This paper argues that, to decentre the European Union (EU) and its external action, a more explicit commitment to analyse and dismantle the ‘cognitive empire’, meaning the existence and persistence of hierarchies of knowledge and power in the postcolonial (shared) space, is needed. To this end, this article will study the issue of Othering and explore such Othering processes as a potential pitfall of the decentring agenda. Such pitfall might emerge to the extent to which decentring disregards the historical continuities between the EU and its partners.

The body of academic literature questioning the role of the EU as a benign power in international relations has become more prominent in the recent decade. The decentring agenda represents an integral part of this critical strand of literature. As first conceptualised and operationalised by Fisher Onar and Nicolaïdis, decentring has focused on abandoning Eurocentric frameworks in perceiving and studying European external action. However, critical accounts have emphasised the limits of a current of thinking that seems to point to the necessity to ‘learn from the Other’ without disrupting existing paradigms of power and relations that have shaped and still contribute to reinforcing this very process of Othering in the first place. Postcolonial identities and histories are not simply of some ‘Other’ but also belong to the construction of Europe. They, carefully constructed against and in opposition to Western identities, are instead part of a shared history that profoundly affects how contemporary politics works within the EU. This paper argues that the postcolonial space is instead a shared one between the EU and its former colonies. Recognising that the EU also represents a postcolonial space is fundamental in advancing a decentring framework that does not run into the risk of Othering partners.

To conclude, building on the distinction between critical and pragmatic approaches to decentring elaborated on by Lecocq and Keukeleire (2023), this paper will rethink decentring and the dynamics of Othering it might enable when studying the EU vis à vis external partners. It will do so by first conducting an extensive literature review of the decentring European foreign policy agenda and the extensive body of postcolonial literature. Then, it will critically link the decentring framework to different concepts of Othering as elaborated in postcolonial literature. This paper will further the academic discussions on decentring European external action.

“Autochthonous” and the oft-synonymized term “indigenous” are integral concepts in rights conversations, especially minority rights. Drawn originally from the Greek meaning “sprung/born from the land itself,” the term “autochthonous” means more than simply a description of nationality or ethnicity. What began in ancient Greece as a way to reinforce a people’s claim to a region, such as during the Athenian Empire, took on a related role in the push for decolonization, before landing in the more nebulous socio-political/legal grey space it now occupies. Beyond its connection to “indigenous,” over the past several decades, many countries and states have also used autochthoneity in discussions on immigration, and modern and contemporary minority rights frameworks frequently utilized autochthoneity in their design. Of a related nature, the noted increase in both a desire for recognized autochthonous identity and universally accepted belonging, while somewhat contradictory, makes some sense in an expanding global world where understanding one’s place relies on both internal opinion and external influences. Finally, these practical instances of autochthoneity have highlighted the multitudinous and somewhat confusing meanings of the term, illuminating such questions as, does an autochthonous identity refer to native populations, or the foundational structures for minority rights, or does it refer to those populations living in other countries who benefit from the relationship between their home state and state of citizenship? If, as it might seem, all of these meanings are true, how might this both challenge and augment the efficacy of autochthoneity in contemporary politics? In this paper I will explore the historical meaning of “autochthonous” from in ancient Greek to its role in post-colonial Europe, as well as the contemporary appearance and use of autochthoneity in minority rights laws in several European Union states to determine where the term fits in the relationship between personal identity, political representation, and notions of “belonging”, when its definition – one used in legal settings – is drawn more from socio-political opinions and relationships than it is from structural law, history, or universality.

The post-1989 era is marked by the permeation of the story of Western superiority at all levels of Eastern European societies. For 25 years and throughout the region, governmental, financial and cultural elites have been all keen on upholding this fiction as it serves in masking their intentions. From the situated position of a local activist and engaged scholar, I consider this insidious aspect of coloniality that is the most relevant. The hegemony of the story of Western superiority produces consent throughout society to such an extent that it is perhaps the most efficient tool of masking neoliberal violence (Popovici, 2022). While scholarship bringing decolonial thought to Central and Eastern Europe is extensive (Țichindeleanu, 2013) (Tlostanova, 2009) (Gržinić, Kancler, Rexhepi, 2020), the engagement of social movements with it is still fragmented and disparate.

