Comparative Framework: Selected Theories of Institutional Suffering

Abstract

In this chapter, I offer a situated comparison of postcolonial theory with selected theories that aim to work against institutional suffering. My intention is not to provide an authoritative “last word” on similarities and differences between theories, but to offer categories of analyses such as approaches to humanism, nation-states, private property, and so on, that can spark further dialogue between different fields. The rationale is that the productive power of comparing differences and similarities in these approaches lies in the acknowledgment of their contextual contributions and insufficiencies, as well as their potential to bring each other into creative crisis and into something new. I do recognize that whatever is presented in this chapter is one possible interpretation of such approaches, that meanings and definitions will always be produced “in context” and that, therefore, what I present here will be highly contested. I welcome the contestation as an opening for relationship and dialogue. Before presenting a framework for comparison, I offer a brief outline of my preferred postcolonial theoretical framework and then highly selective (and grossly oversimplified) outlines of the approaches that will be included in the comparison. In order to instigate curiosity and engagement beyond dominant perspectives in education, I have chosen to include approaches that have originated in other fields and whose translations into education are still not “mainstream.” These include: (de)colonial studies, international indigenous studies, and critical race theory.