Decolonial and postcolonial approaches in Asian Studies help us understand how voices that have historically been oppressed or marginalised can be empowered and (re)gain agency. They also reveal how colonial structures continue to impact scholarship in and about contemporary Asia through legacies of coloniality and hegemonic knowledge production. This paper considers how decolonial and postcolonial approaches seek to challenge these legacies and examines the impact they have on contemporary research and scholarship in Asian Studies. Doing so allows us to understand the challenges faced by Asian scholars within their own specialties and fields, how value is conferred upon scholars operating outside of ‘academic Hollywood’, and a shift in how Asian Studies can continue to develop (Than, 2021, p.3).

The decolonial and postcolonial approaches are sometimes conflated with each other, the terms seemingly referring to a context where colonialism is a matter of the past. In practice, both approaches contend with the legacies of coloniality and the ways in which it continues to influence contemporary scholarship. If we relate decolonial approaches to decolonisation - a historic process defining the independence of nations from colonial rule - this approach centers itself on challenging the biases, uneven power, and ‘embedded patterns’ of Western knowledge production (Hira and Peters, 2017, p. 4). It would thus be plausible to suggest that the emergence of a decolonial approach is linked to a goal of creating opportunities for alternative forms of knowledge production generated within Asian studies that depart from the dominant discourses that have informed the field against colonial and Cold War contexts. 

In a similar vein, postcolonial approaches seek to challenge both ‘material and discursive legacies of colonialism’ (McEwan, 2013, p. 137). Larsen suggests that the terminological shift in the latter decades of the 20th century from ‘third world’ to ‘postcolonial’ reflected an increasing political hesitation in referring to the field as ‘third worldism’, both in popular and intellectual spheres (2005, p. 41). The timing of this shift coincided with the shift from a post-World War 2 into a Cold War division of the world and of area studies. This suggests that postcolonial approaches endeavour to move beyond understanding Asian Studies through coloniality as the key historical process marking Asia’s place in the world by considering the legacies of colonialism and how they intertwine with the legacies of the Cold War to inform our understandings of contemporary Asia. While a decolonial approach is more concerned with knowledge-production and agency of historically oppressed and marginalised voices, a postcolonial approach contends more with how colonial legacies have manifested in power imbalances and hegemonic discourses in the field. 

A decolonial approach challenges the dominant discourses, canons, and values placed on knowledge production by empowering historically marginalised voices to find value in their work and solidify their place in Asian studies by highlighting the ‘de’ in decolonial and showing that there exists an alternative side to coloniality (Than, 2022, p.3). In his study, Than (2022) illustrates how such ideas of empowerment were novel to Burmese scholars who had entered and progressed through an international academic field interacting primarily with Western frameworks and theories, subsequently reproducing a knowledge hegemony where existing (western) canon acts as a starting point for scholars. These scholars struggled to find value in research topics interesting to them but not the Western canon and found it difficult to express their work through language outside of dominant discourses. This example echoes Chen’s (2010) assertion that academics studying Asia in Asia – i.e., Asian scholars – struggled to self-identify themselves as Asian Studies scholars within a field that has historically been informed by Western discourse. For these scholars, the hegemony of knowledge production as a result of historical processes becomes embodied and influences their research. Here, a decolonial approach emphasising agency and the value of scholarship outside of the conventional canon may contribute to increasing depth and diversity in the field. Moreover, such an approach highlights the value of the expertise, cultural knowledge, and language skills that Asian scholars can contribute. 

A key aspect of a decolonial approach in Asian Studies lies in its emphasis on language as a mechanism for empowering scholars. While English has been and will likely remain a common language in area studies as a platform for knowledge exchange and debate, it should not overshadow the merit of Asian languages in research and publication. For example, an anthropologist studying the role of spice in Sichuan’s culinary identity would benefit greatly from understanding the local dialect rather than relying on a translator who may be biased or not have a grasp of terminology within the researcher’s field. While many ‘Western’ students of Asian Studies have knowledge of an Asian language, Asian Studies students from the region are often knowledgeable in more than one Asian language (and dialects!), enabling them to access areas of research potentially unavailable to non-Asian students (Sato and Sonoda, 2021). Such language proficiency empowers scholars to conduct deeper, more culturally and linguistically nuanced research, enhancing their agency in academic spheres dominated by Western discourses and paradigms. Decolonial approaches thus create an academic environment encouraging research that is more ‘niche’ and intimately connected to the researchers, subsequently increasing the depth and breadth of research conducted and subsequently disseminated. 

