Explore the vast range of titles available.

Purpose: This article aims to engage in a meaningful discussion of Occidentalism as a discourse that draws its roots from Orientalism. It scrutinizes the limitations of Occidentalism in investigating the East-West encounter from the perspective of Orientals (Arab intellectuals) and the multifarious ways the latter relate to and imagines the Occident. It will cast a critical eye on the multiple and diverse constructions of Occidentalism as a discourse, arguing that unlike Orientalism, which homogenizes the Orient, Occidentalism does not Occidentalize/homogenize the Occident. Methodology: We take as a starting point Edward Said's definition of Orientalism as a style of thought based upon an ontological and epistemological distinction made between 'the Orient' and 'the Occident', and we explore the limitations and the possibilities of Occidentalism as a method to construe the colonial mechanisms of misrepresentation of the Other as everything that is different from the Self. This article compares and contrasts a plethora of existing definitions of Occidentalism as formulated by scholars from both the Arab world and the Occident. Findings: This paper concludes that the Oriental's encounter with the Occident cannot, and should not, be projected as a reverse relationship, or, as some claim, as an 'Orientalism in reverse', but rather as a diverse set of relationships of Orientals who have experienced the Occident in a variety of manners. Furthermore, while Orientalism derives from a particular closeness experienced between the Occident and its Orient, oftentimes through real or imagined encounters, Occidentalism is also the outcome of a long cultural relationship between the Orient and its Occident. What differs between the Orient and Occident, however, is the position of power and hegemony, which characterizes the Occident's encounter with the Orient. Originality: This article takes an all-inclusive view to discuss the term Occidentalism from the perspectives of both the Orient and the Occident. It teases out the limitations of this term and challenges Orientalist methods of misrepresentation, which continue to blemish the Arab world and its discourse of Occidentalism as a discourse of hatred of the Occident. Furthermore, through the discussion of Alloula's Oriental Harem, it offers insight into the suggested Occidentalism method, which emphasizes the disfigurations of the Orient while tactfully writing back to the Occident.

Addressing complex social-ecological issues requires all relevant sources of knowledge and data, especially those held by communities who remain close to the land. Centuries of oppression, extractive research practices, and misrepresentation have hindered balanced knowledge exchange with Indigenous communities and inhibited innovation and problem-solving capacity in all scientific fields. A recent shift in the research landscape reflects a growing interest in engaging across diverse communities and ways of knowing. Scientific discussions increasingly highlight the inherent value of Indigenous environmental ethics frameworks and processes as the original roadmaps for sustainable development planning, including their potential in addressing the climate crisis and related social and environmental concerns. Momentum in this shift is also propelled by an increasing body of research evidencing the role of Indigenous land stewardship for maintaining ecological health and biodiversity. However, a key challenge straining this movement lies rooted in colonial residue and ongoing actions that suppress and co-opt Indigenous knowledge systems. Scientists working with incomplete datasets privilege a handful of narratives, conceptual understandings, languages, and historical contexts, while failing to engage thousands of collective bodies of intergenerational, place-based knowledge systems. The current dominant colonial paradigm in scientific research risks continued harmful impacts to Indigenous communities that sustain diverse knowledge systems. Here, we outline how ethical standards in researcher practice can be raised in order to reconcile colonial legacies and ongoing settler colonial practices. We synthesize across Indigenous and community-based research protocols and frameworks, transferring knowledge across disciplines, and ground truthing methods and processes in our own practice, to present a relational science working model for supporting Indigenous rights and reconciliation in research. We maintain that core Indigenous values of integrity, respect, humility, and reciprocity should shape researcher responsibilities and methods applied in order to raise ethical standards and long-term relational accountability regarding Indigenous lands, rights, communities, and our shared futures.

I argue that meta-ignorance and meta-insensitivity are the key sources influencing the reoccurrence of the (un)conscious misrepresentation of marginalized groups in management and organization research; such misrepresentation, in effect, perpetuates epistemic neocolonialism. Meta-ignorance describes incorrect epistemic attitudes, which render researchers ignorant about issues such as contextual history and emotional and political aspects of a social problem. Researcher meta-ignorance can be a permanent feature, given how researchers define, locate, and make use of their epistemic positionality and privilege. In contrast, meta-insensitivity is a special issue that arises when researchers miss multiple opportunities to capture valuable aspects of marginalized groups’ voices or their life experiences and expectations. The problem of meta-insensitivity during fieldwork is more serious because researchers—despite their apparent willingness to be innovative—fail to understand how to be sensitive toward marginalized groups. The perpetuation of these elements’ misrepresentation contributes to long-lasting negative consequences for marginalized groups. To counter this, I introduce and conceptualize the idea of oppositional views which researchers can mobilize to address misrepresentation of marginalized groups and challenge epistemic neocolonialism.

