Call for Papers | Vol. 13, No. 2 | Colonialism and the Public Space: Contested Memories | From 10 March to 15 May 2026

European colonialism is commonly treated as a historical period, that is, a chapter with a clearly defined beginning, middle, and end. However, closer analysis of the phenomenon reveals that colonialism extends beyond itself, both before and after, generating unfoldings, echoes, and legacies that emerge following the supposed closure of this chapter. It constitutes a body of indeterminate and shifting contours that remains visible today, coexisting with independence celebrations that commemorate the official end of this project (Mbembe, 2017).

Colonialism undoubtedly has consequences that emerge belatedly, after the presumed disappearance of the episodes that gave rise to them. However, when it is asserted that the colonial is among us — or that we may in fact be within it, surrounded by it — the reference is not merely to these waves, but to their epicentre, the ground zero from which they reverberate. In other words, it is not only the consequences of colonialism that mark the present; colonialism itself persists here and now.

The public space of former European colonial powers and of the territories they invaded is marked by a set of symbolic and material traces that refer to colonialism: monuments, statues, buildings, squares, streets, neighbourhoods, and various forms of urban infrastructure that, rather than merely referring to European colonial expansion and its legacies, celebrate and affirm it (Peralta & Domingos, 2023). Some of these traces were constructed during the colonial period. They survived its presumed conclusion, remaining in public space not through inertia or forgetfulness, but through active, deliberate processes of maintaining and updating these objects and the exploits they exalt. Moreover, beyond such reminiscences, whose persistence into the present is anything but accidental, an extensive inventory may be compiled of honours to colonialism erected after its official end, at a time when the condemnation of this enterprise was assumed to be settled and pacified (Guardião et al., 2022; Knudsen et al., 2021/2022).

Nevertheless, if these petrified reverences are always visible, the same cannot be said of the violence and exploitation inherent in the European colonial project. To state this explicitly: material and symbolic traces persist, yet reference to colonialism does not, or not necessarily. In such cases, rather than isolated figures cut against the landscape, these colonial totems become the landscape itself: hidden in plain sight, camouflaged by their omnipresence.

In recent years, however, direct actions against colonial traces have become increasingly frequent. Reports proliferate of statues being toppled or altered, demands to change urban place names, petitions calling for the installation of informational plaques, and campaigns advocating the creation of anti- and counter-monuments. Driven by groups seeking to recover memories previously rendered invisible in official narratives, such actions do not occur without resistance. In response, voices arise presenting themselves as guardians of the values, myths, and ideas propagated by these symbols, audible across different sectors of society — from public authorities and formal associations to clandestine far-right groups. What animates these antagonistic positions is not merely nostalgia or longing, but a pragmatic interest in pressing twenty-first-century agendas, as colonial memory — always contested — is strategically instrumentalised as a site of legitimation for discourses concerning present-day issues (Haraway, 2013; Hobsbawm & Ranger, 1983; Quijano, 2000), particularly about migration and the rights of racialised people (Mbembe, 2017). In Weberian terms, this constitutes a struggle for the monopoly over the legitimate definition of colonialism; rather than constituting an end in itself, this confrontation is part of a broader constellation of disputes over the definition of other concepts: defining colonialism is to define migration and, ultimately, to define Europe.

 

Objective of the Thematic Issue

This call invites submissions that examine the relationship between colonialism, public space, and memory, highlighting how such debates and actions are embedded in power struggles between dominant and counter-hegemonic narratives. Analyses are sought that address controversies and conflicts surrounding colonial traces in public space, as well as responses formulated by public authorities and civil society across diverse national and political contexts. Critical reflections are also encouraged on how material traces of the colonial past are mobilised and resignified by different social actors, serving as platforms for the articulation of progressive and/or conservative discourses concerning contemporary issues.

 

Suggested Topics

Theoretical and empirical contributions are welcome, whether general, case study–based, comparative, or emerging from artistic interventions, from across the humanities, social sciences, arts, and creative fields, including communication, sociology, anthropology, political science, history, geography, cultural studies, philosophy, architecture, urban studies, heritage studies, artistic practice, and related areas. Submissions may explore, but are not limited to, the following themes:  

• Artivism and colonial memory
• Affinities and tensions among activists, artists, civil society, academics, and public authorities
• Conflicts between official memory and alternative memories
• Public space between hegemonic and counter-hegemonic memories
• Policies of management, listing, and patrimonialisation of colonial public spaces and their controversies
• Anti-colonial, post-colonial, and decolonial theories, concepts, and debates
• Continuities and ruptures between anti-, post-, and decolonial theories and more canonical theoretical traditions

 

References

Guardião, A., Jerónimo, M. B., & Peixoto, P. (Eds.). (2022). Colonial echoes: Histories, heritages and memories (R. Matos, Trans.). Tinta-da-China.

Haraway, D. (2013). Situated knowledges. The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. In M. Wyer, M. Barbercheck, D. Cookmeyer, & H. Ozturk (Eds.), Women, science and technology (3.ª ed., pp. 455–472). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203427415

Hobsbawm, E., & Ranger, T. (Eds.). (1983). The invention of tradition. Cambridge University Press.

Knudsen, B. T., Oldfield, J. R., Buettner, E., & Zabunyan, E. (Eds.). (2022). Decolonizing colonial heritage: New agendas, actors and practices in and beyond Europe. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003100102. (Original work published 2021)

Mbembe, A. (2017). Critique of Black reason (L. Dubois, Trans.). Duke University Press.

Peralta, E., & Domingos, N. (Eds.). (2023). Legacies of the Portuguese colonial empire: Nationalism, citizenship and popular culture. Bloomsbury Academic.

Quijano, A. (2000). Coloniality of power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America. Nepantla: Views from South, 1(3), 533–580.

 

Submission of full manuscripts: from 10 March to 15 May 2026.

 

LANGUAGE

Manuscripts may be submitted in English or Portuguese. Papers selected for publication will be translated into Portuguese or English and must be published in both languages.

 

EDITING AND SUBMISSION

Lusophone Journal of Cultural Studies is an open-access academic journal that adheres to stringent peer-review standards, including blind peer review. After submission, each paper will be distributed to two reviewers, previously invited to evaluate it on its academic quality, originality, and relevance to the objectives and scope of the theme of this issue of the journal.

Original articles are submitted on the journal’s website at (https://www.rlec.pt/). When submitting for the first time to the Lusophone Journal of Cultural Studies, please register here.

The guidelines for authors are available here.

For further information, please contact: rlec@ics.uminho.pt