Globalectics, critical discourse studies (CDS) and Southern feminisms

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Globalectics, critical discourse studies (CDS) and Southern feminisms © 2024 the Authors Published version Ali Shah, Waqar Ali Shah, W. (2023). Globalectics, critical discourse studies (CDS) and Southern feminisms. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 18(3), 220-236. https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2024.2331510 2023 Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmmd20 Journal of Multicultural Discourses ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rmmd20 Globalectics, critical discourse studies (CDS) and Southern feminisms Waqar Ali Shah To cite this article: Waqar Ali Shah (2023) Globalectics, critical discourse studies (CDS) and Southern feminisms, Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 18:3, 220-236, DOI: 10.1080/17447143.2024.2331510 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2024.2331510 © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 02 Apr 2024. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 319 View related articles View Crossmark data Globalectics, critical discourse studies (CDS) and Southern feminisms Waqar Ali Shah a,b a Center of Applied Language Studies (CALS), University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla, Finland; b Center of English Language and Linguistics, Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro, Pakistan ABSTRACT Feminist research in critical discourse studies, like other strands of CDS, has been primarily North-centric. The transdisciplinary nature of this field has led to its theories and methods travel globally, including to parts of the Global South, without being critically appropriated. This has resulted in the neglect of a vast body of knowledge that is available in the Southern world (both in a geographical and epistemic sense). The neoliberal and colonial Metadiscursive regimes that regulate knowledge production and dissemination have, however, been challenged in recent years. Southern feminism is one such response to western feminist theory that views the women of the South as a homogenous group and without agency. Southern theories, including Muslim feminism, resist patriarchy, colonialism and capitalist structures through local epistemic struggles defined by their colonial histories, religious ethos and cultural values. The feminist CDS, however, largely ignores these insights. The purpose of this article is to argue, drawing on Thiongo’s globalectics as an inclusive theoretical vision, that the dialog of Southern feminisms with Northern epistemologies can enrich feminist research within CDS. I conclude my article by discussing three types of critical discourse analysts who can learn from globalectics to inform their work within CDS and decolonial research. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 11 January 2024 Accepted 12 March 2024 KEYWORDS Globalectics; feminist critical studies; Southern feminism; Muslim feminism; decolonization Introduction Due to an expansive body of theories and methods, critical discourse researchers often have difficulty choosing appropriate theories or analytical frameworks to explain data collected from various sources. For one to maintain the rigor of his or her contribution to the field, it is thought to be imperative to suggest how the data could be explained theoretically. Consequently, researchers struggle more with developing theoretically sound findings than with developing solutions to real-world problems. This is one reason why critical work in academia, including critical discourse studies (CDS) has been less successful at addressing the real-world challenges of social inequalities, injustices, xenophobia, © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. CONTACT Waqar Ali Shah [email protected].fi; [email protected] JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL DISCOURSES 2023, VOL. 18, NO. 3, 220–236 https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2024.2331510 Islamophobia and gender hierarchies. Kubota (2023) critiques this notion of scholarly rigor in which researchers are expected to frame the knowledge gained through data by using an academic theory (e.g. poststructuralism, new materialism, translingualism, critical race theory, etc.). She views it as one of the challenges in critical work often arising from this neoliberal thrust of academic publishing that demands universities and researchers globally to publish in high-impact journals with a specific theoretical foundation and methodological sophistication, and thus calls for criticality as praxis (triad:reflection, action and transformation) as a future agenda for critical work. Since the neoliberal university will continue to exist in contemporary times given the stronghold of the world capitalist system, and research as an intellectual activity will surge, I believe critical reflection is an important call of the praxis triad in order to ground the research in its onto-epistemological realities and conditions. By engaging in critical reflection in the present time, we will be able to create conditions for countering colonial and neoliberal influences on education and society. It is in keeping with Freire’s (1998, 33) definition of praxis as ‘action upon the world to transform it’. As such, decolonial and Southern scholarship provides one such way to reconceptualize and diversify critical discourse studies (CDS) to address real-life issues in global contexts and transform oppressive realities. Macedo in relation to foreign language education asks, ‘how can the field of foreign language education decolonize itself? how can it justify its vast whiteness as reflected in classrooms, teacher preparation programs, and national and international language teacher organizations?’