Work (?) in (non-linear) progress.

On (biological) Metaphor & Analogy: A critique of Veracini's (2014) "Understanding Colonialism and Settler Colonialism as Distinct Formations".

A formative paper originally submitted for an MSc ‘Postcolonial and Comparative Political Theory’ module, led by Professor Leigh Jenco. February 2021. Word count: 1010

Original Prompt: Take one 'recommended' reading and critically evaluate its main argument, including its strengths and weaknesses. What broader lesson (for postcolonial or comparative political theory) is gained from this evaluation?

Critically evaluate Veracini’s (2014) main argument, including its strengths and weaknesses. What broader lesson for postcolonial political theory is gained from this evaluation?

The use of analogies and metaphors in political theory is hotly debated, and Veracini’s 2014 work is a paradigmatic case. The scholar aims to differentiate between colonialism ‘proper’ and settler colonialism through the use of an epidemiology metaphor, likening the latter to bacteria and the former to viruses. As Dewsbury and Taylor note, despite the utility of metaphors, they can also constrain “reasoning, contribute to...misunderstandings, and, at times, inadvertently reinforce stereotypes and messages that undermine the goals” (2018:1) of the text in question. This short paper proposes that Veracini’s article, whilst insightful in several respects, ultimately does little to further the understanding of colonialism/settler colonialism, or the distinction between the two, due to the overgeneralising nature of the metaphor he employs. To begin, a summary and critical evaluation of the text will be undertaken, highlighting selected strengths and weaknesses of the argument. Next, this paper will contend, building upon this evaluation, that postcolonial political theory must use metaphors and analogies cautiously and with a disclosed awareness of the limitations of such a device. In this sense, this paper aims to make an exegetical and normative contribution to both postcolonial political theory and Veracini’s paper.

Veracini’s contribution to the discipline aims, as he writes, to provide “an understanding of the distinct functioning of colonial and settler systems” (615) which he ultimately hopes will facilitate “reflection on the decolonization of settler colonial forms” (615). According to his metaphor, colonialism can be understood as a viral phenomena: both attach to the host cell/colonised society, penetrate this entity, and require the host cell/colonised society in order to reproduce. Settler colonialism, on the other hand, can be likened to bacteria which attaches to surfaces/the land and forms aggregations, without requiring living cells/indigenous ‘Others’ to reproduce and operate. In the final section of the article, Veracini’s insistence that the “analytical distinction between colonial and settler colonial forms should be emphasized” (627) is applied with the aim to better imagine effective ways of “theorizing and practising the decolonization of settler colonial formations” (629). Two possible approaches are outlined: protection of a higher colonial sovereign power which can aid indigenous struggle against settlers, and the institution of “commensalist and mutualist relations between settler and indigenous constituencies in settler polities” (630) through the deployment of appropriate ‘culture techniques’ which target aggressive and passive-aggressive settler behaviour.

There are several insightful and fruitful points raised by Veracini, which aid understanding of colonialism/settler colonialism, and the distinction between the two. For example, the author successfully directs attention towards the idea that there are a huge diversity of forms that settler colonialism can take, even if this is done within a restrictive and seemingly polarising metaphorical paradigm. For example, the breakdown of various forms of settler colonialism via reference to different types of bacterial association with other organisms, such as parasitism, mutualism and commensalism (626) highlights the multifaceted character of settler colonialism, in a useful and accessible fashion.

However, due to the overgeneralising nature of the epidemiological metaphor, Veracini’s paper ultimately does little to further the understanding of colonialism and settler colonialism, and the distinction between the two. Firstly, through comparison to bacterial and viral phenomena, Veracini often reduces colonialism and settler colonialism to mere consecutive processes, and not contested and complex phenomena. For example, likening settler colonialism to bacterial ‘biofilms’ which undergo three phases (lag, logarithmic and stationary) reduces the complex phenomena to mere consecutive and chronological events (625). This is a dangerous move - conceptualising (settler) colonialism as merely an historical event which has now ceased serves to sideline the idea that colonialism is “a complex social formation...[a] continuity through time...a structure rather than an event” (Wolfe, 2006: 390, italics added). In other words, emphasising the supposed distinct ‘stages’ of colonialism, especially through reference to natural sciences, provides readers with a false idea that such complex phenomena can be fully ‘understood’ as if they were a mathematic equation, able to be fully grasped and knowable. Related to this, in places Veracini’s metaphor acts to depoliticise (settler) colonialism and anti-colonial resistance, which not only stifles understanding but contributes to an erasure of agency. Suggesting that there is an ‘ultimate origin of anticolonial resistance’ (620), and discussing it as merely the result of an “interaction between...the presence of colonizing agents and...indigenous responses” (620, italics added) strips the colonised of agency and political motivation through rendering the whole structure and experience of (settler) colonialism emotionally and ideologically sterile. This is also seen in Veracini’s vague metaphorical discussion of emancipation from colonisation as a type of ‘antiviral treatment’ (621). Employing the metaphor in these two instances sterilises and a-politicises both colonisation and anti-colonial struggles. Lack of specificity also plagues Veracini’s article, not helped by the unexacting nature of the metaphor he employs. For example, colonisers and settler colonisers are taken throughout to be essentially distinct groups of people (617), and yet Veracini does not give the reader an explanation or justification for this, separate from the processes that the two engage in.

Terms are also utilised without definition or elaboration, such as ‘neocolonial’ (621-2), whilst vague and undeveloped points are made throughout, seemingly only to serve the purpose of sustaining the foundational metaphor. For example: “Like bacteria, settler collectives make and remake places and are also simultaneously transformed by them” (624).

A key lesson for postcolonial political theory that can be learnt from Veracini’s epidemiology metaphor is to be cautious of metaphorical and analogous devices, especially those uprooted from the natural sciences and transplanted within the social sciences. The normative and theoretical effects of utilising metaphorical devices must be thoroughly investigated and disclosed in text’s such as Veracini’s, along with possible limitations of the metaphor that the author may locate. In other words, as Chapman and Zashin (1974) warn, presenting metaphorical devices in political theory as “more rigorous than they actually are... [misleads] us as to what we are doing with them” (293). Such a lesson is of great importance to the frequently sidelined discipline of postcolonial political theory.

Bibliography

• Chapman, Phillip C. and Zashin, Elliot (1974) “The Uses of Metaphor and Analogy: Toward a Renewal of Political Language”, The Journal of Politics 36(2): 290-326.

• Dewsbury, Bryan M. and Taylor, Cynthia (2018) “On the Problem and Promise of Metaphor Use in Science and Science Communication”, Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education 19(1):1-5.

• Veracini, Lorenzo (2014) “Understanding Colonialism and Settler Colonialism as Distinct Formations”, Interventions: International Journal of Postcolonial Studies 16(5):615-633.

• Wolfe, Patrick (2006) “Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native”, Journal of Genocide Research 8(4): 387-409.