Grosfoguel_The Structure of Knowledge in Westernized Universities- Epistemic

8/13/2019 Grosfoguel_The Structure of Knowledge in Westernized Universities- Epistemic

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/grosfoguelthe-structure-of-knowledge-in-westernized-universities-epistemic 1/19

Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge

Volume 11Issue 1 Conversations with Enrique Dussel on Anti-Cartesian Decoloniality & Pluriversal Transmodernity

Article 8

9-22-2013

Te Structure of Knowledge in WesternizedUniversities: Epistemic Racism/Sexism and the

Four Genocides/Epistemicides of the Long 16thCentury Ramón GrosfoguelUniversity of California - Berkeley , [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: hp://scholarworks.umb.edu/humanarchitecture

Part of the Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons , Political Economy Commons , PoliticalTeory Commons , and the Race, Ethnicity and post-Colonial Studies Commons

Tis Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks at UMass Boston. It has been accepted for inclusion in Human Architecture:

Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at UMass Boston. For more information, please contact

[email protected] .

Recommended CitationGrosfoguel, Ramón (2013) " Te Structure of Knowledge in Westernized Universities: Epistemic Racism/Sexism and the FourGenocides/Epistemicides of the Long 16th Century," Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge: Vol. 11: Iss. 1,

Article 8. Available at: hp://scholarworks.umb.edu/humanarchitecture/vol11/iss1/8

http://scholarworks.umb.edu/humanarchitecture?utm_source=scholarworks.umb.edu%2Fhumanarchitecture%2Fvol11%2Fiss1%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages


http://scholarworks.umb.edu/humanarchitecture/vol11?utm_source=scholarworks.umb.edu%2Fhumanarchitecture%2Fvol11%2Fiss1%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://scholarworks.umb.edu/humanarchitecture/vol11/iss1?utm_source=scholarworks.umb.edu%2Fhumanarchitecture%2Fvol11%2Fiss1%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages



http://scholarworks.umb.edu/humanarchitecture/vol11/iss1/8?utm_source=scholarworks.umb.edu%2Fhumanarchitecture%2Fvol11%2Fiss1%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages


http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/529?utm_source=scholarworks.umb.edu%2Fhumanarchitecture%2Fvol11%2Fiss1%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages





mailto:[email protected]


mailto:[email protected]











http://scholarworks.umb.edu/humanarchitecture/vol11?utm_source=scholarworks.umb.edu%2Fhumanarchitecture%2Fvol11%2Fiss1%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages





73 HUMAN ARCHITECTURE: JOURNAL OF THE SOCIOLOGY OF SELF-KNOWLEDGE , XI, ISSUE 1, FALL 2013, 73-90

I. INTRODUCTION

The work of Enrique Dussel, liberationtheologian and liberation philosopher, isfundamental for anybody interested in thedecolonization of knowledge and power.He has published more than 65 books. Histitanic effort has been dedicated to demolishthe philosophical foundations and

world-historical narratives of Eurocen-trism. He has not only deconstructed domi-nant knowledge structures but also con-structed a body of work in Ethics, PoliticalPhilosophy and Political Economy that has been internationally very inuential. Hiswork embraces many elds of scholarshipsuch as Political-Economy, World-History,and Philosophy, among others.

Ramón Grosfoguel is Associate Professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, and a SeniorResearch Associate of the Maison des Sciences de l’Homme in Paris. He has published many articles and books onthe political economy of the world-system and on Caribbean migrations to Western Europe and the United States.

The Structure of Knowledge in Westernized UniversitiesEpistemic Racism/Sexism and the Four Genocides/Epistemicides of

the Long 16th Century

Ramón Grosfoguel

U.C. Berkeley ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

[email protected]

Abstract: This article is inspired by Enrique Dussel’s historical and philosophical work onCartesian philosophy and the conquest of the Americas. It discusses the epistemic racism/sexismthat is foundational to the knowledge structures of the Westernized University. The articleproposes that the epistemic privilege of Western Man in Westenized Universities’ structures ofknowledge, is the result of four genocides/epistemicides in the long 16th century (against Jewishand Muslim origin population in the conquest of Al-Andalus, against indigenous people in theconquest of the Americas, against Africans kidnapped and enslaved in the Americas and againstwomen burned alive, accused of being witches in Europe). The article proposes that Dussel’sargument in the sense that the condition of possibility for the mid-17th century Cartesian “I think,therefore I am” (ego cogito) is the 150 years of “I conquer, therefor I am” (ego conquiro) ishistorically mediated by the genocide/epistemicide of the “I exterminate, therefore I am” (egoextermino). The ‘I exterminate’ is the socio-historical structural mediation between the idolatric ‘Ithink’ and the ‘I conquer.’

HUMAN ARCHITECTURE: JOURNAL OF THE SOCIOLOGY OF SELF-KNOWLEDGE

ISSN: 1540-5699. © COPYRIGHT BY AHEAD PUBLISHING HOUSE (IMPRINT: OKCIR PRESS) AND AUTHORS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

A Publication of OKCIR: Te Omar Khayyam Center for Integrative Research in Utopia, Mysticism, and Science (Utopystics)



THE STRUCTURE OF KNOWLEDGE IN WESTERNIZED UNIVERSITIES 75

HUMAN ARCHITECTURE: JOURNAL OF THE SOCIOLOGY OF SELF-KNOWLEDGE , XI, ISSUE 1, FALL 2013

coin. The coin is called epistemic racism/sexism (Grosfoguel 2012).

In Westernized universities, the knowl-

edge produced by other epistemologies,cosmologies, and world views arising fromother world-regions with diverse time/space dimensions and characterized by dif-ferent geopolitics and body-politics ofknowledge are considered “inferior” in re-lation to the “superior” knowledge pro-duced by the few Western men of ve coun-tries that compose the canon of thought inthe Humanities and the Social Sciences. Theknowledge produced from the social/his-torical experiences and world views of theGlobal South, also known as “non-West-

ern,” are considered inferior and not part ofthe canon of thought. Moreover, knowledgeproduced by women (Western or non-West-ern) are also regarded as inferior and outcastfrom the canon of thought. The foundation-al structures of knowledge of the Western-ized university are simultaneously epistem-ically racist and sexist. What are theworld-historical processes that producedstructures of knowledge founded on epis-temic racism/sexism?

To answer these questions, we need togo back several centuries and discuss the

formation of racism/sexism in the modernworld and its relation to the long durée ofmodern structures of knowledge. Since theCartesian legacy has been so inuential inWestern structures of knowledge, this arti-cle begins in the rst part with a discussionon Cartesian philosophy. The second part ison the Conquest of Al-Andalus. The thirdpart is on the conquest of the Americas andits implications for the population of Mus-lim and Jewish origin in 16th century Spainas well as for African population kidnappedin Africa and enslaved in the Americas. Thefourth part is on the genocide/epistemicideagainst Indo-European women burned alive by the Christian Church accused of beingwitches. The last part is on Enrique Dussel’sproject of transmodernity and what it meansto decolonize the Westernize university.

II. CARTESIAN PHILOSOPHY

We need to begin any discussion of the

structures of knowledge in Westernizeduniversities with Cartesian philosophy.Modern philosophy is supposed to have been founded by Rene Descartes (2013).3 Descartes’ most famous phrase “I think,therefore I am” constitutes a new founda-tion of knowledge that challenged Christen-dom’s4 authority of knowledge since theRoman Empire. The new foundation ofknowledge produced by Cartesianism is notanymore the Christian God but this new “I.”Although Descartes never denes who this“I” is, it is clear that in his philosophy this

“I” replaces God as the new foundation ofknowledge and its attributes constitute asecularization of the attributes of the Chris-tian God. For Descartes, the “I” can producea knowledge that is truth beyond time andspace, universal in the sense that it is uncon-ditioned by any particularity—“objective” being understood as equal to “neutrality”and equivalent to a God-Eye view.

