Why do postcolonial scholars describe the legacy of the Enlightenment as ambiguous?

Postcolonial scholars view the legacy of the Enlightenment as inherently ambiguous because its intellectual tools have served both as a means of liberation and as a justification for imperial domination.1

This ambiguity arises from several key factors:

• Dual Utility: The universal categories and concepts central to Enlightenment thought—such as reason, rights, and freedom—have been effectively utilized by activists and intellectuals to challenge injustices and criticize imperialism. Conversely, these same theoretical frameworks were often paired with an unrelenting cultural Eurocentrism to rationalize the political and economic practices of Western empires during the 19th and 20th centuries.1
• Eurocentrism vs. Humanism: While some Enlightenment modes of thought are criticized as inherently Eurocentric and problematic when imposed on non-European contexts, the movement’s core humanism and universalism remain regarded as indispensable tools for addressing contemporary global inequalities.2
• Multiple Enlightenments: Postcolonial scholarship emphasizes that there is no singular "Enlightenment." Instead, it consists of plural, context-dependent ideals that are capable of diverse interpretations, allowing thinkers to be deeply influenced by European political theory while simultaneously remaining its most rigorous critics.1