Ahorasipaso. n.d.
Interculturalidad in practice: escaping postcolonialism or reinforcing
the Timeless Other?
Translating interculturalidad into practices
The concept of interculturalidad, as coined by intellectuals and political organizations, travels around various contexts within Latin America which gives it heterogenous meanings that depend on the purpose for which interculturalidad is used (de la Cadena 2006). However, these translation processes do not materialize smoothly and should be looked upon from the contexts in which they take place (Aman 2015; Solano-Campos 2013). According to Orozco (2003), the implementation of interculturalidad as a genuine alternative model puts a challenge on both academia and politics. The latter requires that academics and politicians have to take the concept in its totality, which can be done by envisioning interculturalidad as an “ethical-political project” that seeks to transform all societal spheres. This holistic vision of interculturalidad has the aim to create a pluricultural state where all forms of knowledge and ways of doing things are given equal value (Tubino 2013; Pérez Ruiz 2016).
Unfortunately, as also indicated in the section on: “following the pathway towards interculturalidad” and as will be visible in the way interculturalidad is implemented within policies, the monocultural and homogenous basis of Latin American states does not allow such an unfolding (Tubino 2013; Orozco 2003). This goes together with the disparity between theorizations of interculturalidad and their translations into actual practices and policies (Aman 2015). Within a monocultural and homogenous state formation, the incorporation and translation of indigenous knowledges into other systems often goes together with its (partial) destruction and the loss of its critical potentialities to enhance alternative forms of thinking (Pérez Ruiz 2016). More concretely, indigenous knowledges are ‘domesticated’ and ‘folklorizated’ in order to be able to operate into neoliberal and monocultural state mechanisms, which reinforces power imbalances instead of subverting them (Pérez Ruiz 2016; Tubino 2013; Hernández Reyna and Castillo Cocom 2021). This section briefly discusses these problems embedded in the processes of translation around interculturalidad by looking at the case of universidades interculturales (intercultural universities) and the way this concept is being implemented in these institutions.
On Universidades Interculturales: the road towards horizontal knowledge exchanges?
In the case of Mexico, there are various universidades interculturales which are oriented towards the formation of students as competent translators between indigenous communities, non-governmental organizations and governmental institutions (Dietz 2019). As future spokespersons of indigenous communities, these students are learning to respond to indigenous needs and problems by creating dialogues and horizontal structures between various actors (Dietz 2019; Secretaría de Educación Pública de México 2018; Llyod ed. 2019; Tubino 2013). In order to work towards horizontality, universidades interculturales (re)claim indigenous knowledges as valid and legitimate ones (Olivera Rodríguez 2014; Secretaría de Educación Pública de México 2018). This equality and respectful attitude towards difference forms then the basis to create horizontal dialogues in which knowledges are exchanged in ways that guard their autonomy (Pérez Ruiz 2016; Olivera Rodríguez 2014; Orozco 2003). In this manner, universidades interculturales attempt to resist indigenismo and mestizaje discourses by taking indigenous knowledges in their own right (Hernández Reyna and Castillo Cocom 2021; Pérez Ruiz 2016). [Within the section of “following the pathway towards interculturalidad”, indigenismo and mestizaje are explained.]
In the light of repaying the historical debt of past colonial practices that marginalized and stigmatized indigenous languages and cultures, universidades interculturales want to preserve and revitalize them (Hernández Reyna and Castillo Cocom 2021: 148; Secretaría de Educación Pública de México 2018). The latter is visible in the objectives of the Universidad Intercultural del Estado de México, which focuses on: “activities that contribute to (...) the process of revitalization and revalorization of original languages and cultures, as well as to the (...) generation of knowledge of native peoples [own translation].” (Universidad Intercultural del Estado de México, n.d.).
This preservation of indigenous knowledges is aimed at the strengthening of their autonomy in order for them to be equal partners in the dialogues with other, often seen as universally scientific or ‘modern’, forms of knowledge (Secretaría de Educación Pública de México 2018; Llyod ed. 2019). To go as well outside of the Mexican context, these equal dialogical knowledge exchanges are present within the vision of the Universidad Nacional lntercultural de la Amazonia, which is situated in Peru. This university explains a part of their logo in the following way:
“The two hands, in different colours, represent interculturalidad, in which the left hand is that of the native doctor, in a dynamical attitude that transmits his knowledges or magical powers towards the hand on the right, that represents other cultures, which are in a more receptive position and which complement the permanent interchange of knowledges and cultures, which is daily work in the life of the Universidad Nacional lntercultural de la Amazonia [own translation].” (Universidad Nacional Intercultural de la Amazonía 2020).
