Theoretical analysis uncovers complex colonial entanglements in Southern knowledge production, highlighting dynamic geopolitical positions beyond simple North-South binaries.
This essay complicates the distinction between of “North” and “South” as spaces of knowledge production—which usually entails the privileging of the South as an emancipatory space—by directing attention to Southern actors’ imbrication with forms of colonialism. It calls for situating both Northern and Southern actors within networks of global knowledge exchanges by critically examining their positionality vis-à-vis colonial relations domestically and internationally. More specifically, it asks how interstitial colonial positions gave rise to new centers of knowledge production and expertise in the postcolonial world. It considers these positions not as static identities but as strategic, adaptative, dynamic, relational, and contingent upon geopolitically determined itineraries of global exchange.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A. M. Levin (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: