In May of 2003, Arturo Escobar and I met with the collective from the
Modernity/Coloniality project of Duke University and the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill. The theme of this meeting was \u201cCritical Theory and Decolonization.\u201d The
participants were invited to reflect upon the following topic in advance:

How does Horkheimer\u2019s \u201ccritical theory\u201d project look to us today, when global
and pluri-versal \u201crevolutions\u201d are taking place, out of the di-versity and pluri-
versity of the many local histories that in the past 500 hundred years (some in the
past 250 or perhaps only fifty years) couldn\u2019t avoid the contact, conflict, and
complicity with the West (e.g., Western Christianity, its secularization and relation
to/with capitalism and its obverse, Socialism/ Marxism)? What should \u201ccritical
theory\u201d aim to be when the damn\u00e9s de la terre are brought into the picture, next
to Horkheimer\u2019s proletarians or today\u2019s translation of the proletariat, such as the
multitudes? What transformations are needed in the \u201ccritical theory\u201d project if
gender, race, and nature were to be fully incorporated into its conceptual and
political framework? Finally, how can \u201ccritical theory\u201d be subsumed into the
project of modernity/coloniality and decolonization? Or would this subsumption
perhaps suggest the need to abandon the twentieth century formulations of a

The themes and questions that were proposed were not new, but rather, on the contrary,
they continued prior reflections, conversations, and previously published articles. Enrique
Dussel and Santiago Castro-G\u00f3mez had already introduced the reflection regarding
critical theory and Nelson Maldonado-Torres that of the agency of the damn\u00e9s de la terre
(the wretched of the earth), a category that re-locates and regionalizes categories framed
by other historical experiences (e.g., on the one hand, the subalterns and the modern
subalternity of Antonio Gramsci and the subalterns and the colonial subalternity of
Ranajit Guha and the South Asian project and, on the other hand, the category of the
multitude reintroduced on behalf of Spinoza by Paul Virno, Antonio Negri and Michael
Hardt). From this meeting the collective project was incorporating more and more of the
category of de-coloniality as a continuity of that of modernity/coloniality. A sequel took
place in Berkeley in April of 2005, under the title of \u201cMapping the de-colonial turn\u201d, in
an encounter organized by Nelson Maldonado-Torres, where members of the
modernity/coloniality project discussed with members of the project of the Caribbean
Philosophical Association titled \u201cShifting the Geographies of Reason\u201d and with a group
of philosophers and Latino cultural critics. Via these two meetings, it remained clear that
while modernity/coloniality are analytical categories of the colonial matrix of power, the
category of de-coloniality widened the frame and the objectives of the project. However,
the same conceptualization of coloniality that is constitutive of modernity, is already de-
colonial thinking in progress.

But the basic formulation was advanced by Anibal Quijano in his ground-breaking article
\u201cColoniality and Modernity/Coloniality\u201d (1992). The argument was that, on the one hand,
an analytic of the limits of Eurocentrism (as a hegemonic structure of knowledge and
beliefs) is needed. But the analytic was considered necessary although not sufficient. It
was necessary, Quijano asserted, \u201ces necesariodesprenderse de las vinculaciones de la

designs to colonize the economy (appropriation of land and natural resources) and the
authority (management by the Monarch, the State or the Church) and police and military
enforcement (coloniality of power,), to colonize knowledges (languages, categories of
thoughts, beliefs systems, etc.) and beings (subjectivity). \u201cDe-linking\u201d is then necessary
because there is no way out of the coloniality of power within Western (from Greek and
Latin) categories of thought. Consequently, de-linking implies epistemic disobedience
rather than the constant sear for \u201cnewness\u201d (e.g., as if Michel Foucault concept of racism
and power were \u201cbetter\u201d or more \u201cappropriate\u201d because they are \u201cnewer\u201d\u2014that is, post-
modern--within the chronological history or archelogy of European ideas). Epistemic
disobedience take us to a different place, to a different \u201cbeginning\u201d (not in Greece but in
the responses to the \u201cconquest and colonization\u201d of America and the massive trade of
enslaved Africans) and, to spatial sites of struggles and building rather than to a new
temporality within the same space (from Greece, to Rome, to Paris, to London, to
Washington DC). I will explore the opening up of these spaces, the spatial paradigmatic
breaks of epistemic disobedience in Waman Puma de Ayala and Ottabah Cugoano.

The basic argument (almost a syllogism) that I will develop here is the following: if
coloniality is constitutive of modernity since the salvationist rhetoric of modernity
presupposes the oppressive and condemnatory logic of coloniality (from there come the

a three-headed hydra, even though it only reveals one head, the rhetoric of salvation and
progress. Coloniality, one of whose facets is poverty and the propagation of AIDS in
Africa, does no appear in the rhetoric of modernity as its necessary counterpart, but rather
as something that emanates from it. For example, the Millennium Plan of the United
Nations, headed by Kofi Anan, and the Earth Institute in Columbia University, headed by
Jeffrey Sachs, work in collaboration to end poverty (as the title of Sach\u2019s book