Sir Herbert Risley and William Crooke, both officials in the colonial government, published the first two handbooks of tribes and castes in British India in the 1890s, each containing a lengthy ethnographic glossary with entries for individual tribes and castes. The handbooks are rarely consulted by modern anthropologists of India and have been criticized as colonialist misrepresentation. This article, which reassesses Risley's and Crooke's handbooks as contributions to anthropological knowledge, examines their collection and presentation of ethnographic information, particularly Risley's inquiry into caste ranking. It discusses criticism of the handbooks and their elitist bias, as well as the collaborative contribution made by Indian assistants. It briefly considers why Risley's and Crooke's work was uninteresting to leading metropolitan anthropologists and notes the greater interest of European sociologists. L'enquête ethnographique dans l'Inde coloniale : Herbert Risley, William Crooke et l’étude des tribus et des castes Résumé Sir Herbert Risley et William Crooke, fonctionnaires du gouvernement colonial, furent les auteurs des deux premiers guides des tribus et castes de l'Inde britannique, publiés dans les années 1890 et contenant chacun un vaste glossaire ethnographique avec des entrées pour les différentes tribus et castes. Ces manuels sont rarement consultés par les anthropologues modernes de l'Inde et sont aujourd'hui considérés comme des représentations colonialistes erronées. Le présent article réévalue la contribution des manuels de Risley et Crooke à la connaissance anthropologique et examine leur manière de recueillir et de présenter les informations ethnographiques, et en particulier l’étude par Risley de la hiérarchie des castes. Il traite des critiques des manuels et de leur biais élitiste ainsi que la collaboration d'assistants indiens à leur rédaction. Il s'interroge brièvement sur les raisons du désintérêt des anthropologues les plus en vue de la Métropole envers les travaux de Risley et Crooke, et remarque qu'ils ont davantage attiré l'attention des sociologues européens.

This paper explores ‘glocal subjectivity’ in an English language textbook produced by National Curriculum and Textbook Board of Bangladesh for Grades XI-XII. In the era of globalization (Mukherjee & Krieckhaus 2011), glocal subjectivity, i.e. creation of self that appreciates the ingredients of both global and local spaces (Gutierrez 2013) is relevant for material development in ELT, as it carries implications for critical agency (Richmond 2011). In post-colonial countries, critical agency allows non-native textbook writers to exercise freedom in selecting themes and designing language learning activities which may be used in the classrooms to develop critical minds (Pineda-Báez 2004). Through qualitative content analysis (Julien 2008), this research examines how the non-native material writers in Bangladesh exerted critical agency to construct glocal subjectivity in the English textbook. Findings reveal that textbook writers constructed glocal subjectivity by selecting appropriate topics. Nevertheless, the textbook contains the following limitations: pedagogically unsound language learning activities, low aesthetic quality, misrepresentation of Bangladesh, and post-colonial ambivalence. Based on the findings, this paper suggests that textbook writers in the post-colonial countries need to be aware of the issue of representation and make use of the wisdom of Applied Linguistics to produce politically correct and pedagogically effective English language textbook.

Often typecast as sedentary and static in Western writings, Cambodians have long been on the move. This article explores the misrepresentation of such mobility in colonial narratives, and contrasts the stereotype of the static Khmer with the mobilization of recruits in the First World War, the activities of protesters in Cambodia and political devices like the Royal Tour.

From the very beginning of British colonial rule, government attempts to understand Fijian land tenure led to confusion about its nature and the development of a European understanding that oversimplified and misrepresented it as simple communal ownership. Indigenous land ownership was officially recognized and standardized over most of Fiji, as communal rights in the collective hands of a mid-level descent group within the sedentary lineage system, the mataqali. Actual land tenure is, however, more complex, and in many areas continues to be followed today. Recently, the common property theoretical model has been applied in many parts of the non-Western world, based on a similar oversimplification and misrepresentation of actual practice, as well as on a similar conviction that such tenure systems can be reduced to communal land rights. Drawing on a critique of the common property approach and empirical observations from the interior of Vitilevu, this paper shows how Fijian land tenure cannot be reduced to its superficial common property aspect, but has simultaneous, multilayered sets of rights, both communal and individual. A land tenure theory must be able to take into account such systems if it is to have any serious analytic value.

Owen's conversation with Edward Said through letters is presented. Among other things, the conversation addressed some of the questions with regard to the different approaches in Orientalism.

Excessive and costly bureaucratic procedures and shrinking economic and social policies have restricted options for Mexican society to function effectively. In order to achieve outcomes demanded by organisations or to fulfil their duties as citizens, Mexicans must operate in the informal polity, outside or against frameworks of regulations. In the context of growing transnational activities the increasing role of unregulated activities is perceived as a large problem, producing loss of control and even criminality that must be eradicated. Mexican people are caught between a battle for economic survival and the burden of a dysfunctional government bureaucracy, the legacy of modernisation and economic rationalism. In that context the use of informal practices is perceived as an easier, or often the only way, to make things happen.

Miller refutes the criticisms that Eugene Holland posits in his review essay of \"Edouard Glissant and Postcolonial Theory: Strategies of Language and Resistance\" by Celia Britton and \"Nationalist and Nomads: Essays on Francophone African Literature and Culture\" written and compiled by Miller himself. Miller chose to focus on the part of Holland's essay that discusses Miller's essay \"Beyond Identity: The Postidentitarian Predicament in Deleuze and Guattari's A Thousand Plateaus,\" which is concerned with the question of what lies beyond the supposedly stable forms of identity that used to rule the world.