(Macedo 2019, 14). Undoubtedly, a theory developed in the North may not adequately address problems in the South, and vice versa. CDS has traditionally been primarily North-centric, and less inclusive of the diverse epistemologies from the South. As Shi-xu (2015, 1) points out, CDA employs western worldviews, values, concepts, models, analytical tools, topics of interest, as universal and exclusive standards (see also Shi-xu, Kwaa, and Pardo 2016). According to Pennycook and Makoni (2019, 97), CDA may provide useful ideology critiques, but it is essentially a hegemonic discourse that reproduces old-fashioned colonialism and excludes alternative perspectives. In light of the Eurocentric and Anglo-western influences of Critical Discourse Studies (CDS), this article decolonizes CDS as a field through globalectics –an inclusive approach to reading and critically analyzing texts (see Thiong’o2012) as further enriched by culturalist approach to discourse studies (Shi-xu 2022,2023). Globalectical reading ‘opens the prison house of imagination built by theories and outlooks that would seem to signify the content within as classified, open only to a few. This involves declassifying theory in the sense of making it accessible’(Thiong’o2012, 87). A globalectical approach reveals the interaction and interconnection that exist between social phenomena in the local and global spheres, illuminating both internal and external dynamics, local and global dynamics of a social being (87). While discussing this globalectical way of reading and analyzing texts, I add to feminist research largely centered around western feminisms by offering insights to the feminist CDA (see Lazar 2007,2014,2021). I suggest that work of this kind could be enriched by incorporating more diverse Southern theories, especially Southern feminisms (Mohanty 1984; Roberts and Connell 2016) including Muslim feminism (Abu-Lughod 2013; Barazangi 2016; Barlas 2019), which offer insights for the Feminist CDA. I begin by briefly reviewing CDS as a field and discussing it through the lens of intellectual decolonization, followed by Southern feminism inclusive of Muslim feminism as one such theoretical strand. As a conclusion, I discuss JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL DISCOURSES 221 how the use of such work can provide a praxis in critical work for more diverse contexts that contemplate diverse forms of decolonizing politics (Canagarajah 2022) by discussing three types of critical discourse analysts in the South using three types of interpreters’ analogy as suggested by Thiong’o (see Thiong’o1998). Critical discourse studies (CDS), feminist research and intellectual decolonization CDS is an expanding field that draws on a variety of theoretical and methodological frameworks largely developed in the North. The field began in the early 1990s as a result of a small symposium held at the university of Amsterdam comprising researchers originating from Europe or the United Kingdom including Teun Van Dijk, Norman Fairclough, Gunther Kress, Theo van Leeuwen, Luisa Martin Rojo and Ruth Wodak. However, this scholarly work shows a considerable variance in approaches, analytical methods and theoretical commitments. Using these theoretical slants, researchers globally have examined different aspects of social reality as being constituted in discourse, and how they influence the reality in turn. These discourses include English-centrism (Shah and Pathan, 2016), national identities (Shah, 2023), culture (Kramsch and Vinall 2015; Yuen 2011), and neoliberal economic and cultural discourses (Babaii and Sheikhi 2018; Bori 2018; Gray 2010). With the growing body of knowledge in discourse studies, the gender turn emerged as an important intellectual current in critical and poststructuralist debates around gender in both outside linguistics (e.g. Butler 1990; Weedon 1997) as well as within linguistics (Baxter 2002; Lazar 2007,2014; Wodak 1997) due to the prevalence of gender violence, injustices and inequalities worldwide. Language and gender research is on the rise in contemporary times with the separate courses and research units at universities, including the author’s country of origin. Despite the fact, worth noting is how gender is theorized in different parts of the world depends on what dominant frameworks, social theories or contexts it draws on. Judith Butler (2021) writing from the Global North engaged with a poststructuralist thinking over the last few