Conference Program

We live in a pluricultural world, composed of a mosaic of societies that possess their own ways of life, languages, arts, histories, and knowledge—ways of being in the world rooted in territories with which they have maintained a long-standing relationship, such that they are inextricably intertwined in what Bruno Latour terms “nature-culture.” Many of these peoples, after years of struggle against colonialism and the oppression of nation-states, have achieved conditions that allow them to preserve their way of life and have gained recognition for their cultural expressions, language, and traditions. However, in such recognitions there is often a component that is absent or mentioned only superficially: their mode of knowing—that is, the way in which knowledge is generated, transmitted, and applied within their communities—and its validity in the so-called contemporary world.

Why is this the case? The hypothesis presented here is that this phenomenon stems from the enormous prominence that science has achieved and maintained to this day through its complete integration into social life and culture. Born in the midst of the Renaissance in the burgeoning cities of Europe, science and technology soon became a central element in the domination of the rural world by the then-emerging bourgeoisie—peasants were considered “ignorant and illiterate (rustici),” as they were later in the European empires' colonization of the world, and faithfully accompanied, in the second half of the 20th century, the developmentalist theory that facilitated the persistence of these (now neocolonial) relations of domination to the present day. Its growth is due to this close relationship between science and power.

In this evolution, the attributes that characterize it have been shaped by an expansionist narrative; it is therefore, intrinsically and structurally, an institution with a marked colonial bias and neocolonial overtones. It is underpinned by robust narratives, including those used to silence dissent, as is currently the case in universities across the United States.

However, as a social construct, science is not monolithic; it bears the imprint of other perspectives—from scientists who sought to combat such bias, and from others who believed in its promises to improve the world. In short, it also reflects certain traits that have been established and maintained in the society in which we live: pluralistic, heterogeneous, with humanistic undertones, complex, and inclined to be oriented in opposition to power. It is this latter aspect that forms the basis for an intercultural dialogue of knowledge.

Even so, given its claim to truth, its scope, and its power (rooted in ubiquitous technology), it has overwhelmingly dominated all other forms of knowledge (from the humanities and the arts to the knowledge possessed by so-called non-Western peoples, including that of European peasants). To such an extent that, in most intercultural education projects, the dilemmas of how to approach science are often a stumbling block that cannot be avoided. Hence the need to decolonize science in order to decolonize knowledge in the broadest sense. This presentation offers a proposal for reflection and discussion in this regard.