Colonialism constitutes modernity itself rather than merely deriving from it

Evidence

That colonialism is not merely a derivative of modernity but one that constitutes modernity’s very structures, resting squarely on what the semiotician Walter Mignolo called “colonial difference,” is a proposition that I take for granted. But it will not do to argue (as certain Latin American transmodernists have) that because modernity’s self-reproduction rests on the fabrication of its own exteriority through the process of dehumanizing the Other, the experience of the Other as a production of colonialism and Orientalism should become the axis for modernity’s critique. For such an argument is in effect tautological: colonialism and Orientalism, being processually productive of the Other par excellence, structure modernity because modernity is structured by colonialism and Orientalism! — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism, 44

Categorization

• DEFINE: Explains Mignolo’s ‘colonial difference’ and critiques the Latin American transmodernist position as tautological.
• XREF: Connects to Hallaq’s broader project in The Impossible State on modernity’s critique and colonial difference debates in decolonial theory. — connects to: Modernity is best understood as the civilization produced by global capitalism — Alex Callinicos, Against Postmodernism: A Marxist…, 162; Modernity should be defined as the civilization capitalism built. — Alex Callinicos, Against Postmodernism: A Marxist…, 162; Colonial power instrumentalized reason and thereby corrupted modernity’s promise — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection: How Data Is…, 615 (+1 more)