Decolonization - Day 3
Editor's Note: The following article is a reproduction of one of the keynote speeches delivered during the Summer Conference in San Juan, Puerto Rico. It has been lightly edited for ease of reading.
Addressing decolonization means immersing ourselves in a far-reaching discussion about concepts and constructs such as race, representation, division of labor, world system, dependency, evangelization, salvation, and Eurocentrism, among others, that have penetrated political, social, economic, religious, cultural, gender, and sexuality structures and shaped our society generation after generation. That is to say, to address decolonization, we must discuss what Aníbal Quijano calls the “Colonial Pattern of Power” and what Walter Mignolo refers to as the “Colonial Matrix of Power.”[1]
At the same time, tackling the topic of decolonization requires us to investigate a crucial concept that thinkers like Emanuel Wallerstein, Aníbal Quijano, Walter Mignolo, and Silvia Rivera Cusicanqui, each with their own approach, have tackled: coloniality. This term refers to the repercussions and the inherent logic of colonization or, in other words, the lasting legacy of colonialism in contemporary societies.[2] Coloniality encompasses both the social structures, forms of thought, and power patterns that originated during colonialism, as well as the practices and power relations that have persisted even after the formal independence of the colonies. Thus, understanding coloniality is fundamental to understanding and addressing decolonization.
At the risk of oversimplifying these terms, allow me to use a brief allegory to help us understand better. Imagine that the history of the world is a giant game of chess. In this game, the rules were established centuries ago during a period called colonialism when European countries explored, conquered, and controlled much of the world. They decided that the white pieces (Europeans) were superior to the black pieces (indigenous and African peoples), and these rules dictated who could move which pieces and how.
This is what we call the “colonial matrix of power,” the set of rules established during colonialism that still dictates how the game is played. Even if some black pieces have become kings or queens on the board (that is, countries have gained their independence), the rules of the game, like who has the power and how it is used, remain the same.
“Coloniality” is the idea that even after the formal game of colonial chess has ended, the original rules still influence how the games are played today. It affects everything, from who has more power on the board, to how we think about the white and black pieces and even how we understand the game itself. In short, coloniality is the lasting legacy of the game rules established during colonialism.
Now, given the volume of these topics and the time limit of my intervention, it is clear that it is impossible to address them all in depth. Therefore, today I will focus on two expressions of coloniality; that is, two expressions of that active colonial logic in our society. These are Eurocentrism and representation. In my opinion, this will provide us with a critical perspective to understand decolonization.
Firstly, talking about decolonization involves understanding what Eurocentrism is. According to philosopher Enrique Dussel, Eurocentrism is a form of thought that considers Western, Northern Atlantic, and White-European culture and tradition as the center and model of universal civilization. This perspective assumes that Europe is the place of origin of all progress, knowledge, and humanity, relegating other cultures to the background and considering them inferior or even “barbaric” (uncivilized, underdeveloped).
Dussel argues that this Eurocentrism has affected the way history has been told and understood, both globally and locally, especially in relation to Latin America and other territories colonized by European powers. According to Dussel, this has led to a biased and unbalanced view of history and global relations.[3]
A very clear example of Eurocentrism is the idea that all scientific, artistic, theological, medical, etc., knowledge produced in Europe is the legitimate, valuable, and universal knowledge. The same applies to the concept of race. The conquest/invasion of America imposed the “European way” and forced indigenous peoples to conform to this logic. The traditions, religion, cultural, political, sexual, and economic practices of our ancestors were delegitimized, demonized, and replaced by the North Atlantic Western European standard.
Thus, it is evident how the notion of Eurocentrism is closely linked to the second expression of coloniality that I would like to address. Representation, or to be more precise, the misrepresentation of identities, lands, bodies, spiritualities and theologies, sexuality, and knowledge of the colonized subjects.
