Axis Special Issue: Imagining the Decolonizing Writing Center

Mindful Language-Use: Recognizing Indigenous Peoples when ‘Decolonizing Writing Centers’

Matthew Louie
San Diego State University

Keywords: Decolonizing, Language-use, Indigenous peoples

Although “decolonizing the writing center” is a crucial project we, as writing center consultants and directors, need to undertake, our actions in working towards this goal might obscure what decolonization means for indigenous peoples and their fights for land reparation and sovereignty. If we fail to acknowledge the indigenous peoples’ fights for decolonization while we claim to be “decolonizing,” we are overlooking that the writing centers built in the United States are on indigenous land and perpetuating the settler colonialists’ goal of erasing the indigenous people from their land (Tuck and Yang 6). As we look towards “decolonizing the writing center”, then, we must also remain mindful of the indigenous people, whose land we occupy, and what decolonization means for them.

Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang make very clear what they believe decolonization means for indigenous people: defining decolonization as the physical reparation of land (7). Their assertion is founded upon the idea that, in the process of settler colonialism, the colonizer takes over indigenous land to make it their own (Tuck and Yang 6). To make their land their own, however, they have to “destroy and disappear the indigenous peoples,” taking away both their physical presence and their ways of knowing/connection to the land (Tuck and Yang 6). In essence, to decolonize is to undo what settler colonialism did: take physical control of the land and erase the indigenous people and their ways of knowing. In our contexts of writing centers, Tuck and Yang would likely argue we are not “decolonizing” and instead are engaging in a “settler move to innocence” as our work is using “decolonizing” without returning land and, often, without acknowledging indigenous people. If done carefully and intentionally, however, I contend that our work can be working towards “decolonizing”.    

Tuck and Yang’s definition of decolonization requires the actual reparation of indigenous lands. Land reparation, however, is a complex topic with some arguing that there are many factors including how to return land (are there clear divisions of land?), to whom does land get returned (who’s lineage suggests they own the land?), and the ethics of returning land (what happens to those who currently “own” the land?), etc. To problematize the matter further, these arguments are potentially western understandings of ownership and they might not align with how indigenous peoples connect with the land. Ultimately, these complications make it potentially difficult to actualize land reparation. Instead of forgoing talking about decolonizing completely, in light of these complications, what we can do to move towards Tuck and Yang’s goal is to be mindful of the language of decolonizing that we use within contexts like writing centers. In essence, we are not decolonizing but taking a step towards decolonizing. In other words, we are seeing our work as part of the ongoing battle towards Tuck and Yang’s definition of decolonization as the reparation of land by removing ourselves from colonial legacies, like the “standardization of language,” which uphold colonial epistemologies and further erase indigenous peoples and their fights for land reparation.

The conversations in writing center scholarship calling for promoting a critical consciousness (Bawarshi and Pelowski 43), reflexivity (Garcia 80), and reflectivity (DiPardo 142; Garcia 80)—only to name a few—challenge the problematic practices that writing centers have perpetuated. Their projects all highlight paths that writing centers can and should take to normalize language differences and challenge the writing center as an acculturation site. While we work on these projects, however, I would like to add an additional consideration as we start/continue towards shifting the role of the writing center. Heeding the claims of Tuck and Yang, I argue that as we undertake ways towards decolonizing the writing center, we also need to have explicit ways to remain mindful that the decolonizing work we are doing is being conducted on indigenous land.

A starting point to remain mindful is to be aware of who’s land we are occupying/settling on as we conduct our projects (for me, I am writing this paper and studying on Kumeyaay land). Having this recognition of where we are (physically) acknowledges that our projects are just a step towards decolonizing and works towards undoing what settler colonialism set out to do: “destroy and disappear the indigenous peoples” (Tuck and Yang 6). In short, recognizing the land we are on ensures that the struggles of indigenous peoples with colonization and their fights for sovereignty remain unveiled and remembered as we do our decolonizing work. This recognition of our physical presence, however, is not a decolonizing project in itself, rather, it is an additional consideration we need to make while we are “decolonizing” to serve as a reminder that decolonization is a larger project beyond the writing center.

So, although our work does not accomplish Tuck and Yang’s goal of land reparation, we can still take steps towards their definition of decolonization by being intentional with how we articulate our “decolonizing” work. Recognition of indigenous people and their land is a small, but important, step towards being more intentional. Looking forward, this recognition could lead to greater collaboration between writing centers and indigenous peoples to hear their perspectives and suggestions on paths towards decolonization. This collaboration can be a powerful tool in shifting the writing centers role away from an acculturation site and recognizing the knowledges of indigenous people that settler-colonialism sought to destroy. 

Works Cited

Bawarshi, Anis, and Stephanie Pelkowski. “Postcolonialism and the Idea of a Writing Center.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 19, no. 2, 1999, pp. 41–58, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43442836.

DiPardo, Anne. “‘Whispers of Coming and Going’: Lessons From Fannie.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 12, no. 2, 1992, pp. 125–44, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43441901.

García, Romeo. “Unmaking Gringo-Centers.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 36, no. 1, 2017, pp. 29–60, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44252637.

Tuck, Eve, and K. W. Yang. “Decolonization is Not a Metaphor.” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, vol. 1, no. 1, 2012, pp. 1-40, https://clas.osu.edu/sites/clas.osu.edu/files/Tuck%20and%20Yang%202012%20Decolonization%20is%20not%20a%20metaphor.pdf.