See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327455124

Interculturality

Article · September 2018

DOI: 10.1002/9781118924396.wbiea1629

CITATIONS READS

5 8,050

1 author:

Gunther Dietz
Universidad Veracruzana
274 PUBLICATIONS   1,741 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Indigeneity and Pathways through Higher Education in Mexico View project

Book published by CAMBRIDGE SCHOLARS PUBLISHING, 2O12 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gunther Dietz on 08 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Interculturality
GUNTHER DIETZ
Universidad Veracruzana, Mexico

The relations that exist between the culturally diverse human groups that comprise a
given society are increasingly referred to using the notion of interculturality. While the
term was originally coined to refer to a rather static and reified conception of culture
as the sum of relations between cultures, “interculturality” as it is currently used is
a more complex term that refers to the relations that exist within society between
diverse majority and minority constellations that are defined in terms not only of
culture but also of ethnicity, language, religious denomination, and/or nationality.
Therefore, the empirical referent of each of these constellations is highly contex-
tual: in some societies interculturality is used with reference to migration-induced
diversity, whereas in other societies the same notion is applied to indigenous–settler
interactions.
In broad terms, interculturality is defined and classified in anthropological and social
science literature according to three different but complementary semantical axes:
(1) the distinction between interculturality as a descriptive rather than as a prescrip-
tive concept; (2) the underlying, implicit assumption of a static versus a dynamic
notion of culture; and (3) the rather functionalist application of the concept of
interculturality for analyzing the status quo of a given society versus its critical and
emancipatory application for identifying inherent conflicts and sources of societal
transformations.
These three axes will be defined in the first of the following sections. In the second
section, interculturality is typologically analyzed with regard to the main underlying
social scientific paradigms of inequality, difference, and diversity. Third, the three main
Anglo-Saxon, Continental European, and Latin American sources of the contemporary
debate on interculturality and its adjacent notions will be sketched, before the fourth
section identifies the broader theoretical frame into which these debates are inserted
and which relates back to nationalism, ethnicity, and multiculturalism. The fifth
section sums up the main empirical applications of the notion of interculturality in
both anthropology and related disciplines, as well as in interdisciplinary fields. Finally,
the latest trends in Northern and Southern debates on interculturality are briefly
sketched in the last section.

The International Encyclopedia of Anthropology. Edited by Hilary Callan.

© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118924396.wbiea1629
2 I N T E R CU L T U R A L I T Y

Defining axes of interculturality

The descriptive and prescriptive nature of interculturality as a concept

When it is used as a descriptive and analytical tool, interculturality is defined as the
ensemble of interrelations that structure a given society in terms of culture, ethnicity,
language, religious denomination, and/or nationality, an ensemble that is perceived
through the articulation of different “us” versus “them” groups that interact in often
changing majority–minority constellations. These relations are frequently asymmetri-
cal with regard to political and socioeconomic power, and they often reflect historically
rooted ways of showing or hiding, of emphasizing or denying diversity, of stigmatizing
otherness, and of discriminating against particular groups (Dietz 2009).
In contrast to the alternative concept of multiculturality, the emphasis in intercul-
turality as a descriptive tool relies not so much on the internally diverse composition
of society and its segmentation into different groups as a multicultural approach would
suggest. In fact, the intercultural perspective does not emphasize group composition
but the kind and quality of intergroup relations within society. Therefore, minority and
majority are not distinguished here in demographic, numerical terms but in terms of
power—the power to define who belongs to a majority and who is stigmatized as a
minority. As will be detailed later, the historical rootedness of these processes of inclu-
sion and exclusion is part of an intercultural analysis of society (Dietz and Mateos
Cortés 2011).
Because of this critical potential of the concept of interculturality, the term is
also and rather often used in prescriptive ways as a normative notion. In this sense,
interculturality is sometimes coined as interculturalism (Gundara 2000), a trans-
formative program aimed at making contemporary societies more conscious about
their internal diversities and more inclusive and symmetrical with regard to their
so-called minorities. Again, while multiculturalism develops affirmative action and
positive discrimination measures to “empower” particular groups inside society,
interculturalism emphasizes changes in the nature of the relations between these
groups, which implies not only empowering certain groups but also altering majority
perceptions and promoting reciprocal processes of identification between groups that
have been historically privileged and groups that have been historically excluded—that
is, “between those who do not want to remember and those who cannot forget”
(Santos 2010, 131).

