An autoethnography of a transformative odyssey: decolonizing anthropology, the hegemony of English, and the pursuit of plurilogies

The paper opens by positioning autoethnography as a rewriting of self and society and situates the author’s personal trajectory within debates on decolonizing anthropology. It foregrounds the legacy of colonization—particularly the hegemony of English as academia’s lingua franca—as a persistent barrier shaping education, publishing, and professional advancement for non-native English speakers. The author poses core questions: Is decolonizing anthropology feasible if English remains dominant? Can journals and major anthropological platforms support publications and panels in native languages with prompt, free translations? Can anthropology foster plurilogies—coexisting and accepted multiple perspectives and knowledge systems—by embracing linguistic plurality? These provocations frame the purpose: to challenge English dominance and invite more inclusive communicative practices in anthropology.

The article weaves relevant literature into the narrative rather than presenting a stand-alone review. Key strands include: (1) Autoethnography and the crisis of representation (Reed-Danahy 1997; Clifford 1986; Campbell 2016), legitimizing reflexive, affective first-person accounts. (2) Decolonizing anthropology and pluriversal politics (Escobar 2020; Harrison 2011; Allen & Jobson 2016; Loperena et al. 2020; Ribeiro & Escobar 2020; Jobson 2020), calling for structural transformations and multiplicity in anthropologies. (3) The hegemony and political economy of English (Agrama 2020; Rassool 2013; Montgomery 2013; Canagarajah 2002; Hyland 2015; Curry & Lillis 2013, 2017; Liu 2017), detailing how English shapes global scholarly communication, imposes costs, and can marginalize non-native voices. (4) Language, identity, and capital (Bourdieu 1977, 1991), emphasizing linguistic and cultural capital as drivers of social stratification. (5) Ethnic boundaries and local identity dynamics (Barth 2012) and psychological impacts of language learning (Islam & Stapa 2021). This literature underpins the argument that linguistic hierarchies reproduce inequities and that embracing linguistic diversity is central to decolonizing knowledge production.

Autoethnography. The author employs a reflexive, first-person narrative to analyze lived experiences across educational and professional contexts (from rural schooling in Sindh through graduate studies in Pakistan and a PhD in Austria). Data consist of autoethnographic vignettes and personal archives of experiences learning and using multiple languages (Seraiki, Sindhi, Balochi, Urdu, Arabic, English; exposure to German), classroom interactions, editorial processes, and financial records related to language services. Analysis is iterative and interpretive, interlacing narrative episodes with theoretical framing (e.g., linguistic and cultural capital, geopolitics of academic writing) to illuminate how English-language hegemony structures opportunities, identity, and well-being. No external participants or formal sampling were used; all data are contained within the article as per the data availability note.

- English-language hegemony functions as a structural barrier in anthropology and academia, disproportionately disadvantaging non-native speakers in education, publishing, and professional advancement. - Financial burdens are salient: the author reports paying approximately 1500€ for native English editing of the PhD dissertation while receiving a scholarship stipend of about 975€ per month; earlier university fees were around US$150; private English tuition was 500 PKR/month (~US$5 in 2002). - Linguistic expectations extend beyond basic proficiency to accent, style, and disciplinary conventions; accent policing and ridicule (e.g., pronunciation of “what,” “vague,” and Urdu with a Sindhi accent) undermined confidence and classroom participation. - Repeated cycles of “unlearning and relearning” English were necessary across transitions (school to university; Pakistan to Austria), often eclipsing opportunities to learn other relevant languages (e.g., German), constraining local integration. - Publication in English often requires paid editing/translation, creating inequities in visibility and citation for otherwise strong scholarship produced in non-English languages. - The emotional and psychological toll is significant, including shame, embarrassment, reduced confidence, and stress; this aligns with literature on mental health challenges linked to English learning among students. - Language operates as linguistic and cultural capital (Bourdieu), stratifying access and prestige; English accrues high symbolic value in Pakistan and globally, reinforcing center–periphery dynamics in knowledge production. - The dominance of English narrows anthropological discourse, marginalizing diverse epistemologies and experiences; promoting plurilogies (coexisting, accepted multiple perspectives and languages) is proposed as a corrective. - The author raises feasibility questions for decolonizing anthropology: Can leading associations (AAA, EASA) host panels in mother tongues with free simultaneous translation? Can reputable journals publish in native languages with free English translations? Can dissertations be produced in mother tongues? What resources would be required to sustain this infrastructure?

The narrative demonstrates how English hegemony concretely manifests through educational trajectories, classroom dynamics, editorial gatekeeping, and financial demands, directly addressing the paper’s central questions about the feasibility of decolonizing anthropology. By showing how linguistic hierarchies produce material, symbolic, and affective inequalities, the account substantiates the call to reconfigure academic infrastructures toward inclusivity. The analysis links lived experiences with concepts of linguistic/cultural capital and the geopolitics of academic writing, evidencing how dominance of English limits participation and narrows the field’s epistemic diversity. Promoting plurilogies—through multilingual publishing, native-language panels with translation, and institutional support—would broaden representation, reduce exclusion, and foster more equitable knowledge exchange. Yet the discussion underscores practical constraints: costs of translation/editing, readiness of major associations/journals, and the need for sustained resources and policies. Thus, while decolonization is desirable, its implementation requires systemic changes and dedicated infrastructure to avoid reproducing inequalities.

Autoethnography offers a critical vantage to expose how English-language dominance shapes anthropological training, publishing, and identity, particularly for scholars from low-resource settings. The article reiterates that English remains the predominant language of scholarly communication, creating structural and financial burdens that marginalize non-native speakers and constrain epistemic diversity. To move toward plurilogies, the author proposes: enabling panels in mother tongues at major associations (e.g., AAA, EASA) with free simultaneous translation; encouraging reputable journals to publish in native languages alongside free English translations; and allowing dissertations in mother tongues with resources for translation to ensure mutual intelligibility. Decolonizing anthropology thus entails reimagining its communicative infrastructures, redistributing resources, and embracing multiplicity so diverse anthropologies can emerge. While challenging and resource-intensive, building such infrastructures is presented as essential to restructure the discipline and minimize the enduring effects of colonial debris on theory and practice.