Recent discussion has drawn out some important differences between postcolonial and decolonial theories. The former are associated primarily with the work of South Asian scholars working in cultural, literary, or historical studies; decolonial scholarship, by contrast, is located in Latin America and has emerged from sociological critiques of dependency theory. Shifting the locus of debate to the Pacific centers another subject in globalizing critiques of colonialism: the historian in indigenous communities. In this article, I examine how the role of the researcher is conceptualized in Linda Tuhiwai Smith's landmark work Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (1999). Revealing tensions between objectivity and intersubjectivity, on the one hand, and between essentialist identity and hybridity, on the other, I ask why Smith's book hinges on dichotomizing nonindigenous and indigenous researchers, who are by turn enabled or constrained in a colonial present. I situate this late twentieth‐century subject in a genealogy of indigenous engagement with history and anthropology in New Zealand and contemporary problems of historical justice.

中文翻译：

---

7.在后/殖民时代的太平洋历史中研究者的家谱

最近的讨论提出了后殖民理论和后殖民理论之间的一些重要区别。前者主要与从事文化，文学或历史研究的南亚学者的研究有关；相比之下，非殖民主义奖学金位于拉丁美洲，并且源于对依存理论的社会学批评。将辩论的焦点转移到太平洋是全球化殖民主义批评的另一个主题：土著社区的历史学家。在本文中，我研究了Linda Tuhiwai Smith具有里程碑意义的工作《非殖民化方法：研究与原住民》中如何概念化研究人员的角色（1999）。我一方面揭示了客观性与主体间性之间的矛盾，另一方面揭示了本质主义身份与混合性之间的紧张关系，我想问一下，史密斯的书为什么要依靠将非土著和土著研究者二等分，而后者又被赋予了能力或被限制在一个殖民地时代。我将这个二十世纪末期的学科定位为关于新西兰与历史和人类学以及当代历史正义问题的土著参与的家谱。