The underlying static and dynamic notions of culture

Since its origins in functionalist applied anthropology, the promotion or establishment
of “intercultural” or “interethnic” relations has developed on the basis of a rather static
concept of culture. In this tradition, relations between cultures occur between groups
of people with different cultures, expressed through different elements, patterns, or
institutions that are considered to be defining features of their respective groups and
cultures. Both European structural–functionalist explanations of cultural diversity
and the North American culture-area approach have influenced a first generation of
 I N T E R CU L T U R A L I T Y 3

Latin American interculturality approaches, which still regard culture traits, patterns,
or institutions as “objective” expressions of cultural difference and, accordingly, as the
basis of intercultural relations.
These rather mechanical explanations of interculturality, which frequently fuse
spatial geographic distance, historically divergent evolution, and contemporary
“acculturating” impacts of modernity into a fixed model of intercultural exchanges,
have been problematized and substituted within anthropology by more dynamic and
complex notions of culture. However, other social sciences have enthusiastically and
sometimes acritically inherited these static notions of culture and interculturality.
Both anthropology and cultural studies have moved toward definitions of culture as
symbolical interpretations, as routinized praxis, as collective resources, and so on,
which imply that there is no simple space “between” cultures but rather a complex
articulation of inter-, intra-, and transcultural processes of self-adscription and
external adscription, of identifying, and of othering within society. Therefore, intercul-
turality nowadays relies on a much more hybrid, processual, and contextual notion of
culture.

Functional and critical interculturality

Finally, the uses of descriptive as well as prescriptive interculturality and their under-
lying static or dynamic notions of culture may lead to broader implications for social
scientific analyses of contemporary societies. In the literature produced in both Euro-
pean and Latin American contexts a tension is increasingly perceivable between, on the
one hand, an understanding of interculturality as a programmatic, political–educational
strategy for smoothing over, softening, or mitigating relations and, on the other hand, a
view of interculturality as a transformative strategy to unveil, question, and change his-
torically rooted inequalities within society. In the first case, intercultural competences
are defined as functional tools and resources for increasing tolerance for, mutual under-
standing with, and empathy with others, whereas in the second case these intercultural
capacities are interpreted and/or acquired in terms of anti-discrimination, conscious-
ness raising, and dealing with conflict.
The underlying model of society is rather different in each case. Interculturality as a
functional resource to improve social relations tends to acknowledge acritically the cur-
rent status quo by identifying individual features—lack of competencies, lack of com-
munication skills, lack of human capital, and so on—as causes for exclusion, discrimi-
nation, and persisting asymmetrical relations. Intercultural competences will therefore
provide excluded minority members with the necessary tools for competing in con-
temporary national or international labor markets, for qualifying their claims in terms
of the existing political system, for communicating in cosmopolitical terms beyond
borders, and so on. Critical interculturality (Walsh 2003), on the contrary, deepens
our understanding of the historical and structural nature of (e.g., imperial, colonial)
inequalities that shape current cultural diversity and identifies collective actors that may
transform asymmetrical relations, not individually but systemically, by developing new
channels of participation, new legal frameworks for recognition, and new postcolonial
institutions and/or identifications.
4 I N T E R CU L T U R A L I T Y