Universidad Nacional Intercultural de la Amazonía 2020
Needless to say, for all this to be realized universidades interculturales focus on the participation of students from indigenous communities (Olivera Rodríguez 2014; Secretaría de Educación Pública de México 2018). These students are educated according to their future professionalization, so that they can become competent agents capable of engaging themselves for the development of indigenous communities (Secretaría de Educación Pública de México 2018; Olivera Rodríguez 2014). These developmental goals are expressed by the Universidad Intercultural del Estado de México as: “the provision of high quality educational programs that are aimed at training professionals and intellectuals committed to economic and cultural development at the community, regional and national levels [own translation].” (Universidad Intercultural del Estado de México, n.d.).
Universidades Interculturales - From ethnogenesis to functional interculturalidad for neoliberal states
Based on these cases of Mexico and Peru and according to my own reasoning from them, universidades interculturales are aiming to: 1) revitalize and preserve indigenous languages and cultures, 2) create horizontal and equal dialogues between different ontological and epistemological positions, 3) provide qualitative education that forms students as competent development workers. Although these goals might seem to work towards genuine change, each of these is sharply critiqued by different authors (Hernández Reyna and Castillo Cocom 2021; Pérez Ruiz 2016; Olivera Rodriguez 2014).
1. Revitalizing and preserving indigenous languages and cultures
To start with, Hernández Reyna and Castillo Cocom (2021) critique the practices behind universidades interculturales because they are resisting indigenism while at the same time reinforcing this discourse by returning to an ‘authentic indigenous identity’. Indigenism and its linear progression towards a homogenous mestizo culture made indigenous expressions symbols of ‘backwardness’ (Krotz 2006). Due to this (post) colonial ideology that denied the violence that has been done to indigenous peoples, universidades interculturales want to preserve and revitalize indigenous languages and cultures. (Hernández Reyna and Castillo Cocom 2021).
However, by victimizing indigenous peoples and claiming that their identity should be ‘recuperated’, old colonial essentialisms emerge and the indigenous “timeless Indian” is again the main subject of a politics of Otherness (Hernández Reyna and Castillo Cocom 2021; de la Cadena 2006: 224). Dietz (2019) argues that implementing indigenous languages as the linguas francas in universidades interculturales does not seek to use them as symbols for homogenous identities. Yet, its implementation often goes together with the performance of an essentialized, singular indigenousness (Hernández Reyna and Castillo Cocom 2021). These essentialisms create a dichotomy between ‘being indigenous or not being indigenous (mestizo)’ (Hernández Reyna and Castillo Cocom 2021). Moreover, the functionality behind interculturalidad is visible by looking at the officialization of ‘intercultural’ indigenous profiles within universidades interculturales (Tubino 2013; 2015; Hernández Reyna and Castillo Cocom 2021). Performing an imaginary, homogenous prehispanic identity forms a tool within a neoliberal ethno-bureaucracy that masks the perpetuation of relations of hierarchy and privileged positions. Hereby, the use of these indigenous profiles that emphasize the indigenous as victim, protects the dominant system from critique (Tubino 2013; Hernández Reyna and Castillo Cocom 2021; Giglioni 2017).
2. Horizontal and equal dialogues between different forms of knowledge
Universidades Interculturales tend to describe horizontal knowledge exchanges as those between traditional forms of knowledge and modern ones. According to Hernández Reyna and Castillo Cocom (2021), this distinction is problematic as it creates a substantial difference between indigenous and modern or scientific knowledge constructions. Furthermore, it reinforces indigenous knowledges as distinct isolated frameworks that have to be guarded against modern influences (Hernández Reyna and Castillo Cocom 2021). Instead of returning to supposedly ancestral knowledges that are static in time, Mignolo (2007) calls for a process of delinking through decentering, which implies the recognition of how indigenous cultures were translated in a particular way in order to come to Western universalisms. This indicates the interlinkages and commensurabilities between indigenous and modern forms of knowledge, which breaks down the dichotomy between them. The recognition of our different “cosmopolitan particularisms” opens up space for dialogical communication, which also entails gaps and uncertainties due to the alterities of different ontological positions (Ribeiro 2011: 288; de la Cadena 2015).