To make the claim of an “I” that produc-es knowledge equivalent to a God-Eye view,Descartes makes two main arguments: oneis ontological and the other epistemological.Both arguments constitute the condition ofpossibility for the claim that this “I” can pro-duce a knowledge that is equivalent to aGod-Eye view. The rst argument is onto-logical dualism. Descartes claims that themind is of a different substance from the body. This allows for the mind to be unde-termined, unconditioned by the body. Thisway Descartes can claim that the mind is

3. I said “supposed” because as EnriqueDussel (2008a) has demonstrated in his essay An-ti-Cartesian Meditations, Descartes was highlyinuenced by the Christian philosophers of the

Spanish conquest of the Americas.4. Notice that I make a distinction betweenChristianity and Christendom. Christianity is aspiritual/religious tradition, Christendom iswhen Christianity becomes a dominant ideologyused by the state. Christendom emerged in the4th century after Christ when Constantine ap-propriated Christianity and turn it into the of-cial ideology of the Roman Empire.



76 RAMÓN GROSFOGUEL


similar to the Christian God, oating inheaven, undetermined by anything terres-trial and that it can produce a knowledge

equivalent to a God-Eye view. The universal-ity here is equal to Christian God’s univer-sality in the sense that it is not determined by any particularity, it is beyond any partic-ular condition or existence. The image ofGod in Christendom is that of a White, old, bearded man with a cane sitting in a cloud,watching everybody and punishing anybody who misbehaves.

What would happen to the “God-Eyeview” argument if the mind is of a similarsubstance to the body? The main implica-tion would be that the claim that a human

“I” can produce a God-Eye view falls apart.Without ontological dualism, the mindwould be located in a body, would be simi-lar in substance to the body and, thus, con-ditioned by the body. The latter would meanthat knowledge is produced from a particu-lar space in the world and, thus, there is nounsituated knowledge production. If this isthe case, then it cannot be argued anymorethat a human “I” can produce a knowledgeequivalent to a God-Eye view. 5

The second argument of Descartes isepistemological. He claims that the only

way the “I” can achieve certitude in knowl-edge production is through the method ofsolipsism. How can the “I” ght skepticismand be able to achieve certitude in knowl-edge production? The answer given by Des-cartes is that this could be achieved throughan internal monologue of the subject withhimself (the gender here is not accidental forreasons that will be explained later). Withthe method of solipsism, the subject asksand answers questions in an internal mono-logue until it reaches certitude in knowl-edge. What would happen if human subjects produce knowledge dialogically, thatis, in social relations with other human be-ings? The main implication would be thatthe claim about an “I” that can produce cer-

5. For a very interesting discussion on thisquestion see Enrique Dussel (1995) and DonnaHaraway (1988).

titude in knowledge isolated from social re-lations with other human beings falls apart.Without epistemic solipsism, the “I” would

be located in particular social relations, inparticular social/historical contexts and,thus, there is no monological , unsituated andasocial knowledge production. If knowledgeis produced in particular social relations,that is, inside a particular society, then it can-not be argued that the human “I” can pro-duce a knowledge equivalent to a God Eyeview.

Cartesian philosophy have been highlyinuential in Westernized projects of knowl-edge production. The unsituatedness ofDescartes’ philosophy inaugurated the

ego-politics of knowledge: an “I” that as-sumes itself to be producing a knowledgefrom no-where. As Colombian philosopher,Santiago Castro-Gomez (2003) argues, Car-tesian philosophy assumes a point zeroepistemology, that is, a point of view that donot assumes itself as a point of view. The im-portance of Rene Descartes for Westernizedepistemology can be seen in that after 370years, Westernized universities still carrythe Cartesian legacy as a criteria of validityfor science and knowledge production.Even those who are critical of Cartesian phi-

losophy, still use it as criteria for what differ-entiates science from non-science. The “subject-object” split, “objectivity” understoodas “neutrality,” the myth of an EGO thatproduces “unbiased” knowledge uncondi-tioned by its body or space location, the ideaof knowledge as produced through an inter-nal monologue without links with other hu-man beings and universality understood as beyond any particularity are still the criteriafor valid knowledge and science used in thedisciplines of the Westernized university.Any knowledge that claims to be situated in body-politics of knowledge (Anzaldúa1987; Frantz Fanon 2010) or geo-politics ofknowledge (Dussel 1977) as opposed to themyth of the unsituated knowledge of theCartesian ego-politics of knowledge is dis-carded as biased, invalid, irrelevant, unseri-





ous, that is, inferior knowledge.What is relevant to the “Western

men tradition of thought” inaugurated by

Cartesian philosophy is that it constituted aworld-historical event. Prior to Descartes,no tradition of thought claimed to producean unsituated knowledge that is God-like orequivalent to God. This idolatric universalism of “Western men tradition of thought” inau-gurated by Descartes (2013) in 1637, pre-tends to replace God and produce a knowl-edge that is God-like. The Dusselianquestions are: What are the political, eco-nomic, historical, and cultural conditions ofpossibility for someone in the mid-seven-teenth century to produce a philosophy that

claims to be equivalent to God’s Eye and toreplace God? Who is speaking and fromwhich body-politics of knowledge orgeo-politics of knowledge is he speakingfrom?

Enrique Dussel (2005) responds to thesequestions with the following argument:Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am” is pre-ceded by 150 years of “I conquer, therefore Iam.” The ego conquiro is the condition of pos-sibility of Descartes’s ego cogito. Accordingto Dussel, the arrogant and idolatric God-like pretention of Cartesian philosophy is

coming from the perspective of someonewho thinks of himself as the center of theworld because he has already conquered theworld. Who is this being? According to Dus-sel (2005), this is the Imperial Being. The “Iconquer” that began with the Europeanmen colonial expansion in 1492, is the foun-dation and condition of possibility of the “Ithink” that secularizes all the attributes ofthe Christian God and replaces God as thenew foundation of knowledge. Once Euro-pean men conquered the world, God is dis-posable as a foundation of knowledge. Afterhaving conquered the world, Europeanman achieve “God-like” qualities that gavethem epistemic privilege.

However, there is a missing link be-tween the “I conquer, therefore I am” andthe “I think, therefore I am.” There is no in-

herent necessity to derive from the “I con-quer, therefore I am” the “idolatric univer-salism” (the God-Eye view) nor the

“epistemic racism/sexism” (the inferiorityof all knowledges coming from human be-ings that are classied as non-Western).What links the “I conquer, therefore I am”(ego conquiro) with the idolatric, God-like “Ithink, therfore I am” (ego cogito) is the epis-temic racism/sexism produced from the “Iexterminate, therefore I am” (ego extermino).It is the logic of genocide/epistemicide to-gether that mediates the “I conquer” withthe epistemic racism/sexism of the “I think”as the new foundation of knowledge in themodern/colonial world. The ego extermino

is the socio-historical structural conditionthat makes possible the link of the ego con-quiro with the ego cogito. In what follows, itwill be argued that the four genocides/epis-temicides of the long 16th century are thesocio-historical condition of possibility forthe transformation of the “I conquer, there-fore I am” into the epistemic racism/sexismof the “I think, therefore I am.” These fourgenocides/epistemicides in the long 16thcentury are: 1) against Muslims and Jews inthe conquest of Al-Andalus in the name of“purity of blood”; 2) against indigenous

peoples rst in the Americas and then inAsia; 3) against African people with the cap-tive trade and their enslavement in theAmericas; 4) against women who practicedand transmitted Indo-European knowledgein Europe burned alive accused of beingwitches. These four genocides/epistemi-cides are frequently discussed as fragment-ed from each other. The attempt here is to seethem as interlinked, inter-related to eachother and as constitutive of the modern/co-lonial world’s epistemic structures. Thesefour genocides were at the same time formsof epistemicide that are constitutive of West-ern men epistemic privilege. To sustain thisargument we need to not only go over thehistory but also explain how and when rac-ism emerged.





