This week’s topic could not have come at a better time. Discussions on global intellectual history and postcolonial theory are not only extremely relevant in today’s political, social, and environmental climate (pun intended) but provide a new perspective to both ‘global’ and ‘intellectual’ historical approaches. While at its core global intellectual history concerns the study of ‘global’ ideas, it is more complicated than that. As many of this week’s readings identify, scholars cannot (or most definitely should not) attempt to ‘globalize’ intellectual history without acknowledging the implicit Eurocentric or Western power structures and systems at work or perspectives they may hold. Neither, as Milinda Banerjee argues, can they simply substitute the study and works of elite white men with those of elite brown men nor occasionally pepper Western narratives with marginalized actors. With this in mind, global intellectual history must engage with anti-/post-colonial discourses to fully address a ‘global’ perspective.
I encountered a similar theme while researching for my short paper. While investigating the historiographical origins of Latin America (and Latin Americans) within global and Atlantic history, I stumbled upon a general disconnect. On one side, Western (typically American/British, but also some broader European) historians lamented the absence of Latin American/Caribbean scholars and topics in the field. On the other, prominent Hispanic- and Luso-American scholars detailed their extensive (since the 1940s) engagement with global, trans-imperial/transnational, and Atlantic perspectives. My current hypothesis, as will be detailed in my essay, argues that this disconnect stems from language barriers and Western academic systems that have confined Anglophone scholars within a Eurocentric bubble. Restricted by this, these scholars then chastise other regions for not producing ‘equivalent’ scholarship, reinforcing Eurocentrism within global and Atlantic world history.
To be honest, I found this week’s readings to be very challenging. But this wasn’t a tedious or apathetic ‘challenging,’ but one that demanded I explore further and rethink my current presumptions. While complex, the intersection between many different subfields, like feminist, queer, decolonial, Marxist, anti-racist, and environmentalist discourses, piqued my interest. It is this intersectionality, specifically in the call to action through these discourses, that I find most significant. As much as historians are criticized for their ivory towers, education and novel approaches can (and will) exact meaningful change.