Arturo Escobar WORLDS AND KNOWLEDGES OTHERWISE! The Latin American modernity/ coloniality research program Introduction: Crazando Fronteras and the borders of thought ruzando Frooteras, the timely organizing theme for the 2002 CEISAL Congress celebrated in Amsterdam on 3~6 July, sought to signal, and rethink, the ever increasing relevance of ‘borders’ to the construction of political social, and cultural imaginaries from, and about, Latin America at the dawn of the new rillennfum. The present paper focuses on a ‘border’ that is gaining salience in of the work of an increasingly Interconnected group of researchers in Latin America and the United States, fueling a series of researches, meetings, shared — even if course contested — ‘of the group, I would argue that this ‘the English speaking world for reason this dont nea thatthe work of ths proup i sroup seeks to make a decisive intervention into the very disursvity of the modem sciences in order to craft another space for the production of Inowledge — an other way of thinking, un peradigne cto, the very possibilty ‘of taking ebout ‘worlds and knowledges otherwise’. What tis group suggests fs that an other thought, an other Imowledge (and another world, in the sprit ‘of Porto Alegre’s World Social Forum), are indeed possible [A proper contexonalization and genealogy of the modernity/calonislity research program (MC from now on) would have to swait future studies. It suffices to say, for now, that there are a numaber of factors that could plawsibly center into the genealogy of this group's thinking, including: liberation theology from the 1960s and 19705; debates in Latin Ameriom philosophy and social34 Words end Kewledges Otherwise science around notions of liberation philosophy and autonomous social scence (@g., Enrique Dussel, Rodolfo Kusch, Orlando Pals Borda, Pablo Gonzales Casenova, Darcy Ribeiro); dependency theory; the debates on Latin American, modemity and postmodernity in the 1980s, followed by discussions on hybridity in anthropology, communications and cultural studies in the 1990s; ‘and, in the United States, the Latin American Subalter Studies group. The ‘modemity/coloniality group certainly finds inspiration im a number of sources, from European and North Americm critical theories of modernity and postmodernity to South Asian subaltern studies, Chicana feminist theory, 4 © continued rellecton on Latin American caltoral and poliical reality, including the sabatern knowledge of exploited and oppressed social groups tt dependency theory, liberation theology, and participatory action research can be sald to have beea the moet crgial contributions of Latin American exeal thought in the twentieth ceatury (witha the caveats that may apply to such criginaity), che MC research program emerges as heir to this aaditon. As we shall see, project does not Bit into a linear ‘would mean to integrate it into of modern thought. On the e other way of thinking that runs (Christianity, Uberalism, and Marxism); c locates its own inguiry inthe very borders of systems of thought and reaches towards the possiblity of non-curocentic modes of thinking, Part I of the paper presents an overview of the current MC landscape. 1 rust emphasize that this is my own particular eading of this group's work, fom my limited engagement with ft and my equally limited understanding ‘This paper should be read asa ‘report from the Beld’, soto speak. Pat If deals veith open and unresolred questions fecing the MC research program. Among these questions, I wil highlight geader, mature, and the need to think about lemative economic imaginaries, 1 The modernity/coloniality research program ‘Why, one may ask, do thése group of Latin Americans end Latin Americanists feel that a new understanding of modemity is needed? To fully appreciate the importance of this questi instructive to begin by discussing the study of modernity from what we can call ‘intra term will become clear as we move along). I am very mmuch aware that the view of modernity to be presented below is terribly partial and contestable. I am’not presenting it with the goal of “theorizing C.-Y Decolanial Qotion 35 modernity’, but rather in order to highlight, by way of contrast, the stark Aiference that the MC program poses in relation to the dominant inquiries bout modernity. In the last instance, the goal of this brief excursus into ly, what is happening to development and y globalization? Is modemaity finally becoming universs- lized, or is it being left behind? The question isthe more poignant because it can be argued that the present is a moment of transition: between a world defined. in terms of modemity and, its corollaries, development and rmodemization, and the certainty they instilled — a world that has operated largely under European hegemo the past two hundred years if not rnore; and a new (global) reality sul diicue to asceraia but which, modernity characterized as follows: 1 Historically, modemity has identifiable temporal and spatial origins: seventeenth century northern Europe (especially France, Germany, England), around the processes of Reformation, the Enlightenment, and the French Revolution. These processes crystallized at the end of the36 Worlds and Knomedges Otherwise eighteenth century (Foucault's modem episteme) and became consoli dated with the Industial Revolution 2 Sodologicaliy, modernity is characterized by certain institutions, particu- Jarly the nation state, and by some baste features, such as self. determination by transloca forees; and spoce/tin separation of epace and place, since relations between “absent become more important than face to face interaction (Giddens 1990). 