Interculturality as inequality, as difference, and as diversity

The kinds of definitions of interculturality that result from the combinations of these
three conceptual axes reveal in their divergences deeply rooted differences with regard
to the anthropological and, broader speaking, the social scientific paradigms as well
as to the visions of society to which each author and his or her academic community
subscribe. In this connection, the uses of interculturality have to be analyzed in their
multilayered dimensions and in close relation to the corresponding vision of contem-
porary society favored by a specific notion of interculturality.
For the purpose of clarity, three paradigms are briefly sketched which may be identi-
fied as implicit logics that in both the global North and the global South shape the notion
of interculturality when it is employed as an analytic tool in debates on multicultural-
ism, identity politics, recognition, integration, and/or autonomy rights. Each of these
paradigms is often used in monocausal explanations by particular authors or commu-
nities, but when they are combined they ensure a much richer, deeper, more nuanced,
and multidimensional analysis of identities and diversities through the combination of
the paradigmatic concepts of inequality, difference, and diversity.
Historically, the paradigm of inequality focuses on a vertical analysis of particular
socioeconomic structurations (as in the case of Marxist theories of classes and class
conflicts) but also includes gendered inequalities (such as in the Northern, dominant
feminist critique of patriarchy) and persistent caste-like, racialized colonial asymme-
tries. Interculturality through the lens of this paradigm has nurtured compensatory and
often assimilationist institutional responses, which identified a given minority’s lacks
and/or handicaps as sources of inequality, in order to make equal the unequal. This
represents a universalist approach, deeply rooted both theoretically and programmat-
ically in a monocultural habitus, which is presented and defended as a transcultural
feature of any given society beyond cultural or ethnic differences. Such a claim is the
classical product of the Western nation-state and its hegemonic way of conceiving the
social sciences.
The paradigm of difference, in contrast, has been formulated, achieved, and spread
both in Northern and in Southern contexts by new social movements and their par-
ticular identity politics. It promotes a horizontal analysis of ethnic, cultural, religious,
gender-based, age, generation, and sexual orientation as well as diverse differences
related to capabilities. This differentiation process is achieved through group-specific,
segregated empowerment strategies for each of the concerned minorities. Intracultural
features and strategic delimitations toward other groups (us vs. them) trigger a politics
of identity which mostly relies on discourse rather than on praxis. The corresponding
approach privileges particularist and multiculturalist responses, which frequently
ignore, invisibilize, or downplay socioeconomic inequalities and broader structural
conditions.
Finally, the diversity paradigm is formulated through the critique of both assimila-
tionist monoculturalism and essentializing multiculturalism. In contrast to the other
two paradigms, this approach starts from the plural, multisituated, contextual, and
therefore necessarily hybrid character of any cultural, ethnic, religious, or class- or
gender-based identity. These diverse identities are articulated both individually and
 I N T E R CU L T U R A L I T Y 5

collectively not so much through discourses but through the praxis of interactions
between heterogeneous actors in hybrid, interstitial, shared spaces. Accordingly, the
resulting strategy of analysis tends to be intercultural in the sense of looking for
relational, cross-cutting, and intersectional features of interaction.
In their triadic combination, inequality, difference, and diversity together constitute
the methodological point of departure for an intercultural analysis of constellations
of lifeworld diversities and of their normative diversity treatment or management.
Through this triadic kind of analysis, which is not limited to the observable surface
of intercultural interaction patterns or to the content of collective ethnic identity
discourses, interculturality and diversity become visible and analyzable as complex
phenomena. Including its underlying institutional structurations, the phenomenon of
interculturality is thus to be localized in the very structure of contemporary society
as a contextual and case-specific translation of a shared, underlying “grammar of
diversities” (Dietz 2009).

Anglo-Saxon, Continental European, and Latin American

contexts of origin

As an academic discourse, interculturality does not only reveal relatedness to specific

