similarly, Keuleers, Fonck & Keukeleire clarify that they see
EU-centrism in the narrow sense of research focus on the EU and not in the ‘far more loaded’and
‘normative’sense of the West occupying centre stage in world history. F. Keuleers, D. Fonck & S.
Keukeleire, Beyond EU Navel-Gazing: Taking Stock of EU-centrism in the Analysis of EU Foreign Policy,51
(3) Coop. Confl. 361 (2016).
34
Keukeleire & Lecocq, supra n. 4, at 306.
35
See E. A. Kaplan, Looking for the Other: Feminism, Film, and the Imperial Gaze (Routledge 1997); G.
Ndlovu-Gatsheni, The Cognitive Empire, Politics of Knowledge and African Intellectual Productions:
Reflections on Struggles for Epistemic Freedom and Resurgence of Decolonisation in the Twenty-First Century,
42(5) Third World Q. 882–901 (2021).
36
This also involves more attention for the international political economy of research and knowledge
production and the international division of labour in research (see e.g., M. Sukarieh & S. Tannock,
Subcontracting Academia: Alienation, Exploitation and Disillusionment in the UK Overseas Syrian Refugee
Research Industry, 51(2) Antipode 664–680 (2019)).
37
Compare M. Sabaratnam, IR in Dialogue …But Can We Change the Subjects? A Typology of Decolonising
Strategies for the Study of World Politics, 39(3) Millennium 797 (2011).
38
See A. Oleart & A. Van Weyenberg, Narrating ‘Europe’: A Contested Imagined Community, 66(4)
Politique Européenne (2019).
EDITORIAL 7
how research agendas that are framed as ‘objective’are using this legitimacy to
flatten decolonial approaches.
Thirdly, the decentring agenda attempts to raise concerns that could be
resolved through the inclusiveness it purports to achieve. According to
Keukeleire and Lecocq, ‘decentring requires scholars and practitioners to attempt
understanding phenomena which may be considered illegitimate or morally pro-
blematic, as is reflected in the debate on …whether beliefs and practices
embedded in different cultures can be analysed without prior ethical judgement’.
39
While their concern touches on an important issue, it misses a key point about
how to redress Eurocentrism. Better engaging with scholars from underrepresented
backgrounds is an accessible way to avoid cultural relativism or further pushing
Eurocentric interpretations. Such scholars are uniquely equipped to fill knowledge
gaps and certainly can do so while remaining objective, scientific and under-
standable to a broad audience. Additionally, promoting trans- and inter-discipli-
narity can enable political scientists and other policy scholars to access historical,
cultural, linguistic and anthropological insights where it is lacking and offers the
opportunity for disciplines to work together towards a decolonial future.
Overall, such differences may not be surprising, as they have different theore-
tical roots and correspond to the familiar tensions within all social struggles
between revisionist versus radical strands. In this way, the ‘decentring’and ‘deco-
lonizing’agendas have conflicting views. It might be envisageable to adapt a
‘decentring’discourse –and thus avoid references to the ‘jungle’and the ‘gar-
den’–without meaningfully changing the underlying colonial ideological para-
digm. Both agendas are driven by a strong desire to better reflect on complicated
issues of diversity. However, decolonial thinking and praxis are addressing the
roots and consequences of colonialism and coloniality in their analysis rather than
‘decentring’Europe.
Some may argue that they might be complementary in that decolonial
approaches could ideally create more space for political debates within which
decentring approaches could then advance pragmatic improvements and induce
gradual evolutions towards systemic change. There is however no guarantee that
this would happen, especially if decentring and post/decolonial agendas continue
to be conflated. While decentring may lead to a more legitimate and effective EU
foreign policy, it may also not diminish or may even reinforce the coloniality of
EU power. Thus, rather than ‘decentring Europe’, we ought to move towards
decolonial futures that truly prioritize the democratic struggle against colonial
continuities.
39
Keukeleire & Lecocq, supra n. 4, at 308.
8EUROPEAN FOREIGN AFFAIRS REVIEW
