Alternative Global Entanglements: ‘Detachment from Knowledge’ and the Limits of Decolonial Emancipation
| Author | Pablo Orellana Matute |
| DOI | 10.1177/03058298211040162 |
| Published date | 01 June 2021 |
| Date | 01 June 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Conference |
https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298211040162
Millennium: Journal of
International Studies
2021, Vol. 49(3) 498 –529
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/03058298211040162
journals.sagepub.com/home/mil
Alternative Global
Entanglements: ‘Detachment
from Knowledge’ and
the Limits of Decolonial
Emancipation
Pablo Orellana Matute
Queen Mary, University of London, UK
Abstract
While the call for broader conceptions about the political in general, and International
Relations in particular, points to the need to redirect attention to the entanglements of
societies, species and environments, in this article I address the way in which this proposed
shift might still be reproducing anthropocentric understandings of global politics if serious
attention is not devoted to the ontological foundations of the discipline. To do so, I first engage
in a problematisation of decolonial efforts drawn from the Latin American experience that
stress knowledge diversification as a means to emancipation. I then attempt to demonstrate
that an exclusive intellectual engagement with entanglements and detachments might
also be misleading, for their conventional conception is dependent on certain ontological
commitments inherent to knowledge production, namely mind-world dualism and the linear
conception of time. I therefore propose the notion of ‘detachment from knowledge’ as an
alternative ontological practice through which IR students can themselves grapple with the
dualist and anthropocentric oppressor/victim logic at the root of any emancipatory project.
Such practice, I finally argue, not only allows us to understand the ‘global’ as indivisible, but
also to engage with it beyond the exclusive pursuit of emancipation through knowledge,
however diverse or decolonial it might be.
Keywords
philosophical ontology, emancipation, entanglements, coloniality, relationality
Résumé
Tandis que les appels à adopter une conception plus large de la politique en général, et des Relations
Internationales en particulier, soulignent la nécessité de rediriger l’attention vers les intrications entre
les sociétés, les espèces et les environnements, j’aborde dans cet article la manière dont ce tournant
proposé pourrait continuer à reproduire une vision anthropocentrique de la politique mondiale, si
Corresponding author:
Pablo Orellana Matute, Queen Mary, University of London, London E1 4NS, UK.
Email: p.orellana@qmul.ac.uk
1040162MIL0010.1177/03058298211040162Millennium – Journal of International StudiesOrellana Matute
research-article2021
Conference
Orellana Matute 499
une véritable attention n’était pas accordée aux fondements ontologiques de la discipline. Pour ce
faire, j’entreprends une problématisation des efforts décoloniaux à partir de l’expérience latino-
américaine, qui met en avant la diversification du savoir en tant que moyen d’émancipation. J’essaie
ensuite de démontrer qu’une démarche intellectuelle axée exclusivement sur les intrications et
détachements peut aussi être erronée, puisque leur conception conventionnelle dépend de certains
engagements ontologiques inhérents à la production du savoir, en l’occurrence la dualité esprit-
monde et la conception linéaire du temps. Je propose donc la notion de « détachement du savoir »
comme pratique ontologique alternative à travers laquelle les étudiants en Relations Internationales
peuvent eux-mêmes se confronter à la logique dualiste et anthropocentrique oppresseur/victime,
à la source de tout projet d’émancipation. Enfin, une telle pratique permet non seulement de
comprendre le « global » en tant qu’indivisible, mais aussi de le mobiliser par-delà la poursuite
exclusive de l’émancipation par le savoir, aussi divers ou décolonial soit-il.
