Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
“It is not only a matter of the subordination of the other cultures to the European, in an external relation;
we have also to do with a colonization of the other cultures, albeit in differing intensities and depths. This
relationship consists, in the first place, of a colonization of the imagination of the dominated; that is, it
acts in the interior of that imagination, in a sense, it is a part of it.” – Anibal Quijano
In a societal hierarchy, there is always an entity that attempts to dominate and an entity (or group of
entities) that is subjected to these attempts. When a societal entity encounters an aggressor, it generally
resists, since most societies have values worthy of defending. This leads to a clash between two (or
more) societies and the traditions and values that lie therein. As long as this resistance lasts, the society
at the bottom of the hierarchy is not totally dominated, and the possibility remains that their fortunes
could be improved in the future. Therefore, if the aggressor wishes to establish a permanent hierarchy
of domination, it must destroy the resistance. Quijano’s quote that precedes this paper illustrates the
European method of achieving total domination; not satisfied with a physical hierarchy, which is subject
to a sudden end if fortunes change, the Eurocentric society attempts to dominate by “colonizing the
imagination” and removing the foundational cultural structures of the societies that they wish to
dominate.1 With no cultural foundation upon which to build, the resistance would then be absorbed into
the Eurocentric vision of the world. The resistance would then become a pseudo-resistance, a resistance
against the physical Eurocentric reality, but a resistance that had accepted the underlying structural
concepts of Eurocentrism, which would mean that the world order had been successfully shifted
regardless of future changes in specific political authority. Although resistance is still alive in the world
1
Quijano, Anibal. “Coloniality and Modernity/Rationality,” p169
1
today, there is no denying that Eurocentrism is the dominant force, a force that is actively trying to
completely colonize the imagination of the rest of the world. In this paper, we will examine the main
actors and methods of colonization of imagination, why they are morally problematic and contradictory
to the Church as Jesus and Paul established it, and what the Church can do to encourage and aid
resistance efforts.
The main proponent of colonial domination of imagination in the modern world system is the
United States of America.2 Although other countries have similar value systems, none have the military
or economic influence that the US does, and none have such an aggressive foreign policy agenda. Armed
with the supposed objective goodness of democracy coupled with the implicit notion that the favor of
God is behind her, America has sought to not only profit economically from the world, but to shift the
entire world order to fit her systemic ideals. There are many strategies for achieving this order, most of
which center around convincing the subconscious minds of the dominated (in addition to the
subconscious minds of Americans themselves) of supposed truths concerning Capitalism and Western
thought.3
The first propagated “truth” is that democracy is a moral necessity for a functioning society.
Buzzwords like “popular demand”, “individual liberty”, and “fundamental human rights” permeate
conversation. The correlation to this way of framing conversations is that any society that is not a
democracy is opposed to the voice of the people, freedom, and human rights. Additionally, the creation
of a subconscious word association between “democracy” and “America” allows the American
government to infringe upon those principles, either locally or abroad, with no real backlash. In this
“reality”, a democracy is not defined by the traditional limitations of the word, but rather by the ebbs
and flows of US policy decisions. Often, countries are “helped” to democratize by being left out of their
2
Sobrino, Jon. “The Empire and God,” pIX
3
Quijano, Anibal. “Coloniality and Modernity/Rationality,” p171
2
own political reality entirely, with disastrous results: “Plans made from outside, whether national or
ecclesiastical, destroy the integrity of our communities… We feel the urgency of laws to defend our
rights and genuine self-determination as peoples with our own socio-political, economic and religious
systems. An we do not ask this to be granted us out of kindness but as a matter of justice.”4
The second American “truth” is that democracy is necessary for a government’s country to be
included in the worldwide economy.5 The result is that democracy becomes associated with economic
prosperity. Therefore, democracy means ease of living, and lack of democracy means economic
hardship. Even though the worldwide economy is dominated by the US, which means the only
qualification for this condition is the whims of one country, poorer countries’ desire to thrive
economically gives it legitimacy. To be sure, this US policy is not unilateral; countries with oil are
welcomed with open arms. However, they are still viewed as means to an end, and one need only look
briefly at radical Islamists’ platforms to know who they think is getting the better end of the deal. The
US also interacts with China economically, but that is only because China is currently too large to
subjugate.
