Instead of building alliances with affine schools of thought, some scholars are busy building their careers on critiquing those who should otherwise be potential allies in an effort to dismantle the modern/colonial world. Carving more space for one’s field seems to be the goal of these careerist critics. They target and critique individual authors that form part of the so-called decolonial turn in social theory to dismiss a body of work they likely know little about. Special issues, articles, and even books are written to dismiss what is likely to be known only partially and superficially given the authors’ known citation practices. As a philosopher in the United States wrote, they are unimpressed by decolonial thought from Latin America and the Caribbean. The hubris is evident, especially since authors from the region aren’t cited, nor are they seriously engaged. This philosopher’s citation practices in other publications also reveal that they have hardly read scholarship published in Spanish or Portuguese. Even translated work from the region aren’t cited. That’s precisely why I’m refusing to cite them in an effort to engage in the politics of citation from below. Why give them visibility?
Your groundedness, figuratively and literally, makes you such a wise guide through these inane internecine debates that undermine actual efforts to resist and build otherwise. Great piece.
Your groundedness, figuratively and literally, makes you such a wise guide through these inane internecine debates that undermine actual efforts to resist and build otherwise. Great piece.