What is Epistemic Violence?
The many inequalities we see in the world today are legacies of colonialism. It is important to examine epistemic violence in our understandings of postcolonial relations. It is also important to understand how epistemic violence has shaped postcolonial relations, as well as the relationship between epistemic violence and how we understand power relations between colonizers and colonized. Imperialist powers were able to economically, politically, and often culturally control their colonies. Epistemic violence was a mechanism by which colonizers were able to dominate their colonial projects.
There are many examples of colonial violence, and these examples of violence come in many forms. The traditional idea of violence, including wars or physical violence is a clear part of colonial domination. However, there is more to the violent encounters of colonialism than just the physical being. Frantz Fanon states in The Wretched of the Earth that “their first encounter was marked by violence and their existence together-- that is to say that the exploitation of the native by the settler-- was carried on by dint of a great array of bayonets and cannons” (35). He is describing the relationship between settler and native. But the violence he speaks about is not just perpetrated with bayonets and cannons, as he mentions. Fanon explains that the very existence of the native is a violent act because the settler created the native. He further explains, “In fact, the settler is right when he speaks of knowing them well. For it is the settler who has brought the native into existence and perpetuates his existence” (35). The native had not declared that about themselves, but instead it was an identity impressed upon them by the people coming to settle. There would be no need to make a distinction if there were no settlers. This ontological distinction that is made between settler and native is apparent to the native, and now understands it to be a part of their identity.
However colonizers or settlers did not stop at creating difference, they also attached value to that difference. How we understand ourselves is often derived from how we represent other people. We understand what we are not and then understand what we are. For instance a colonizer might see the colonized as barbaric and crude, therefore finding themselves to be civilized and enlightened, and will represent them in that way.
One example of epistemic violence in colonial practices can be found in Lord Macaulay’s “Minutes on Indian Education”. Written in 1835, his argument is centered around the idea that English is the best language and the Indian education system during the colonial era should be based in English. Lord Macaulay argues that the British language is the “best worth knowing” (6). Overall, it produces a narrative of how the British view Indians as an ‘other’. He says “The intrinsic superiority of the Western literature is, indeed fully admitted by those members of the Committee who support the Oriental plan of education” (6), and in stating this has asserted that the ‘West’ (meaning Britain) is inherently better than the ‘East’ (meaning India). The value placed on English knowledge discredits and invalidates the knowledges rooted in other languages. Language corresponds to power relations between the colonized and colonizer because government and trade in the East operated in English.
However, the attack on the episteme comes from the idea that Englishness is superior to Indianness. Lord Macaulay’s idea that British literature, culture, and language are all inherently better than Indian literature, culture and language is could be devastating to the thought processes of an Indian who is now thinks of themselves as less somehow. It is in the creation of the other that there is difference established. This goes back to the idea that we understand ourselves by the way that we represent others.
Lord Macaulay’s Minutes also touch on the idea of the white man’s burden. He explains that it would be unjust for them to keep the knowledge from the Indians and that it is somehow their responsibility to ‘enlighten’ them. Fanon also comments on this idea. He says “ [the settler] shows them up and puts into practice with the clear conscience of an upholder of the peace; yet he is the bringer of violence into the home and into the mind of the native” (38). Fanon clearly argues that violence can take place in the mind of the native. In the colonial project, the colonizers had all the power, and the colonized were generally oppressed through coersion and consent. But for consent to take place, there must be some sort of attack on the belief that all people are equal. Something changes when the colonized people realize this. “Thus the native discovers that his life, his breath, his beating heart are the same as those of the settler. How finds out that the settler’s skin is not of any more value than a native’s skin; and it mist be said that this discovery shakes the world in a very necessary manner” (Fanon, 45). This realization is what begins to shift the level of consent of the colonized. It was the colonizers attack of the episteme that made it possible to control the colony.
Another way to understand epistemic violence at work is to understand Edward Said’s argument in Orientalism. Said says “I believe it needs to be made clear about cultural discourse and exchange within a culture that what is commonly circulated but it is not ‘truth’ but representations” (29). Reality is always being interpreted and represented to people. Colonizers were not seeing a true reality of the colonized, but instead were mainly seeing representations of them or creating representations of them in order to make sense of them. He also goes on to say that “language itself is a highly organized end encoded system, which employs many devices to express, indicate, exchange messages and information, represent, and so forth” (29). Having control of the language by which you are representing a group of people is extremely important. Also, this connects to Lord Macaulay’s Minutes because the English language is a highly encoded system that Indians had to learn if they were to access the colonial system.
Said later states that he has a personal connect to his investigation of Orientalism. He explains “Much of the personal investment in this study derives from my awareness of being an ‘Oriental’ as a child growing up in two British colonies. All of my education, in those colonies (Palestine and Egypt) and in the United States, has been Western, and yet that deep early awareness has persisted. In many ways my study of Orientalism has been an attempt to inventory the traces upon me….of the culture whose domination has been so powerful a factor in the life of all Orientals” (33). Edward Said has had a first hand experience of how the assertion that Western knowledge is the pinnacle of truth, and this had clearly had an impact on him, and this is epistemic violence.
