Framing Statement

Our group started our discussion of the term “decolonize” by establishing the different contexts from which we understand it. Settler-colonial and post-colonial geo-politics, certainly, cast a shadow over our initial conversation. A formative question quickly became how to address the concept within the time-space that our temporary collective found itself. How might the term, as a prompt, be thought through the range of concerns present within our immediate engagement with the (problematic) ideas of the Anthropocene and the technosphere. Our difficulty in addressing the troubles involved with decolonizing as a single action led our group to cohere around the burgeoning of what we propose as a possible methodology for this Anthropocene (i.e. Capitalocene) and its vocabulary. “Decolonisation with” assumes the existence of a coloniser and a colonised—and that there are gradations between. “Decolonisation with” assumes that colonisation is implicitly violent and decolonisation is rebellious and reparative. It is always contra-human exceptionalism and hubris, and seeks out innovative partners and techniques. We see “Decolonization with” as working against the large-scale exploitation of living and non-living groups and assemblages, dismantling the apparatuses that contribute to “missing masses” (Latour 1992), and/or liberating wealth and property from private holdings. The process requires constant negotiation and piracy.

“Decolonize with” suggests methods or actions such as:

• Blocking
• Boarding
• Caretaking
• Claiming
• Commoning
• Contradicting
• Healing
• Immunizing
• Inoculating
• Liberating
• Making Allies
• Reciprocating
• Sabotaging
• Sporing
• Training
• Trespassing

Outside Participant Reflection

By Eva Castringius

Our group selected an infrared photograph with a soldier pointing his gun at a target outside the frame of the picture. We thought about how the five senses could be used to interpret this image. We didn’t follow the instructions precisely, since the group comprised six of us, and we included the sixth sense. Each of us created a little story behind each sense. We imagined that the soldier had heard a loud noise, that he had the taste of dirt on his tongue and the smell of smoke ‒ as well as death ‒ in his nose. He could feel his inner breath and the motions of the battleground. His eyes followed his gun pointing at his enemy. As we shared our knowledge of all the senses, the dominant eye of picture-making became less important; for the benefit of an empathetic, and a shared understanding of the physical senses seemed more significant. So we concluded that this method could be used as a tool with which we could “decolonize” the disembodied truth claims of picture-making.