Moreover, these dialogical exchanges often form a pretendence of horizontality as universidades interculturales and the knowledge productions around interculturalidad still struggle to become more independent of Western hegemonic knowledge (Pérez-Ruiz 2016; de la Cadena 2006; Aman 2015). An example of this dependency and dominance of hegemonic institutions can be found in the suspension of the Ecuadorian Universidad pluricultural Amawtay Wasi in 2013 during the Correa administration. Seeing that this evaluation was based on Eurocentric academic criteria that denied the complexities and uncertainties of translating between different ontologies and epistemologies (Aman 2015; WAN 2003). Although the rhetoric of the universities focuses on the autonomy of indigenous knowledges within these dialogues, different parts are still secularized, translated and validated through comparisons with Western perspectives (Pérez-Ruiz 2016).
3. The neoliberal model behind Universidades Interculturales
Lastly, universidades Interculturales are critiqued because they embody a neoliberal developmental model that provides education to enable the insertion of individuals within the labor market, which demonstrates its dependency on occidental norms and values (Olivera Rodríguez 2014; Aman 2015). Moreover, the entanglement between development and capital creates hegemonic views on where indigenous communities should ‘head towards’ and on what should be done when working together with them. The former is visible in for example the strong focus of the Universidad Veracruzana Intercultural in Mexico on the improvement of the precarious living situations of indigenous peoples (Olivera Rodríguez 2014; Dietz 2019). This improvement can only be done through the creation of more wealth and income for indigenous peoples, instead of seeing better living conditions as something more holistic (Olivera Rodríguez 2014). As a result, the development model central in universidades interculturales leads to the continuation of interculturalidad as indigenism since it works towards a desired social transformation of indigenous communities that is dependent upon Western norms and values (Olivera Rodríguez 2014). If universidades interculturales are truly based on interculturalidad, should they then not also embrace other dynamics and logics that go further than Western logics of profit, linear development and prestation driven education?
Furthermore, these logics have pervasive effects as different students within the universidades interculturales do not enter the institutions for the sake of knowledge about interculturalidad but in the interest of receiving a certificate that leads to a job in for example tourism (Hernández Reyna and Castillo Cocom 2021; Dietz 2019). The fact that the actual participation of people from indigenous communities is rather small, might also demonstrate that the goal of universidades interculturales as responding to the needs of indigenous people is more an empty rhetorical claim within a developmental ethno-bureaucracy than an existing reality (Hernández Reyna and Castillo Cocom 2021).
How do we return to interculturalidad and its decolonial potentialities?
After the exploration of universidades interculturales and its critiques, the pertinent question seems to be about how to close the gap between theoretical ventures on interculturalidad and its actual practices, which is a challenge present in the work of many authors (Tubino 2013; Aman 2015; Walsh 2009, Escobar 2010). While some state that the potential behind interculturalidad lies in its capacity to be used as a transforming tool from below (Escobar 2010), others claim that genuine interculturalidad and its respect towards alternative ways of doing and thinking can only be catalyzed when it is implemented in state policy (Tubino 2013). And while one might think that the heterogenous meanings behind interculturalidad can be productive, others are convinced that this is one of the reasons for its failure to change existing postcolonial practices and discourses (Orozco 2003).
The how behind the translation of interculturalidad into practices has many normative roads, but in line with other authors we agree that the monocultural state that is based on neoliberal development does not provide a fertile ground (Tubino 2013; Orozco 2003; Pérez-Ruiz 2016; de la Cadena 2006; Olivera Rodríguez 2014; Hernández Reyna and Castillo Cocom 2021). To distance from functional interculturalidad that is central in Western-modelled homogenous states with ‘indigenous friendly aspects’, requires to embrace in a genuine way the autonomy of plural ways of being and doing (Tubino 2013; Pérez-Ruiz 2016; Fornet-Betancourt 2007; de la Cadena 2006). Embracing plurality and realizing herewith cognitive justice asks us to take things in their own right, which also means recognizing the impossibility of translating all aspects of indigenous knowledges to other worlds (Pérez-Ruiz 2016; Ribeiro 2011; de la Cadena 2015; Krotz 1997; Restrepo 2018; Viveiros de Castro 2004). These gaps in our knowing create the question if anthropologists can or even should be engaged in universalizing endeavors (de la Cadena 2006). As anthropologists we contributed to the creation of homogenous cultures, it might now be our time to deconstruct this dominant imaginary by demonstrating how the continuous negotiation of identities along the axis of global structures and local realities creates (a)world(s) full of epistemic pluralities and multiple ontologies (Hernández Reyna and Castillo Cocom 2021; de la Cadena 2006).
References
Aman, Robert. 2015. "Why Interculturalidad Is Not Interculturality." Cultural Studies (London, England), 29 (2): 205-28.
de la Cadena, Marisol. 2006. “The production of other knowledges and its tensions: From Andeanist anthropology to interculturalidad?” In World anthropologies: Disciplinary transformations within systems of power, edited by G. L. Ribeiro & A. Escobar (Eds.), 201-224. Oxford: Berg.
de la Cadena, Marisol. 2015. Earth Beings: Ecologies of Practice across Andean Worlds. Durham: Duke University Press.