Epistemic violence, or the idea that Western knowledge is inherently better than non-western production of knowledge is ultimately what lead to the very minimal consent of the colonized. Attacking the episteme of the colonial project allowed for the colonizers to assert their dominance over the colony (in addition to physical violence and economic control). Had it not been for their ability to control the education system and the production of truth, then the colonizers or settlers would not have been able to control the colonial project.
There are many examples of colonial violence, and these examples of violence come in many forms. The traditional idea of violence, including wars or physical violence is a clear part of colonial domination. However, there is more to the violent encounters of colonialism than just the physical being. Frantz Fanon states in The Wretched of the Earth that “their first encounter was marked by violence and their existence together-- that is to say that the exploitation of the native by the settler-- was carried on by dint of a great array of bayonets and cannons” (35). He is describing the relationship between settler and native. But the violence he speaks about is not just perpetrated with bayonets and cannons, as he mentions. Fanon explains that the very existence of the native is a violent act because the settler created the native. He further explains, “In fact, the settler is right when he speaks of knowing them well. For it is the settler who has brought the native into existence and perpetuates his existence” (35). The native had not declared that about themselves, but instead it was an identity impressed upon them by the people coming to settle. There would be no need to make a distinction if there were no settlers. This ontological distinction that is made between settler and native is apparent to the native, and now understands it to be a part of their identity.
However colonizers or settlers did not stop at creating difference, they also attached value to that difference. How we understand ourselves is often derived from how we represent other people. We understand what we are not and then understand what we are. For instance a colonizer might see the colonized as barbaric and crude, therefore finding themselves to be civilized and enlightened, and will represent them in that way.
One example of epistemic violence in colonial practices can be found in Lord Macaulay’s “Minutes on Indian Education”. Written in 1835, his argument is centered around the idea that English is the best language and the Indian education system during the colonial era should be based in English. Lord Macaulay argues that the British language is the “best worth knowing” (6). Overall, it produces a narrative of how the British view Indians as an ‘other’. He says “The intrinsic superiority of the Western literature is, indeed fully admitted by those members of the Committee who support the Oriental plan of education” (6), and in stating this has asserted that the ‘West’ (meaning Britain) is inherently better than the ‘East’ (meaning India). The value placed on English knowledge discredits and invalidates the knowledges rooted in other languages. Language corresponds to power relations between the colonized and colonizer because government and trade in the East operated in English.
However, the attack on the episteme comes from the idea that Englishness is superior to Indianness. Lord Macaulay’s idea that British literature, culture, and language are all inherently better than Indian literature, culture and language is could be devastating to the thought processes of an Indian who is now thinks of themselves as less somehow. It is in the creation of the other that there is difference established. This goes back to the idea that we understand ourselves by the way that we represent others.
Lord Macaulay’s Minutes also touch on the idea of the white man’s burden. He explains that it would be unjust for them to keep the knowledge from the Indians and that it is somehow their responsibility to ‘enlighten’ them. Fanon also comments on this idea. He says “ [the settler] shows them up and puts into practice with the clear conscience of an upholder of the peace; yet he is the bringer of violence into the home and into the mind of the native” (38). Fanon clearly argues that violence can take place in the mind of the native. In the colonial project, the colonizers had all the power, and the colonized were generally oppressed through coersion and consent. But for consent to take place, there must be some sort of attack on the belief that all people are equal. Something changes when the colonized people realize this. “Thus the native discovers that his life, his breath, his beating heart are the same as those of the settler. How finds out that the settler’s skin is not of any more value than a native’s skin; and it mist be said that this discovery shakes the world in a very necessary manner” (Fanon, 45). This realization is what begins to shift the level of consent of the colonized. It was the colonizers attack of the episteme that made it possible to control the colony.
Another way to understand epistemic violence at work is to understand Edward Said’s argument in Orientalism. Said says “I believe it needs to be made clear about cultural discourse and exchange within a culture that what is commonly circulated but it is not ‘truth’ but representations” (29). Reality is always being interpreted and represented to people. Colonizers were not seeing a true reality of the colonized, but instead were mainly seeing representations of them or creating representations of them in order to make sense of them. He also goes on to say that “language itself is a highly organized end encoded system, which employs many devices to express, indicate, exchange messages and information, represent, and so forth” (29). Having control of the language by which you are representing a group of people is extremely important. Also, this connects to Lord Macaulay’s Minutes because the English language is a highly encoded system that Indians had to learn if they were to access the colonial system.
Said later states that he has a personal connect to his investigation of Orientalism. He explains “Much of the personal investment in this study derives from my awareness of being an ‘Oriental’ as a child growing up in two British colonies. All of my education, in those colonies (Palestine and Egypt) and in the United States, has been Western, and yet that deep early awareness has persisted. In many ways my study of Orientalism has been an attempt to inventory the traces upon me….of the culture whose domination has been so powerful a factor in the life of all Orientals” (33). Edward Said has had a first hand experience of how the assertion that Western knowledge is the pinnacle of truth, and this had clearly had an impact on him, and this is epistemic violence.
Epistemic violence, or the idea that Western knowledge is inherently better than non-western production of knowledge is ultimately what lead to the very minimal consent of the colonized. Attacking the episteme of the colonial project allowed for the colonizers to assert their dominance over the colony (in addition to physical violence and economic control). Had it not been for their ability to control the education system and the production of truth, then the colonizers or settlers would not have been able to control the colonial project.