Third, democracy is Christian. Since everyone is ostensibly equal in a democratic society, surely
Jesus would approve. Since the American Founding Fathers were Christian, and they wrote America’s
founding documents, surely those documents espouse Christian principles. Once Jesus has been co-
opted into the framework of American democracy through this logic, not only does any non-democracy
become heretical, but the American values of capitalism become associated with Jesus, to the point that
every version of non-capitalism is considered to be anti-Jesus. Essentially, co-opting Jesus allows the
4
Wagua, Aiban. “Present Consequences of the European Invasion of America” (Concilium), p50-51
5
Sobrino, Jon. “The Empire and God,” pXI
6
Grosfoguel, Ramon. “The Epistemic Decolonial Turn,” p214
3
Fourth and finally, democracy is inherently white. This means that even if any non-white
majority country does completely adopt American governmental structure, American economic policies,
and the Christian religion, they are still relegated to a secondary tier. This is how a hierarchy works: the
top is conditionally promised to those on the bottom, but never fully realized. Wagua writes that “the
indigenous leaders themselves become merely spokesmen for political parties they serve, even against
the decisions and rights of our indigenous communities.”7 Since this belief is already found
These four truths necessarily exclude all non-American or European regions from being at the
top of the hierarchy alongside the US. The Middle-East is not Christian and is therefore disqualified.
Much of Asia is not Democratic is therefore disqualified. Much of Africa is not economically successful
and is therefore disqualified. Even South America, some of which is similar to the US in the initial three
categories, is not as white as the US, which means they still inhabit a lower tier. The consequence of this
relegation is the US being placed on a pedestal, which continues colonization of the imagination of any
other susceptible countries. This is, admittedly, a harsh and cynical way of looking at America’s place in
the world. In order to further explore the concept, it is worthwhile to examine the historical qualities of
empire in relation to the US, and examine the historical qualities of Jesus and his immediate successors
as they relate to Christianity in the US and the rest of the world, since the approval of such figures is a
Rieger writes that the Roman imperial logic of foreign relations “assumes that the normal order
of the world lay in the sequence of ‘piety, war, victory, and peace.’ Paul, on the other hand, follows a
different logic according to which the sequence is ‘covenant, nonviolence, justice, and peace.’ Whenever
the more detailed differences between the two forms of logic, if those differences go undetected, one
7
Wagua, Aiban. “Present Consequences of the European Invasion of America” (Concilium), p50
4
of the major features of Paul’s theology is lost.”8 If these differences are applied to a modern context,
some interesting similarities arise. The United States often claims that its wars, interventions, and
engagements are all justified since they are responses to “abnormal” world order. However, if individual
cases are examined, each war occurred because the countries were not adhering to the democratic
standard set by the US, for one reason or another. The abnormal world order is often abnormal only
because the US defined normal. In order to see the epistemic location as it truly is, one must separate
oneself from the current world order. Americans must seek to understand why the people of Guatemala
say that Americans “confound Christianity with the principles of so-called western civilization.”9
It is not hard to frame US military action and cultural aggression as problematic “democratic
evangelization”, rather than justified response to objective evil, which means they fall more into the
Roman Empire logic than Pauline logic. Along these same lines, the usurpation of culture could certainly
be considered violence, since it involves the destruction of ancient cultures and traditions. The US only
aligns with peace in the present time if peace is defined as no tanks or machine guns, and even then
there are notable exceptions. If we do not take the US Empire at its own words (and we should not),
then their foreign policy is an example of nothing more than colonization of imagination. It is not
standard Napoleonic aggression, but it is nonetheless an imposition of will which results in the
replacement of local culture and structure with democracy and “Christianity.” We have already briefly
