Decolonizing the ‘Global’: The Coloniality of Method and the Problem of the Unit of Analysis

Ascione, Gennaro

doi:10.1177/1749975516644843

Cited by 20 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Scientific knowledge produced by old colonial metropolises (mainly Europe and the United States) would have biases in its origin, such as Eurocentrism, Occidentalism, Neocolonialism, Westernalism, and the like; and theories-such as general systems theory-have significant shortcomings in seeking to explain other societies. (Ascione, 2016;Gunder-Frank, 2007;Leite, 2017).…”

Section: Against Methodological Nativismmentioning

confidence: 99%

The unity of (social systems) science: The legacy of Bertalanffy

Cadenas

2019

Syst Res Behav Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article discusses Bertalanffy's project for the unity of science in the particular field of social sciences. The aim is to analyse shortcomings and to sketch new approaches to this matter. We identify two main obstacles, namely, the inner differentiation of social systems science and the threat of methodological nativism to Bertalanffy's project. Furthermore, the article examines the concepts of scientific system and cosmopolitanism as opposites to such obstacles and as legacies of Bertalanffy's view of science as well. The conclusion resumes the arguments and proposes new paths for general systems theory. KEYWORDS cosmopolitanism, general systems theory, methodological nativism, unity of science, world society 1 The same idea is proposed by Midgley (2007) but considered only from a methodological point of view.

show abstract

Section: Against Methodological Nativismmentioning

confidence: 99%

The unity of (social systems) science: The legacy of Bertalanffy

Cadenas

2019

Syst Res Behav Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Knowledge produced in “peripheries” is typically disregarded or completely unknown in the “centers.” It is not hard to recognize that Latin American psychology has not had a meaningful impact in North American or European psychological research or teaching. By and large psychology produced “peripheries” have two destinies: On the one hand, following Ascione (2016), psychology goes through a process of sterilization : “the exoticization of nondominant epistemologies and their displacement from the realm of theoretical production to that of particularistic cultures, standpoints, and spacetimes unable to express transformative universalisms” (p. 4); on the other, it is normalized , that is, “centers” have the capacity of appropriating “peripheric” ideas and methods, reconfigure them according to their own criteria, and then send it back to “peripheries” as the relevant and verified versions of those knowledges (Siskind, 2011). A clear case of the latter is the “rediscovery” of Lev S. Vygotsky in the latter part of the 20th century, where the U.S. reception of his ideas became the standard interpretation for decades in the west (García, 2019; van der Veer & Yasnitsky, 2016).…”

Section: The Center/periphery Distinctionmentioning

confidence: 99%

To and from Latin America: Remarks about the history of psychology in “peripheries”.

García

2024

Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This text presents a series of historiographical arguments on the possibility of producing a Latin American history of psychology that can also be relevant for other contexts. First, some proposed perspectives are oriented towards the study of knowledge circulation, in order to show the limitations of critical history of psychology thus far. Second, the distinction between "centers" and "peripheries" is examined to consider both the problematic assumptions of these notions and reconsider their positive aspects. Third, the difficulties to consider when discussing Latin America as a homogeneous space or adequate region to frame the histories of psychologies in the subcontinent are discussed. Finally, the framework of knowledge circulations is proposed as an alternative to avoid teleological, historiographical and political assumptions, to productively consider the communications between "peripheral" regions, and also to reconsider the kind of problems relevant for the region's history of psychology. Public Significance StatementThis article comments the limitations of a history of psychology focused on North America and Western Europe contexts and proposes a framework to revise and renew Latin American historical research in Psychology by fostering the exchanges among peripherical regions.

show abstract

“…Eurocentric knowledge, ideas and thought are not objective, neutral or universal, but represent specific and contextual worldviews, experiences and points of view of those who developed them (Akena, 2012; Lebakeng et al, 2006). The notions of “international” and “global” have been framed and theorised in the Eurocentric scholarship through the “Western colonial gaze” (Ascione, 2016, p. 318) and Western worldviews and cultural norms (Basaran & Olsson, 2019). Ascione (2016) argues that the hegemonic Eurocentric conception of international and global – developed through epistemicides, colonial destruction and continued maintenance of coloniality – does not accept the plurality of ideas, worldviews, narratives, knowledges and ways of knowing.…”

Section: Dhet's Policy Framework: a Missed Opportunity To Rethink Int...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Critical Review of the Policy Framework for Internationalisation of Higher Education in South Africa

Heleta

2022

Journal of Studies in International Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2019, the South African government approved the Department of Higher Education and Training's (DHET) Policy Framework for Internationalisation of Higher Education in South Africa. The framework provides policy guidelines universities will need to follow when developing institutional internationalisation policies. Using critical discourse analysis, this review posits that the DHET missed an opportunity to rethink internationalisation in line with critical debates and scholarship on transformation and decolonisation of knowledge. Instead of aligning internationalisation of higher education in South Africa with progressive visions of contextually relevant and decolonised education, the framework reflects dominant Eurocentric approaches, practices and definitions of internationalisation. As such, DHET’s framework fails to provide a much-needed guide for development of institutional policies that can contribute to higher education internationalisation in South Africa becoming more authentically international and embracing a more representative set of global knowledges and ways of knowing in a horizontal, pluralistic and non-hegemonic way.

show abstract

Decolonizing the ‘Global’: The Coloniality of Method and the Problem of the Unit of Analysis

Cited by 20 publications

References 34 publications

The unity of (social systems) science: The legacy of Bertalanffy

The unity of (social systems) science: The legacy of Bertalanffy

To and from Latin America: Remarks about the history of psychology in “peripheries”.

Critical Review of the Policy Framework for Internationalisation of Higher Education in South Africa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About