decades argues that gender is a negotiation, a struggle, a way of dealing with historical constraints and making new realities. In this framework, gender is not fixed but constantly negotiated, reconstituted and reassigned. Thus, such a framework creates an environment that accommodates gender diversity as well as diverse sexual identities associated with it, as illustrated by a growing body of literature on language, gender and sexuality studies (LGS) and trans knowledges and linguacultures, which provides recommendations for gender-just pedagogy and social spaces (e.g. Angouri and Baxter 2021; Gray 2023; Knisely 2022). In this vein, decolonial scholars argue that all representations, colonial or anticolonial, come from discursive positions situated within socially, ideologically and historically located discursive ‘loci of enunciation’(Menezes de Souza 2019;Mignolo2009). These enunciative positions shape our understanding of the world and our relationship with it and the entities around it. In this view, our understanding of gender and its intersecting relations, and how we theorize it as a concept reflects, reinforces and redirects the social conditions and ontological commitments. For example, Lazar’s work in Feminist CDA is in a way an attempt to synthesize the Northern perspective with a Southern theory combing critical and poststructuralist tendencies. However, her understanding of gender and sexuality is located within a specific Southern perspective i.e. Singapore where ways of doing 222 W. ALI SHAH gender and sexuality appropriate national core values: nation, family, community, consensus, racial and religious harmony that runs contrary to the discourses and practices in the North (see Lazar 2017). In both North and Southern contexts, such as Singapore and alike, gender as well as sexuality are viewed as a fluid entity that is open to diversity (see Butler 2021). This line between the South and North is, however, complex one, and therefore needs a careful attention. For example, Moosavi (2020) writes, while the Global South and the non-West are often conflated, they do not always correspond. For instance, while Africa may generally be considered as both Southern and non-Western, Latin America may generally be said to be part of the Global South but Western, and parts of Asia like Japan, South Korea and Singapore may be said to be non-Western but part of the Global North. This is one reason why Lazar’s feminist CDA inclines more towards the Northern epistemic commitment and may need a critical engagement to embrace more diverse southern views to reflect on gender in diverse global contexts. Even though some researchers have advocated decolonizing CDS as a discipline in light of colonial histories (see Resende 2021; Shi-xu 2015), it remains largely a Northcentric discipline with frameworks often used in studies as suggested by Northern theorists –Fairclough, Van Dijk, Gee, Lemke, Kress and Van Leeuwen, Foucault, Wodak and others (see Smith and Sheyholislami 2022 for a review study). The export of these frameworks to the Global Southern contexts explains the historical colonial relations involving knowledge production, dissemination and consumption apparent in departmentalized linguistic programs, including CDS and other subfields worldwide dominated by Northern theories and ideas (Agha 2007). Accordingly, several scholars have called for intellectual decolonization of the social sciences, including critical applied linguistics and critical discourse studies (see, for example, Moosavi 2020; Pennycook and Makoni 2019). Halliday (1994) describes discourse as a major transdisciplinary theme in humanities and social sciences. Transdisciplinarity of the theme has allowed it to flourish in diverse ways, borrowing ideas from social sciences, humanities, legal and cultural studies, and, more recently, natural sciences as in the case of posthumanism (see, e.g. Barad 2003; De Fina and Georgakopoulou 2020). While challenging modernist Enlightenment thinking through dialogic conversations with other fields, critical discourse theorists seem to lack epistemic curiosity (Lewis 2018) towards the diverse epistemologies of the non-Western world and the scholars in various social sciences and humanities disciplines. Moosavi (2020) while tracing the genealogy of intellectual decolonization warns us about the challenges involving the decolonization process explaining how several key original thinkers in decolonial scholarship from the South, for example, in East Asia (Syed Hussein Alatas, Syed Farid Alatas, Jose Rizal), in South Africa (Claude Ake, Thiong’O), in South Asia (Subaltern school –Ranajit Guha, Chandra Mohanty, Gayatri Spivak), in Latin America (Anibal Quijano, Walter Mignolo) and others have received a little attention. In addition, he explains how Northern decolonial scholars take credit for intellectual decolonization of the social sciences and ignore the fact that it originated in non-Western world in the 1970s. This orientation, however, is being overlooked, with possible consequences of either re-westernization of social sciences or decolonization without decolonizing. As discussed in the following