3 Cultwally, modernity can be further characterized in terms of the increasing appropriation of previously taken for granted cultaral back- grounds by forms of expert Inowledge linked to capital and state ‘lnistrative apparatuses (Habermas 1973). Habermas (1987) describes this process as the increasing rationalization of the hfe-world, accompanied by universdlization and individuation. Moderaity brings about aa order on the basis of the constructs of reason, the individual, expert knowledge, snd administrative mechanisms linked to the state. Order and reason are fea as the foundation for equality and freedom, and enabled by the language of right 4 Philosphiclly, one may see modernity n terms of the emergence of the notion of ‘Man’ as the foundation for all knowledge and order of the world, separate from the natural and the divine (« pervasive enthro- pocentrion; Fouceult 1973, Heidegger 1977, Paniklar 1993). On the other, modemity is seca in terms of the’ miumaph : understood esa tendency ~ extending from Plato and some of the pre Soctatics to Descartes ‘and the moder thinkers, and criticized by Nictsche and Heldegger among others — that finds in logical truth foundssoa for «rational theory ofthe world as made up of knowable (end Ihence controllable) things and beings (e.g. Vattimo 1991). For Varimo, srodernity is characterized by the idea of history and is corollary, progress and overcoming, Vattino emphasizes the logic of development — the Deli in perpetual betterment and overcoming — as crucial to the philosophical foundations of the modem order. viness of modernity is seen to cause Jocalization, including the margin ‘ction) in the definition of social seen in various ways, from. life. The underside of order and rationality the domination and disenchantment that came disciplining of populations. As Foucault put discovered the liberties, also invented the disc " ‘modernity’santhropocestrism is related to logocmntristn and phallogocentrsm, defined here simply as the cultural project of ordering the world according to coger tr neem eens Logocentrism has reached unpre ‘ion and technification of the world (Leff 2000). Modernity of course did not succeed in constivating a total reality, but enacted a totalizing project aimed at the purification of orders (separation between us and them, nature and culture), (chs Latour’s dictum that ‘we have never been modern’, ‘at the order so. sketchily of becoming global? For most thon on ales fe poet tv eel tse ides (1990) has made the argument most forcefully: globsliation entaile the radicalization and universalzation of modernity. No longer purely an affaix of the West, however, since modemity ie everywhere, the triumph of the rodera les precisely in its having become universal. ‘This may be call “the cultures and societies are reduced to being a ‘manifestation of European history and culture, The ‘Giddens effect’ seems cor indirectly, in most works on modernity and event. No matter how variously qualified, « ‘global ‘modemit’ is here to stay. Recent anthropological investigations of ‘modernity at large’ (Appadurai 1996) have shown modemity to be seen as de- territorialized, hybridized, contested, uneven, heterogenous, even multiple, or im terms of conversing with, engaging, playing with, or processing modernity; neverthcles, in the last instance these modernities end up being reflection of a eurocentered social order, under the assumption that modernity ere, an ubiquitous and ineluctable eocal fact.” Could it be, however, that the power of Eurocentered modernity — as a portiular local hisory ~ lies in the fact that is has produced poricuar global desiges in such a way that it has ‘subalternized’ other local histories and their corresponding designs? If this isthe case, could one posit the hypothedis that Jmputed to modemity, and edumbrate Afferent. global designs, but 2 network of possibilty that may be gleaned from the ‘heozists that in refracting modemity throug ‘questioning of the spatial and temporal origins of modernity, thus uafreezing the radical potential for thinking from difference and towards tho constitution38 Worlds and Knowledges Otherwise ‘of alternative local and regional worlds, In what follows, I present succinctly some of the main arguments of these works.