Critica a Sen Por Mignolo

7/31/2019 Critica a Sen Por Mignolo

1/17

Social Epistem ology

V ol. 19, N o. 1, Janu aryM arch 2005, pp. 111127

ISSN 02691728 (pr int) /ISSN 14645297 (on line) 2005 Taylor & Francis Grou p Ltd

DOI: 10.1080/02691720500084325

Prophets Facing Sidewise: TheGeopolit ics of Knowledge and the

Colonial Dif ference

Walter D. MignoloTaylorandFrancisLtdTSEP108415.sgm10.1080/02691720500084325Social Epistemology0269-1728 (print)/1464-5297 (online)Original Article2005Taylor&[email protected]

T here is no safe place and no single locus of enu nciation from wh ere the u niversal could

be articulated for all and forever. H ind u n ationalism and W estern neo-liberalism are

entan gled in a long history of th e logic of coloniality (d om inat ion, oppression, exp loitation )

hidden u nder the rhetoric of m odernity ( salvation , civilization, progress, developm ent,

freedom an d dem ocracy) . T here are, how ever, n eeds and possibili ties for Indians and W est-

ern progressive int ellectu als workin g together to u nd erm ine an d sup ersede the assum ptions

tha t liberal th ink ers in th e W est are better placed to understan d wh at is the com m on good

better than Indian thinkers in post-partition India. Science, in the last analysis, doesnt

carry in itself an eth ics and politics. T herefore, it is doubt fu l to argue that science is beyond

both, and only concerned with the advan cem ent of the frontier of knowledge and un der-

stand ing. Science could be ( like Ch ristianity, H indu ism , Liberalism or M arxism ) both

im perial and liberating. Kn owledge and un derstan din g, rather than science; gnoseology

rather than epistem ology, shou ld be thought ou t as which the horizon t oward a d ialogical

an d critical cosm opolitan ism ( e.g., pluriversallity as universal project) , could be env isioned

beyond East and W est, H indu nationalism and W estertn ( neo) liberalism .

Keywords: Coloniality; Coloniality of knowledge; Border think ing; A bstract un iversals;

Pluriversality as un iversal project; Critical cosm opolitan ism

I.

Professor Meera Nandas Prophets Facing Backw ard: Postm odern Critiqu es of Science

and Hindu Nationalism in India1 confronts a problem that, based on the history of

Ind ia, is com m on to coloniality, the hidden side of modernity. The pro blem and the

entan glemen t could be sum m arized as follows: the post-m odern critique of science in

Europe and in the Un ited States (from Feyerabend and Kuh n to the gend er dimension

in science and epistemology raised by Haraway, Harding, and Alcoff, among others)

Corr espond ence to: Walter D. Mignolo, Duke University, Institu te for Global Stud ies in Hu m anities, Depar tm entof Roman ce Stud ies, 224 Fran klin Center , Durh am, N C 27708-0413, USA.


2/17

112 W . D. Mignolo

coincides with the critique of science, in In dia, enacted by Hindu nat ionalism. There-

fore, what seem s progressive within the local histor y of the mod ern W est tu rn s out

to be straightforward ly conservative in t he trad itional East or n on -West. I am over-

simplifying the argument for the need to be brief in this context. However, what I

would like to emph asize is the ent anglement between two (in th is case) local histo-ries, that of Euro-Americas and th at of Indias mod ernity/colon iality. The foundation

of the Atlantic world econ om y in th e sixteenth centu ry and of what wou ld later become

Western h egemony after the eighteenth century, has been ground ed in the effective link

between m odernity and its darker side, colon iality. From the Eur o-Am erican perspec-

tive (and by that I m ean a conceptual structu re glued together by a system of beliefs that

allowed for the classification , ranking, and knowing of th e world) the logic of colonial-

ity is invisible as it is disguised by the lights of modernitys progressive mission. The

rhetor ic of modernity is based on a logic that is self-justified and self-satisfying; it is to

deliver freedom and progresssalvationto the rest of the world. But for that to

happen someone has to suffer the con sequences, and t his is how the logic of colon iality

has shaped th e mod ern/colonial world.

What happens when you change the gaze and look not from the perspective of

empire and the rh etoric of m odern ity but from the consequences of the logic of colo-

niality and the pain, suffering, devaluation, and exploitation of human beings? There

are indeed many reactions, some critical, other extremist, and still other complacent.

The complacent projects of the native promoters who want to go modern go

hand -in-hand , in the structure of the m odern /colonial world, with th e native dissi-

dents who want to remain natives. Thus, while coloniality is the hidden logic

covered up by the rh etoric of m odern ity, mo dernity is presented as the point of arrivalof the colon ial world, before and after independence. Ind epend ence chan ged the actors

but not the script. This chronological distinction (before and after independence) is

irrelevant to the logic of coloniality that o perates in d ifferent m ann ers but d oesnt go

away as the constitut ive com pan ion of mo dern ity. This is in a nut shell the crucial issue

addressed by Nanda by showing the complicities between postmodern critique of

science in the West, the Indian Left, and H indu N ationalism.

If the issues involved in the fact that colon iality is con stitutive of mod ernity are tod ay

of worldwide imp ort and affect all sph eres of life (from subjectivity to m ilitary inter-

vention s and b uilding of so-called WM D as a reaction to o verpowering WD P (W eapon s

of Democratic Prom otion ; from p olitical theory to political econ om y, from eth ics and

hu m an rights to free trade of dru gs and hu m an or gans), Nanda focuses on th e question

of knowledge and science and its political and ethical imp lications. And t he im plica-

tions are clear in Nandas detailed, scholarly grounded and biographically motivated

study.2 Which ones are they? These implications are articulated through the book,

focusing on the Indian Left and Hindu Nationalism. Here is a paragraph in which

Nand a lays ou t th e prob lem atic positions adopted by the Left, thro ugh the exam ination

of som e of Ashis Nand ys (and associates) argum ents:

Nandy and associates argued that because the Western philosopher and social critics

themselves were rejecting modern science as epistemologically privileged, Indians who

went around signing statements of scientific temper were dupes and fools. The gist of the


3/17

Social Epistem ology 113

argument was this: Post-positivist critics, among whom Herbert Marcuse, Paul Feyera-

bend and Tho m as Kuh n cam e in for special men tion, have already proved that science

does not an d cann ot confron t dogm as, because science needs dogmas (e.g., paradigms) in

ord er to d o its work [ ]. A society like India, on th e periphery of the world, needed to

protect itself from, rather than cultivate, the hegemony of science. 3

There you have it, in a nut shell, the two types of critiques of science: intern al to im pe-

rial knowledge (Feyerabend , etc.) and from depen dency relation s (here in the sph ere of

knowledge) created by the colonial difference. Here the qu estion is then, how to get out

of this dilemma.