section, I discuss Ngugi wa Thiong’o’s view of globalectics as a more inclusive framework for CDS as a field and more specifically feminist strand as in the case of the present article. JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL DISCOURSES 223 Globalectics: an inclusive vision for discourse scholars The intellectual decolonization of social sciences in inclusive ways will facilitate a globalectical approach to reading texts as proposed by Ngugi wa Thiong’o (see for example, Thiong’o2012) while offering insights to enrich CDS both theoretically and analytically. Thiong’o earlier used native languages instead of English in his scholarly outputs as a pioneering example of a decolonial scholar enacting decolonization in practice. Further, a class dimension was also introduced by Thiong’o in his analysis of linguistic hierarchies by suggesting that native elites are primarily responsible for preserving the dominance of European languages due to its benefits for them, even though the consequences of such neocolonialism are disproportionately detrimental to native populations (Moosavi 2020). To Thiong’o, intellectual decolonization is not just about undoing colonialism; it is also about undoing capitalism. In his recent works, his approach, however, shifts from ‘Farewell to English’to learning from all languages, cultures and literatures (Canagarajah 2022). Globalectics, ‘derived from the shape of the globe, is the mutual containment of hereness and thereness in time and space, where time and space are also in each other’ (Thiong’o2012, 84). According to him, ‘reading globalectically is a way of approaching any text from whatever times and places to allow its content and themes from a free conversation with other texts of one’s time and place, the better to make it yield its maximum to the human. It is to read a text with the eyes of the world; it is to see the world with the eyes of the text’(86). According to Thiong’o(2012, 53), western intellectuals and their work occupied the center stage during the Enlightenment era. They held powerful positions in their respective academies and, in addition to their mutual intertextuality, passed along their shared perspective to their students, who in turn passed it on until it became a tradition and inheritable truth. Consequently, he argues for collapsing of the hierarchy and binaries so as to view relationship between languages, cultures and literatures in terms of a network. In a network, there is no one center, all are points balanced and related to one another by the principle of giving and receiving. A globalectical reading calls for the mutual impact and comprehension of the local and global. As Thiong’o(2012, 86) suggests, even the old classical literatures of different cultures and languages can be read globalectically. Canagarajah (2022) notes if Thiong’o talked about binary and hierarchical structures in 1986, he now writes about nonlinear rhizomes as more suitable for language relationships. Further, Thiong’o proposes an ‘onion structure theory’and explains: ‘In the Gikuyu system of thought detectable in the language, …it expresses the interdependence of all existence, physical and abstract, that people must have detected in the reality surrounding their lives’(Thiong’o2012, 76). In this non-binary, nonhierarchical and networked approach to reality, ideas, theories and concepts from either the global north or the global south may be used, and beyond that, we might even discover that a synthesis of these two stances is the most promising approach (Alatas 2000; Spivak 1988). Thus, this concept facilitates the integration of Southern epistemologies by suggesting the abolition of hierarchical knowledge structures prevalent in the North that privilege one mode of knowing over other. Thiong’o refers to an African linguist, Zirimu, to challenge the binary notion of literate and illiterate as characterized by the Enlightenment modernist discourses. He argues that west-centric knowledge structures exclude diverse forms of knowledge in the South existing in 224 W. ALI SHAH different modes. In his words ‘orature was to orality what literature was to writing’ (Thiong’o2012, 98) which suggests, the real binary consisted of literate and orate, which were not oppositional absolutes; they were interconnected by the word; and as representations of thought and experience, they both had their adequacies and inadequacies. Orality and writing were natural allies. In this light, globalectics offers a range of readings relating not only to literature, but also to orature (unwritten accounts of the folk wisdom and knowledge), a rich tradition in the South. He also discusses how in the present cyberspace, knowledge advances in a different mode that he calls cyborature –a world of e-books and CDs –a new form of natural alliance in reality (see also, Shixu 2023 on technological advancements e.g. ChatGPT and other generative AI tools as a focus in CDS). In this vein, Canagarajah (2022) rightly suggests, we need to diversify decolonizing politics by looking at epistemes of social analysis other than the useful western philosophical frameworks. This has implications for