social science research paradigms but may also be tracked to different regional societal
sources. The use of the adjective “intercultural” in different anthropological publica-
tions may be traced back to Latin American applied anthropology since the 1950s. Both
Venezuelan and Mexican anthropologists started referring to “intercultural education”
and “intercultural health” as new spheres of interaction between state-led, nonindige-
nous initiatives of national integration and local indigenous cultures (Mateos Cortés
2011). Nevertheless, these Latin American usages of interculturality returned at the
end of the twentieth century only after interacting with North American and Euro-
pean notions of interculturality, often reintroduced in the region through development
cooperation agencies.
Particularly influential has been interculturality’s close interaction with Anglo-Saxon
multiculturalism and multicultural education (Dietz and Mateos Cortés 2011). Mul-
ticultural discourse, which had originally emerged in societies self-defined as settler
countries of immigration located mostly in North America and Oceania, has since
become the principal ideological point of reference for notions of interculturality. Poli-
cies of multicultural education have been applied since the 1980s in these postsettler
societies, particularly foreign, nonnative, immigrated minorities. As the long-standing
tradition of indigenismo illustrates, however, in the Latin American context and under
nationalist, homogenizing, and non-multiculturalist premises, very similar policies of
differential education have historically targeted indigenous minorities and not immi-
grated ones.
Therefore, when multiculturalist discourses start migrating from one context to
another, their original points of departure—a particular matrix of identity politics
and their underlying institutional frames—often end up being blended, confused, and
supposedly neutralized in their power to shape educational “solutions” in the new
6 I N T E R CU L T U R A L I T Y

contexts. A critical anthropological deconstruction of these migrating models must

start by examining their rather different origins and contexts, which in both North
American and British Commonwealth societies are related to new collective actors
questioning mainstream society’s false and often racist promises of a “color-blind”
“melting pot” and striving therefore to empower minority students distinctively in
often severely racialized postsegregation and/or postcolonial school environments.
Multicultural education in such societies is accordingly formulated as a program of
both political recognition and differential treatment for these minoritized groups.
By contrast, in Continental European countries intercultural, not multicultural, edu-
cation has been developed, and it is conceived not as a minority claim targeting col-
lective actors but as an individualized “integration” of immigrated minority students in
postwar Fordist labor environments. These integration measures slowly evolved from
assimilationist and compensatory approaches toward interaction-oriented “solutions”
that crosscut minority/majority divisions through an emphasis on developing individ-
ual intercultural competencies (Gundara 2000).
In Latin America, intercultural education reemerged in the last decade of the
twentieth century as a post-indigenismo discourse and as a means of redefining
the relationship between nation-states and indigenous peoples by parallel or even
exclusively “indigenous” educational programs. Here, “intercultural and bilingual
education” shifts between collective-oriented community empowerment, on the one
hand, and school-access provision for individual students, on the other (López and
Küper 2000).
Thus, the field of diversified educational policies is particularly suitable for illustrat-
ing the three differential treatments given to interculturality. While there is a tendency
toward an empowering education aimed at the minorities in the United States and the
United Kingdom, Continental Europe is opting for an education that cuts across the
promotion of intercultural skills or competences both for excluded minorities and,
above all, for the excluding majorities. In Latin America, however, intercultural educa-
tion appears in a post-indigenismo phase that is redefining the relations between the
state and the indigenous peoples. Here, the notion of interculturality has reappeared in
education with the desire to overcome both the political and the pedagogical limitations
of the previous indigenous bilingual and bicultural education, but it maintains a strong
tendency toward the preferential treatment of ethnic–indigenous issues. Thus, the old
“Indian problem,” the pending, self-imposed task of the Latin American nation-state
to fully “integrate” indigenous peoples into the broader national society, continues
to shape the nucleus of the identity concerns of these nation-states; this is even
more so under the impact of the new indigenous movements and their demands for
autonomy.

Interculturality with regard to culture, ethnicity,

and nationalism

What conceptual relation is to be established between interculturality and nationalism

and ethnicity? As ethnicity theory has shown since the 1980s, neither the phenomena
 I N T E R CU L T U R A L I T Y 7

of ethnic and/or national delimitation nor the cultural differences to which this
delimitation resorts are explainable as immutable essences. However, it has also
become clear that the apparent range of possibilities for “inventing traditions” and
for selecting diacritical cultural features is subject to the multiple power relations that
link a particular group with certain socioeconomic strata and with nation-state power
(see Dietz 2009). In order to address the specific role played by interculturality, the
relationship that exists between the concepts of culture and ethnicity and/or national-
ism has to be specified without falling back into either primordialist reductionisms or
constructivist extremes.

