Recent protests on the persisting influence of Belgium’s colonial past on contemporary society begs the question as to how we should understand the recent social movement around decolonization. Current research into postcolonial issues is predominantly qualitative and text-based. This research, however, takes a quantitative approach to investigate widely held attitudes among citizens. In doing so, it maps the attitudes in Belgian public opinion concerning decolonization measures relying on a representative survey conducted among the Belgian population (N = 1026). Based on attitudes of Belgian respondents, we propose a conceptual distinction between additive measures (whenever an addition is being made) and subtractive measures (which implies a removal). The data shows that there is no polarization on this issue in Belgium, but that the majority of the respondents are willing to support decolonization measures. Three sets of hypotheses on the effects of knowledge, age, and party preference are tested to examine these attitudes. Both knowledge and party preference have a significant influence on the support for decolonization in general, while age only has a significant effect for subtractive measures. The implication of this research is that there is a need for a dialogue between different approaches to study decolonization.

The phenomenon of pillarization is a process of social division according to party-political lines that developed at the end of the nineteenth and in the first half of the twentieth century in Belgium and the Netherlands. Parties created networks to provide for their supporters from the cradle to the grave. The literature on this subject does not show whether contemporaries were conscious of the so-called pillars. By making a conceptual history of pillarization between 1899 and 1950 for Belgium and the Netherlands, this article tries to give an insight into the experience and thoughts of contemporaries witnessing the development of this social separation. Because the concept of pillarization is problematic, the actual subject of this research will not be the concept, but the semantic field of pillarization. The history of this field shows dynamics of consciousness and sheds a new light on the relationship between the Belgian and Dutch experiences.

This article aims to explore the process of colonial redress from the theoretical scope of ontological security. In this theory, shame denotes a challenge to the consistency of state self-narratives, compelling the state to actions that reaffirm its sense of self. However, other works on ontological security argue that post-imperial states are more likely to experience guilt than shame because of their historical connection to international society. By juxtaposing shame and guilt as characteristic of the process of colonial redress, this article gives insight into the challenges, opportunities, and constraints of colonial redress. Empirically, the article discusses parliamentary debates during the Lumumba Commission (1999-2002), a significant moment in Belgium’s struggle with its imperial legacy. To adequately trace the anxieties and narrative changes that ontological insecurity implies, this case-study is approached using a narrative and interpretative sentiment analysis. The analysis indicates that Belgian MPs deployed a comedic narrative, sided by discourses of serenity, objectivity, and guilt. This particular narrative countered Belgium’s anxiety, facilitated an apology, and restated its self-identity. Based on these findings, the article concludes that the conceptual borderline between shame and guilt is less distinct than is assumed in the literature and suggests that further research is needed into the relationship between narratives and emotions.