discussed how America’s democracy lacks legitimacy according to the definition itself; we will now turn
to the other facet of American domination, Christianity, through the examination of the values of the
Neither Jesus nor the early church leaders practiced nor approved of capitalism, especially in the
context of empire. Jesus preached a radical message that sought an equal and compassionate society
8
Rieger, Joerg. “Resisting and Reframing Lord: Christology in the Roman Empire,” p33-34
9
The Church of Guatemala in Exile. “Communiqué to the people of the United States,” p54
5
that a capitalistic empire can never truly provide.10 Second, Jesus and the early church leaders served in
a counter-imperial role, never an imperial role. If an empire implicitly claims to have the support of a
counter-imperial figure, his counter-imperial successor, and their counter-imperial religion, then it is
likely there has been a misinterpretation. Third, with a few exceptions, early Christian leaders embraced
the backgrounds of their converts, and did not ask them to change those parts of their lives that did not
conflict with Christianity.11 America does no such thing. In every country America has invaded, they have
set in place a government structure that represents their own as closely as possible. Additionally,
America promotes itself as “the best country in the world” whenever possible, intentionally creating a
scenario where “being American” is synonymous with being acceptable, which correlates with the
attitude of viewing people who are “not American” as inferior. Not only is this arrogant, it directly flies in
the face of the concept of “the body of Christ” being a conglomeration of all different kinds of people,
not just an Americanized ideal. Therefore, the Church should not (and generally does not) support the
colonization of imagination.
Where the US Empire has colonized the imagination of a culture’s practitioners, the church
should actively support so-called “decolonization.”12 This can take pace in a number of ways. First, the
Church should make it clear that democracy and salvation are not synonymous. There is salvation
outside democracy and outside America. Second, the Church should make clear which US foreign
policies are incompatible with Christian morals. Aggressive military action should not be commended,
and a culture of replacing culture should not be commended either. Third, the Church should re-focus
itself on a mission that is less synonymous with wealth and more synonymous with covenant,
nonviolence, justice, and peace.13 For better or worse, the Catholic Church is associated with wealth,
10
Horsley, Richard. “Jesus and Empire,” p95
11
Elliott, Neil. “The Apostle Paul and Empire,” p104
12
Grosfoguel, Ramon. “The Epistemic Decolonial Turn,” p221
13
Dawson, Christopher. “Is the Church too Western?” p100
6
which makes her rejection of unadulterated American Capitalism all the more important. Fourth, the
Church should recognize where she herself has become Americanized, and actively resist and return to a
less-Americanized state. Finally, the church should maintain a focus on the decolonization of white
superiority. Jesus most likely was not white, which renders all counter-arguments to this point
irrelevant. The fact that the current Pope is from South America helps a little bit, but there is still a
prevailing view of Catholicism as Eurocentric herself, which makes the Church more likely to be
In conclusion, America actively pursues the colonization of imagination. This pursuit should be
actively condemned and resisted, both by the societies being antagonized and other actors. A primary
actor that needs to assist the resistance is the Church, which too often is viewed as an ally of the
colonization of imagination, rather than an opponent. The Church has an obligation to honor the
counter-imperial nature of her initial leaders and promote the individuality of each human person,
which can only be properly realized if each person exists outside a colonial imagination. With these
realities in mind, all moral beings should seek the liberation of all souls from this colonization of
“The liberation of intercultural relations from the prison of coloniality also implies the freedom of all
peoples to choose, individually or collectively, such relations: a freedom to choose between various
cultural orientations, and, above all, the freedom to produce, criticize, change, and exchange culture and
society. This liberation is, part of the process of social liberation from all power organized as inequality,
14
Quijano, Anibal. “Coloniality and Modernity/Rationality,” p178
7
8