Mots-clés
ontologie philosophique émancipation, intrications, colonialité, relationnalité
Resumen
Aunque la exhortación a una concepción más amplia de la política en general y de las
Relaciones Internacionales en particular apunta a la necesidad de reconducir la atención a las
imbricaciones entre las sociedades, las especies y los entornos, en este artículo abordo de qué
manera el cambio propuesto puede seguir reproduciendo una concepción antropocéntrica
de la política global si no se presta una especial atención a los fundamentos ontológicos de
la disciplina. Para hacerlo emprendo, en primer lugar, una problematización de los esfuerzos
decoloniales resultantes de la experiencia latinoamericana, que subrayan la diversificación del
conocimiento como camino para la emancipación. A continuación intento demostrar que
un compromiso exclusivamente intelectual con las imbricaciones y los desapegos puede
también confundirnos ya que su concepción convencional depende de ciertos compromisos
ontológicos inherentes a la producción del conocimiento, concretamente el dualismo mente-
cuerpo y la concepción linear del tiempo. Propongo por lo tanto la noción de «desapego del
conocimiento» como una práctica ontológica alternativa a través de la cual los estudiantes
de Relaciones Internacionales pueden lidiar con la lógica dualista y antropocéntrica opresor/
víctima que está detrás de cualquier proyecto emancipatorio. Sostengo finalmente que dicha
práctica no solo nos permite entender lo «global» como indivisible sino también interactuar
con ello más allá de buscar exclusivamente la emancipación a través del conocimiento,
independientemente de lo diverso o decolonial que sea.
Palabras clave
ontología filosófica emancipación, imbricaciones, colonialidad, relacionalidad
500 Millennium: Journal of International Studies 49(3)
1. Grimaldo Rengifo, ‘Education in the Modern West and in the Andean Culture’, in The Spirit of
Regeneration: Andean Culture Confronting Western Notions of Development, ed. Frédérique
Apffel-Marglin with PRATEC (London: Zed Books, 1998), 174.
2. Tzvetan Todorov, The Conquest of America: The Question of the Other (New York: Harper &
Row Publishers. Inc, 1984).
3. Ibid., 42.
4. Ibid., 42-3.
5. Ming Dong Gu, ‘What is ‘Decoloniality’? A Postcolonial Critique’, Postcolonial Studies
23, no. 4 (2020): 598.
6. While we can further differentiate coloniality from colonialism given the latter’s normative
emphasis in advocating colonisation, throughout the piece I am concerned with coloniality,
since it represents a broader term that is concerned with the present condition shaped by the
colonial past including ‘intellectual’ legacies that are embodied in decolonial responses that
this article sets out to problematise. Gu, ‘What is Decoloniality?’, 598.
‘Wisdom for the Andean people is not associated with an accumulation of knowledge – to
know a lot about many things – rather it is associated with the attribute of nurturing, where
the sensitivity to know how to nurture is as important as knowing how to allow oneself to be
nurtured. This reciprocal nurturing is what recreates life in the Andean world, and not the
power-giving knowledge that one can have about others’1
In a classical historical depiction of the initial encounters between the Spanish and
Indians in the ‘New World’, Tzvetan Todorov2 provides an illustrative interpretation of
how the processes of colonisation of pre-Columbian cultures unfolded after their histo-
ries and worlds became first entangled. In his account, not only does he provide key
clues as to understanding the conquerors’ aversion to alterity, but he does so by exposing
Columbus’ own contradictions in dealing with his knowledge about others. Specifically
when it came to his encounters with the natives, for as Todorov details:
‘Either he conceives the Indians [. . .] as human beings altogether, having the same rights as
himself; but then he sees them not only as equals but also identical, and this behavior leads to
assimilationism, the projection of his own values on the others. Or else he starts from the
difference, but the latter is immediately translated into terms of superiority and inferiority (in
his case, obviously, it is the Indians who are inferior)’.3
While this observation demonstrates a particular dynamic characteristic of such early
colonial encounters, Todorov furthermore suggests that these two fundamental
approaches in our experience with a ‘different other’ ‘are both grounded in egocentrism,
in the identification of our own values with values in general, of our I with the universe
– in the conviction that the world is one’.4 Yet, what happens when our knowledge about
the world is radically disrupted? For instance, what if instead of inhabiting a worldly
universe, we are rather part of a larger pluriverse? Or relatedly, what if the worlds of both
colonisers and colonised were already entangled even before they first met?
Instead of providing another revisionist historical account of colonisation, this article
engages precisely in a disruption of knowledge. Yet, rather than an exploration of colonisa-
tion, it is concerned with the ‘material, intellectual, emotional and spiritual conditions shaped
by [its] consequences’,5 that is, with coloniality,6 and its inherent link with knowledge
To continue reading
Request your trial