Nandas proposal starts from her conviction that such cultural relativization of

needs is challenged by Amartya Sen and Marta Nussbaum in their capabilities

approach to hu man fun ctioning 4. More specifically, Nan da explains,

th e capabilities ethics is based u pon a critical universalism that h olds a set of basic hum an

capabilities as intrinsically worthwhile for flourishing human life, while admitting that

these capabilities may be expressed different ly in d ifferent cultu res and different historical

epochs. Amartya Sen holds that personal interests and welfare are not just matters of

perception; there are objective aspects of these concepts that com m and att ention , even wh en

the corresponding self-perception does not exist (Sen). Two levels of human capabilities

serve as the objective criteria for jud ging whether o r not an y society can be said to b e devel-

oping or regressing . The first level sets the ground floor for a life that is suitable for

humans as a species distinct from other animals and includes bodily capacities like avoid-

ing hun ger and thirst and in clud es the distinctively hu man traits like hum or an d play and

the ability to reason and m ake mo ral judgm ents. The n ext level describes capab ilities that

m ake a hum an life a goodlife. These capabilities includ e, for instan ce, the ability to im ag-

ine to think and to r eason and the ability for critical reflection an d cru cially for wom en,

the ability to live ones own life and no bod y elses. (Nussbau m ) 5

Nanda begins the next paragraph with a disclaimer: Contrary to Shiva and Mies,

Nussbaum and Sen believe that it is both possible and desirable to m o ve all people,

everywhere above the threshold for a good life defined in terms of capabilities 6.

Here we have the crux of the argument illustrated by the positions of Shiva and

Nandy, in India, and Nussbaum and Sen in the United States. Who is in the right

position to move people without the consent of people to be moved? Is the design

to m ove Iraqi people to dem ocracy possible and d esirable? Geo-h istor ical locations,

in the modern/colonial world, go together with an entire subjectivity formation, with

knowledge and skin (in Fanons sense) within imperial countries as well as in their

colonies or ex-colonies. Nandas sub jective form ation , as she explains in th e pro logue,

is shaped while following closely, both intellectually and emotionally, the debates over

science in India and later in her life in the United States the postmodern critiques of

science.

Upo n reflection on both experiences, Nand a sees in Sen and Nu ssbaum the argu-

ment that people should be moved above the threshold of a good life based on the

universality ofhuman capabilities. With all du e respect for Sen and Nu ssbaum s well-

argued opinion , why shou ld one agree that what they believe would in deed be univer-

sally desirable and accepted by all human beings? Sen and Nussbaums definition ofhuman capabilities is clearly grounded in the instrumental concept of reason. Only a


4/17

114 W . D. Mignolo

cosmology that operates on the principle of profit, production, and accumulation

could m ake ofhuman capabilities a basic universal principle. If you are a Black Afro-

Caribbean, and a critical mind like Sen and Nu ssbaum , you would n ot begin by m aking

ofhuman capabilities a universal principle, or say that humanity is defined, once and

for all, by the detachm ent o f men from natu re. Certainly, that is very much groun dedin Eur opean m odernity, in political theory as well as in political econ om ycivilization

as detachment from nature, economic production as exploitation of nature, and

human beings as free entities to decide their lives independent of the political-

economic structure and the hegemonic system of values that establishes what consti-

tu tes a good life. A critical Afro-Caribbean mind (as critical as a white US feminist and

an In dian econom ist who embraced liberal principles in bo th political theory and polit-

ical econo m y), wou ld certain ly twist that pr inciple in two directions7. The first would

be to challenge the idea that hu m an capabilities are un iversal and m anifest th emselves

differently in different traditions, as the m ulticultural argum ent reproduced by N anda

would h ave it. And th e second is that the idea of hum anity being defined by its detach-

ment from nature doesnt bode well with the Black population, who themselves have

been defined, in the modern/colonial world, by their proximity to nature and their

inferior hu m anity.

The idea that humanity is universally defined by its separation from nature first

emerged in seventeenth -centu ry Euro pe and developed in tan dem with t he indu strial

revolution, as the appropriation of lands increased, accompanied by the increasing

demand for natural resources. Even when Aristotle conceived human beings as

rational animals he was not necessarily defining humanity in opposition, or in

contradistinction, to natu re. The entire Ind igenous movem ent today, in th e Am ericasand in Australasia conceives hu m anity, as they have always conceived it, on the basis

of a different logic: nature is life, the energy that generates and maintains life and

hum anity is not different and separate from natu re but an integral part of it. Within

the scope of this short article, I can only state that these principles are accepted by

indigenous men and women alike, as they know, based on their own experience,

rationality, and creativity, that they want to live their own lives and not someone

elses (not even Nussbaums!). Of course not all white women in the United States

and Europe reach the critical point of becoming aware of their rights; and, of course,

not all indigenous women are slaves just because they are indigenous and women.

Quite the contrary, there are many among them who do not need Nussbaums and

Sens principles of capability to realize what rights and freedoms are. To believe that

Nussbaums and Sens (with all due respect to their work) two basic principles

(humans separated from nature and being all equals in their capabilities) are univer-

sally valid beyond th e cosmology on which they are based, means to accept an imp e-

rial view of goodness. And it is only the imperial rationality, hidden under the

rhetoric of happ iness for all, that justifies Nan das sup port for Nu ssbaum s and Sens

position according to which they believe that it is both possible and desirable to

m ov e all people, everywhere above the threshold for a good life defined in terms of

capabilities. Once again, who decides what is a good life for whom? Who m oves allpeople to goodn ess?


5/17


II .

On e of Nan das stron g argum ents against Shiva and Nand y, and the Indian Left, is that

their argum ent and critique of Western science played into th e hands of H indu Nation-

alism and its defense of Vedic Science. I wou ld like to stress that Shiva and Nan dy are

no t supp orters of Hindu Nationalism, but that th eir critique of Western imperialism

runs parallel to Hindu Nationalists critique of Indias Westernization. One among

m any examp les from Nand y:

The literature of the u ltra-Hind u nation alist grou p, for instance, is replete with exhorta-

tions to improve the Hindus socially, morally, and psychologically. This improvement is

invariably defined according to the values thrown up by the experience of the Hindu

defeat in the hands of the non-Hindus: hard discipline, masculinity, impulse control,

power, and nation alism geared to realpolitick. Even when the authoritarian Indian takes a

revivalist position, thereby trying to return to the uterine warm th of an idealized past and an

idealized motherland, what he projects into the past and into the concept of the nation are

noth ing other than convent ional W estern m iddle-class values. 8

As for Vand ana Shiva on e could say that even if som e of Nan das criticism s are justified,

Shiva cann ot b e reduced to her position in eco-fem inism . In oth er works such as T he

M on ocu lture of the M in d (1992) and Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food

Supply (2000), Shiva has been consistently denouncing and revealingbased on the

particular experience of neo-liberalism in In diathe rhetoric of m odern ity und er which

the logic of colon iality continu es to increase the nu m bers of the wretched o f the earth ,

as Frantz Fanon had it. Now lets assum e that in spite ofthat (and n ot because of), som e

of Nand ys and Shivas argum ents could p lay into t he han ds of H indu N ationalist argu-

m ents. If we choose that line of argum entation , it wou ld be easy to show that som e ofNu ssbaum s and Sens argum ents as well play right into the hands of Neo- liberal agendas.

