Within class discussions, the question of “what’s in it for me?” as a prompt for the justification of repatriation has presented itself from multiple perspectives and with a range of intentions. Although “what’s in it for me” is an intuitive question engraved within human nature, I find it concerning that at times collectives, especially white academics who agree that decolonization needs to happen, seem to pontificate “what’s in it for me” more than conducting constructive conversations regarding the implementation of decolonization itself. I question the need to extensively discuss hypothetical situations such as learning to “sell” decolonization to those with differing opinions rather than actually talking to individuals with differing opinions. Furthermore, the concept of “selling” ideas as a way of framing finding a union between groups with differing opinions, and the phrase’s relationship to capitalism, an instrument of colonization, seems to be counterproductive to the intention of conversations related to decolonization and shifting these engrained structures that reinforce larger power imbalances. Perhaps due to being a designer, amidst these conversations, I can’t help but think, when are we actually going to do something? Why should we spend more time thinking about potential backlash in general terms rather than potential solutions for specific contexts?
Questioning decolonization and repatriation efforts through a “what’s in it for me?” lense is completely understandable, valid, and necessary from the perspective of communities who have been repeatedly wronged by the actions of oppressors, and who are often silenced or misrepresented by institutions. Throughout all decolonization efforts, it’s essential to gain feedback and collaborate with affected groups and shift efforts according to voiced needs. However, western and white institutions and individuals who consistently question “what’s in it for me?” are in fact reinforcing structures in which they are claiming to work against. Justifying repatriation and decolonization by grounding oneself in the benefits for the oppressor will not truly produce substantial and long lasting change, as it’s necessary to shift the power dynamics and structures that lead to disproportionate benefits for oppressive groups.
This visual piece is a further reflection on the ways in which decolonization is often ultimately a commercialized product that institutions are selling for a variety of reasons, wether it be lessening the impact of their previous wrongdoings on their moral conscious, improving relationships with donors, or attempting to be viewed in a more positive way. Sometimes, because of the complexity of decolonization, institutions make efforts that are surface level and fail to truly change internal structures. In this way, they're ultimately selling themselves to seem as though they are working towards decolonization, whereas really they are attempting to do what is needed on surface level so that there aren't any more complaints.