° The modernity /colontality research program ‘The conceptualization of modernity/coloniality {s grounded in a series of cps ine dag fem eb heres of oderiy. See se include the following: (1) an emphasis on locating the origins of yy with the Conquest of America and the cootrol of the Atantic after er than fa the most commonly accepted landmarks such as the Enlightenment or the end of the eighteenth century:* (2) a persistent attention soln od Sh lg of te ep wel ite w cone of am intra-Exropean phenomenon; (4) the identicaton of the domination of others outside the European core asa necessary dimension of modernity, with the concomitant subalterizaton of the knowledge and ceuleures of these other groups; (5) a conception of eurocentrism as the knowledge form of tnoderaity/coloniality ~ a hegemonic representation and mode of knowing that claims universality for itself, and chat relies on ‘a confusion between decentering of modernity from its alleged European origi debunking of the linear sequence linking Greece, Rome, modern Europe; (b) a new spatial and temporal conception of modemity ia terms of the foundational role of Spain and Portugal (the so-called first rodemnity initiated with the Conquest) and sts continuation in Northern Europe with the industria] revolution and the Enlightenment (éhe second ‘modemity, in Dustel’s terms); the second modernity does not replace the fist, it overlaps wit ofall other world regio initial ‘other side’ of modernity (the dominated and concealed side); and (d) & re-reading of the ‘myth of modemity’, not in terms of a questioning of che country pte of mode eon, bt of ey’ ender fority of European civilization, coupled svelopment must be followed unilaterally Tupac Amaru rebellion and the 1804 Haitian revolution to the 1960 ant colonial movements, as sources of visions forthe future, a opposed to the | i i Giobalization andthe Decoloniat Option 39 conventional sources such as the French and American revolutions; and, in general, the need to take seriously the epistemic force of local histories and to ‘think theory through from the political pris of subsltern groups, ‘The main conchusons are, frst, that the proper analytical unit for the analysis of moderaty is modemity/colontality ~ in sum, there is no modernity ‘ifference’ is a privileged epistemological and political space. The great those ‘defenders of the European calls them (2000, p. 543)) have colonial system ~ ie., the conflicts with other cultures and world views.” Key notions ond thenes of the modernity /coloniliasy research progrom Some of the key notions that make up the conceptual corpus of this research tea’ ec formadons Dat cocompas. modern colonials forms of power into . hegemonic model of power n place inc the Conquest tt arcs race and labor, space and peoples, according to the needs of capital and to the benefit of white European peoples. Colona aifrence and global colonality (ignolo) which refer to the Jnowledge and cultural dimensions of the subalternization procestes effected by the coloniality of power; the colonial Aiference brings to the fore persistent cultural differences within global power structures. Colonial of being (more recently suggested by Nelson Maldonado- ‘Torres in group discussions) as the ontological dimension of colonialty, on both sides of the encounter; based on Levinas, Dussel and Fanon, it points at ‘the ‘ontological exces’ chat occurs when partcalar beings fmpose on others and, beyond’ that, the potential or actual effectivity of the discourses with which the other responds to the suppression as a result of the encounter (Maldouado-Tores 2003). Buroventrin, as the knowledge model that represents the local European historical experience and which became glcbally hegemonic since the seventeenth century (Dussel, Quijane); hence the possibility of non-euesntle thinking aad epistemologies. Each of these nations are in themselves rooted in complex conceptualizations that represent decades of researchs even thus, they are of course debatable. There are some other notions, more peculiar to specific suthors but which are gaining currency ‘within the group, that i is also important to introduce. These include Dusse’s40 ols and Krowledoes Otherwise ‘notion of exteriority and tamsmodemity and Mignolo’s concept of border thinking, ph hermeneutics, and phusiversaliey. ‘whether there is an ‘exteriority’ to the modern/colonial a pure outside, untouched by the ‘modern, The notion of extert es not etal an ontological outside; it refers to an outside that is precisely constituted as difference by a hegemonic discourse, This notion of exteriorty arises chiefly by thinking about the Other ‘fom the ethical and epistemological perspective of a liberation philosophy framework: the Other as oppressed, as woman, at racially marked, as ‘excluded, as poor, as nature. By appealing from the exteriority in which s/he fs located, the Other becomes the original source of an ethical discourse vis 4 vis « hegemonic totality. This interpellation of the Other comes from outside exploited peoples have with respect to a hezemenle system (contra Habermas? ‘notion of @ communication free of domination). There are degrees of exteriority; in the last instance, the greater challenge comes from ‘the interpellation which the majority of the population of the planet, located in the South, raises, demanding their right to live, their right to develop their own culture, economy, polities, ete. ..