Wh at do I mean by Neo-Liberalism ? Briefly, the ideas that t he m arket shou ld be the

poin t o f reference for the o rganization o f society and in o rder t o value h um an capabil-

ities trade u nions should be elim inated and citizens vitality and social lives dimin ished

to fit their fun ction solely as hu m an resou rces and labor pr oviders. These are some of

the prin ciples of Neo- liberal civilizing ideals. They pr esuppose pr ecisely the universality

of hum an capabilities. More specifically, some of the basic Neo-liberal principles (that

we can com pare with t hose of Hindu Nationalism) are based on t he rhetoric of m oder-

nity, which, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centu ries, main ly consisted of con versionas salvation . Since the n ineteenth century, salvation has been ar ticulated ostensibly to

benefit civilization and , increasingly, to furt her p rogress. Thu s, accord ing to t he Neo-

liberal creed, sustained econom ic growth is the best way to insure hu m an p rogress. The

question is: why should we assume that progress, defined as such, is necessary for

hu m an happiness and the good life? The market in N eo-liberal global designs has to be

free and fun ction withou t interference from the State in ord er to insure that econom ic

globalization be beneficial to everyone. Accordingly, governments should mainly func-

tion to p rovide the infrastructure to advance the ru le of law with respect to p roperty

rights and contracts. In other words, and in the words that Nanda derives from

Nussbaum and Sen, it is both possible and desirable to m ov e all people, everywhereabove the th reshold for a good life defined in term s of capabilities. Today it is Neo-


6/17

116 W . D. Mignolo

liberalism that is the m ain agent m oving peop le in and ou t of the service of globaliza-

tion. Instead of moving all people everywhere above the threshold for a good life,

which is the rhetoric of m odernity actu alized by N eo-liberal principles, what we have, as

Vandana Shiva argued 9, are increasing war, increasing marginalization and poverty,

increasing genocides in Africa, a return to totalitarian regimes forced by the brutalentry of Neo-liberal religion of the m arket in Russia, and the increasing violence of the

clash of civilizations announced by Samuel Huntington (1995). Thus, the question

raised by Nand a is relevant and n ot only for In dia. It is a question valid for the entire

world as there is an increasing com plicity (forced or voluntary) between Neo-liberal

agents in Euro pe and the U nited States and local sup port ers and defenders of Neo-

liberalism in th e rest of the world. On the other hand , there are increasing mixed reac-

tions and op positions to the universal creed th at progress lifts poverty and that war is

necessary to generate freedom around the world. These moves move in two direc-

tions. On the on e hand , religious fun dam entalisms react to th e impositions of market

fundamentalism, and imperial State terrorism enacts the movement of people

supported by the laws of the State (itself backed up by military forces). On the other

hand, progressive intellectuals like Shiva, Nandy, Nussbaum, and Sen, as well as vari-

ous social m ovemen ts increasing in nu m ber albeit with different agendascan coor -

dinate compatible moves and make possible and desirable production of other,

altern ative, fruitful dialogues. This shou ld be p ossible once the pr etense of a universal

truth that is right and good for everyone, gives way to con ception ofpluri- versal needs

and interests, po litical projects, and ethical com m itment to creating a world in which

many worlds could co-exist, rather than toward one world in which many worlds

would sub-sist.Of course I have no t been implying that Nu ssbaum an d Sen are Neo- liberals; neither

am I suggesting that Shiva and N and y are Hindu N ationalists. Rather, what I am saying

is that Nu ssbaum and Sen, on th e one hand, and Shiva and Nand y on t he other, may

have complementary agendas between them as progressive intellectuals in different

locales of the geo-po litical distribu tion of intellectual labor . All of them can be criti-

cized on the grou nd s that their positions supp ort either th e universal totalitarian beliefs

that groun d. Neo-liberal agendas or the n ativist to talitarian beliefs that h old u p Hindu

Nation alist agendas. Thus, what I am t rying to argue is that while Shiva and N and y are

helpful in critiquing Neo-liberal principles under the feet of Nussbaum and Sen,

Nu ssbaum and Sen are also helpful in that they can be used for critiquing the H indu

Nation alist principles under th e feet of Shiva and Nan dy. A plur i-top ical critique is of

the essence if on e want s to m ove away from the cage created by modern epistem ology

and the n aturalization of invented dichotom ies which have resulted in opp osing fund a-

m entalism s: the global fun dam entalism of the m arket (i.e. Neo- liberal civilization) and

the emergence of variegated religious fundamentalisms (Christian, Islamic, Hindu).

Geo-histor ical locations and b io-graph ical experiences are not taken h ere as m ulticul-

tural manifestations of some universal principle but, on the contrary, as the geo-

historical distribution of knowledge that the logic of coloniality enacted and natural-

ized. Colonization is a process that to be operative and effective needs to create thecolon ial difference in th e dom ain of knowledge and in th e dom ain of being: I am no t


7/17


th inking, therefore I do n ot exist is a form ula of imperial designs instilled am on g the

dom inated population thr ough u niversities, m edia, and all other form s of comm un i-

cation.

If a dialogue between m ultiple pro jects that are moving toward ano ther globalization

can take place in o rder to chan ge the colon iality of knowledge and of being (som ethingthat scholars, intellectuals, activists, media people can do), it would be under the

assum ption that m any people aroun d th e world (for exam ple, Shiva and Nandy in Ind ia,

Shariati in Iran , Yasinn e in M orocco, Du ssel in Argentina, H araway and Hardy, Sen and

Nu ssbaum in th e United States, etc.) are qu estion ing science and Neo- liberalism in light

of their complicity with imp erial global designs. Science cannot be m easur ed an d eval-

uated by the conceptu al structu re of scien tific theories; no r by equating them with sacred

beliefs (which was Feyerabends and Kuhns ground-breaking contribution), but by

looking at the com plicity between scientific research that ignores colonization, exploi-

tation, and devaluation of life, both hu m an and n on -hu m an (wh ich is one of Shivas

contribu tions). In all these cases, the com m on groun d is the critique o f mod ernity from

the perspective of coloniality, a relentless critique of all form s of colonization of knowl-

edge and being, including science since science became a colonizing tool that helps and

furthers accumulation of capital at the expense of human lives, rather than being an

apparatus that cont ests it. Can we really call it pro gress when five hu m an beings jobs

are eliminated because there is now one machine that can do it all, and the society

provides no job replacem ents for th ose who lost their means of sub sistence? To claim

un iversality for p articular ideas as Nan da does using Nussbaum and Sen, m eans to fall

back into the assumption that there are certain abstract universals (liberal, Christian,

Marxist, Mu slim) that are better than o thers. And such claims, regardless of who m akesthem an d from what geo-h istor ical and bio- graphical location , have always been th e seed

of a totalitarian d estiny10.