Culture and ethnicity as defining lines for interculturality

The social actors, members of a specific ethnic group, and bearers of a particular cul-
tural legacy do not reinvent their culture daily, nor do they constantly change their
group identity. Cultural reproduction, both intra- and intergenerationally, drives—by
means of daily praxis—processes of what Giddens (1984) called “routinization,” which
in turn structure this praxis. This routinization allows the social actor to manage his or
her continuity, both in objectified aspects of culture (institutions, rituals, and preestab-
lished meanings) and in subjectified aspects of culture (concrete knowledge of practices
and representations on the part of the members of the group in question). The per-
manent confluence and interaction of both aspects of culture, its institutional objec-
tification (which can be analyzed on the etic level) and its individual subjectification
(which can be captured only from an emic perspective) generate a canon of cultur-
ally specific practices and representations, a distinctive habitus, in Bourdieu’s (1990)
terms.
This praxeological approach to culture in social theory not only contributes to
overcoming the old debate between cultural objectivism and subjectivism, of structure
versus agency dichotomies but at the same time helps to distinguish between processes
of cultural reproduction and processes of ethnic identification. While the reproduc-
tion and/or transformation of inherited culture is carried out by updating and/or
modifying ritualized symbolic practices, ethnic identification with a certain set of
social actors and the delimitation of this set from another, larger, set of actors implies
a discursive—conscious, although later internalized—act of comparing, selecting, and
giving meaning to certain cultural practices and representations as contrast markers in
intercultural situations.

The intracultural and the intercultural

This is why ethnicity is not an arbitrary event: the selection and assignment of meaning
on the discursive level of emblems or “ethnic markers” is limited according to the
distinctive habitus of the groups involved, that is, according to their cultural praxis.
Ethnicity is, then, an epiphenomenon of an intercultural contact that, in turn, struc-
tures the interaction of this contact by selecting certain contrast markers as opposed
to others. As a formal mechanism of delimitation, a particular group’s identity politics,
8 I N T E R CU L T U R A L I T Y

understood to be a politics of recognition, mediates the relations between what is

considered intracultural and what is intercultural. Depending on the kind of contrast
chosen, models of interaction are broadened or restricted by means of specific stereo-
types about us versus them. Throughout this intercultural process, ethnicity, however,
not only structures the intercultural relation but also modifies the intracultural
structures, objectifying certain cultural elements and instrumentalizing them as ethnic
markers.

Nationalism and its impact on interculturality

The arbitrary selection of one dialect variant and its institutionalization as the national
language generates—through its intergenerational transmission—a hegemonic habitus
in the majority of national societies, expressed in an assumed common sense about
the “normalness” and “naturalness” of focusing education on this standardized lan-
guage. In consequence, dialects and linguistic diversity are considered “school prob-
lems.” Similarly, the constant and recurring use of biological stereotypes by a dominant
group throughout its models of intercultural communication with a nonhegemonic
group will stabilize pseudobiological cultural distinctions by means of racialized topoi
of perception.
The selective symbolization that is inherent to both ethnicity and nationalism rei-
fies differences; routinized, habitual culture becomes an identity resource for delimiting
groups, with the objective of driving processes of ethnogenesis: what was routine praxis
before becomes part of an explicit identity policy. In this sense, culture and ethnicity
are two closely and intimately related concepts that, in their interaction with identity
discourse and cultural praxis, create both intercultural and intracultural relations and
delimitations.
How, then, are these concepts of culture, ethnicity, and interculturality linked to
questions of nationalism? Apart from differences in the ways in which a nation-state is
sought after or is claimed by nationalist movements, nationalist strategies do not differ
structurally from those employed by ethnic movements with regard to identity politics.
Both can be classified and compared through the distinction of three “hegemonic strate-
gies” (Alonso 1994; Smith 1996). First, territorialization transforms space into territory,
often even into “sacred territory” (Smith 1996), converting the overlapping, liminal
spaces of interaction between groups into clear frontiers that separate them. It is the
hegemonic group that bears the national project that defines the center of the nation
and the subnational peripheries. Second, substantialization reinterprets social relations
in a biologizing manner in order to confer an immutable, quasi-natural appearance on
the emerging and still fragile national entity, often based on a “myth of ethnic choice”
(Smith 1996). Starting from the self-definition of the group that bears the nationalizing
project, the nation-state thus invents national society. And, third, temporalization con-
sists in the nation-state imposing a single version of the multiple “invented traditions,”
reinterpreting this version as the primordial past of the national project, as the shared
“golden age” (Smith 1996). Thanks to this kind of canonization of history, not only is
“authorized memory” institutionalized but so too is “collective amnesia,” the equally
sanctioned “forgetting” of all the other traditions.
 I N T E R CU L T U R A L I T Y 9

