But there seems to be a great deal of uncertainty as to just what the term denotes. Many of the debates among postcolonial scholars center on which national literatures or authors can be justifiably included in the postcolonial canon. In addition, it is seldom mentioned but quite striking that very few actual authors of the literature under discussion embrace and use the term to label their own writing. Practitioners generally consider themselves politically engaged and committed to some variety or other of liberation process. It is also important to understand that not all postcolonial scholars are literary scholars.
Postcolonial theory is applied to political science, to history, and to other related fields.
This is undoubtedly what the term originally meant, but there are many problems with this definition. First, literal colonization is not the exclusive object of postcolonial study. Sixties thinkers developed the concept of neo-imperialism to label relationships like that between the U.S. and many Latin American countries which, while nominally independent, had economies dominated by American business interests, often backed up by American military forces. Few people understand the term in this sense outside a small circle of scholars working in the field. Third, some critics argue that the term misleadingly implies that colonialism is over when in fact most of the nations involved are still culturally and economically subordinated to the rich industrial states through various forms of neo-colonialism even though they are technically independent.