Lets rem ember the two basic pr inciples that Nan da derives from Sen and N ussbaum

to judge whether a society is regressing or progressin g:

Two levels of hum an capabilities serve as the objective criteria for jud ging whether o r n ot

any society can be said to be developing or regressing. The first level sets the ground floor

for a life that is suitable for humans as a species distinct from other animals and includes

bodily capacities like avoiding hunger and thirst and includes the distinctively human

traits like hu m or and play and t he ability to reason and m ake moral judgments. The next

level describes capabilities that m ake a hu m an life a goodlife. These capabilities include, for

instan ce, the ability to im agine, to think and to reason and t he ability for critical reflec-

tion and crucially for wom en, th e ability to live ones own life and no bod y elses. 11

First o f all, what con stitutes a good life and whether a society is developing or regressing

are not only particular points of view, based on the criteria that humans distinguish

themselves from natur e but, above all, are also particular statement s that do n ot pause

to evaluate that their own part icularity is being assum ed as un iversal. If, at this poin t in

history, one assumes criteria such as the one Nanda derives from Nussbaum and Sen

as un iversal, on e is indeed regressing in th e sense that it is assum ed there is on ly on e set

of criteria that n ames the un iversal and establishes what is progress, what is stagnation ,and what is a good life.


8/17

118 W . D. Mignolo

Som e of Nandas criticism s of Shiva and Mies on eco-femin ism are well taken. In the

case of Shiva, it would be n ecessary to distinguish from the rest, her som etimes exces-

sive linking of earth and wom anh ood from where she derives m any of her con clusions.

However, there are other criticisms that deserve more scrutiny because they reveal

some of Nan das assum pt ions that are not o nly differen t bu t m ainly cont rary to Shivas.For example, Nand a takes on Shivas assum pt ion t hat subsistence econo m ies were the

or iginal affluent societies, in the sense that subsistence econom ies took care of basic

vital needs of their mem bers. The pr oblem is, for N and a, that Shiva defines the natu re

of basic needs and the level at which th ey cou ld be satisfied, by cultural n orm s alon e:

By so relativizing needs, Shiva is able to gloss over som e grim facts behin d h er m uch-cele-

brated affluence of non-Western agricultural systems. The fact [is], for example, that

subsistence econom ies did n ot ( and still do not ) sup ply all the nu tritional needs of all their

m emb ers at level that is biologically adequat e for m aintain ing basic capab ilities. 12

Nan da cou nters such cultural relativization of needs with the challenges she finds inAmartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum in their capabilities approach to human

function ing. The capabilities app roach is based on a tree-diagram th at derives and

spreads cultural differences from a un i-versal principle. Thus,

The capabilities ethics is based upon a critical universalism that holds a set of basic

hu m an capabilities as intrinsically worthwhile for a flour ishing h um an life, while adm itting

that these capabilities may be expressed differently in different cultures and different

historical epochs. 13

The logic of critical un iversalism is the logic that n eeds and sustains mu lticultu ral-

ism . That is, mu lticultu ralism is accepted as a matter of fact, on the assum ption thatthere are som e u niversal principles from which cultural differences emerge in various

geograph ical locations and historical epochs. But , really, who can say, beyon d God [any

God] or an y grou p o f hum an beings who p retend s to take the place of God in a secular

form , what un iversal pr inciples are? My own position starts from the prem ises of an

ethics based on critical cosm opolitan ism ;14 and critical cosmopo litan ism b egins with th e

recognition of the epistemic colon ial difference against which Shiva and N and y have

been struggling and con tinu e to do so; while for Sen and Nu ssbaum the epistem ic colo-

nial difference is ou t of their sight ; that is pr ecisely what cr itical universalism m eans,

blindn ess to th e colonial difference and , consequen tly, the possibility of conceiving of

critical cosmopolitanism to erase the colon ial epistemic difference. But what d oes the

epistem ic colon ial difference mean? It m eans that since the sixteenth century un til today,

all knowledges that have not been cast in some of the modern European imperial

languages (Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese, in the first wave of colonial expansion;

French, English, and German in the second wave, since the eighteenth century),

grounded in Gr eek and Latin, were not and are no t sustainable knowledges. Therefore,

even if one recognizes that sometimes Shiva or N andy ru n the risk of suppor ting du bious

nat ionalist positions, one shall not fail to recognize that th ey are struggling in th e violent

epistem ic borders created by the colon ial epistemic difference, that is, what m akes the

essent ial difference in th e modern /colon ial world and what moves the systemthe hege-monic concept of knowledge (e.g., political theory, political economy, expertise in


9/17


agriculture and deforestation, in pharm aceutical produ cts, etc.). On the other hand ,

Sens and Nu ssbaum s blindn ess to the colonial epistemic difference (of which critical

un iversalism is but a con sequence) p uts th em at risk of suppo rting fund amentalist posi-

tions in power, today, under the name of Neo-liberal philosophy and civilization for

which critical universalism is far from being a challenge and even less a threat.The question is that there is a geopolitical space of knowledge that Pro fessor N and a

overlooks in h er re-setting of the dicho tom y m odernity vs. nativism. That being said,

I take her ou tstand ing contribu tion to be the links she establishes between postmodern

and fem inist critiques of science, in th e United States (H araway, Hard ing, etc.) and t he

matching of this critique with those enacted by Hindu nationalists. However, in

between, there is the colonial epistemic difference that is overlooked. O r, if you d o n ot

want to reify it, lets say that in m y vocabu lary that colon ial difference(s) an d colonial

differential(s) are in stances of the sam e phenom enon that organizes the mo dern/ colo-

n ial world. If modern ity is left alone, without its con stitutive dark side, coloniality, then

there is no other alternative that conceives society and history in the linear time of

progress. That is why, for N and a, the proph ets are looking backward in which back

(which is spatial) has the temporal connotations that primitive has, for example,

acquired in the eighteenth centu ry. If we bring coloniality into the p ictur e and un der-

line th e simultaneity of histories aroun d th e world, then modernity and nativism

are opposed con tents of the same logic: the logic of coloniality .

