Антиколониализм: эволюция и страновые особенности академического дискурса

Актуальность рассматриваемой темы обусловлена возросшим в последние годы в мире вниманием к проблеме антиколониализма, в т.ч. в контексте СВО и отказа России от курса на интеграцию со странами коллективного Запада, начало которой было положено еще в поздней советской внешней политике . Пожалуй, наиболее подробно антиколониальные тезисы («антиколониальный манифест») были изложены в «георгиевской речи» Президента РФ В.В. Путина 30 сентября 2022 г., когда слова «колонии», «неоколониализм», «антиколониальный» в общей сложности, употреблялись 13 раз . Месяц спустя в «валдайской речи» В.В. Путина слова «колониализм», «неоколониальный» упоминались 4 раза

This chapter provides a “cross-cutting” analysis of the global academic discourse on anti-colonial issues (i.e., how it is reflected in the scientific literature that dominates today in the world), and does not present a purely “Russian angle” view. The starting point of the research is 1960 (Year of Africa), although the anti-colonial discourse certainly existed earlier. The works of both the representatives of the countries of the Global South (who are often unnecessarily “fettered” by the framework of “conventionality”), and scholars from Europe and the USA are considered. Since dozens of authors and their works, many different intellectual movements are analyzed, only their key features, differences and relationships between them are mentioned, without a detailed analysis of the works themselves. The purpose of this material is an attempt to present a continuous “canvas” of anti-colonial discourse over the past more than 60 years, to track the evolution of discourse and its refraction/distortion. “Canvas” is written in “large strokes”, i.e. the largest intellectual currents are considered, while a number of areas and works of individual authors were not included in this review. The research hypothesis is that there is a “scramble” for anti-colonial discourse between scholars from different countries, as well as a struggle for a monopoly on neo-Marxist discourse between Western intellectuals and China. The analysis examined key works in English, French and Russian, as well as Chinese. Accordingly, the material structurally presents the dominant Anglo-Saxon discourse and its criticism, a critical analysis of French discourse, the position of the PRC, and finally, the Soviet and Russian discourse. The last section also provides conclusions and practical recommendations for intensifying domestic anti-colonial research.