Nation-state building homogenizes inwards, establishing an inclusive citizenship

that is thought of as a civic nation, while at the same time delimiting outwards,
distinguishing according to nationality. This duality illustrates what Habermas (1998)
calls the “Janus face” of the concept of nation. In spite of the distinctive matrixes that
the specific combination of this duality creates within each nation-state, the ideological
nucleus is identical. Nationalism generates the nation-state; once it is established, the
group that promoted the state project converts it into a “nationalizing nationalism”
(Brubaker 1996), a homogenizing project that redefines the relationships that exist
between the group and the rest of the populace according to their place in this
nationalizing project. Consequently, the formation of this ideal nation-state is never
a closed chapter: the constant reemergence and recovery of diverging interpretations
by the nonhegemonic or counterhegemonic groups forces the state to implement new
institutional strategies constantly in order to achieve its original desire of homog-
enizing and integrating the groups, thus turning nationalist fiction into national
reality.
Therefore, an intrinsic conflict persists between state nationalism and ethnicity. The
terms under which the dialectical relationship that arises between the nationalizing
nationalism and the particularizing ethnicity develop are defined by the power of the
state. The hegemonic capacity of the state’s national project conditions the nonhege-
monic ethnic projects’ room for maneuver. The redefining of intercultural as against
intracultural relations is, accordingly, part of a hegemonic national project and, at the
same time, of a counterhegemonic ethnicity project by nonnationalized, subaltern
groups. This is the reason why interculturality quickly turns to become an arena or
even a battleground of, on the one hand, functional, reproductionist approaches from
above and, on the other hand, critical, transformative approaches from below.

The importance of (national) education for interculturality

Considering these interlinkages between culture, ethnicity, interculturality, and nation-
alism, an essential task of anthropology consists in critically picking apart the discourses
about multiculturality and interculturality (Meer and Modood 2012), as well as the
relationship that exists between these discourses and their respective practices as they
materialize in supposedly intercultural education. The differential treatment—whether
directed toward assimilation, integration, or segregation—provided by official national
education systems and aimed at certain “minority” groups is an integral part of the
nation-state’s identity politics. The perception of otherness is simultaneously the prod-
uct and the producer of identity. Not only is this close interrelationship between the
conception of “us” and “them” evident in the classic nineteenth-century pedagogies of
nationalizing nationalism, but the new pedagogies of multiculturalism and intercultur-
alism must also be analyzed not as simple responses to the classroom’s internal diversifi-
cation but as contemporary expressions of the national identity project. Interculturality
from the hegemonic, state perspective implies an official pedagogy of otherness, of deal-
ing with those nonnational others.
In this sense, it is striking that in the Continental European context the presence of
native minorities and their claims for recognition in the educational arena have not
10 I N T E R CU L T U R A L I T Y

triggered any interculturalization efforts. Instead, either openly assimilatory or explic-