III.

There are two levels in N and as argum ent th at I have been playing out in m y previouscomments. One is the specific argument that relates post-modern critiques of science

in the West to th e Indian Left and to H indu Nationalism. The other is the m ore general

and more global, which links science and technologywillingly or notto imperial

global designs. A case in poin t is Norbert Wiener, un questionable leading figure in t he

emergence of the New Science for his con tribu tion to cybernetics (the con tro l of and

com m un ication in an imals and m achines). Two years after the publication of his sem i-

nal work, Wiener pu blished a follow-up , T he Hu m an U se of H um an Beings: Cybernetics

and Society (1950) in which h e denou nced the use of science for th e con trol, dom ina-

tion, and exploitation of hum an life rather th an for improvement of it. Very familiar,

indeed, nowadaysalthough Wiener is not exactly a familiar name in the circuits of

CN N, theN ew York T im es,N ewsweek,A tlan tic M on thly, or CBS. And th e reason is that

the defenders of the marvels of science (and n ot in terested in t alking abou t m argin-

alization, exploitation , dom ination , colon ization , dispensability of hum an lifein war

or in ph arm aceut ical business) who recognized Wiener as a mathem atical genius while

shutting him down as a critical thinker of capitalist society. One example of Wieners

defamation was the profile of him th at his enemies were able to tran sform into an effec-

tive clich. The defamation had him as a great m athem atician but a little bit eccentric.

Wh en W iener used to t alk abou t society and t he ethical respon sibility of the scientific

com m un itya topic that was beyond his area of expertise he could n ot be taken seri-ously 15. Which shows that the scientist could go on e of two ways: either unconsciously


10/17

120 W . D. Mignolo

support th e dom inant system (which for five hun dred years has been capitalism accom-

panied by a rhetoric of salvation, Christian as well as secular) or knowingly remain

silent regarding the growing injustice, exploitation , colon ization , etc., that the produ cts

of science are being used for. Sure, scientific advances in m edicine save hu m an lives, as

one counterargument goes. Sure, but for each human life saved in the high-incomebrackets, hu nd reds if no t th ousands of lives are lost in th e growing margins of capitalist

econom ies and 90% percent of the planets popu lation is living in inhu m an con ditions.

In sum m ary, with all the advances of science, there is a silence abou t th e totality of

the system the visible successful rhetoric of m odernity and the invisible exploitative

and inhuman logic of coloniality, which is essential to insure the successthat is,

growing progress and increasing poverty, to u se the form ula of US political econo -

m ist, Hen ry George. In what follows I would like to p ush forward th is general aspect

implied in Nandas critique, beyond the particular case she examines in India and its

entan glemen t with th e West (basically, since the eighteenth century, England and in th e

shadows, Germ any, France, and th e United States).

As I suggested before, the problem today is no t H indu N ationalism against Christian

and (Neo) Liberal fun dam entalisms (and we cou ld add Islam ic), but how to imagine

and practice critical theories, and how to engage in and advance ethical, epistemic,

political, and economic projects that will help us move (together and not by some

abstract design) to the terrain of critical cosmopolitanism an d d ialogical eth ics. In t his

regard, Shiva and Nandy, on the one hand, and Sen and Nussbaum, on the other,

should not be seenor confrontedas mutual enemies. One should not use one

pair to chastise the oth er, but r ather they should be seen as com plem enting each other

in a p luri-versal global cause in which n either Sen and Nu ssbaum nor Shiva and Nand yhave the last word on how to establish a un iversal solution or t o judge and plan the

futu re of the world. If they did, critical un iversalism would be bu t a different form of

fund amentalism , since there is on ly on e (un i) way, the only way. Sens and N ussbau m s

positions are as region al and provincial as Shivas and Nan dys. The d ifference is that

the form er are piggybacking on the Western pretense of un iversality (in this particular

case, the liberal version of it) wh ile the latter ar e struggling with the violence of imp erial

designs exported to Ind ia and all over the world. In o ther words, there are local histo-

ries that have the pr ivilege to invent and export global (imp erial) designs, and there are

local histories that have to live with them. Sen and Nussbaum are located in the first

space; Shiva and Nan dy in th e secon d.

Wh at are the ways out? Well, that will be and already is a collective en terpr ise in the

m aking. I would like to pr opose epistem ic delinkin g as the first step o f a global move

toward pluri- versalit y as a universal projectand this is where critical theory and

decolonization will prevail over the results of sciences. The exam ple of Norbert Wiener

shou ld remind us that the scientists eth ical and political concerns should h ave pr iority

over his or h er scien tific contr ibut ions. But as Wieners adversaries demon strate, those

who use science unethically at the expense of the goodness of society in general, will

keep on fight ing to retain their privileges in England , India, the Un ited States, Ind on e-

sia, etc. The qu estion goes beyond Un iversalism vs. Nativism . The qu estion is to worktoward epistemic delinking, that is, toward fracturing the naturalization of the two


11/17


domains in which the system functions: on the one hand, the dominant rhetoric of

modernity and alleged universal values and principles that reflect the perspective

and the int erests of those who, consciously or n ot, pro nounce what un iversal values

and pr inciples are (which ar e culturally relativep rinciples and values, of democracy,

of freedom, of science and technology), and, on the other hand, the opposing forces,which in th e nam e of trad ition (e.g. Vedic science) remains within the sam e logic of the

system . Hence, neither H indu Nationalism nor Islamic Fundamentalism nor, for t hat

matter, Com mu nism , are about delinking, and for d ifferent reasons that are relevant to

my argument. Communism (and in spite of Marxs valuable critical analysis of the

structure of indu strial capitalism in th e nineteenth centu ry, in Europe) b elongs to t he

same logic as Liberalism and Christianity. The fact that bo th Liberalism and Com m u-

nism rejected Chr istianity should n ot m ake us forget that the rejection was in content

and not in claiming the universality of different values (secular liberal and secular

socialist/communist). Now, Hindu Nationalism and Islamic Fundamentalism

interestingly enough are responses from different religions, that is, non-Western

Christian (Protestant and Catholic in all its variants, which means that Orthodox

