| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
150568
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In this article, I offer a critical historical analysis of modernity, identifying tensions between logics of modernity that rely on premises of colonial and capitalist modernity as a universalizing project, and those that instead propose an alternative decolonial project. As part of the latter, I outline the contours of an emergent and distinct political project premised on deep relational ontologies between humans, and humans and nature. I develop the analysis in three interrelated parts. I begin by critically reconstructing the justifications for the universal project of colonial and capitalist modernity and the “method of rule” through which it has been realized. In part two, drawing on case examples primarily from Latin America, I identify and discuss the opening toward an alternative political project of negotiating between worlds with the potential to challenge fundamentally the logics of universal modernity. In part three, I conclude with some critical insights into the colonial logics of modernity, emphasizing that they have always been contested. I argue that, given the inequalities and crises of modernity, there is an urgent need to reflect critically on the concrete possibilities afforded through an alternative political project, at the core of which are struggles for social justice without nature–culture distinctions. Ultimately, this project fractures the international and, instead, aspires toward the pluriverse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
085939
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Citizenship is the cornerstone of Colombian President Alvaro Uribe's democratic security policy. In this paper I ask what kind of citizen is formed under this policy. I examine the premises of citizenship when implemented under the double logic of democracy and security, drawing upon the thoughts of Hannah Arendt and Michel Foucault. My conclusion is that in Colombia the tensions between security and democracy are resolved with a bias towards the security rather than the democracy side of the equation. The consequence is the formation of a citizen less inclined to claim his or her rights politically and more prone to 'voluntary obedience' in return for protection; rather than a lasting peace this engenders a continuation of the barbarisms, this time in the name of securing citizens. I point out that the answers to these contradictions are found in the resistance movements of indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities, peasants, peace communities and the movement of victims of all armed actors. I suggest a framework for analysis inspired by decolonial thinkers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|