Archaeology of Human Sciences in Postcolonial Discourse

Taḥqīqāt-i Farhangī-i Īrān. 2009;2(2):189-212 DOI 10.7508/ijcr.2009.06.009

 

Journal Homepage

Journal Title: Taḥqīqāt-i Farhangī-i Īrān

ISSN: 2008-1847 (Print); 2476-5058 (Online)

Publisher: Iranian Institute for Social and Cultural Studies

LCC Subject Category: General Works: History of scholarship and learning. The humanities | Social Sciences: Social sciences (General)

Country of publisher: Iran, Islamic Republic of

Language of fulltext: Persian

Full-text formats available: PDF

 

AUTHORS

Moslem Abbasi (M. A in Political Sciences, Tarbiat Modarres University)
Masood Ariayinia (Assistant Professor of Political Science, Center for Scientific Research and Middle East Strategic Studies)

EDITORIAL INFORMATION

Double blind peer review

Editorial Board

Instructions for authors

Time From Submission to Publication: 8 weeks

 

Abstract | Full Text

In 1985 Gayatri Spivak, criticizing western academic communities, proposed this question that “Can the subaltern speak? “ The answer to this question necessitates the consideration of humanities and any kinds of discourse which bring about subalterns. Postcolonial discourse as a critical, liberal, and anticolonial criticizes this discourse. Postcolonial thinker seeks a period during which an eastern person was defined against a western person. Identification modern subject is the topic that the postcolonial thinker like Michael Foucault questions about while dealing with archaeology. The appearance of a person as an eastern dates back to the time when the existence of the outside world resulted from the subject. An eastern can speak when s/he criticizes the subject based on which the humanities are constructed. Obtaining a definition of human being and the way s/she faces the world in order to understand it, is the primary step of introducing an alternative for authoritative humanities. Postcolonial thinker‘s method in understanding other and the outside world based on intersubjectivity. By establishing human studies instead of western humanities and local humanities and by critical view on spivak’s intellectual paradigm, this method of understanding provides spivak’s question with a positive answer contrary to his own negative answer.