-There is no eration without rationality; but there is no tionality without accepting the interpellation of the excluded, or this would inadvertently bbe only the rationality of domination. ... From this negated Other departs the praxis of Hberation as ion’ of the Exteriority and a origin of the movement of negation of the negation’ deconstruction and to the eurocentered critiques of eurocentrism — in short, these continue to be thought about from within eurocentric categories (of, say, Bberalismn, | | | Globalization and the Dacolanial Option 41 Dassel’s notion of raaumedernty signals the possibility of « non-carocenirc and critical dialogue with altrity, one that filly enables ‘the negation of the negation’ to which the sbaltem others have been subjected, and one that does ot see critical discource as intrinsically European. Integral to this effort i the rescuing of non-hegemonie and silenced counter-dicourses, ofthe alterity chat 1s constitutive of modernity itself. This isthe ethical principle of liberation of ented project that sedks the Uberaion of 14, Ch. 7), ‘a worldwide ethical lberation project in rich was part and parcel of modernity, would be able to ful- 473), ‘in which both modernity and its negated aleexity realize themselves i a process of : the border and aims toward politcal and ethical transforme- Jo acknowledges the continued importance iernity by Western critical discourse (ctique suggests that this has to be put into dialogue ‘with the critique(s) arising from the colonial dierence, which constinates border thinking. The result i a ‘pluritopic hermeneatics’ (a term he seemingly42 Welds and Knonledges Otherwise saps from Panna’ ‘diatopic hermeneutics), «possibilty of thinking from Gkflorent. spaces which ally breaks away from eurocentiam as sole epistemological perspective, This is the double critique of modemity from the perspective of coloiality, from the exterior of the modem colonial world system. Let it be dear, however, that border thinking entails both “Gisplacement and deparcure’ (2000, p. 308), double critique and postive alirmation of an alternative ordering of the real. To sum up, Border thinking points towards a diferent kind of hegemony, a multiple one. As a universal project, diversity allows us to imagine alternatives to ‘universalism (we could say thatthe alternative to universalism in this view 4s not particularism but muluplicicy). “The ‘West and the rest’ i Huntingion’s phrase provides the model to overcome, as the ‘rest’ Decomes the sites where border thinking emerges in its diversity, where ‘aundializacin’ creates new local histories remaking and readapting Western global designs ... nd transforming local (Esropean) histories from where such designs emerged .... ‘Interdependence’ may be the sword that summarizes the break away from the idea of wality and brings about the idea of networks whose articulation will require epistemological principles I called in this book ‘border thinking’ and "bord yas rearticulation of the colonial dilference: “diversaity universal project’, which means that people and commumities have the right to bbe diferent precisely because ‘we’ are all equals? (2000, aun. “There is no question’, writes Mignolo (2000), p. 59), “that Quijano, Dussel and Iare reacting not only to the force ofa historical imaginary but also to the : corollary isthe need to build narratives loniality ‘geared towards the search for 2 "This project has to do with the rearticulation of global ‘designs by and from loca histories; with the articulation between subeltera and ledge from the perspective of the subaltern; and with the from the perspective of modemity different logic’ hegemonic remapping of colonial difference towards a worldly oulture — such as in the ‘Zapatista project, that remaps Marxism, thirdworldism, and indigenism, Sethout being cither of them, in an excellent example of border thinking. “While ‘there is nothing outside of totality -. totality is always projected from a given local history’, it becomes possible to think of ‘other local histories totalities or an alternative to eoloniality; they would rather build on a da /caltare’ relation centered on the local histories in which colonial esis are necesterily transformed, thas trancformning also the local hi ‘that created them, Unlike globaliztion, mundializcidn brings to the fore-the Globattation and the Decolonial Option 48 manifold local histories that, in questioning global designs (¢.g., neo-bberal ‘lobalization), aim at forms of globality that arise out of ‘cultures of transience” ‘hat go agninst the cultural homogeneity fostered by such designs. The diversity cof mindiolizacén is contrasted here with the homogeneity of globalization, siming at multiple and diverse socal orders. In short, the perspective of modernity /coloniality provides an alternative framework for debates on medemsity, globalization and developraent; it i not just a change in the description of events, it is an epistemic change of perspective. By speaking ofthe colonial difference, thi framework brings to the fore the power dimension that is often lost in relativistic discussions of culvaral difference. More recent debates on tnterculeuraity, for instance in Ecuador's current politcal and calzural scene, deepens come of these insights (Walsh 2008). Inshore, the MC research program isa framework constructed from the Latin American periphery of the modern colonial world sytem; ihelps explain the dynamics of curocentrise in