III. THE CONQUEST OF AL-ANDALUS:GENOCIDE /EPISTEMICIDE AGAINST MUSLIMS AND JEWS

The nal conquest of Al-Andalus in thelate 15th century was done under the sloganof “purity of blood.” This was a proto-racistdiscourse against Muslim and Jewish popu-lations during the Catholic Monarchy colo-nial conquest of Andalusian territory to de-stroy the sultanate of Granada which wasthe last Muslim political authority in theIberian Peninsula (Maldonado-Torres2008a). The practice of ethnic cleansing ofthe Andalusian territory produced a physi-cal genocide and cultural genocide againstMuslims and Jews. Jews and Muslims whostayed in the territory were either killed(physical genocide) or forced to conversion(cultural genocide). This ethnic cleansingwas achieved through the following geno-cide (physical) and epistemicide (cultural):

1- The forced expulsion of Muslims and Jews from their land (genocide) led tothe repopulation of the territory withChristian populations from the Northof the Iberian Peninsula (Caro Barojas

1991; Carrasco 2009). This is what in theliterature is called today “settler colo-nialism.”

2- The massive destruction of Islamic and Judaic spirituality and knowledgethrough genocide, led to the forced con-version (cultural genocide) of those Jews and Muslims who decided to stayin the territory (Barrios Aguilera 2009,Kettami 2012). By turning Muslims intoMoriscos (converted Muslims) and Jews into Marranos (converted Jews),their memory, knowledge and spiritu-

ality were destroyed (cultural geno-cide). The latter was a guarantee thatfuture descendants of Marranos andMoros will be born fully Christianswithout any memory trace to their an-cestors.

The Spanish state discourse of “purityof blood” was used to surveil the Muslim

and Jewish populations who survived themassacres. In order to survive and stay inthe territory, they were forced to convert toChristianity (Galán Sánchez 2010). Thosepopulations that were forced to convert orthat had Jewish or Muslim ancestry, weresurveilled by the Christian monarchy in or-der to assure that they were not faking con-version. “Purity of blood” was a discourseused to surveil the converts or descendantsof the converts. It referred to the “familytree” of the population. The “family tree”provided to state authorities the informa-

tion needed in order to know if the ancestryof an individual or a family was “purely”Christian or “non-Christian” in the casethey were Christian converts. The discourseof “purity of blood” did not question the hu-manity of the victims. What it aimed was tosurveil those populations with non-Chris-tian ancestry in terms of how far or closethey were to Christianity in order to conrmif the conversion was real or not. For theCastillian Christian Monarchy, Muslimsand Jews were humans with the “wrongGod” or “wrong religion.” They were per-

ceived as a “fth column” of the Ottomansultanate in the Iberian Peninsula (MartínCasares 2000; Carrasco 2009; Galán Sánchez2010). Thus, the old European Medieval re-ligious discriminatory discourses such asthe old anti-semite discourses (judeophobicor islamophobic) were used against Jewsand Muslims in the conquest of Al-Andalus.

It is important to emphasize that sincethe possibility of conversation was stillopen, the old anti-semitic European Medie-val religious discrimination of the CastillianChristian Monarchy (at the end of the 15thcentury) was not yet racial and includedamong semitic people both Muslims and Jews6. As long as the Muslims and Jews con-

6. It is the recent Western European, NorthAmerican and Israeli Zionist orientalist litera-ture that after Second World War excluded Arabsfrom semite people and reduced the denition of





verted to Christianity, the doors for integra-tion were open during the Medieval Span-ish Monarchy conquest of Al-Andalus

(Galán Sánchez 2010; Dominguez Ortiz2009). The humanity of the victims was notin question. What was in question was thereligious identity of the social subjects. Thesocial classication used at the time was re-lated to a theological question about havingthe “wrong God” or the “wrong religion” tostratify society along religious lines.

In sum, what is important here is thatthe “purity of blood” discourse used in theconquest of Al-Andalus was a form of reli-gious discrimination that was not yet fullyracist because it did not question in a pro-

found way the humanity of its victims.

III. THE CONQUEST OF THE AMERICAS IN RELATION TO THE CONQUEST OF AL-ANDALUS: GENOCIDE /EPISTEMICIDE AGAINST INDIGENOUS PEOPLES,MARRANOS, MORISCOS, AND AFRICANS

When Christopher Columbus present-ed for the rst time the document known as“The Indian Enterprise” to the King andQueen of the Castilian Monarchy, their re-

sponse was to accept it and postpone it untilafter the conquest of all the territory knownas Al-Andalus. They ordered Columbus towait until the nal conquest over the “King-dom of Granada,” the last sultanate in theIberian Peninsula. The idea of the CastilianChristian Monarchy was to unify the wholeterritory under its command by the rule of“one state, one identity, one religion” in con-trast to Al-Andalus where there were multi-ple Islamic states (sultanates) with recogni-tion of rights to the “multiple identities andspiritualities inside their territorial bound-aries” (Maíllo Delgago 2004; Kettami 2012).

The project of the Castillan Christian

anti-semitism to racial discrimination against Jews. The latter is part of a perverse Zionist strat-egy to conate Arab-Muslims’ critique to Zion-ism as equivalent to anti-semitism (Grosfoguel2009).

Monarchy to create a correspondence be-tween the identity of the state and the iden-tity of the population within its territorial

boundaries, was the origin of the idea of thenation-state in Europe. The main goal thatthe Queen and the King expressed to Co-lumbus was the unication of the whole ter-ritory under the power of the ChristianMonarchy as a rst step before going abroadto conquest other lands beyond the IberianPeninsula.

The nal conquest over Muslim politi-cal authority in the Iberian Peninsula wasnalized in January 2, 1492 with the capitu-lation of Granada’s Nazarí emirate. Onlynine days later, on January 11, 1492, Colum-

bus met again with Queen Elizabeth. Butthis time the meeting was held in Granada’sAlhambra Nazarí Palace where Columbusgot the royal authorization and resourcesfor his rst voyage overseas. Only tenmonths later, on October 12, 1492, Colum- bus arrived at the shores of what he named“Indias Occidentales” (West Indies) becausehe wrongly believed that he had arrived toIndia.

The relationship between the conquestof Al-Andalus and the conquest of theAmericas has been under-researched in the

literature. The methods of colonization anddomination used against Al-Andalus wereextrapolated to the Americas (GarridoAranda 1980). The conquest of Al-Andaluswas so important in the minds of the Span-ish conquerors that Hernan Cortés, the con-queror of Mexico, confused the Aztecs’ sa-cred temples with Mosques.

In addition to the genocide of people,the conquest of Al-Andalus was accompa-nied by epistemicide. For example, the burning of libraries was a fundamentalmethod used in the conquest of Al-Andalus.The library of Cordoba, that had around500,000 books at a time when the largest library of Christian Europe did not have morethan 1000 books, was burned in the 13th cen-tury. Many other libraries had the same des-tiny during the conquest of Al-Andalus un-





til the nal burning of more than 250,000 books of the Granada library by CardenalCisneros in the early 16th century. These

methods were extrapolated to the Americas.Thus, the same happened with the indige-nous “códices” which was the written prac-tice used by Amerindians to archive knowl-edge. Thousands of “códices” were also burned destroying indigenous knowledgesin the Americas. Genocide and epistemicidewent together in the process of conquest in both the Americas and Al-Andalus.