critical discourse studies (CDS) as a field that can embrace positions beyond Marxist-based critical theory and Western-influenced post’ist positions (for example, postmodern constructionist approaches, including poststructuralism, posthumanism and postcolonialism). Diverse thinkers from the Global South can be considered as part of the transdisciplinary endeavor to broaden the scope of the field while removing conceptual complexities so that it becomes more comprehensible for people outside the academe (Kubota 2023). Globalectics as a dialogical and inclusive framework allows for the explanation of situated power relations and hegemonies, as well as global ideologies, with resources derived from different theoretical perspectives –local as well as global. It aligns with cultural discourse studies (CDS), which deconstructs ethnocentrism in discourse field and tends to reconstruct and apply frameworks of cultural discourses of diverse communities around the world. This is aimed at reclaiming identity, regaining voice, and empowering the marginalized and silenced communities (see Shi-xu 2022, 2023). Such decolonial inclusive critical discourse studies (CDS) envisioned by Globalectics adheres to a big ‘Q’organic and flexible qualitative research involving the reflexivity of the researchers (Braun and Clarke 2019). As long as the CDS is open to dialog and flexible enough to accommodate scholars from the Global South, and researchers are not expected of the academic rigor in their analysis of social problems based on Western conceptions of rigor, the researchers may come up with alternative critical reflections without obscuring the field conceptually in order to achieve the desired praxis (action and transformation) within society. As a result of the globalectical vision, the academic discourse will be flattened in order to reach out to the audience in postcolonial societies, helping them with the transformation processes in both classrooms and social spaces. This praxis is possible when the researchers are able to explain their findings with locally grounded and globally minded, culturally conscious and critical, study of cultural discourses with a view to foster cultural innovation in scholarship and facilitate cultural development, harmony and prosperity in society (Shi-xu 2023). This may require connecting not only with people in the academe but also outside world in simple, nontechnical jargon so that they can identify with both emotionally and intellectually. As a part of the globalectics, I discuss southern feminisms in the following section that can inform the feminist research relevant to postcolonial societies, specifically the work carried along decolonial feminist lines as well as often overlooked strand of Muslim feminism. JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL DISCOURSES 225 Southern feminisms: diversifying the Southern feminist ‘episteme’ Southern feminism emerged out of need to combat the global knowledge economy, which privileges and normalizes the Northern perspective in feminist theory. Connell (2015) makes a compelling case for a more democratic global structure for feminist theory by tracing the power of North in circulating feminist ideas worldwide while overlooking the wealth of knowledge produced in the global South. The most insightful critiques of knowledge production and power relations in feminist theory have come from Talpade Mohanty’s famous paper ‘Under Western Eyes’(1984) associated with the Subaltern School in India, which questions the universal representation of third world women as static and unchanging, while first world women being agents of change. Mohanty (1984) argues that western scholars’discursive representations of Third World Women as a homogenous group are in conflict with their identities as material subjects of their own history. In her opinion, western scholars’myopic views misrepresent the struggle of women in third world countries. In recent times, several special issues and books on Southern feminisms have been published that explain how women in different parts of the South both in a geographical and epistemic sense (see Pennycook and Makoni 2019) identify their struggles with socio-historical and cultural identities to reclaim their empowerment, agency, and resistive subjectivities to counter patriarchal, colonial and neoliberal power structures that marginalize them (see e.g. Byrne and Imma 2019; Dunne et al. 2020; Hussein 2018; Milani and Lazar 2017; Roberts and Connell 2016). Roberts and Connell (2016) explain how theory and data inform feminist thinking. They argue that theory is primarily produced in the North and exported to the periphery. It is the latter, however, that provides raw data for theorization. These patterns can be observed in all academic disciplines; feminist and gender studies are no exception. Consequently, decolonial and Southern feminist scholars advocate moving ‘the locus of enunciation’(Byrne and Imma 2019). Many Southern feminists criticize western feminism and argue that alternative perspectives should be considered when theorizing feminism and feminist epistemic and material struggles and discourses