the making of modernity and attempts to ‘transcend it, I'it reveals the dark sides of modernity, it does not doit from an {ntra-epistemic perspective, a8 in the critical European discourses, but from the perspective of the receivers of the alleged benefits of the modern worl. Modernity/coloniality also shows thatthe perspective of modernity is Hmited and exhausted in its pretended universality. By the same token, it shows the shortcomings of the language of alternative modemities in that this later Incorporates the projects of the noa-moderns into a single project, losing the subaliera perspectives and subordiating them, for even ia thelr hybridiey subaltern perspectives are not about being only modern but are heteroglossc, Tn highlighting the developmentaist fallacy, lastly, rodemity/colonialty not only re-focuses our attention on the overall fact of develop rovides a context for interpreting the various challenges to evelopment and modemity as so many projects that are potential) complementary and mutually reinforcing. Beyond Latin America, one ma} 109), that this approach is certainly a theory ‘theorizing is also for the in th umed and incorporated in a new geocultural and epistemological location’.” Finally, there are some consequences of this group's work for Latin ‘American Studies in the US, Europe, and elsewhere. The MC perspective moves away from viewing ‘Latin America’ as an object of study (in relation to ‘which US-based Latin American Seadies would be the ‘knowing subject’), ‘towards an understanding of Latin America at & georhistorical location with and within a distinct critical genealogy of thought. Modernity/ Coloniality suggests that globalization must be understood from 2 geo-historical and critical Latin. Amerioan perspective. ‘With this the MC approach tlcernative to the genealogy of the modern socialsciences. that Foundation of Latin. American Soudies in-the- US. ln this wayy Latin American‘can be practiced from many spaces, if it is done from ‘counter-hegemonic perspectives that challenge the very assumption of Latin America as fully constituted object of stady, previous to, and outside of, the often imperialistic discourses that construct i. IT Some trends, open questions, and tasks ahead So far I have presented some of the main lines of inquiry and concepts of the loose collective Thave referred toas the MC research program. Talso focused oa the commonly agreed upon main intellecual sources of the group — chiety, Enrique Dussel, Ansbal Quijano, and Walter Mignolo. My purpose has been to provide an overview of the shared ground on which the group has been constiouted. This story, of course, leaves out much that is of interest 10 the project, including valuable contributions and debates, but an ‘ethmography’ of this “community of argumentation’ (as rezlian anthropologist Gustavo Lins Ribeiro would call it) will have to await for another opportunity. For now, a further brief characterization of the group ‘night suice; this will be followed by a sketch of what I believe are some open questions, trends, and promising tensions, The modernity /colontality group ‘The MC research program group can be tentatively characterized as follows (oote: this characterization isa raore a straightforward sociology of Imowledge exercise than, say, an analysis of the discursive formation being mapped by MC), 1 Tt is largely inerdisciptinary or, rather, trandisciplinary. Although philosophy, political economy, and literary theory bave been salient, the extent ther disciplinary inquities are set into dialogue with those of ‘other fields, sometimes by the ame author, leading to new forms of snquiry. There is an explicit attempt at ‘un-dsciplining’ the social sciences t sustenance globally; hence the appeal those emerging from similar subaltera epistemic locations. This differentiates it sharply from earlier ‘Latin American paradigms’, such as dependency and libeestion theology (even if concepts, is significantly open ended. This sense of collectivity is strengthened by the feeling of the radical potential of the project — the face that what is at stake is not only to change the content but the very analysis, not to contribute to already established (eurocentric) systems of ‘thought, no matter how critical these might be. This could be related to 4 ‘The group's participants tend to share a political postion that is seemingly consistont with this radical emphasis, even if their practice continues to ‘with subaltern actors); Intellecoual-activists in nix to the state; and che tmiversities themselves, to the extent that, taken to their logical conclusions, the MC approach is bound to constitute a challenge to normative academic practices and cmons. Open-coded questions, sites of tension To end, I would like to briefly sketch out three areas the importance that have remained largely outside the purview of the project; but which are of great relevance to the very experiences that the project theorizes. The frst, and48 Worlds and Knowledges Othenvise pethaps most pressing, is gender; the second nature and the environment; the third the need to construct new economic imaginaries capable of supporting concrete struggles aguinst neo-liberalism and designs