A similar process happened with themethods of evangelization used against in-digenous people in the Americas (GarridoAranda 1980; Martín de la Hoz 2010). It was

inspired in the methods used against Mus-lims in the Iberian Peninsula (Garrido Aran-da 1980). It was a form of “spiritualicide”and “epistemicide” at the same time. Thedestruction of knowledge and spiritualitywent also together in the conquest of bothAl-Andalus and the Americas.

However, it is fundamental to also un-derstand how the conquest of the Americasaffected the conquest of “Moriscos” (con-verted Muslims) and “Marranos” (convert-ed Jews) in the Iberian Peninsula in the 16thcentury. The conquest of the Americas was

at the center of the new discourses andforms of domination that emerged in thelong 16th century with the creation of themodern/colonial world-system. Here thecontribution of Nelson Maldonado-Torresis crucial when he said that the 16th centurytransformed the ancient forms of imperialsocial classication that existed since the 4thcentury when with Constantine, Christiani-ty became the dominant ideology of the Ro-man Empire. As Maldonado-Torres (2008a)said:

… the conceptual coordinates thatdened the ‘ght for the empire’and the forms of social classica-tion of the 4th century and of latercenturies prior to the “discovery”and conquest of the Américas

change drastically in the 16th centu-ry. The relationship between reli-gion and empire would be at the

center of a dramatic transformationfrom a system of power based onreligious differences to one basedon racial differences. It is for thisreason that in modernity, the domi-nant episteme would not only bedened by the tension and mutualcollaboration between the idea ofreligion and the imperial vision ofthe known world, but, more pre-cisely, through a dynamic relation between empire, religion, and race.Ideas about race, religion, and em-

pire functioned as signicant axesin the imaginary of the emergentmodern/colonial world … (p. 230)

If the military and evangelization meth-ods of conquest used in Al-Andalus toachieve genocide and epistemicide were ex-trapolated to the conquest of indigenouspeople in the Americas, the conquest of theAmericas also created a new racial imagi-nary and racial hierarchy that transformedthe conquest of Moriscos and Marranos in16th century Iberian Peninsula. The con-

quest of the Americas affected the old formsof Medieval religious discrimination againstMoriscos and Marranos in 16th centurySpain. The rst point to emphasize in thishistory is that after months of navigationthrough the Atlantic Ocean, the momentColumbus stepped out of the ship he wrotein his diary the following on October 12,1492:

… it seemed to me that they were apeople very poor in everything. Allof them go around as naked as their

mothers bore them… They should be good and talent servants, for I ob-served that they quickly took in whatwas said to them. And I believe thatthey would easily be made Chris-tians, as it appeared to me that theyhad no sect. (my own translation)





This statement by Christopher Colum- bus opened a debate for the next 60 years(1492-1552). As Nelson Maldonado-Torres

(2008a) argues, in the late 15th century, Co-lumbus’ notion of “people without sect”(“people without religion”) meant some-thing new. To say “people without religion”today means “atheist people.” But in theChristian imaginary of the late 15th century,the phrase “people without religion” had adifferent connotation. In Christian imagi-nary, all humans have religion. They couldhave the “wrong God” or “wrong Gods,”there could be wars and people could killeach other in the ght against the “wrongGod,” but the humanity of the other, as a

trend and as a form of domination, was notyet put in question. What was being ques-tioned was the theology of the “other.” Thelatter was radically modied after 1492 withthe conquest of the Americas and the char-acterization of indigenous peoples by Chris-topher Columbus as “people without reli-gion.” An anachronistic reading of thisphrase might lead us to think that Colum- bus referred to “atheist people.” But nothaving religion in the Christian imaginaryof the time was equivalent to not having asoul, that is, being expelled from the realm

of the human. As Nelson Maldonado-Torres(2008a) said:

To refer to the indigenous as subjects without religion removes themfrom the category of the human. Re-ligion is universal among humans, but the alleged lack of it among na-tives is not initially taken to indicatethe falseness of this statement, butrather the opposite, that there existsubjects in the world who are notfully human. …Columbus’ asser-

tion about the lack of religion in in-digenous people introduces an an-thropological meaning to the term.In light of what we have seen here,it is necessary to add that this an-thropological meaning is also

linked to a very modern method ofclassifying humans: racial classi-cation. With a single stroke, Colum-

bus took the discourse on religionfrom the theological realm into amodern philosophical anthropolo-gy that distinguishes among differ-ent degrees of humanity throughidentities xed into what wouldlater be called races. (p. 217)

Contrary to the contemporary commonsense, “color racism” was not the rst racistdiscourse. “Religious racism” (“people withreligion” vs. “people without religion” or“people with soul” vs. “people without a

soul”) was the rst marker of racism in the“Capitalist/Patriarcal Western-Centric/Christian-centric modern/colonialworld-system” (Grosfoguel 2011) formed inthe long 16th century. The denition of“people without religion” was coined in late15th and early 16th century Spain. The debate provoked by the conquest of the Amer-icas was about whether the “people withoutreligion” found in Columbus’ voyages were“people with a soul or without a soul.” Thelogic of the argument was as follows: 1) ifyou do not have religion, you do not have a

God; 2) if you do not have a God, then youdo not have a soul; and 3) if you do not havea soul, you are not human but animal-like.

The debate turned “people without reli-gion” into “people without a soul.” This co-lonial racist debate produced a boomerangeffect that redened and transformed thedominant imaginary of the times and theMedieval religious discriminatory dis-courses. The concept of “purity of blood”acquired a new meaning. “Purity of blood”was not any more a technology of power tosurveil persons that have a Muslim or Jew-

ish ancestry in the family tree in order tomake sure he/she is not faking conversionas in 15th century conquest of Al-Andalus.The meaning of “purity of blood” after theconquest of the Americas with the emer-gence of the concept of “people without a





soul” shifted from a theological questionabout having the “wrong religion” into aquestion about the humanity of the subject

practicing the “wrong religion.”7

As a result, the great debate in the rstve decades of the 16th century was aboutwhether “Indians” have a soul or not. Inpractice, both the Church and the Spanishimperial state were already massively en-slaving indigenous people assuming thenotion that “Indians” have no soul. Stateracism is not a post-18th century phenome-non, but a phenomenon that emerged fol-lowing the conquest of the Americas in the16th century. However, there were criticalvoices inside the Church questioning this

idea and proposing that “Indians” have asoul but were barbarians in need of Chris-tianization (Dussel 1979; 1992). Theyclaimed that since the “Indians” have a soul,it is a sin in the eyes of God to enslave themand the job of the Church should be to Chris-tianize them using peaceful methods. Thisdebate was the rst racist debate in worldhistory and “Indian” as an identity was therst modern identity.