Christianity is considered non -Western , as Samuel Hu ntington clearly rem inded all of

us several years ago). Ho wever, althou gh H induism and Islamism are religion s that do

no t respond to th e same logic as Christianity, H indu Nationalism and Islam ic Fun da-

m entalism n evertheless have fallen into the Western tr ap and h ave respon ded within

the rules of the game imposed by the West; that is, looking to defend an d im pose their

own abstract universals. They all oppose one another at the level of the rhetoric of

modernity (e.g., the claim m ade by those left ou t of alternative mod ernities, periph eral

modernities, subaltern modernities, etc.), as ifmodernity were an already establishedm odel or an u navoidable destination to attain. To fall into the trap o f the rhetoric of

modernity is to finally believe that you either have to have m odernity, you have to be

m odern or you fall out of h istory. And Western science is one of the measuring sticks

and desirable goals. Science, in other words, is not only a necessity and a wonderful

space for hu m an creativity, bu t above all is a com m odity desired by those who feel left

ou t of or left behind by modern ity. And, by the same token , science is perceived by

oth ers as on e of the power tools of the logic of colon iality.16

Thus Western civilization , science, knowledge, etc., has two sides, one visible and

the other invisible. The visible side is the achievem ents and the pub lic statem ents repo rt-

ing the results and trium ph s of science. The invisible side is the constan t war against

other forms of knowledge produced in languages other th an t he six imperial ones and

groun ded in m emor ies and knowledges alien to the W est. And with knowledge goes

po litical econom y and ethics. Western civilization , knowledge, science is both a set

of principles, beliefs, categories of thought, argumentative logics, etc., that prod uces

knowledge and u nd erstandin g, and a set of rhetorical argum ents used to justify progress,

civilization, improvement of human life, tha t erases and denies other form s of knowl-

edges and u nd erstandin g and that dispenses with o ther hu m an lives that become the

rest. Shiva and Nandy have been op erating at th e crux of the pro duction and the erasure

and denial of knowledge in India thr ough the colonial period and the pro cess of nation-state building after 1947. Nu ssbaum and Sen are far rem oved from that struggle, from


12/17

122 W . D. Mignolo

the violence of building a nation with th e woun ds of colonial legacies. Their stru ggle is

within th e oppressive aspects of Liberalism and within the Western trad ition.

The first step for delinking would be, then, to recognize the regional positions

(i.e. historical, sociological, institut ional, race- and gender-b ased) in wh ich both Shiva

and N andy, on one hand , and Sen and Nu ssbaum , on th e other, are thinking and argu-ing. To accomplish the first step it would be necessary to shift the geography and the

biography of reason , and to operate on the pr inciple that kno wledge is geo- an d b io-

politically constituted. That is, geo-politics of knowledges derives from local experi-

ences (as science derives from local experiences of Western capitalist countries) in

which the geo-h istor ical aspect accounts for the tension, negotiation , and violence in

all the terrains touched by Western colonial expansion ; while the bio-po litical accou nt s

for th e experiences, needs, angers, interests, and critical acum en o f the scientist or

critical int ellectual who feels in h er or h is bod y the colonial matr ix of power and tran s-

lates it into conceptual analysis and arguments toward the decolonization of knowl-

edge (that is, one of the fundam ental com pon ents of the colon ial m atrix of power).

Feminist epistemology coun tering the patriarchal fou nd ation of kno wledge goes han d-

in-han d with the color of reason as Nigerian p hilosoph er Emm anuelle Chuckwudi

Eze labelled the racist un derp inn ing of Imm anu el Kants un iversalism .17

Consequently, instead of assuming that knowledge and reason derive from the

dictates of God, the sovereignty of the Ego (knowing subject) or th e pur e rationality of

Or ganization , as the New Sciences have it, in which the or ganization of knowledge and

the knowledge of organization setting a new stage in which or ganization and com plex-

ity takes over Newton s law of nature and establishes a new epistemic model, geo and

bio-political locations assume the local histories (marked by the epistemic colonialdifference) of the kn owing subject, local histor ies that have been denied by th e defend-

ers of the universality of Western science and philosophy. Today, instead, both in

Europe and the United States, the epistemic colonial difference is no longer down

there but up here; a reality that makes more visible the universal blindness of

Nan das critique and h er endorsement o f Nussbaum and Sens critical universalism.

In t he pr evious paragraph I outlined the conditions for epistemic delinking. How to

move forward, to the next step. Once again, this is a collective enterprise but, fortu-

nately, it is no t n ecessary to in vent th e steps because some are already in p lace and they

continue to grow all around the world. Let me give you some examples. Nandys and

Shivas work have at least two faces, one that Nan da sees at risk of supp ort ing H indu

Nationalism and the oth er m oving toward epistemic delinking; that is, in open ing up

spaces of kno wledge that are no t caught in the fou r visible m eta-narratives of Eur opean

m odernity: Christianity in its Catholic and Pro testant version s; Secular Conservatism

(linked to Christianity), Liberalism, and Socialism/Marxism and their corresponding

neo versionsthe latter two b eing explicitly against Ch ristianity.

Sen and Nussbaum are located within the variegated versions of Liberal meta-

nar ratives, and their valuable critique is crucial within those limits. It would be nave

to believe that t heir critiques have to be revealing and illum inating for progressive Ind i-

ans and M uslim in tellectuals and activists. One could say that Sen wou ld be as relevantto N andy or to M oham m ed Al-Jabri as Nandy and Al-Jabri would be to Sen; examples


13/17


could be found also for the case of Nussbaum. Shiva and Nandy emerge from their

experiences and location s at the crossroads (or epistem ic bor der) between the colonial

matrix of power operating in India since late eighteenth century and the silenced

memories and categories of knowledge that the colonial matrix of power (by British

officers and intellectuals as well as by the complicit Indian elite) attempted to erase.H owever, as Ranahit Gu ha wou ld say, There was on e Indian battle that Britain never

won. It was a battle for the appropriation of Indian past. It began with the East India

Com pan ys accession to diwani in 1765.18

People are proud of declaring themselves Christians, Liberals or Socialists/Marxists.

No on e, or just a few (with r eluctan ce or som etimes lightly), would declare themselves

prou d o f being im perialists/colonialists. But of course, colon ialists have been and are

Christians, Conservatives, Liberals, and Socialists/Marxists, which, of course, doesnt

m ean t hat every Chr istian, Liberal, Socialist/M arxist is a colonialist. What it m eans is

that, in the last analysis, Christianity, Secular Conservatism, Liberalism and Socialism/

Marxism ( as well as Islamism o r H induism) , are not a warran ty of anyth ing and , there-

fore, liberating projects cou ld emerge from any of them (one within Liberalism is illus-

trated by N ussbaum and Sen); but totalitarian and fun dam entalist p rojects can also

emerge from the sam e ideologies, as histor y tells us. H istory has plenty of examples of

Christian, Liberal, and Marxist totalitarianism, as well of course of totalitarian regim es

ground ed in Islamic ideas (which doesnt m ean, once again, that Islamism an d fun da-

m entalism are on e and the same). By the sam e token, Hind u Nationalism d oesnt m ean

that fun dam entalism is the only road you can go if you declare yourself a Hindu .

