Rethinking or delinking? Said and Mignolo on humanism and the question of the human

Abstract

This article examines the commonalities and divergences between postcolonial and decolonial approaches to humanism and the question of the human, by way of an examination of the work of postcolonial scholar Edward W. Said and decolonial scholar Walter D. Mignolo. While at first glance, their stances may seem diametrically opposed, as the former is a staunch defender of humanism while the latter is a vocal critic, a closer examination reveals a more complex picture. The problem of universalism is key to understanding the difference: while the exclusionary and parochial universalism of Eurocentric colonial humanism is critiqued by both, the question that divides them is whether a universalizing gesture inherent in ‘speaking for the human’ can and should be avoided altogether. While Said explicitly embraces a concrete universalist humanism against the violent colonial history of Eurocentric, parochial humanism, Mignolo turns to the notion of pluriversality as an alternative to universality. However, I argue that this move disavows rather than avoids a universalizing gesture altogether. By getting out of the stalemate of picking a side for or against humanism, a path can be cleared for a critical reconfiguring of humanism and a productive reengagement with the question of the human.