The category of “Indian” constituted anew modern/colonial identity inventionthat homogenized the heterogeneous iden-

tities that existed in the Americas before thearrival of the Europeans. It is also importantto remember that Columbus thought he hadarrived in India and, thus, leading to the useof the term “Indian” to name the popula-tions he encountered. Out of this eurocen-tric geographical mistake, emerges “Indi-an” as a new identity. But to question if“Indians” have a soul or not was already aracist question that referred directly to the

7. It is important to remember that Latin wasthe written language of 16th century Europe.

Since the Christian church was the authority ofknowledge through Christian theology, the debates about the conquest of the Americas in Spaintravelled to other European territories throughthe Church networks. Thus, the debates aboutColumbus and the Spanish Christian theolo-gians on the New World and the subjects foundthere were read with particular attention in otherparts of Europe.

question of their humanity.8 In 16th century Christian imaginary,

this debate had important implications. If

“Indians” did not have a soul, then it is jus-tied in the eyes of God to enslave them andtreat them as animals in the labor process.But if they had a soul, then it was a sin in theeyes of God to enslave, assassinate, or mis-treat them. This debate was crucial in themutation of the old European medieval reli-gious discriminatory discourses and prac-tices. Until the end of the 15th century, theold islamophobic and judeophobic dis-courses were related to having the “wrongGod,” the “wrong theology,” and to the in-uence of Satan in the “wrong religion,”

without questioning the humanity of theirpractitioners.9 The possibility of conversionwas available for the victims of these dis-criminatory discourses. But with the coloni-zation of the Americas, these old medievaldiscriminatory religious discourses mutat-ed rapidly, transforming into modern racialdomination.

Even though the word “race” was notused at the time, the debate about having asoul or not was already a racist debate in thesense used by scientic racism in the 19thcentury. The theological debate of the 16th

century about having a soul or not had thesame connotation of the 19th century scien-

8. This skepticism about the humanity ofother human beings is what Nelson Maldona-do-Torres (2008b) called “misanthropic skepti-cism.”

9. I refer to the social classication of the so-cial system. As Maldonado-Torres argues, therewere already individuals articulating discoursesthat could be identied as racialist from a con-temporary point of view. However, the socialclassication of the population in Medieval Eu-rope was not based on racial classication, that is,it was not organized around social logics relatedto a radical question about the humanity of the

social subjects. The social classication of thepopulation based on racist social logics was apost-1492 process with the formation of the“Capitalist/Patriarchal Western-centric/Chris-tian-centric Modern/Colonial World-System”(Grosfoguel 2011). Thus, in this article the argu-ment about the emergence of racism is related toa post-1492 global social system and not to indi-vidual statements before 1492.





ticist debates about having the human bio-logical constitution or not. Both were debates about the humanity or animality of the

others articulated by the institutional racistdiscourse of states such as the CastilianChristian monarchy in the 16th century orWestern European imperial nation-states inthe 19th century. These institutional racistlogics of “not having a soul” in the 16th cen-tury or “not having the human biology” inthe 19th century became the organizingprinciple of the international division of labor and capitalist accumulation at a world-scale.

The debate continued until the famousValladolid trial of the School of Salamance

in 1552. Since Christian theology and churchwas the authority of knowledge at the time,the Spanish Christian imperial monarchyput in the hands of a tribunal among Chris-tian theologians the question about whether“Indians have a soul or not.” The theolo-gians were Bartolomé de las Casas andGines Sepúlveda. After 60 years (1492-1552)of debate, the Spanish imperial Christianmonarchy nally requested a Christiantheological tribunal to make a nal decisionabout the humanity or lack of humanity ofthe “Indians.”

As is well-known, Gines Sepúlveda ar-gued in favor of the position that “Indians”are “people without a soul” and, therefore,they are animals that could be enslaved inthe labor process without being a sin in theeyes of God. Part of his argument to demon-strate the inferiority of the “Indians” belowthe line of the human was the modern capi-talist argument that “Indians” have no senseof private property and no notion of mar-kets because they produce through collec-tive forms and distribute wealth throughreciprocity.

Bartolomé de las Casas argued that“Indians” have a soul but were in a barbar-ian stage in need of Christianization. There-fore, for Las Casas it was a sin in the eyes ofGod to enslave them. What he proposedwas to “Christianize” them. Both Las Casas

and Sepulvera represent the inaguration ofthe two major racist discourses with longlasting consequences that will be mobilized

by Western imperial powers for the next 450years: biological racist discourses and cul-tural racist discourses.

The biological racist discourse is a 19thcentury scienticist secularization ofSepúlveda’s theological racist discourse.When the authority of knowledge passed inthe West from Christian theology to ModernScience after the 18th century Enlighten-ment Project and the French Revolution, theSepulveda theological racist discourse of“people without soul” mutated with the riseof natural sciences to a biological racist dis-

course of “peoples without human biology”and later “peoples without genes” (withoutthe human genetics). The same happenedwith the Bartolomé De Las Casas discourse.The De Las Casas theological discourse of“barbarians to be Christianized” in the 16thcentury, transmuted with the rise of the so-cial sciences into an anthropological cultur-al racist discourse about “primitives to becivilized.”

The outcome of the Valladolid trial isalso well known: although Sepúlvedas‘view won in the long run, in the short run

Las Casas won the trial. Thus, the Spanishimperial monarchy decided that “Indians”have a soul but are barbarians to be Chris-tianized. Therefore, it was recognized that itwas a sin in the eyes of God to enslave them.The conclusion seemingly meant the libera-tion of “Indians” from the Spanish colonialrule. But this was not the case. The “Indians”were transferred in the international divi-sion of labor from slave labor to anotherform of coerced labor known as the “en-comienda.” Since then it became institution-alized in a more systematic way the idea ofrace and institutional racism as an organiz-ing principle of the international division oflabor and capitalist accumulation at aworld-scale.

While “Indians” were placed in the “en-comienda” under a coerced form of labor,





Africans who were already classied as“people without a soul” were brought to theAmericas to replace “Indians” in slave la-

bor. Africans were perceived at the time asMuslims and the racialization of Muslims in16th century Spain was extended to them.The decision to bring captives from Africa toenslave them in the Americas was directlyrelated to the conclusion of the 1552 Vallad-olid trial. Here begins the massive kidnap-ping and captive trade of Africans that isgoing to be enforced for the next 300 years.With the enslavement of Africans, religiousracism was complemented with or slowyreplaced by color racism. Since then, an-ti-black racism became a foundational con-

titutive structuring logic of the modern/co-lonial world.The kidnapping of Africans and their

enslavement in the Americas was a majorand signicant world-historical event (Ni-mako and Willemsen 2011). Millions of Afri-cans died in the process of being captured,transported and enslaved in the Americas.This was a genocide at a massive scale. Butas with the other cases outlined above, thegenocide was inherently epistemicide. Afri-cans in the Americas were forbidden fromthinking, praying or practicing their cos-

mologies, knowledges and world views.They were submitted to a regime of epis-temic racism that forbade their autonomousknowledge production. Epistemic inferiori-ty was a crucial argument used to claim bio-logical social inferiority below the line of thehuman. The racist idea in late 16th centurywas that “Negroes lack intelligence” whichturned in the 20th century to “Negroes havelow IQ levels.”

Another consequence of the debateabout the “Indians” and the Valladolid tribunal was its impact on the Moriscos andMarranos in 16th century Spain. The old is-lamophobic and judeophobic medieval reli-gious discriminatory discourses against Jews and Muslims were transformed intoracist discrimination. The question was notany more about whether the religiously dis-

criminated population have the wrong Godor wrong theology. The anti-indigenous re-ligious racism that questioned the humanity

of the “Indians” was extrapolated to theMoriscos and the Marranos questioning thehumanity of those who pray to the “wrongGod.” Those who prayed to the “wrongGod” were conceived as not having a soul,as “soul-less subjects” (“sujetos desalma-dos”), non-humans or sub-humans. Similarto indigenous people in the Americas, theywere expelled from the “realm of the hu-man” being described as “animal-like” (Per-ceval 1992; 1997). The latter represented aradical transformation that goes from theinferiority of non-Christian religions (Islam

and Judaism) in Medieval Europe to the in-feriority of the human beings who practicedthese religions (Jews and Muslims) in thenew emerging Modern Europe. Thus, it is asa result of the impact of the conquest of theAmericas in the 16th century that the old Eu-ropean islamophobic and judeophobic an-ti-semitic religious discrimination going back to the crusades and before, turned intoracial discrimination. This is the boomerangeffect of colonialism coming back to huntEurope.

