Why do postcolonial historians question the idea that all societies follow one path of development?

Postcolonial historians and theorists challenge the notion of a single, linear path of development because such models are often rooted in Eurocentric historiography that positions non-European societies on a scale between "primitive" and "civilized."1

This skepticism arises from several key concerns:

• Critique of Universalism: Many liberal and Marxist theories of development use universal principles to justify the denial of rights or self-government to those deemed "backward" or "uncivilized" by European standards.2
• Erasure of Agency: By categorizing indigenous or non-European collective actions—such as those of peasants—as "prepolitical" or "archaic," traditional historical models fail to recognize the genuine agency and alternative sociabilities of these groups.1
• Multiple Modernities: Postcolonialism argues that the European process of modernity is not the sole template for human progress. Instead, it posits that there have been and will continue to be "multiple modernities," requiring a more nuanced understanding of how different cultures experience and shape their own histories.1

Ultimately, this approach seeks to move beyond the binary oppositions imposed by imperial structures, advocating for a history that acknowledges the heterogeneity of identity and the validity of diverse cultural experiences.12