One of them has been widely distributed and occupies many of the news title. Putin stressed that the Edward Snowden case shall not damage the bilateral relations between Russia and the US. On the other hand, he was also quoted as saying:
Speaking to journalists in the Siberian city of Chita, Mr. Putin could not deny himself the pleasure of taking a dig at Washington’s intrusive support for human rights in other countries. “Human rights activity has its downside for those who engage it. It can be quite comfortable when pursued under the tutelage of the U.S. and with its financial, information [and] political support, when somebody wants to criticise the U.S., he may have problems as the incidentw ith the Bolivian President’s plane has shown (http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/world/putin-defends-decision-on-asylum/article4923928.ece)-
I have read these two statement first in El Pais, two days before the show. I was surprised to hear that one of the participants considered those two statements contradictory. I thought that they were clearly complementary in the politics of dewesternization. That is:
–The first statement clearly state that international relations are very important and that Edward Snowden´s case, which is very important and has to be deal with carefully if nothing else because there is a human life in question. However, to confronting this issue shall take into account, according to Putin, the priority of not damaging international relations between the two states;
–The second statement makes clear that in spite of that, Russia has its own standards and will not accept any instructions given by the US of how they have to proceed in this case. The second statement, as the journalist of El Pais observer, is an ironic one. However, it is a true expressed with irony.
This is a good example of how dewesternization in the political sphere works. Capitalist economy is not questioned. Russia is no longer a communist state. However, political decisions are multi-polar, not longer uni-polar. George W Bush was perhaps the last president of the US that was managed to make a unipolar decision when invading Iraq. But those days seem to be long gone.
¨The day that that will be achieved, it will be a great day for Western Civilization¨ are, approximately, the closing words of his speech.]]>
2.- I suppose you could say that the world is moving in the direction of touching objects and being disconnected with yourself and your body. But still calling that “Connecting.” Alienating perhaps? But true, progress is “progress” and on the name of progress sacrifices are necessary, and you can sacrifice anything in the name of progress.
And, of course, the point I am raising is not to allow youngsters in the street of Peru (first YT) to enjoy the marvels of technological connections. No, the point I am making is this: look at both YT and reflect on what kind of persons you see in each of them. I would like to say that progress and the future is announced the YT of street dancers in Peru. However, the majority would think that I am wrong, that it is the reverse: those kids in the street of Peru shall be brought up to “connecting” in the manner of the no-more “First World” people do.
Why I think so? Because I see Vania Masia’s project empowering, while I find interaction design disempowering, but good business. I know that the leaders of interaction designs will disagree with me. And that is again the point: how is it the interaction with objects displace the interaction between people. When you loose direct connection with living organism and replace them with dead objects, it is easier to loose concern from living organisms.
You become oblivious of the no longer valid distinction between “First” and “Third” worlds. You forget that in order to have those wonderful experiences with objects that separate people (“I can do many things while talking with you, Younghee Jung observes”) while they are facing each other, you have not to ask question of the cost involved in doing business by alienating people. And I am not talking about money when I mention “cost”, I am talking about life, living organisms dying to have the possibility of certain human beings to get in touch with objects.
On December 26, 2012 was held in Buenos Aires a Tertulia, convened by Walter Mignolo (Duke University) and Cecilia Hecht (BioeconTV) in a legendary cafe on Avenida Corrientes, a ¨tertulia¨ on decolonial thinking, cashless economy and education. The conversation focused on education. The topic was introduced by a quotation from the book of Ivan Ilyich (Deschooling Society) published in the early 70s. The initial paragraphs clearly state the doble side of modernity/coloniality, although Illich doesn´t use this vocabulary. However, he was thinking the double side of development: the salvationist rhetoric of modernity that conceals the imperial logic of coloniality. By day’s end and in closing the conversation, a series of points remain open for future ¨tertulias.¨
What are the spaces in which the coloniality can be effective?
The overall project, long term, is to decolonize all areas of the colonial matrix (or patron) of power to release the fullness of human relationships. This requires a horizon of life that displaces the horizon of growth / enrichment / corruption with growth management to live in harmony rather than in competition to have more.
The sphere of knowledge is critical since controlling knowledge means to control subjectivities. Decolonizing epistemology is necessary to release sensing and thinking from the prison house of aesthetics and philosophy. So to decolonize knowledge is tantamount with decolonizing being, subjectivity.
In this process, education is key. This is necessary and possible to decolonize education as schooling to free learning and creativity from global/imperial and local/state managements. The process of learning shall focus on the plenitude of people and it should take precedence over the formation of ¨experts¨ and ¨citizens¨ at the service of the state.
El 26 de Diciembre del 2012 se realizó en Buenos Aires una Tertulia, convocada por Walter Mignolo (Duke University) y Cecilia Hecht (BioeconTV) en un legendario café de la Avenida Corrientes, en torno a pensamiento descolonial, economía sin dinero y educación. La conversación se concentró en la educación. El tema fue introducido por medio de una cita del libro de Ivan Illitch (Des-escolarizar la sociedad) publicado en los tempranos 70s. Texto en el que la doble cara modernidad/colonialidad se hace explícita aunque Illich no usara este vocabulario. Pero estaba pensando la doble cara del ¨desarrollo¨: la retórica salvacionista de la modernidad que oculta la lógica imperial de la colonialidad. Al fin del día y de la conversación las cuestiones pendientes para posible futuras tertulias son:
¿Cuáles son los espacios en los que la descolonialidad puede ser efectiva?
El proyecto general, a largo plazo, es descolonizar todas las esferas de la matriz (o patrón) colonial de poder para liberar la plenitud de las relaciones humanas. Para ello es necesario un horizonte de vida plena que desplace el horizonte de crecimiento/enriquecimiento/corrupción.