If colonialism is the invisible companion of any of the modern meta-narratives (if

coloniality goes together with m odernity), there is still a whole and en tire world beyondthe totalizing effect of the fou r m odern m eta-nar ratives and th eir ideological and invis-

ible comp anion. And that enorm ous epistemic space that imperial/colonial expansion

silenced and continues to silence or ignorejustified in the rhetoric of democracy,

freedom, modernization, development and what have youthe space of repressed

epistem ologies which, today, offers to individuals and com m un ities whose sub jectivity

has been form ed in the borders and in the tension of the epistemic colonial difference,

the distinctive possibility of delinking. The fact th at H indu N ationalism m ade its case

by rejecting Western and promoting Vedic science doesnt mean that this is the only

way to argue from a Hindu position : the dom ain of knowledge that could be generated

by re-investing Vedic epistem ic principles, doesnt have to be justified in t erm s of the

ru les of the game im posed by the West, and doesnt have to fall into th e trap of having

to affirm that th ere is a Vedic science pr eferable to W estern science. The challenge, and

the threat, is first to argue from Vedic epistemological perspective, that t he concept of

science articulated in Euro pean m odernity is fine and good , but that its un iversal claim

does not correspond to the law of the cosmos! Furthermore, if you reject Newtonian

physics and replace it by the non-teleological view of chaos theory and the new

sciences, still, the view of the cosmos that emerges from it is far from correspon ding

one to one with th e cosm os itself. It is a view built on a tradition, the m odern -Euro-

pean tradition that began with Copernicuss breakthrough and followed by Galileo.Vedic and Islamic knowledgesas well as Ind igenous kn owledges in the Americas and


14/17

124 W . D. Mignolo

Australasiaare to day in th e process of being reinvested all arou nd the world. But o f

course, none of these knowledges, and none of the original languages in which these

kno wledges are em bedded, can survive by them selves. Re-investing Vedic or Ind ige-

nous knowledges, today, means to do it in dialogue (sometimes friendly, sometimes

confrontational) with Western categories of thou ght (rem ember: grou nd ed in Greek orLatin languages and translated into the three modern languages of serious knowl-

edgeFrench, German, and English) . Re-investing means also to chan ge the perspec-

tive (to change it and no t to invert it). Changing but no t inverting perspectives brings

as a consequence border epistem ology, an epistemology of the bord er from the perspec-

tive of what has been denied and the possibility of conceptual delinking. Border

epistem ology is a powerful one for the simple reason that it is based, on th e one hand ,

on the critical examination of non -Western languages and traditions and, on th e other,

on the critical examination of Western languages and traditions. Border epistem ology

presupposes a dou ble crit ique (of Shiva and Nussbaum, for example, as well as Nandy

and Sen), a double critique that can transcend the modern/colonial structure an d

contribu te to m ove all toward a trans-m odern w orld. At that po int, critical cosmopo l-

itanism can only be predicated on pluri-versality (and not on uni-versality). Pluri-

versality as a un iversal project would help in uncoup ling the con cepts and structu res of

scientific discourses from the un inten ded consequen ces of scientific discoveries at th e

service of escalating wars (like the war against terrorism) and escalating genocides

because, for example, making a profit with pharmaceutical products is more impor-

tan t, for th ose who con tro l it, than saving hum an lives.

The last com m ent I wou ld like to m aked erived from the p revious paragraphsis

that because science, old and n ew, has always stop ped sho rt when it com es to examin-ing domination, oppression, subordination, exploitation, etc., critical theory now

becom es the u navoidable road to follow for those who are n ot r eady yet to surrender

to the imp erial con sequ ences of the m yth o f sciences and of scientific practices. Critical

theory has been associated with Karl Marxs un veiling of the logic of capital, althou gh

as always, critical takes (if no t theory in the con temporary sense of the expression)

on the initial mom ents of Western expansion and the foundation of capitalism as we

know it to day, can be found in th e sixteenth and seventeenth centu ries. At th at po int,

Ind igeno us peop le from the Am ericas and African slaves did no t have the conceptu al

tools available to Marx after one hundred years of political economy (e.g., Adam

Smith) grounded on the colonial experience of the Spanish empires and the British

Caribbean plantations, before moving to India. Be as it may, Marx and then Max

Horkh eimer are two anchors when it comes to critical theory. For Enriqu e Dussel (on e

of the foun ders of Philosophy of Liberation , in Latin America), the critical con tribu tion

of Marx con sisted in taking the pr inciples and the logic of m odern social sciences and

using them to un veil and reveal the hidden logic of capital, that is, the logic of exp loita-

tion hidden under the rhetoric of progress.19 Horkheimer, following the same path,

called traditional all theory that operates on the basic assumptions of the empirical

sciences; traditional are theories that give a new sense to factual information beyond

their descriptive natur e. Critical theory, instead, explores and reveals the hidden prin-ciples and domineering and exploitative consequences of knowledge (Horkheimer,


15/17


1937). Today, as the examples from India deployed in Nandas well-informed study

show, critical theory cannot remain within the confines of the industrial exploitation

of the proletariat in Europe, which were the experiences upon which Marx and

H orkheimer ( sensitive to d om ination an d con trol du e to th eir Jewish social up bring-

ing) based their critical theory. Critical theory, today, is and will be a decolonizing enter-prise (decolon ization o f knowledge), even in the cases of indu strial exploitation in t he

colonies, in the ex-th ird world or in tod ays emerging econ om ies and coun tries whose

populations are living with one dollar a day. Racism goes hand-in-hand with the

exploitation, both in the ex-colon ies and increasingly in Euro pe and the United States

du e to the m assive imm igration from the ex-third world.