The entanglement between the reli-

gious Christian-centric global hierarchyand the racial/ethnic Western-Centric hier-archy of the “capitalist/patriarcal West-ern-centric/Christian-centric modern/co-lonial world-system” created after 1492,identied the practitioners of a non-Chris-tian spirituality with being racialized as aninferior being below the line of the human.Contrary to Eurocentric narratives such asFoucault (1996), that situates the trans-mutation from religious anti-semitism toracial anti-semitism in the 19th century withthe emergence of scientic racism, anti-se-mitic racism emerged in 16th century Spainwhen the old medieval anti-semitic reli-gious discrimination was entangled withthe new modern racial imaginary produced by the conquest of the Americas. The newracial imaginary mutated the old religious





anti-semitism into racial anti-semitism.Contrary to Foucault, this anti-semitic rac-ism of the 16th century was already institu-

tionalized as state biopolitical racism.10

The concept of “people without a soul”was not extended to Moriscos immediately.It took several decades in the 16th century to be extrapolated to Moriscos. It was after themid-sixteenth century and, specically,during the Alpujarras11 trial that Moriscoswhere called “souless people” (“sujetos de-salmados”). Moreover, after mid-16th cen-tury, as a consequence of being classied as“souless people,” Moriscos were massivelyenslaved in Granada. Despite the Christianchurch prohibition to enslave Christians

and people baptized as Christian, Moriscos(Muslims converted to Christianity) werestill enslaved (Marín Casares 2000).

Now, “purity of blood” was related to“souless people” making irrelevant thequestion about how assimilated they wereto Christianity. Their being was itself inquestion making their humanity suspicious.Thus, from then on they were not consid-ered truly Christians nor equal to Chris-tians. Anti-Morisco racism would be inten-sied during the later part of the 16thcentury until their mass expulsion from the

Iberian Peninsula in 1609 (Perceval 1992,1997; Carrasco 2009).

In sum, the conquest of the Americas inthe 16th century extended the process ofgenocide/epistemicide that began with theconquest of Al-Andalus to new subjects

10. Scientic racism in the 19th century wasnot, as Foucault argued, a resignication of theold European “race war” discourse but a secular-ization of the old Christendom religious theolog-ical racism of “people without a soul” in the 16thcentury. The old discourse of “race war” insideEurope was not the foundation of scientic rac-ism as Foucault insisted on with his “genealogy

of racism.” The foundation of scientic racismwas the old religious racism of the 16th centurywith roots in the European colonial conquest ofthe Americas. Foucault is blind towards the con-quest of the Americas, colonialism and Spain’s16th century.

11. These were the trials against Moriscosthat uprose in the Alpujarras mountains outsidethe city of Granada after the mid-16th century.

such as indigenous people and Africans,while simultaneously intensied through anew racial logic the genocide/epistemicide

against Christians from Jewish and Muslimorigin populations in Spain.

IV. THE CONQUEST OF INDO-EUROPEAN WOMEN: GENOCIDE /EPISTEMICIDE AGAINST WOMEN

There is a fourth genocide/epistemi-cide in the 16th century that is not frequentlyrelated to the history of the three genocides/epistemicides outlined before.12 This is theconquest and genocide of women in Euro-

pean lands who transmitted Indo-Europeanknowledge from generation to generation.These women mastered indigenous knowl-edge from ancient times. Their knowledgecovered different areas such as astronomy,medicine, biology, ethics, etc. They wereempowered by the possession of ancestralknowledge and their leading role inside thecommunities organized around com-mune-like forms of economic and politicalorganization. The persecution of thesewomen began from the late Medieval era.However, it became intensied in the 16th

and 17th century (long 16th century) withthe rise of “modern/colonial capitalist/pa-triarchal” power structures.

Millions of women were burned alive,accused of being witches in the Early Mod-ern period. Given their authority and lead-ership, the attack against these women wasa strategy to consolidate Christian-centric

12. The seminal work of Silvia Federici(2004) is one of the few exceptions. AlthoughFederici’s work does not link these four process-es in relation to genocide/epistemicide, she atleast links the witch hunt of women in the16th/17th century with the enslavement of Afri-

cans and the conquest of the Americas in relationto global capitalist accumulation, in particular,the early formation of capitalism, that is, “primi-tive accumulation.” Her work is focused on po-litical-economy rather than structures of knowl-edge. However, her contribution is crucial for theunderstanding of the relation between the geno-cide/epistemicide of women and the other geno-cide/epistemicides of the 16th century.





patriarchy and to destroy autonomous com-munal forms of land ownership. The Inqui-sition was at the forefront of this offensive.

The accusation was an attack to thousandsof women whose autonomy, leadership andknowledge threatened Christian theology,Church authority and the power of the aris-tocracy that turned into a capitalist classtransnationally in the colonies as well as inEuropean agriculture.13

Silvia Federici (2004) argues that thiswitch hunt intensied between 1550 and1650. Her thesis is that the witch hunt againstwomen in European territory was related toprimitive accumulation during the earlycapitalist expansion in the formation of the

labor reserve for global capitalism. Shelinked the African enslavement in the Amer-icas with the witch hunt of Women in Eu-rope as two sides of the same coin: capitalaccumulation at a world-scale in need ofincorporating labor to the capitalist accu-mulation process. In order to achieve this,capitalist institutions used extreme forms ofviolence.

Contrary to the epistemicide against In-digenous people and Muslims where thou-sands of books were burned, in the case ofthe genocide/epistemicide against In-

do-European women there were no books to burn because the transmission of knowl-edge was done from generation to genera-tion through oral tradition. The “books”were the women’s bodies and, thus, similarto the Andalusian and Indigenous “books”their bodies were burned alive.

13. For an analysis of the transformation ofthe European aristocracy into a capitalist class inrelation to the formation of the modernworld-system see the work of Immanuel Waller-stein, specially his Modern World-System, Vol. 1(New York: Academic Press).

V. CONSEQUENCES OF THE FOUR GENOCIDES /EPISTEMICIDES FOR GLOBAL STRUCTURES OF KNOWLEDGE:

THE FORMATION OF EPISTEMIC /SEXIST STRUCTURES AND THE HOPE FOR A FUTURE TRANSMODERN WORLD

The four genocides/epistemicides ofthe long 16th century discussed before cre-ated racial/patriarchal power and epistem-ic structures at a world scale entangled withprocesses of global capitalist accumulation.When in the 17th century Descartes wrote “Ithink, therefore I am” from Amsterdam14 , inthe “common sense” of the times, this “I”

could not be an African, an indigenous per-son, a Muslim, a Jew nor a woman (Westernor non-Western). All of these subjects werealready considered “inferior” along theglobal racial/patriarchal power structureand their knowledge was considered inferi-or as a result of the four genocides/epistem-icides of the 16th century. The only one leftas epistemically superior was the Westernman. In the hegemonic “common sense” ofthe times, this “I” was that of a Westernmale. The four genocides/epistemicides areconstitutive of the racist/sexist epistemic

structures that produced epistemic privi-ledge and authority to Western man’sknowledge production and inferiority forthe rest. As Maldonado-Torres (2008b) af-rms, the other side of the “I think, thereforeI am” is the racist/sexist structure of “I donot think, therefore I am not.” The latter ex-presses a “coloniality of being” (Maldonan-do-Torres 2008b) where all of the subjectsconsidered inferior do not think and are not