La esfera del conocimiento es fundamental puesto que el control del conocimiento significa el control de las subjetividades. Descolonializar la epistemología para liberar el sentimiento y el pensamiento es una tarea prioritaria. Por ello, descolonizar el saber es al mismo tiempo descolonizar el ser.
En este proceso, la educación es fundamental. Para ello es necesario y posible descolonizar la educación como escolaridad para liberar el aprendizaje y la creatividad desatada de los controles imperials globales y estatales locales. La formación plena de las personas tiene prioridad sobre la formación del ¨experto¨ y ¨ciudadano¨ sujeto a la concepción econóica y estatal de la persona.
The book is indeed useful in that it enlarges the scope of colonial legacies and global responses to it. It doesn’t distinguish properly, however, postcolonialism from decolonization, and this is indeed one serious charge we can make to the book.
However, what really caught my attention and made me doubt of its scholastic rigor (and even of Oxford University Press academic responsibilities), is how the authors messed up the part on Latin America. And I wonder now if the same did not happen in other chapters. To give you an idea: when you go to the bibliography, you will find out that many of my significant works on the topic has been attributed to Eduardo Mendieta!! Eduardo and I have indeed many common interests, we have collaborated in several projects, and he has written a wonderful blurb for The Idea of Latin America. The blurb is indeed so well crafted that the authors of Political Theories attributed the book to the author of the blurb. Now, how seriously can you take what they have written about “Latin” America’s decolonial thinking.
I suspect that the authors of this book would have never attributed a work by Gyan Prakash to, say, Partha Chaterjee; or a work by Michel Foucault to Jacques Derrida: these authors are serious matter; you have to pay attention to them. But authors writing in Spanish or writing in English but “thinking in Latin American” (and I mean what I wrote: I neither mean “thinking about Latin America,” nor I mean “thinking in Latin America”). What I suspect is that there is an unconscious epistemic racism (meaning that less serious attention is paid, less cash-value being attributed) in the authors of this book that disregard and devalue certain theoretical thinking in certain regions and in certain languages–in this case that written in Spanish by Latin American authors. Unacceptable errors have been committed and not corrected in the final proofs, or less value is attributed to theoretical contributions to people whose language is Spanish. However, this is not an isolated example. A similar case has been reported a couple of years ago.
My interest in calling attention to this issue is related to what I have been writing and talking about in several recent posting, in this blog, and in several interviews and op-eds published in the Advanced Institute of Cross Disciplinary Studies, World Public Forum and Critical Legal Thinking. It is related to the global shift in politics, economics, religions, aesthetics and epistemology. All of these combined are generating a radical shift in the geography if feeling, sensing, believing and thinking. The end of Western domination, from the right and the left, in economy and politics, in knowing (epistemology, hermeneutics) and sensing (aiesthesis, aesthetics), is under way. And in the process are indirectly making evident that the interest of major publishing houses, including university presses like Oxford, are more interesting in making profit than in the seriousness of ideas and arguments being packaged in their books.]]>
In the Spring of 2011, a workshop on “Decoloniality and the South West” took place at the university of New Mexico, in Albuquerque, organized by assistant professor Michael Trujillo. It was indeed a wonderful experience with participants from several disciplines and academic formations, as well as belonging to diverse ethnic communities that characterize the South West (Anglo/as, Hispanics, Native Americans and Chicano/as). One of the goals of decoloniality is to undo disciplinary formations and social classifications imposed upon us by coloniality, that is, by the colonial matrix of power. Decoloniality promotes belonging and conviviality, rather than antagonisms based on belonging. And decoloniality promotes learning to unlearn what disciplinary formations make us believe. The workshop was an exemplar moment of how disciplinary and ethnic boundaries can be transcendent without being abandoned. There cannot be interdisciplinary work if there is no ethnic equality for interdisciplinarity today is still encumbered by racism. In that vain, the workshop was preceded by a lecture in which the topic prompting some of the key issues to be discussed in the workshop: “When the other thinks/thinking without the other.”]]>
The recently inaugurated Hong Kong Institute for Advanced Cross-Disciplinary Studies has “negotiating the past and coloniality” as one of its five general themes of investigation. The first exploratory workshop on “Coloniality and Decolonial Thinking” will take place at the Institute on Junes 3 and 4 of 2011. For more information about the Institute and the new journal “Traverse: The Journal of Cross-Disciplinary Studies” click here.
Here is the link
There are however a couple of points that should be reviewed. One is the word “Group.” Modernity/Coloniality/Decoloniality (MCD) is a “Collective Project.” But it is not a “Research Project” for “research project” is a disciplinary description, the way the disciplines and scholars in the disciplines describe their doing. MCD, as Catherine Walsh clearly stated it at the end of an interview published in the Slovenian journal Reartikulacija (http://www.reartikulacija.org/?p=1468)
states it, it is yes a project, but not a research project in the disciplinary sense: it is project of epistemic disobedience, including of course disciplinary disobedience, that put the horse in front of the carts: rather than the method and the how, the project begin by asking what knowledge do we need, why, to advocate what cause. MDC is indeed a project that constantly works toward shifting the geopolitics of knowledge that rule research oriented disciplinary enterprises.
followed up by a workshop on Critical and Decolonial Dialogues
Both the Seminar and the Workshop are based on a basic assumptions: There are two kind of critics to modernity. One is internal to Europe, from the Frankfurt School to post-modernity. The second kind emerged in the borders of Euro/American imperial expansion and interference with the non-Euro American world. We label “critical” de first kind and “decolonial” the second, which doesn’t mean that the decolonial is not critical. It means that is critical from the exteriority of the West. That is, a critique from the “outside” invented by Western epistemology to legitimize itself as the “inside” and the point of reference to make the will turn around.]]>