around their identities. For example, Chatterjee (2018, 223) questions ‘the West’for India’s colonial history. As she argues, the global political landscape is characterized by strong power hierarchies with theories being grounded in power frames. In this hierarchy, imperial feminism is the norm, and most feminist theory/praxis tends to move in a unidirectional way, with western feminists defining issues, legitimizing struggles and drawing lines. According to Kishwar (2004, 31), western feminisms exported to the southern contexts fail to address the real issues facing women. These western-inspired feminists, she writes, are based in the urban areas and receive support from international agencies and donors but cannot address the real needs of (Indian) women. The vast majority of women in Southern contexts are unwilling to assert their rights in a manner that would isolate them not only from their family, but also from their larger kinship group and community (Kishwar 2004). In this vein, there is a growing body of Southern feminist scholarship documenting the situated feminist struggles and questioning discursive formations of their identities while unpacking coloniality of gender in different contexts, such as Latin America (Giraldo 2016) and the Middle East and Africa (Dunne et al. 2020; Mahmood 2012). While Southern feminist scholarship is expanding, Muslim feminism also 226 W. ALI SHAH discourse studies, and decolonial and southern scholarship. Professionally, he works as a lecturer at the center for English language and literature, Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro Sindh Pakistan. In addition, he has also been a fellow at Georg Eckert Institute (GEI) for International Textbook Research, Braunschweig Germany and also has been a recipient of FORTHEM Alliance mobility funding for University of Valencia (UV), Spain. He has published his work in several well-known journals, including TESOL Quarterly,Critical Discourse Studies,Linguistics and Education,Language, Culture and Curriculum, and Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). ORCID Waqar Ali Shah http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0651-8882 References Abu-Lughod, L. 2002. "Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and its Others." American Anthropologist 104(3): 783–790. Abu-Lughod, Lila. 2013.Do Muslim Women Need Saving? Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Agha, Asif. 2007.“The Object Called “Language”and the Subject of Linguistics.”Journal of English Linguistics 35 (3): 217–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424207304240. Ahmed, Leila. 1992.Women and Gender in Islam: Historical Roots of a Modern Debate. Connecticut: Yale University Press. Alatas, Syed Hussein. 2000.“Intellectual Imperialism: Definition, Traits, and Problems.”Asian Journal of Social Science 28 (1): 23–45. https://doi.org/10.1163/030382400X00154. Angouri, By Jo, and Judith Baxter, eds. 2021.The Routledge Handbook of Language, Gender, and Sexuality. London: Routledge. Ayubi, Zahra. 2019.Gendered Morality: Classical Islamic Ethics of the Self, Family, and Society. New York: Columbia University Press. Babaii, Esmat, and Mohammad Sheikhi. 2018.“Traces of Neoliberalism in English Teaching Materials: A Critical Discourse Analysis.”Critical Discourse Studies 15 (3): 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17405904.2017.1398671. Barad, Karen. 2003.“Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter.”Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 28 (3): 801–831. https://doi.org/10. 1086/345321. Barazangi, Nimat. H. 2016.“Why Muslim Women are Re-interpreting the Quran and Hadith: A Transformative Scholarship-Activism.”In Feminism, Law, and Religion,edited by M. Fellinger, E. Schiltz, and J. Stabile, 257–280. Routledge. Barlas, Asma. 2019.Believing Women in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur’an. Austin: University of Texas Press. Baxter, Judith. 2002.“Competing Discourses in the Classroom: A Post-Structuralist Discourse Analysis of Girls’and Boys’Speech in Public Contexts.”Discourse & Society 13 (6): 827–842. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926502013006760. Bori, Paul. 2018.Language Textbooks in the Era of Neoliberalism. New York: Routledge. Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2019.“Reflecting on Reflexive Thematic Analysis.”Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 11 (4): 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806. Butler, Judith. 1990.Gender Trouble. Continental Feminism Reader. New York: Routledge. Butler, Judith. 2021.“We Need to Rethink the Category of Woman: Interview with Judith Butler.”Ill Will.https://illwill.com/rethink-the-category-of-woman. JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL DISCOURSES 233 Byrne, Deirdre, and Z. Étoile Imma. 2019.“Why ‘Southern Feminisms’?”Agenda (Durban, South Africa) 33 (3): 2–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/10130950.2019.1697043. Canagarajah, Suresh. 2022.“Trajectories in Decolonizing Language: A Conversation with Ngugi wa Thiong’o.”Applied Linguistics 43 (1): 203–211. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amaa057. Chatterjee, Sushmita. 