14. It is important to say that when the Dutchdefeated the Spaniards in the 30 years war, thenew center of the new world-system created after

1492 with Spain expansion to the Americas shift-ed from the Iberian Peninsula to North-WesternEurope, that is, Amsterdam. Dussel’s characteri-zation of Descartes philosophy as one produced

by someone who is geopolitically thinking fromthe center of the world-system, the imperial be-ing, is not metaphorical.





worthy of existence because their humanityis in question. They belong to the Fanonian“zone of non-being” or to the Dusselian “ex-

teriority.”Westernized universities internalizedfrom its origin the racist/sexist epistemicstructures created by the four genocides/epistemicides of the 16th century. These eu-rocentric structures of knowledge became“commonsensical.” It is considered normalfunctioning to have only Western males of 5countries to be producing the canons ofthought in all of the academic disciplines ofthe Westernized university. There is noscandal in this because they are a reectionof the normalized racist/sexist epistemic

structures of knowledge of the modern/co-lonial world.When the Westernized university trans-

formed in the late 18th century from a Chris-tian theological university into the secularHumboldtian university, it used the Kan-tian anthropological idea that rationalitywas embodied in the White man north of thePyrenees mountains classifying the IberianPeninsula within the realm of the irrationalworld together with Black, Red and Yellowpeople. The people “lacking rationality”were epistemically excluded from the West-

ernized university knowledge structures. Itis from this Kantian assumption that thecanon of thought of the contemporary West-ernized university was founded.

When the center of the world-systempassed from the Iberian Peninsula to North-Western Europe in the mid-17th century af-ter the Thirty Years War when the Dutchdefeated the Spanish armada, the epistemicprivilege passed together with the systemicpower from the empires of the Iberian Pen-insula to North-Western European empires.Kant’s anthropological racist view placingthe Pyrenees mountains as a dividing lineinside Europe to dene rationality and irra-tionality is just following this 17th centurygeopolitical power shift. Kant applied to theIberian Peninsula in the 18th century thesame racist views that the Iberian Peninsula

applied to the rest of the world during the16th century. This is important in order tounderstand why Portuguese and Spaniards

are also out of the canon of thought in theWesternized university today despite beingat the center of the world-system created af-ter 1492. Since the late 18th century, it is onlymen from ve countries (France, England,Germany, Italy and the USA) who are theones monopolizing the privilege and au-thority of canons of knowledge productionin the Westernized university.

In the face of the challenge represented by Eurocentered modernity and its epistem-ic racist/sexist colonial structures of knowl-edge, Enrique Dussel proposes Transmo-

dernity as the project to fulll the unnishedproject of decolonization. The “Trans” ofTransmodernity means “beyond.” Whatdoes it mean to go beyond Eurocenteredmodernity?

If the Western colonial project of geno-cide/epistemicide was to some extent suc-cessful in particular spaces around theworld, it was a huge failure in its overall re-sults in most of the world. Critical Indige-nous, Muslim, Jewish, African and womenthought as well as many other criticalknowledges from the Global South are still

alive. After 500 years of coloniality of knowl-edge there is no cultural nor epistemic tradi-tion in an absolute sense outside to Eurocen-tered modernity. All were affected byEurocentered modernity and even aspectsof Eurocentrism were also internalized inmany of these epistemologies. However,this does not mean that every tradition is inan absolute sense inside and that there is nooutside to Western epistemology. There arestill non-Western epistemic perspectivesthat have a relative exteriority from Eurocen-tered modernity. They were affected bygenocide/epistemicide but not fully de-stroyed. It is this relative exteriority that ac-cording to Enrique Dussel, provides thehope and possibility for a Transmodernworld: “a world where many worlds arepossible” to use the Zapatista slogan.





The existence of epistemic diversityprovides the potential for struggles of decol-onization and depatriarchalization that are

not centered anymore in Western-centricepistemologies and world views. To move beyond Eurocentered modernity, Dusselproposes a decolonial project that takes seri-ously the critical thinking of the epistemictraditions of the Global South. It is fromthese diverse traditions that we can buildprojects that will take different ideas and in-stitutions appropriated by Eurocentred mo-dernity and to decolonize them in differentdirections. In Eurocentric modernity, theWest kidnapped and monopolized the de-nition of Democracy, Human Rights, Wom-

en liberation, Economy, etc. Transmoderni-ty implies redening these elements indifferent directions according to the epis-temic diversity of the world towards apluriverse of meaning and a pluriversalworld.

If people from the Global South do notfollow the Western hegemonic denition,they are immediately denounced and mar-ginalized from the global community, beingaccused of fundamentalism. For example,when the Zapatistas talk about democracythey are not doing it from a Western-centric

perspective. They propose a project of de-mocracy that is quite different from liberaldemocracy. They redene democracy fromthe indigenous perspective of “command-ing while obeying” with the “Caracoles” asthe democratic institutional practice. How-ever, to use a different concept of democracyin Eurocentered modernity is denounced asa form of fundamentalism. The same withthe concept of feminism. If Muslim womendevelop an “Islamic feminism” they are im-mediately denounced by EurocenteredWestern feminists as patriarchal and funda-mentalist. Transmodernity is an invitationto produce from the different political-epis-temic projects existing in the world today aredenition of the many elements appropri-ated by Eurocentered modernity and treat-ed as if naturally and inherently European,

toward a decolonial project of liberation be-yond the “Capitalist/Patriarchal West-ern-centric/Christian-centric Modern/Co-

lonial World-System.” As Dussel states:When I speak of Trans-modernity, Iam referring to a global project thatseeks to transcend European orNorth American Modernity. It is aproject that is not post-modern,since post-Modernity is a still-in-complete critique of Modernity byEuropean and North America. In-stead, Trans-modernity is a task thatis, in my case, expressed philosoph-ically, whose point of departure is

that which has been discarded, deval-ued, and judged useless among glob-al cultures, including colonized orperipheral philosophies… (Dussel2008b: 19-20)

Moreover, Transmodernity calls for in-ter-philosophical political dialogues to pro-duce pluriverses of meaning where the newuniverse is a pluriverse. However, Trans-modernity is not equivalent to a liberal mul-ticulturalist celebration of the epistemic di-versity of the world where the power

structures are left intact. Transmodernity isa recognition of epistemic diversity withoutepistemic relativism. The call for epistemicpluriversality as opposed to epistemic uni-versality is not equivalent to a relativist po-sition. On the contrary, Transmodernity ac-knowledges the need for a shared andcommon universal project against capital-ism, patriarchy, imperialism and coloniality.But it rejects a universality of solutionswhere one denes for the rest what “thesolution” is. Uni-versality in European mo-dernity has meant “one that denes for the

rest.” Transmodernity calls for a pluriverseof solutions where “the many denes for themany.” From different cultural and epistem-ic traditions there will be different responsesand solutions to similar problems. TheTransmodern horizon has as a goal to pro-duce pluriversal concepts, meanings and





philosophies as well as a pluriveral world.As Dussel states, Transmodernity is

…oriented towards a pluriversal fu-

ture global philosophy. This project isnecessarily trans-modern , and thusalso trans-capitalist… For a longtime, perhaps for centuries, themany diverse philosophical tradi-tions will each continue to followtheir own paths, but nonetheless aglobal analogical project of atrans-modern pluriverse (otherthan universal, and not post-mod-ern) appears on the horizon. Now,‘other philosophies’ are possible,

because ‘another world is possible’—as is proclaimed by the Zapa-tista Liberation Movement in Chi-apas, Mexico. (Dussel 2008b:20)

VI. CONCLUSION

This discussion has enormous implica-tions for the decolonization of the Western-ized university. So far, the Westernized uni-versity operates under the assumption ofthe uni-versalism where “one (Western men

from ve countries) denes for the rest”what is truthful and valid knowledge. Todecolonize the structures of knowledge ofthe Westernized university will requireamong other things to:

1) acknowledge the provincialism andepistemic racism/sexism that consti-tute the foundational epistemic struc-tures as a result of the genocidal/epis-temicidal colonial/patriarchal projectsof the 16th century;

2) break with the uni-versalism where one(“uni”) denes for the rest, in this case,the one is Western man epistemology;

3) bring epistemic diversity to the canon ofthought to create a pluri-verse of mean-ings and concepts where the inter-epis-temic conversation among many epis-

temic traditions produce newre-denitions of old concepts and cre-ates new pluriversal concepts with “the

many dening for the many” (plu-ri-verse) instead of “one for the rest”(uni-verse).