A decolonial approach also reveals the role of language in reproducing hegemonic hierarchies of power. It is undeniable that language discourse has power. As long as English continues to be the lingua franca of Asian Studies, it is arguable the field’s knowledge centre will continue to be in the West. Debates surrounding the adoption of a widely spoken Asian language (e.g., Chinese) as the primary language of scholarship in the field have become increasingly prominent (and contentious), raising questions about whether it would have an impact on knowledge production in the region. Some rightly argue that adopting another language as the lingua franca could constitute as neo-imperialism and create a new hegemony of knowledge and values. However, it is important to note that rather than a phenomenon merely emerging as a consequence of colonial rule, the use of a common language across the region historically was also a product of trade routes and migration flows (Amrith, 2011). In some ways, this debate underscores how coloniality has become a central focus of understanding Asia’s history as a region, with the longer history of the region beyond Western involvement and contact sometimes being neglected. A decolonial approach contributes to an environment where knowledge production in the contemporary globalised world – i.e., a world driven by capitalist forces – does not continue to be a ‘disguised reproduction of imperial conquest’ through reproducing existing canons and dominant Western discourses (Chen, 2010, p. 2). Rather, it would empower students entering the field to challenge dominant discourses and find value in their research and their languages.

Postcolonial approaches seek to challenge the power imbalances that foreground Western ways of knowing while simultaneously critically examining the practical legacies of these imbalances. Not only do these approaches deal with issues emerging in the postcolonial period, but they also examine how colonial structures and discourses continue to influence both Asian Studies and the realities of the region more broadly (McEwan, 2013). For instance, the shared characteristics of postcolonial constitutions (especially in states that underwent extensive rebuilding in the decolonisation period) with colonial structures continue to inform lived experiences. A postcolonial approach examining specific contexts – e.g., how postcolonial leaders benefitted from colonial structures – can pull at these structures and understand how and why remnants of colonial penal codes continue to be used and their ramifications in the present. A postcolonial approach thus considers how coloniality continues to manifest in contemporary societies. 

Postcolonial approaches also reveal how coloniality has influenced the positioning of Asian Studies within the hierarchy of area studies today. Regional divisions of area studies are still largely defined by spatial metaphors and often reflect imperial geographical boundaries (Van Schendel, 2002). Academics within former colonies where academic and research funding structures continue to follow colonial models may find themselves with little choice but to adapt their research to these divisions in order to access funding or international recognition. In practice, this may mean that research focused on regional centres (e.g., China) receive more funding and recognition than peripheral areas (e.g., borderland or cross-border regions). This exacerbates existing knowledge imbalances within the region and risks creating blind spots of scholarship. If we consider Said’s (2003) analysis of Orientalism as a framework through which the Orient has been understood and treated historically, we can see how power dynamics between ‘the Orient’ and ‘the Occident’ continue to transpire. For instance, in some countries, Asian Studies still occupies a secondary position within area studies, including in Asian countries where Western canon acts as entry points into the field and universities continue to allocate more funding to European studies compared to Asian or country-specific programmes. Returning agency and empowerment to Asian scholars requires a break in the dominant discourse and hegemonic culture of knowledge production within their countries. However, this requires non-Western canon to be accessible and afforded the same level of value as existing theories through which to understand Asia’s role in area studies and in today's world. It is precisely this cyclical pattern that both decolonial and postcolonial approaches to Asian Studies are trying to break, seeking to shift the historical centre of power in knowledge production.

The examination of decolonial and postcolonial approaches here has illustrated that while they are different in name and to a certain extent their goals, both approaches are similar in that they underscore and challenge the legacies of the past and seek to alter the power imbalances within the field. Doing so highlights that Asia’s place in the world and its history (and future) is not limited to its interactions with the West, undermining the centrality of Eurocentric approaches (Chen and Hayot, 2015). While the approaches challenge the dominance of Western frameworks and discourse, it is not to say that these theories are not valuable or do not have a place in the future of Asian Studies. Rather, they seek to empower scholars from the region to see value in the research they are undertaking, to advocate for theories emerging from within the region, and to shift to a more Asia-centric approach to studying Asian Studies.

Amrith, S. (2011) ‘Reconstructing the “plural society”: Asian migration between Empire and nation, 1940-1948’, Past and Present, 210:6, pp. 237–257. 

Chen, T. and Hayot, E. (2015) ‘Introducing verge: What does it mean to study global Asias?’, Verge: Studies in Global Asias, 1(1): pp. 1-2. 

Hira, S. and Peters, M. (2017) ‘Decolonizing Knowledge Production’, in Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory. Singapore: Springer. 

McEwan, C. (2013) ‘Postcolonialism’, in Companion to Development Studies. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 137–141. 

Said, E.W. (2003) ‘Introduction’, in Orientalism. London, UK: Penguin, pp. 1–23. 

Sato, J. and Sonoda, S. (2021) ‘Asian studies “inside-out”: A research agenda for the development of Global Asian Studies’, International Journal of Asian Studies, 18(2), pp. 207–216. 

Larsen, N. (2008) ‘Imperialism, Colonialism, Postcolonialism’, in H. Schwarz and S. Ray (eds.) A companion to postcolonial studies. Malden, Mass. Blackwell, pp. 23–52. 

Than, T. (2022) Commentary: Tharaphi than, why does area studies need decolonization?, Critical Asian Studies. Available at: https://criticalasianstudies.org/commentary/2021/11/20/commentary-tharaphi-than-why-does-area-studies-need-decolonization. 

van Schendel, W. (2002) ‘Geographies of knowing, geographies of ignorance: Jumping scale in Southeast Asia’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 20(6), pp. 647–668.