In t his context, the scenar io pr esented to u s by Professor Nan da chan ges its config-

uration . The question is no t on ly that p ostmodern critique of science, in the West, and

leftist critique of sciences in India (in Africa, the Middle East, or Latin America), can

help the cause of no n-Western fund amentalism s; the fact is that hu m anistic ideals based

on liberal prem ises in th e West can also play into the hand of neo-liberal po litical and

econom ic theory. That is, they cou ld play into the hands of Western fun dam entalisms

advanced in the nam e of freedom and dem ocracy. Briefly, there is no safe place within

abstract un i-versals of European m odernity or its coun terpart, H ind u N ationa lism or

Islam ic fundam en talism . The way out is con ceptual delinking, the relent less practice of

doub le critique, of critical theory as epistem ic decolonization and of border epistemol-

ogy to avoid th e trap of fund amentalism s in reverse. The road toward the futu re is about

learn ing to conceive and enact critical cosmopolitan practices, decolonizing kno wledge,

and th inking beyond the rules of m odern t hou ght. Pluri-versality as a un iversal pr oject

shall not be thou ght out as a new abstract u niversal but as a connector, a place of encoun terand exchange of liberating and decolonizing practices, where it would make sense to

fight for the idea that an oth er world is possible; and that world will be conceived as a

world in which m any worlds can co-exist (as the Zapat istas wou ld have it). Ruled ou t

will be both any attempt to appropriate plu ri- versalit y in order to convert it to a

comm odity and any temp tation to build a powerful army aroun d to eliminate all of those

who hate p luri-versality and want to destroy it! Pluri-versality as a un iversal project is

being conceived as a global dialogue and action to eliminate all vestiges of totalitarian

th inking, the logic of colon iality, the dispensability of hu m an lives and the concentration

of mon ey and m eaning in fewer and fewer hand s. In th at world, Nussbaum and Sen,

on the one hand, and Shiva and N andy, on th e other, shou ld be able to work together

against Western and Eastern totalitarian p rojects and fund amental beliefs.

N o t es

1

[1] M eera Nan da, Prophets Facing Backw ard: Postm odern Critiqu es of Science and H ind u N ationalism

in India (N ew Bru nswick, NJ: Rutgers Un iversity Press, 2003).2

[2] Biographically m otivated is here a positive observation an d no t a critique. The position I am

taking in m y com m entary argues in favor of the bio-graphical inscription in t he pro du ction of

knowledge, which has been sup pressed by m odern Ego-po litics of knowledge behind mo dern

and Euro pean concept of scientific knowledge; the absence of the bio-grap hic gave scientificknowledge the magic touch of universality.

3


16/17

126 W . D. Mignolo

[3] Ashis Nandy, quoted in Nanda, Prophets Facing Backw ard, p. 211.4

[4] Nanda, Prophets Facing Backw ard, p. 231.5

[5] Ibid., bolds mine, italics Nandas.6

[6] Ibid., bolds mine, italics Nandas.6

[7] See for instance, Lewis Gordon, Fanon an d Developm ent: A Philosophical Look in Africa

Development/Development Afrique, XXIX, 1, 2004, 6588; and African American Philoso-ph y, Race and the Geography of reason in N ot on ly th e M asters t ools: A frican A m erican St ud-

ies in Theory and Practice. Lewis Gordon, ed. Boulder: CO Paradigm Publisher, 2005,

forthcoming.7

[8] Adorno in India. Revisiting the Psychology of Fascism in Exiled at Home (Delhi: Oxford

Un iversity Press, 1998), pp . 1045, italics min e.8

[9] See Vandana Shiva, Globalization and Its Fall Ou t, http ://www.zmag.org/sustainers/

content/2003-04/02shiva.cfm9

[10] Richard Robbins, Global Problem s and the Cu lture of Cap italism (Allyn an d Bacon , 1999); see

also Susan George, A brief history of neoliberalism, http://www.globalexchange.org/

campaigns/econ101/neoliberalism.html10

[11] Nanda, Prophets Facing Backw ard, p. 231. Italics min e, last senten ce quotation from Nu ssbaum .11

[12] Ibid.12

[13] Ibid.13

[14] The many faces of cosmo polis: Border thinking and critical cosmo politanism, Public

Culture 12.3, 2000.14

[15] Steve Heims, John Von Neuman, and Norbert Wiener, From M athem atics to the T echn ologies

of Life and Death (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1980).15

[16] Distinguished Mexican sociologist Pablo Gonzles Casano va, has recently pu blished a

detailed and critical analysis of the im perial dimen sions and uses of the N ew Sciences and the

need to activate critical analysis and decolonizing projects in the Humanities to unveil the

dan gers hidden un der th e m arvelous achievem ents of the New Sciences.Las N uevas Ciencias y

las H um anidad es. De la Academ ia a la Politica (Barcelona: Anthropos, 2004).16[17] Emm anuel Chukwudi Eze, The color of reason: The idea of race in Kants anthropology,

in Chucwudi Eze, ed., Postcolonial African Philosophy: A Critical Reader (London: Blackwell,

1997), pp. 10340.17

[ 18] Ranajit Guha, Dom in an ce W ithou t H egem on y, quo ted in Walter D. M igno lo, Colon iality of

Power and Subalternity, in Ileana Rodriguez, ed., The Latin American Subaltern Studies

Read er(Durham: Duke University Press, 2001), pp. 42445.18

[19] Enrique Dussel, El program a cientfico de investigacion d e Karl Marx inH acia una f ilosofa

polt ica crt ica (Sevilla: Palimp sesto, 2001), pp . 279303.

References

Du ssel, Enr ique. 2001. El pr ogram a cientfico de in vestigacin de Karl Mar x. InH acia una f ilosoia

polt ica crt ica Sevilla: Palimpesto, 279303.

Eze, Em m aun el Chu kwud i, 1997. The Color of Reason : The Idea of Race in Kants Anth rop ology.

In Emm anu el Chu kwudi Eze, ed. Postocolonial African Ph ilosophy . A Critical Reader. London:

Blackwell, 103140.

George, Susan. 1999. A Brief History of Neo-liberalism. http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/

econ/histneol.htm;

Gon zlez Casanova, Pablo. 2004. Las nu evas ciencias y las hu m an idades. De la academ ia a la poltica.

Barcelona: Anthropos.

Guha, Ranajit. 2001. Dom inance W ithout Hegemony, quoted in Walter D. Mignolo Coloniality of

Power and Subalternity. In Ileana Rodriguez, editor. The Latin American Subaltern StudiesRead er. Du rham : Du ke Un iversity Press, 424445.


17/17


Heims, Steve, Neuman, J. Von & Wiener, N. 1980 From M athem atics to the T echn ologies of Life and

Deat h. Camb ridge: MIT.

Mignolo, Walter D. 2000. The M any Faces of Cosmo -polis: Bord er Th inking and Critical Cosmo-

politanism. Public Culture, 12 3, 721748.

Nan da, Meera. 2003. Prophets Facin B ackw ard: Postm odern Critiques of Science and H indu N ational-

ism in India. Rutgers: Rutgers U niversity Press.Nandi, Ashis. 1998. Adorno in India. Revisiting the Psychology of Fascism. In Exiled at Home.

Delhi: Oxford Un iversity Press, 99111.

Robb ins, Richard . 1999. Global Problem s and the Cu lture of Capitalism. London : Allyn and Bacon .

Shiva, Vandana. 20034. Globalization and Its Fall. http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/

2003-04/02shiva.cfm

Documents

Critica a Sen Por Mignolo