for alternative econo- ries. IF the group's efforts can be said to have remained largely academic (or academiciintellectal), and to this extent largely at the level of disembodied abstract discourse, these dimensions are likely to add ‘flesh and blood, 20 t0 speak, into it (the flesh and blood of women’s bodies, nature, and place-besed economies, for instance), and to contribute to ward off the risks of Jogocentrism. This should also be of consequence for the strategies of Aissemination ofthis work into particular political arenas.” In other words, an ‘engagement with feminism and environmentalism would be fruitful in terms of thinking the non-discursive side of social action (Flérez 2003) equally important to theorize further notions that are central to the group and ‘ fiminist theory alike, such as epistemology, power, identity, subjectivity, agency, and everyday life. ‘A Binal arca of potential work would be ethnographies of modernity/ coloniality. Conceived within the framework presented here, these ethnogra- phies would avoid the epistemological traps of the studies of modemity reviewed in the first part ofthe paper. They would also be usefil to ascertaining instances of the colonial difference and border thinking from the ground up, 20 to speak, for instance by engaging with gender, ecological, or economic difference as explained below. This is, however, an epistemological and methodological sue, and as such it will not be elaborated upon further here. Engendering modernity/coloniality It is clear that the treatment of gender by the MC group so far has been inadequate in the best of cases. Dussel was among the very few male Latin ‘American thinkers to discuss at length the issue of women eaely on, as one of the important categories of excluded others. Mignolo has paid attention to some of the works by Chicane feminists, partically the notion of border. Jands/la frontera. "These efforts, however, hardly get at the potential coutributions of feminist theory to the MC framework. The Finish theologian and feminist theorist Elina Vuola has pioneered the identification of this silence, particularly in connection with Dusee?’s work as a iberation theclogy scholar and other liberation theology frameworks (Vuole 2000, 2002, 2003, in press). Vuola (2002) finds hopeful Dussel’s move to defining the object of Iiberation as the ‘Other’ (more than just the poor, and dhus going beyond class), but she Binds less encouraging the theologians? inability to identify the race and gender position of their theorizing and to respond to the challenges that arise when the objects become subjects in their own right. The Other, ia ‘other words, is subsumed in a new Kind of totality, a male-centered one, thas denying the existence of women in their alterity and difference. prosernese Globalization and the Declonial Option 47 Jn a more recent text, and building on post-colonial and feminist theory, ‘Vuola (2003) renews her call for taking seriously the heterogeneity and multiplicity of the subj 7 (dheelogy and philosophy), namely ‘he poor’ — and, one may add, the subalter, in the MC project. In other words, She is calling fora politics of representation of the poor and the subaltera that fully acknowledges this muldplicity; in the case of women, this means seddesting themes thar have been absent from the discussion, such as violence against women, reproductive rights and sexualcy, and giving complete visibility to the agency of wounen. In other words, the subject of the colonial Aifference isnot an undiferentisted, gender-neutral subject (or differentiated only im terms of race and clas); there are differences in the way subalter groups are objects of power and subjects of agency. To acknowledge this might ange, 0 paraphrase, act only the contents but also the terms of the conversation, That women ae othr ia relation to men ~ and certainly treated a such by phallogocentrc social and human sciences ~ certainly should have + a perspective contered precisely on exteriority and and as such taken seriously by feminists, it largely excludes women and women's theoretical and political emer. There scems to be a conilic here between iciplie and Punish. New York: Vintage Books, New York: Vintage Books. Alsnative Modemises. Duskara: Duke University clits of Empire, Politics of Place’. Uspublished alan (As We Knew I). Oxford: Blackwell The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford: Stanford ments. Duram: Duke University Press, Discourse of Modemisy. Cambridge: MIT —— (1973) Legation Crise, Boston: Beacon Press oA | Globalization and the Decolanial Option 63, Halperin, David cine Foucault: Toward Gay Hagigeaphy. New Yorks: Oxford Press. Haraway, Dé uated Knoveledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the arial Perspective’, Feninise Stier, vol. 14, 20. 3, pp. 575~589, Harcourt, Wendy & Escobar, Arturo ( Politics of Place’, Development, vol 7 Har Mic & Nagi, Asien 200) Eo ‘Cambridge: Harvard University sage Martin (1977) “The Age of the World Picture’, in The Question Technology, ed. M. Hefdegger, New York: Harper and Row, pp. shropology and Modernity’, Canene Anthrepology, vol. 42, Expaince, New York: Orbis Books. snorking Modemiy. New Brunswick: