This essay opens the question of translation so as to reflect upon the movement at the borders of modernity. In particular it focuses on the question of translation as erasure, that is, as a mechanism through which modernity expands and demarcates its proper place, its territory. This operation of translation renders invisible everything that does not fit in the "parameters of legibility" of modernity's epistemic territory. Modernity's epistemic territory designates both the realm where the discourses of modernity thrive and their very horizon of intelligibility. Translation brings to view the epistemic borders where a politics of visibility is at play between erasure and visibility, disdain and recognition. To recognize the political content of modernity's epistemic territory is to recognize that the question of global social inequality cannot be addressed simply as the consequence of an incomplete modernity. It is to acknowledge that knowledge has been part and parcel of the modern / colonial systems of oppression and destitution. The epistemic territorial practices are such that all that lies outside their realm is made invisible, is excluded from the real and is actively disdained, even unnamed. At the borders their is the movement of rejection but also the movement of incorporation; where translation appears as a process of selection, classification and appropriation that erases all that does not fit into the proper place of the already established epistemic territory. The final part of the essay looks for that which escapes from the movement of translation as incorporation and addresses the question of untranslatability. This question help us reveal elements that are outside the field of appropriation of modernity. Finally we speak of translation as struggle. Thinking in terms of epistemic translation is already to begin thinking with a vocabulary of transition, of the borders; not transition in terms of chronological change, but rather referring to a transit at the borders of modernity's epistemic territory. The epistemic hegemony of modernity rests in a politics of border keeping, a politics of epistemic translation. Translation as ErasureTranslation designates the permeability, the movement at the borders of a given language, a given system of meaning and more generally, of a given epistemic territory. This essay reveals two divergent processes. The first, translation as erasure, speaks of the coloniality of translation; that is, the way in which translation performs a border-keeping role and expands the epistemic territory of modernity. The second, translation as plurality, speaks of the configuration of dialogues and the thinking of the borders that challenges the modern/colonial system of oppression. The fight

What does it mean to think of social struggles as epistemic struggles? What happens if we see social struggles as questioning our worldviews? This paper seeks to advance answers to these questions as an alternative route of engagement in the Activism 2010+ debate. In our view, to think social struggles as epistemic struggles is an invitation not so much to study them as objects, but rather to recognize the questions that they pose to our forms of understanding. With this, we aim to instigate an engagement with social struggles that includes not only their relation to economic and political forms of domination (e.g. neoliberal globalization), but also their capacity to generate knowledges and reveal the limits of our academic frameworks.Our entry points in the Activism 2010+ debate are the questions 'why now ' and 'what makes it distinctive'. These questions point towards establishing a temporal demarcation.We can recognize the importance of this debate in order to see, for example the role that new technologies are playing in the articulation of contemporary activisms. Moreover, the Activisms 2010+ debate is from our perspective, a contribution to the understanding of 'different waves' of political activism traditionally associated in the literature on social movements to claims for political rights (XVII-XIX centuries), socio-economic rights (1950-1980s) and rights of recognition (1980s-to date). Although, following Zibechi (2005), we see in Latin America a movement that predates 2010 and that shows the emergence of activisms that are not anymore focused on claiming for rights in relation to the state, but that are fighting for 'dignity in autonomy'. These activisms have one of its most visible examples in the Zapatistas. They are activisms that fight to enact dignified life-worlds in autonomy from the major institutional framework of modernity: the state and the market. They are producing and theorizing other forms of the political, other economies, other knowledges.

This paper presents the problem of the mediation between modernity and coloniality; and it explores the usefulness of the question of time to address this mediation. How can we think the simulation of modernity together with the oblivion of coloniality? The text brings the critique of time to the centre of the modernity/ coloniality debate. It shows that chronology, chronological narratives are at the heart of the modern/ colonial systems of oppression; and that the movements of resistance against ‘hegemonic globalization’ are not only questioning the material structures of oppression, but also the universality of the modern idea of time. It is an invitation to think about the politics of time that are at play in modernity/ coloniality. Here, the modernity/ coloniality tandem is seen as the institution of a politics of time that is geared towards the production of specific economic and political practices oriented to sever the oppressed from their past, their memory. The ensuing temporal discrimination makes invisible all that does not belong to modern temporality. Under this light, it is possible to see how the practices of resistance to the modernity/ coloniality project embody a different politics of time, one that rescues memory as a site of struggle, one that involves the possibility of inhabiting and rescuing the past. These practices of resistance are thus seen as fights against temporal discrimination: fights against invisibility. By addressing the imposition of modern time we can better understand the widespread injustice and violence of modernity/ coloniality. Furthermore, the question of time can help us to bridge the gap between the simulacra of modernity and the oblivion of coloniality.

No abstract