DeNeglecting instead of DeColonising

During a higher Education council seminar, a few caucasian European scholars showed a discomfort attitude to the term “decolonisation”. The seminar goal was to seek cooperation among leading scholars in Nordic Higher education through emancipation from the dominant scholarly paradigm; as soon as the speaker presented the Seminar’s title, a defensive facial expression darkened in the lunary topic. As a communication student, in light of Framing and social movement studies, a diagnostic approach to the meaning communicated would not reach the goals in any way with such exclusive language. Previous studies predicted slacktivism once an exclusive message frame and social identity framework were presented. The term decolonisation pointed the finger at a specific race and class. Reproducing exclusive and hegemonic systems is exclusive in its core; The decolonising act needed a new approach. Exclusive systems neglect and discard other ideologies while building their systems of meaning, and Complete terms constructed those exclusive wall gardens. In light of previous studies and integration desires, an inclusive frame includes change agents encapsulated in other terms. A proposal presented itself while rooted in the problem core and its cause, which is “neglect”. The term neglect assumes an active task and deliberate action; hence it points a finger on an active social agent or power mediator responsible. Colonisation, as a term, does share the same notion of neglect, but on the contrary, neglect, as a term, does not assume malicious intent. However, It describes one effect of a power hegemony; it may not evoke a defensive response. One argument that could explain this choice rests on inclusive framing as the basis for coagulating social identity formation. DeNeglecting as a new term to decolonisation acknowledges the effect of intentional utilisation of ideological power; However, in a seminar where participants already understand the price of Exclusion, a new term might render a new social identity formation, promoting unity. While it is true, there is a malicious intent initially present when we speak about colonisation or neglection; various accounts argue that inheritance of sin is the core reason for such movement, so why do we repeat the same mistake? Another argument, in the same line of thoughts, paints a picture of scholarly ignorance to any connection between contemporary ideologies and original intent, which supports an idea in which the term decolonisation acts as a direct attack on participant’s character or appears as an accusation of malicious intent. A seminar about decolonisation aims to open the door among scholarly activists to diverse voices and schools of thought, not to open a door for a new hegemonic diverse thought. The hope for a new change may start with a new term, De-neglecting.