2018.“New Feminisms in India: Encountering the ‘West’and the Rest.”In Rethinking New Womanhood: Practice of Gender, Class, Culture and Religion in South Asia, edited by N. Hussein, 211–226. Springer. Connell, Raewyn. 2015.“Meeting at the Edge of Fear: Theory on a World Scale.”Feminist Theory 16 (1): 49–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464700114562531. De Fina, Anna, and Alexandra Georgakopoulou, eds. 2020.The Cambridge Handbook of Discourse Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dunne, Máiréad, Naureen Durrani, Kathleen Fincham, and Barbara. Crossouard. 2020.“Pluralising Islam: Doing Muslim Identities Differently.”Social Identities 26 (3): 345–360. https://doi.org/10. 1080/13504630.2020.1765763. Fanon, F. 1963.The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove Press. Fanon, Frantz. 1965.A Dying Colonialism. New York: Monthly Review Press. Foucault, M. 1994.Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth: Essential Works of Michel Foucault 1954-1984. London: Penguin. Freire, Paulo. 1998.Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum. Fuller, Graham. E. 2011.A World Without Islam. New York and London: Little, Brown. Giraldo, Isis. 2016.“Coloniality at Work: Decolonial Critique and the Postfeminist Regime.”Feminist Theory 17 (2): 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464700116652835. Gray, John. 2010.“The Branding of English and the Culture of the New Capitalism: Representations of the World of Work in English Language Textbooks.”Applied Linguistics 31 (5): 714–733. https:// doi.org/10.1093/applin/amq034. Gray, John. 2023.“Living in Anti-Intellectual Times: Addressing Transgender Inclusion in Second Language Teaching and Teacher Education.”TESOL Quarterly,https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3265. Halliday, Michael A. K. 1994.An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd ed. London: Arnold. Haq, Maheen. 2022.The War on Muslim Women’s Bodies: A Critique of Western Feminism.https:// www.law.georgetown.edu/immigration-law-journal/blog/the-war-on-muslim-womens-bodies-a- critique-of-western-feminism/. Hassan, Riffat. 1991.“Muslim Women and Post-Patriarchal Islam.”In After Patriarchy: Feminist Transformations of the World Religions, edited by M. Cooey, R. William, and J. B. McDaniel, 39– 69. Orbis Books. Hassan, Riffat. 2001.“Challenging the Stereotypes of Fundamentalism: An Islamic Feminist Perspective.”The Muslim World 91 (1-2): 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-1913.2001. tb03707.x Hussein, Nazia, ed. 2018.Rethinking New Womanhood: Practices of Gender, Class, Culture and Religion in South Asia. Springer. Jakobson, J. R. 2023. "Because Religion: Does Something Called ‘Religion’Caused Gender-Based Violence?" In The Cunning of Gender Violence: Geopolitics and Feminism, edited by L. Abu-Lughod, R. Hammami, N. Shalhoub-Kevorkian, 151–177. Durham and London: Duke University Press Kishwar, Madhu. 2004.“A Horror of ‘Isms’: Why I do not Call Myself a Feminist.”In Feminism in India, edited by M. Chaudhrui, 26–51. London: Zed books Ltd. Knisely, Kris. 2022.“Gender-Just Language Teaching and Linguistic Competence Development.” Foreign Language Annals 55 (3): 644–667. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12641. Kramsch, Claire, and Kimberly Vinall. 2015.“The Cultural Politics of Language Textbooks in the ear of Globalization.”In Language, Ideology and Education, edited by X. L. Curdt-Christiansen, and C. Weninger, 11–28. London: Routledge. Kress, Gunther, and Theo Van Leeuwen. 2006.Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London: Routledge. Kubota, Ryuko. 2023.“Linking Research to Transforming the Real World: Critical Language Studies for the Next 20 Years.”Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 20 (1): 4–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15427587.2022.2159826. 234 W. ALI SHAH Lazar, M. M. 2005. "Politicizing Gender in Discourse: Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis as Political Perspective and Praxis." In Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis, edited by M. M. Lazar, 1–28. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Lazar, Michelle M. 2007.“Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis: Articulating a Feminist Discourse Praxis.”Critical Discourse Studies 4 (2): 141–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405900701464816. Lazar, Michelle M. 2014.“Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis.”In The Handbook of Language, Gender, and Sexuality, edited by S. Ehrlich, M. Meyerhoff, and J. Holmes, 180–199. Oxford: Wiley. Lazar, Michelle M. 2017.“Homonationalist Discourse as a Politics of Pragmatic Resistance in Singapore’s Pink Dot Movement: Towards a Southern Praxis.”Journal of Sociolinguistics 21 (3): 420–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12239. Lazar, Michelle M. 2021.“Gender and Sexuality in Discourse.”In The Routledge Handbook of Language, Gender, and Sexuality, edited by J. Angouri, and J. Baxter, 481–493. London: Routledge. Lewis, Jovan Scott. 2018.