For centuries, colonized subjects, myself included, have been misrepresented in many ways. Dussel identifies this misrepresentation under the concept of “the covering over (encubrimiento) of Other.” This idea holds that Eurocentrism has driven a process of obscuring and marginalizing the perspectives, experiences, and contributions of those who do not conform to the patriarchal and heteronormative Western-European white norm. In other words, the culture, history, and wisdom of the “Other” (generally understood as non-Western cultures, particularly indigenous cultures and those from the Global South, that has also been considered the periphery because Europe is the center) have been ignored, misrepresented, or even erased. This “covering over,” according to Dussel, has been carried out through various forms of domination and oppression, including colonization, economic exploitation, and cultural imposition. The result is that the voices of the “Other” have been silenced, and their experiences and contributions have been minimized or ignored.
Therefore, the notion of Eurocentrism and the idea of “covering over of the Other” are intimately connected. Eurocentrism is the ideology and practice that has allowed and perpetuated the “covering over of the Other.” To challenge Eurocentrism implies dismantling and decentering this process of covering over and promoting a more genuine and equitable recognition and respect for cultural diversity and the plurality of human experiences and knowledge.
Ramón Grosfoguel, a Puerto Rican sociologist and decolonial theorist, and Abdennur Prado, a Spanish thinker and writer focused on Islamic philosophy, also deal with the notions of Eurocentrism and “covering over of the Other,” or as I call it, misrepresentation of the “Other.”
Grosfoguel has worked extensively on the critique and deconstruction of Eurocentrism. For him, Eurocentrism is not just a way of viewing the world but a way of organizing and structuring global power. Grosfoguel argues that modernity/coloniality, which is intrinsically Eurocentric, has marginalized and excluded non-European voices and perspectives, creating a global domination system that covers and silences the “Other.”[4]
On his part, Abdennur Prado, in his book Genealogy of Monotheism, addresses the notion of “covering over of the Other” from the perspective of monotheism and interreligious dialogue. Prado asserts that monotheism, as it has been historically interpreted and practiced, has played a significant role in the “covering over of the Other” by imposing a monolithic and exclusive vision of divinity and spirituality that excludes and marginalizes other ways of understanding and experiencing the sacred. Prado criticizes this Eurocentric and monotheistic trend, advocating for a more inclusive and pluralistic understanding of spirituality. In short, both Grosfoguel and Prado echo Dussel’s critique of Eurocentrism and his idea of the “covering over.”
Thus, Eurocentrism, as defined in the works of Enrique Dussel, Ramón Grosfoguel, and Abdennur Prado, is a form of thought and power structure that places Europe and the Western tradition at the center of universal civilization, relegating other cultures to a secondary plane.
In summary, all these authors agree that Eurocentrism is a form of thought and power structure that has silenced and marginalized non-Western voices and experiences.
From the perspective of Dussel, Grosfoguel, and Prado, it can be observed that Eurocentrism has informed not only the ways we understand history and culture but also economics and development. The contemporary development model, with its emphasis on constant economic growth, capital accumulation, and the exploitation of natural resources, can be seen as an extension of Eurocentric logic. This model assumes that the Western way of organizing the economy and society is universally applicable and superior to other forms of social and economic organization.
This perspective ignores and marginalizes alternative ways of understanding and practicing development that exist in non-Western cultures. These may include, for example, more sustainable and equitable approaches to managing natural resources or ways of life and economic systems that are not focused on constant growth and wealth accumulation. Hundreds of these can be found in indigenous traditions.
The “covering over of the Other” is also manifested in the way the voices and experiences of indigenous communities and the Global South are ignored or undervalued in discussions about the environment and development. Many of these communities have been practicing sustainable ways of life in harmony with nature for centuries, but their knowledge and practices are often overlooked in dominant debates about development and sustainability.
Therefore, challenging Eurocentrism also implies questioning and reformulating our current development models. This may require paying more attention to non-Western voices and experiences and recognizing that alternatives to the model of economic growth and resource exploitation that has so far dominated exist.
In conclusion, I would like to briefly point out the analysis that Abdennur Prado makes from theology to the critique of Eurocentrism and the “covering over of the Other,” focusing his analysis on the interpretation of monotheism that has prevailed in the West.