This paper builds on previous scholarship and my own experience in political work locally, regionally and transnationally to propose a decolonial praxis applicable to actual sites of struggle in local and transnational social movements. I identify two main ways through which coloniality permeates political work: I. applying to the group/ movement of which one belongs, a canon of idealised Western goals and practices and II. reproducing the elites’ discourse of Western superiority in order to gain consensus on various policies and interventions that may strategically seem to benefit a specific group/ movement.

While exploring the intricacies of these occupations through concrete examples in feminist, queer liberation and housing justice movements, I propose specific decolonial tactics that anchor collective agency and empowerment. With this, I aim to contribute to the broader effort of peer scholars engaged in decolonial theory and praxis to consolidate anti-authoritarian, anti-racist and liberatory organising.

Gržinić, M., & Kancler T., & Rexhepi, P. (2020). Decolonial Encounters and the Geopolitics of Racial Capitalism in: Feminist Critique: East European Journal of Feminist and Queer Studies 3, pp. 13-38.

Popovici, V. (2022). Becoming Western: the story legitimising neoliberalism, violence and dispossession in Central and Eastern European cities. Lefteast, June 14. Available at: https://lefteast.org/becoming-western-the-story-legitimising-neoliberalism-violence-and-dispossession-in-central-and-eastern-european-cities/.

Tlostanova, M. & Mignolo, W. (2009). Global coloniality and the decolonial option. Kult 6.Special Issue: 130-147.

Țichindeleanu, O. (2013). Decolonial AestheSis in Eastern Europe: Potential Paths of Liberation. Periscope/ The Decolonial AestheSis Dossier.

Peripheries can be defined as places or positions that are viewed as distant from a center or a core. The notion of a periphery is relational, as well as recursive, evaluative, and perspectival. In a more dynamic understanding, peripheries can be linked to processes of peripheralization and marginalization. Periphery is closely related to or bears a family resemblance with concepts such as margin (marge), edge, fringe, and (to a lesser extent) borderland.

The term reflects the “center-margin” metaphor coined by Raul Prebisch in his influential paper The Economic Development of Latin America and Its Principal Problems from 1950.

The term “peripheries” as used today is both contested and generative. It is contested because of its labeling and “othering” effect, its evaluative dimension with the typically negative connotation (prevailing over possibilities of more positive or neutral associations), and its loaded history (as discussed above). At the same time, the concept of peripheries is generative. It is fruitful as an analytical lens as it reveals certain common asymmetries and constraints that structure the integration, lagging and subordination of different elements within a particular order. Ballinger has argued for “the enduring power” of the concept, especially when applied as an analytical lens to Eastern Europe. We can observe similarities between postcolonial societies and peripheral (postsocialist) societies in Europe, given the global turn in European history and European Studies.

The perspectives from the peripheries opens up new ways to think about Europe, especially in conversation with the discourse on decolonization. Kamel Daoud’s The Meursault Investigation is a good example of rewriting a major contribution to European literature (Camus’ Stranger) “from the peripheries.

The paper discusses the potential of rethinking Europe and European Studies from the peripheries. It will make use of a distinction of four types of peripheries: spatial, structural, sociopolitical, and epistemic. In a spatial (or geographic) sense, peripheries can be considered spaces like borders, outskirts, far ends, liminal spaces, mountains, and islands. Peripheries in a structural sense are characterized by reduced access, limited infrastructure, increased precariousness, a lack of resources, and vulnerability. In a sociopolitical sense, peripheries are marginalized people, regions, or contexts with little political weight and with fragile identities (i.e., “in between” people and “in between” spaces). Epistemic peripheries can be places, processes, or people that are “not known,” “forgotten,” or “not considered important.”

The paper pursues the question: What is the potential of this approach?