itly segregatory efforts have been the programmatic answer to ethnic claims from Nor-
way (by the Sami) and Denmark (the ethnic Groenlaenders), through Germany (the
Sorbs) and France (the Normans, Occitans, and Corses) down to Italy (the southern
Tiroles), Greece (the Pontians and Macedonians), and several Eastern European coun-
tries. In all of these contexts, intercultural solutions to school problems have been imple-
mented only once immigrated minorities (Turks, Arabs, eastern European Roma, etc.)
have been made visible and problematized at school (Dietz 2009).
The Spanish case is particularly illustrative of the national bias in interculturality dis-
courses. For decades, collective rights for autochthonous groups have been strongly
and polemically discussed under nationalist, not multiculturalist nor interculturalist,
premises, whereas intercultural solutions are sought for with regard to Maghrebian and
Latin American immigrated minorities. Up to the present day, Catalan, Basque, Gali-
cian, and even Andalusian nationalisms have employed ethnicizing, self-assimilatory
discourses for their own nationalist claims while resorting to sometimes intercultural,
sometimes segregatory, discourses for the treatment of newly immigrated communities.
Throughout these dividing lines, historically rooted and dichotomously defined iden-
tities of the other—stigmatized as the historically external “enemy,” the Moor, or the
historically internal “enemy,” the Gypsy or Roma—reemerge when multicultural mod-
els and discourses are imported and adopted by contemporary mainstream society and
policy making.

Disciplinary points of departure and interdisciplinary

convergences

This section considers the different translations that the notion of interculturality is
undergoing in diverse disciplinary and interdisciplinary constellations.

Intercultural pedagogy and the anthropology of education

Interculturality in education has not been promoted only by official state-led policies;
the mentioned normative, prescriptive potential that has characterized the concept
ever since it became part of social movement agendas—by migrant communities
in Europe, African American and/or Chicano communities in North America,
indigenous communities in Latin America and Oceania—has contributed to the
emergence of a new (sub)discipline of intercultural pedagogy and/or intercultural
education (Dietz and Mateos Cortés 2011). It is in this context that an encounter
of pedagogy with anthropology occurs. This encounter is not limited to the inter-
culturality discourse. At least since North American anthropologists created the
Council on Anthropology and Education in 1968, the anthropology of education
has been characterized by its integration of ethnographic and comparative research
about the intergenerational acquisition of the culturally specific mechanisms of
interaction—and of cognition—with general theorization about the concepts of culture
and identity.
 I N T E R CU L T U R A L I T Y 11

This subdiscipline’s analytic and comparative orientation contrasts not only with
intercultural education’s normative load but also with the often immediate zeal for
pedagogical intervention. As a result, a gradual distancing can be perceived between
the anthropology of education as a subdiscipline of anthropology, on the one hand,
and pedagogical anthropology, on the other, which goes back to María Montessori’s
original “scientific” interest but broadens its questions and thus comes closer to
philosophy and especially to ethics.
In the context of the emerging intercultural pedagogy, a predominantly auxil-
iary interpretation of anthropological knowledge has generated a terminological–
conceptual reductionism, which has had a negative impact on the very strategy of
interculturalizing the educational sphere. Reflecting a deeply rooted tendency in
pedagogy to problematize the existence of cultural diversity in the classroom, basic
concepts from anthropology such as culture, ethnic group, and ethnicity are applied
and operationalized which resorts to nineteenth-century definitions in the best of
cases. Apart from the recurring use of racializations, for example, cultural differences
are often ethnicized by reifying their bearers.
Not only is intergroup difference often essentialized in so-called intercultural
education, but individual and group phenomena are also mixed up: emic and etic
perspectives are indiscriminately mixed. Dissimilar notions as culture, ethnicity,
phenotypic differences, and demographic situations such as being a minority are
confused, and finally the historical stereotypes of the Western other, the topoi of the
“Gypsy,” the “Muslim,” and so on are resorted to. In these kinds of terminological
shortcuts, the practical consequences of the strategy of problematizing cultural
diversity, promoted both by the classic tasks of pedagogy and by differential mul-
ticulturalism, become evident. Once the politics of difference is transferred to the
classroom, otherness becomes a problem and its solution is culturalized by reinter-
preting the socioeconomic, legal, and/or political inequalities as supposed cultural
differences.
In a disencounter with these tendencies in intercultural education, a particularly
anthropological task consists of decoding this kind of culturalist pedagogical discourse
and of deculturalizing its culturalist-biased interpretations. One example is the
aforementioned analysis of school performance by students from migratory and/or
minority contexts. When the school “successes” and “failures” of immigrant students
are contrasted with the school performance of native students, a large part of the
so-called pedagogical problem created by the presence of children from migratory
and/or minority contexts is shown to be explainable in the classic terms of social
stratification.

