This autoethnography, drawing on the author's personal experiences as a Pakistani anthropologist, investigates the profound influence of English language hegemony within academia and its implications for decolonizing anthropology. The author's journey highlights the challenges faced by non-native English speakers in navigating the academic landscape, from the financial constraints of translation to the dominance of English in publications and conferences. This study aims to question the status quo, prompting a reevaluation of English's dominance and encouraging a more reflexive approach to anthropological communication and understanding. The author links their personal experience to broader discussions surrounding the "politics of the possible" and "pluriversal politics," emphasizing the lasting impact of colonization and its manifestation in the continued hegemony of the English language. The research asks if it's truly possible to decolonize the discipline and what steps would be required to facilitate publication in native languages with accessible translations and to promote panels in native languages at major anthropological conferences. The core argument centers on the need for anthropological platforms to embrace a "pluriverse", or "plurilogies", acknowledging and valuing multiple diverse perspectives and narratives beyond the English-centric dominance.

The author draws upon existing literature on decolonizing anthropology, highlighting the legacies of colonialism and their persistence in academia. Works by Reed-Danahy (1997) on autoethnography, Escobar (2020) on pluriversal politics, and others discussing the impact of English language hegemony on academic publishing and knowledge production are referenced to contextualize the author’s personal narrative. The concept of "colonial debris" (Ali, 2020, 2023) is introduced to describe the lingering effects of colonization. The literature review also includes works examining the complexities of decolonization and the inherent power dynamics in academic language use, referencing Bourdieu's (1977, 1991) concept of linguistic capital and its influence on social mobility. The impacts of English language dominance on the mental and emotional well-being of non-native speakers are explored, citing studies on the psychological challenges faced by students learning English (Islam and Stapa, 2021). Finally, the author connects the linguistic challenges to broader issues of identity and regional differences within Pakistan, drawing on Barth's (2012) work on ethnic boundaries.

The methodology employed is autoethnography, a qualitative research approach that uses the author's personal experiences as the primary data source. The author narrates their journey of learning English, from childhood experiences in a multilingual environment in Pakistan to their academic career in Austria. The narrative includes vivid accounts of the challenges faced in mastering English, illustrating the emotional and psychological toll of linguistic struggles. The author uses personal anecdotes and reflections to highlight the disparities between native and non-native English speakers within academia, emphasizing the financial and social barriers encountered. Specific examples are given to demonstrate the difficulties faced during different stages of education, including primary school, high school, university, and PhD studies. This detailed personal narrative forms the basis for the author's analysis of the hegemony of English in anthropology and the need for a more inclusive academic environment.

The central finding is the pervasive impact of English language hegemony on non-native English-speaking scholars. The author's personal story demonstrates the significant time, effort, and financial resources required to achieve fluency in English, resources that may not be available to all scholars. The financial burden of professional editing and translation of manuscripts is highlighted as a major impediment to publication. The author's experiences also showcase the emotional and psychological consequences of linguistic struggles, such as feelings of shame, embarrassment, and diminished confidence. The narrative demonstrates how societal value is placed on English proficiency, even in contexts where other languages are prevalent, which impacts individual identity and self-perception. The experiences of communicating with colleagues who claim fluency in Hindi/Urdu, but struggle to communicate effectively in this language, demonstrate the asymmetrical nature of linguistic power dynamics. The author's personal struggles with English language proficiency illustrate the significant inequalities in academia, reinforcing the need for greater inclusivity in publishing and academic events. Finally, the author's account reveals the inadequacy of the current systems for supporting non-native English-speaking scholars and the systemic challenges they face in publishing their work and participating in international conferences.

The findings underscore the need for a fundamental shift in anthropological practices to address the dominance of English and promote linguistic diversity. The author's personal experiences directly challenge the assumptions of objectivity and universality often associated with academic discourse, particularly in anthropology. The author's call for "plurilogies" proposes a framework for dismantling the hegemony of English by encouraging the publication of research in native languages alongside translations, promoting panels and sessions in multiple languages at academic conferences. The significance of this approach lies in its potential to create a more inclusive, equitable, and representative field of anthropology. By acknowledging and valuing diverse linguistic and cultural perspectives, anthropology can become a more just and representative discipline, reflecting the global nature of its subject matter. The author’s reflections prompt critical examination of the power dynamics inherent in academic communication, urging scholars to consider the ethical and practical implications of maintaining English as the dominant language.

This autoethnography offers a compelling personal account of the challenges faced by non-native English speakers in anthropology, highlighting the significant barriers to publication and participation in the field. The author's call for "plurilogies" proposes a paradigm shift toward greater inclusivity, advocating for the acceptance and promotion of multiple languages within anthropological platforms. The study concludes by emphasizing the need for a critical reevaluation of the hegemony of English and the urgent need for change in order to create a more just and representative discipline. Future research could explore the feasibility and implementation of this framework on a broader scale, examining the practical challenges and potential benefits of adopting a plurilingual approach within anthropology.

As an autoethnography, the study's findings are based on the author's individual experiences and perspectives, limiting the generalizability of the results to other scholars and contexts. While the author's narrative provides rich insights into the challenges of navigating the English language hegemony in academia, it may not fully capture the experiences of all non-native English speaking scholars. Furthermore, the study focuses primarily on the author's personal experiences in Pakistan and Austria, potentially limiting its applicability to other regions and contexts. The study does not offer a detailed quantitative analysis of the financial burden associated with translation or other aspects of academic publishing.