Escobar, Arturo. 2010. "LATIN AMERICA AT A CROSSROADS." Cultural Studies (London, England), 24 (1): 1-65.
Fornet-Betancourt, Raúl. 2007. “La filosofía intercultural desde la perspectiva latinoamericana”. El Solar, 3 (3): 23-40. htpp://www.revistasolar.org.pe/3/03_betancourt.pdf
Giglioni, Daniele. 2017. Crítica de la víctima. Barcelona: Herder.
Krotz, Esteban. 1997. “Anthropologies of the South: Their rise, their silencing, their characteristics.” Critique of Anthropology 17 (3): 237-251.
Krotz, Esteban. 2006. “Mexican anthropology's ongoing search for identity.” In World anthropologies: Disciplinary transformations within systems of power, edited by G. L. Ribeiro & A. Escobar (Eds.), 87-109. Oxford: Berg.
Lloyd, Marion; Olivera Rodríguez, Inés; Salmerón Castro, Fernando I and Stefano Sartorello. 2019. Las universidades interculturales en México. Historia, desafíos y actualidad. México: UNAM, ISSUE, PUEES.
Mignolo, Walter D. 2007. "Delinking: The Rhetoric of Modernity, the Logic of Coloniality and the Grammar of De-coloniality." Cultural Studies (London, England), 21 (2-3): 449-514.
MTA - Teoria y Práctica de la Educación a Distancia. 2019. “Universidades Interculturales en México: Entrevista a Gunther Dietz sobre las Universidades Interculturales en México.” Youtube, October 26, 2019. Universidades Interculturales en México - YouTube
Olivera Rodríguez, Inés. 2014. “¿Desarrollo o Buen Vivir? Repensando la función social de la Universidad Intercultural desde el cuestionamiento al efecto educativo.” Anthropologica, 32 (33): 179-207.
Orozco, Delgado, Margot. 2003. “Interculturalidad y política. Desafíos y posibilidades”. Anthropologica, 21 (21): 269-273.
Pérez Ruiz, Maya Lorena. 2016. "La Traducción Y La Hibridación Como Problemas Para Una Interculturalidad Autónoma, Colaborativa Y Descolonizadora." Liminar (San Cristóbal De Las Casas, Mexico) 14 (1): 15-29.
Restrepo, E. 2018. “World anthropologies.” In The International Encyclopedia of Anthropology, edited by H. Callan (Ed.), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118924396.wbiea2119
Reyna, Miriam Hernández, and Juan A. Castillo Cocom. 2021. “Ser O No Ser Indígena”: Oscilaciones Identitarias Dentro De La Interculturalidad De Estado En México." The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology, 26 (1): 147-71.
Ribeiro, Gustavo Lins. 2011. Why (post)colonialism and (de)coloniality are not enough: A post[1]imperialist perspective. Postcolonial studies, 14 (3): 285-297.
Secretaría de Educación Pública (Mexico). 2018. “Universidades Interculturales.” Youtube, August 9, 2018. Universidades Interculturales - YouTube
Solano-Campos, Ana T. 2013. "Bringing Latin America's 'Interculturalidad' into the Conversation." Journal of Intercultural Studies 34 (5): 620-30.
Tubino, Fidel. 2013. Translated by John H Sinnigen. "Intercultural Practices in Latin American Nation States." Journal of Intercultural Studies 34 (5): 604-19.
Tubino, Fidel. 2015. La interculturalidad en cuestión. Lima: Universidad Católica del Perú.
Universidad Intercultural del Estado de México - Secretaría de Educación. n.d. “Acerca de.” Accessed January 3, 2022. Acerca de | Universidad Intercultural del Estado de México (edomex.gob.mx)
Universidad Nacional Intercultural de la Amazonía. 2020. “UNIA – Isologo.” Accessed January 3, 2022. https://unia.edu.pe/bienvenida/logotipo/
Viveiros de Castro, E. 2004. Perspectival anthropology and the method of controlled equivocation. Tipití: Journal of the Society for the Anthropology of Lowland South America, 2 (1): 3-22.
Walsh, Catherine. 2009 Interculturalidad, Estado, Sociedad: Luchas (de)coloniales De Nuestra época. Quito: Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar.
WAN. 2003. A conversation about a World Anthropologies Network. Social Anthropology, 11 (2): 265-269.