“Releasing a Tradition.”The Cambridge Journal of Anthropology 36 (2): 21– 33. https://doi.org/10.3167/cja.2018.360204. Macedo, Donaldo, ed. 2019.Decolonizing Foreign Language Education: The Misteaching of English and Other Colonial Languages. New York and London: Routledge. Machin, David. 2013.“What is Multimodal Critical Discourse Studies?”Critical Discourse Studies 10 (4): 347–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2013.813770. Mahmood, Saba. 2012.Politics of Piety: The Islamic Revival and the Feminist Subject. 2nd ed). New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Menezes de Souza, L. M. 2019.Glocal Languages, Coloniality and Globalization from Below. In Glocal Languages and Critical Intercultural Awareness: The South Answers Back, edited by M. Guilherme, and L. M. Menezes de Souza, 17–41. London: Routledge. Mignolo, Walter. 2009.“Epistemic Disobedience, Independent Thought and De-colonial Freedom.” Theory, Culture & Society 26 (7-8): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409348088. Milani, T. M., and M. M. Lazar. 2017.“Seeing from the South: Discourse, Gender and Sexuality from Southern Perspectives.”Journal of Sociolinguistics 21 (3): 307–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl. 12241. Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. 1984.“Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses.”Boundary 2 12 (3): 333–358. https://doi.org/10.2307/302821. Moosavi, Leon. 2020.“The Decolonial Bandwagon and the Dangers of Intellectual Decolonisation.” International Review of Sociology 30 (2): 332–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/03906701.2020. 1776919. Naguib, Shuruq. 2021.“Islam and the Epistemic Politics of Gender: A Decolonial Moment.”American Journal of Islam and Society 38 (1-2): 2–21. Pennycook, Alastaire, and Sinfree Makoni. 2019.Innovations and Challenges in Applied Linguistics from the Global South. London: Routledge. Resende, Vivialane de Melo. 2021.“Decolonizing Critical Discourse Studies: For a Latin American Perspective.”Critical Discourse Studies 18 (1): 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2018. 1490654. Roberts, Ceila, and Rae Connell. 2016.“Feminist Theory and the Global South.”Feminist Theory 17 (2): 135–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464700116645874. Shah, W. A. (Forthcoming). Gender, Islam and ELT. [manuscript in preparation]. Shah, W A. 2023. Nation, Alterity and Competing Discourses: Rethinking Textbooks as Ideological Apparatuses. Linguistics and Education 78: 101250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2023. 101250. Shah, Payal, and Ayesha Khurshid. 2018.“Muslim Womanhood, Education, and Empowerment: Ethnographic Reflections from Pakistan and India.”Gender and Education 31 (4): 458–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2018.1543859. Shah, S. W. A., and H. Pathan. 2016. Representation of Western Culture in O’level English Language Textbooks. ELF Annual Research Journal 18: 23–42. Shi-xu, Prah, Kwesi Kwaa, and Maria Laura Pardo. 2016.Discourse of the Developing World: Researching Properties, Problems and Potentials of the Developing World. London and New York: Routledge. JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL DISCOURSES 235 Shirazi, Faegheh. 2001.The Veil Unveiled: The Hijab in Modern Culture. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Shi-xu. 2015.“Cultural Discourse Studies.”In The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction, edited by K. Tracy, T. Sandel, and C. Ilie, 1–9. New Jersey: Wiley. Shi-xu. 2022.“Towards a Methodology of Cultural Discourse Studies.”Journal of Multicultural Discourses 17 (3): 201–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2022.2159418. Shi-xu. 2023.“Cultural Discourse Studies as Culturalist Approach to Communication: Object, Objectives and Tasks.”Journal of Multicultural Discourses 18 (1): 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17447143.2023.2204839. Smith, C., and J. Sheyholislami. 2022.“Current Trends in Critical Discourse Studies of Textbooks: A Look at Selected Literature.”Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 25 (1): 47–63. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. 1988.“Can the Subaltern Speak?”In Colonial Discourse and Postcolonial Theory, edited by P. Williams, and L. Chrisman, 66–111. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Thiong’o, Wa Ngugi. 1998.Penpoints, Gunpoints, and Dreams: Towards a Critical Theory of the Arts and the State in Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Thiong’o, W. N. 2012.Globalectics: Theory and the Practice of Knowing. New York: Columbia University Press. Van Leeuwen, Theo. 2014.“Critical Discourse Analysis and Multimodality.”In Contemporary Critical Discourse Studies, edited by C. Hart, and P. Cap, 281–295. London: Bloomsbury. Wadud, Amina. 1999.Quran and Women. New York: Oxford University Press. Weedon, Chris. 1997.Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell. Wodak, Ruth. 1997.Gender and Discourse. London: Sage. Yuen, Ka-Ming. 2011.“The Representation of Foreign Cultures in English Textbooks.”ELT Journal 65 (4): 458–466. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq089. 236 W. ALI SHAH