If Westernized universities assumethese three programmatic points, it wouldstop being Westernized and a Uni-versity. Itwill turn from a Westernized Uni-versityinto a Decolonial Pluri-versity. If Kant’s andHumboldt’s Eurocentered modern racist/sexist epistemic projects became the epis-temic foundation of the Westernized uni-versity since the late 18th century as a result

of three hundred years of genocide/episte-micide in the world, Enrique Dussel’s Trans-modernity is the new epistemic foundationof the future Decolonial Pluri-versity whoseknowledge production will be at the serviceof a world beyond the “Capitalist/Patriar-chal Western-centric/Christian-centricModern/Colonial World-System.”

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anzaldúa, Gloria (1987) Borderlands/La Frontera:The New Mestiza. (San Francisco: Spin-sters/Aunt Lute).

Barrios Aguilera, Manuel (2009) La suerte de losvencidos: Estudios y refexiones sobre lacuestión morisca. (Granada: Universidadde Granada).

Caro Baroja, Julio (1991) Los moriscos del Reino deGranada (Madrid: Ediciones Istmo).

Carrasco, Rafael (2009) Deportados en nombre deDios: La explusión de los moriscos cuarto cen-tenario de una ignominia. (Barcelona: Edi-ciones Destino).

Castro-Gomez, Santiago (2003) La Hybris delPunto Cero: Ciencia, Raza e Ilustración en la

Nueva Granada (1750-1816) (Bogotá: Edito-ra Pontíca de la Universidad Javeriana).

Crenshaw, Kimberlé (1991) “Mapping the Mar-gins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics,and Violence against Women of Color.”Stanford Law Review 43, 1241-1279.

De Sousa Santos, Boaventura (2010) Epistemolo- gias del sur. Mexico: Siglo XXI.





Descartes, Rene (2013) Discours de la Méthode(Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress).

Dominguez Ortiz, Antonio (2009) Moriscos: la

mirada de un historiador. (Granada: Univer-sidad de Granada).Dussel, Enrique (1977) Filosofía de Liberación.

(México: Edicol).Dussel, Enrique (1979) El episcopado latinoameri-

cano y la liberación de los pobres (1504-1620) (Mexico: Centro de Reexión Teológica,A.C.).

Dussel (1992) Historia de la Iglesia en América Lati-na: Medio Milenio de Coloniaje y Liberación (Madrid, Spain: Mundo Negro-EsquilaMisional).

Dussel, Enrique (1995) The Invention of the Ameri-cas. New York: Continuum.

Dussel, Enrique (2008a) “Anti-meditaciones car-tesianas: sobre el origen del anti-discursolosóco de la modernidad.” Tabula Rasa No. 9: 153-197.

Dussel, Enrique (2008b) “A New Age in the His-tory of Philosophy: The World DialogueBetween Philosophical Traditions.” PrajñãVihãra: Journal of Philosophy and Religion, Vol. 9,No. 1: 1-21.

Fanon, Frantz (2010) Piel Negra, Máscara Blancas (Madrid: AKAL).

Federici, Silvia (2004) Caliban and the Witch:Women, The Body and Primitive Accumula-tion (New York: Autonomedia).

Foucault, Michel (1996) Genealogía del racismo. LaPlata, Argentina Colección Caronte En-sayos.

Galán Sánchez, Ángel (2010) Una sociedad entransición: Los granadinos de mudéjares amoriscos. (Granada: Universidad deGranada).

Garrido Aranda, Antonio (1980) Moriscos e Indi-os: Precedentes Hispánicos de la Evangeli-zación de México (México: UniversidadNacional Autónoma de México).

Grosfoguel, Ramon (2009) “Human Rights andAnti-Semitism After Gaza” Human Archi-tecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowl-edge , Vol. VII, issue No. 2 (Spring): 89-101

Grosfoguel, Ramón (2011) “DecolonizingPost-Colonial Studies and Paradigms ofPolitical-Economy: Transmodernity, De-colonial Thinking and Global Coloniali-

ty” Transmodernity: Journal of PeripheralCultural Production of the Luso-HispanicWorld Vol. 1, No. 1: 1-38 http://escholar-ship.org/uc/item/21k6t3fq

Grosfoguel, Ramon (2012) “The Dilemmas ofEthnic Studies in the United States: Be-tween Liberal Multiculturalism, IdentityPolitics, Disciplinary Colonization, and

Decolonial Epistemologies” Human Archi-tecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowl-edge , Vol. X, No. 1: 81-90. http://www.ok-c i r . c o m / W E B % 2 0 P d f s % 2 0 X % 2 0Winter%2012/Grosfoguel.pdf.

Haraway, Donna (1988), “Situated Knowledges:the Science Question in Feminism and thePrivilege of Partial Perspective,” FeministStudies , 14, 575-99.

Kettami, Ali (2012) El resurgir del Islam en Al-Án-dalus (Barcelona: Abadia Editors)

Maíllo Salgado, Felipe (2004) De la desaparición deAl-Andalus (Madrid: Abada Editores).

Maldonado-Torres, Nelson (2008a) “Religion,Conquête et Race dans la Fondation dumonde Moderne/Colonial.” In Islamopho-bie dans le Monde Moderne , 205-238. Edited

by Mohamed Mestiri, Ramon Grosfogueland El Yamine Soum. Paris: IIIT.

Maldonado-Torres, Nelson (2008b) Against War

(Durham and London: Duke UniversityPress).Martín Casares, Aurelia (2000) La esclavitud en la

Granada del Siglo XVI. (Granada: Universi-dad de Granada y Diputación Provincialde Granada).

Martín de la Hoz, Juan Carlos (2010) El Islam yEspaña (Madrid: RIALP).

Nimako, Kwame and Willemsen, Glenn (2011)The Dutch Atlantic: Slavery, Abolition andEmancipation (London: Pluto Press).

Perceval, Jose María. (1992). “Animalitos delseñor: Aproximación a una teoría de lasanimalizaciones propias y del otro, sea en-emigo o siervo, en la España imperial(1550-1650)” en Areas: Revista de CienciasSociales (Universidad de Murcia), No. 14:173-184.

Perceval, José María. (1997). Todos son uno. Ar-quetipos, xenofobia y racismo. La imagen delmorisco en la monarquía española durante lossiglos XVI y XVII. Almería: Instituto de Es-tudios Almerienses.

Grosfoguel_The Structure of Knowledge in Westernized Universities- Epistemic

Documents

Transcript of Grosfoguel_The Structure of Knowledge in Westernized Universities- Epistemic