According to Prado, monotheism, especially in its Western Christian version, has served as a tool to impose a unique and uniform vision of divinity and spirituality, excluding and marginalizing other ways of understanding and experiencing the sacred.[5] This has manifested in history through the colonization and evangelization of non-Christian peoples, where religion has been used as a tool of domination and cultural homogenization.
Monotheism, as interpreted and practiced in the West, has favored a worldview that is dominant, exclusionary, and destructive, ignoring and marginalizing the voices, experiences, and wisdom of the “Others.”
Prado invites us to challenge and re-imagine these dominant structures. This involves not only questioning our economies and ways of life but also our beliefs and spiritual practices, and seeking more inclusive, diverse, and respectful ways of understanding and living our relationship with the divine and the natural world.
Thus, for me, the question of decolonizing theology is really the question of how we could end the historical complicity between our Christian theology and the misrepresentation of all colonized people in the Global South (our bodies, territories, religions, non-Eurocentric forms of knowledge, etc.) as peoples doomed without God, deconstructing the false theological narrative that God chose the conquerors to save the souls of the lost indigenous peoples and black people, to take them out of the darkness and bring them closer to the light. The “decolonization of theology” implies, then, a process of challenging, dismantling, and reimagining theological interpretations and practices that have been informed by Eurocentrism and have contributed to the “covering over of the Other,” our covering over.
This, I believe, should involve re-evaluating Christian theology from the perspective of the oppressed, marginalized, and colonized. It is urgent that we question dominant interpretations of faith that justify oppression and exclusion and instead seek a theology that promotes justice, equality, and liberation, not from imported models but from our own. Here I do not advocate for a Latin American or indigenous theological purism or essentialism because, as we know, these relationships between Eurocentrism and “covering over of the Other” are realities deeply rooted in our society that have even been, in some cases, part of the creativity and development of the colonized peoples.
In summary, the decolonization of theology would involve a process of critique, dismantling, and reimagining of dominant theological interpretations and practices, with the aim of promoting a more just, inclusive, and diverse theology based on the diversity of our context and experiences of life. A decolonized and decolonizing theology is not complicit with oppression, but above all, is a Christian theology and spirituality conscious of its history of domination and exclusion and resists and reimagines differently.
Please remember that the colonial project was, above all, a theological project. Therefore, to decolonize theology is to attack the hardest core of the forms of oppression that were perpetuated with colonization.
Notes:
[1] Quijano, Aníbal 2000 “Colonialidad del poder, eurocentrismo y América Latina” en Lander, Edgardo (comp.)
La colonialidad del saber: eurocentrismo y ciencias sociales. Perspectivas latinoamericanas (Buenos Aires: CLACSO) p. 246; Mignolo, Walter D. Historias Locales / Diseños Globales: Colonialidad, Conocimientos Subalternos Y Pensamiento Fronterizo. Madrid: Akal, 2003.
[2] Wallerstein, Immanuel Maurice. The Modern World-System. I, Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. Studies in Social Discontinuity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011; Rivera Cusicanqui, Silvia. Ch’ixinakax Utxiwa: Una reflexión sobre prácticas y discursos descolonizadores. 1a ed. Buenos Aires: Tinta Limón, 2010; Rivera Cusicanqui, Silvia. Sociología de la imagen: miradas ch’ixi desde la historia andina. Colección Nociones comunes. Buenos Aires: Tinta Limón Ediciones, 2015.
[3] Dussel, Enrique. El encubrimiento del Otro: Hacia el origen del mito de la Modernidad. Madrid: Ediciones Akal, 2022.
[4] Grosfoguel, Ramón. La descolonización de la economía política y los estudios postcoloniales: transmodernidad, pensamiento fronterizo y colonialidad global. Madrid: Akal, 2019.
[5] Prado, Abdennur. Genealogía del monoteísmo. La religión como dispositivo colonial. México: Akal Ediciones, 2018.