Intercultural studies
The term “intercultural studies” was coined to designate an emerging field of transdisci-
plinary preoccupations regarding the contacts and relations that, on both the individual
and the collective levels, are articulated in contexts of cultural diversity and heterogene-
ity. This cultural diversity, conceived of as the product of the presence of ethnic and/or
cultural minorities or of the establishment of new migrant communities in the heart of
12 I N T E R CU L T U R A L I T Y

contemporary societies, is studied in school and extra-school contexts, in situations of

discrimination that reflect xenophobia and racism in the different spheres of ever more
diverse societies.
These studies reflect the confluence of different factors that indicate profound trans-
formations in academia itself. Ethnic studies, developed particularly in North Amer-
ican higher education, seek to overcome their initial phase of self-isolation as niches
of self-study by members of the same minority. Simultaneously, under the influence of
critical theory, cultural studies recover theoretical approaches to the conflicts that exist
in contemporary societies, generating a new intercultural dimension. And within the
classic disciplines of the social sciences, the study of cultural diversity with its emphasis
on relationships between minorities and majorities as well as between migrants and
nonmigrants, favors an interdisciplinary movement toward the intercultural. At the
same time, new subdisciplines such as intercultural pedagogy, psychology, linguistics,
and philosophy tend to develop a transdisciplinary research dynamic that allows them
to bring their respective objects of study closer together. Similarly, disciplines that are
traditionally not closely related to the theme of cultural diversity, such as economics
and the business sciences as well as political science, discover interculturality when they
internationalize their sphere of study.
In this way, the nascent intercultural studies reflects the success achieved by multi-
culturalism in its strategy of visualizing and thematizing cultural diversity in all spheres
of contemporary society. The polyphonic and many-folded character of the phenomena
classified as multicultural or intercultural makes any attempt to cover them all from a
monodisciplinary perspective impossible. This affects, first of all, the anthropological
perspective and its loss of the monopoly on the concept of culture, as the emergence
of cultural studies has already exemplified. Because of the aforementioned frequent use
of essentialized and mechanical definitions of culture, when the concept migrates from
one discipline to the other, a critical anthropological analysis of culture and related con-
cepts is still needed.

Intercultural business and organizational studies

In the highly successful and popular economic and business studies of cultural and
intercultural themes, inaugurated by Hofstede’s (1994) pioneering approach, a static
and often harmonizing notion of culture, which is directly traceable to the anthropolog-
ical functionalism of the mid-twentieth century, persists. The identification of cultural
differences with norms and values that are supposedly characteristic of the correspond-
ing nationalities from which the leading management of a given multinational company
stems generates conclusions whose simplicity is worrying. The resulting classification of
cultures according to their degree of individualism versus collectivism or of masculin-
ity versus femininity is so stereotyped and ethnocentric that it can hardly contribute to
the study of intracultural and intercultural dynamics.
Despite this simplifying singularization of individual identity versus group identity,
Hofstede’s intercultural model continues to be applied not only in economic sciences
and business administration but even in supposedly intercultural education. As a result,
this kind of intercultural study tends to spread and to deepen national stereotypes. The
 I N T E R CU L T U R A L I T Y 13

approach that analyzes the organizational cultures that prevail within certain institu-
tions, according to their degree of integration, differentiation, and fragmentation, also
contributes to similar simplifications. This attempt to internationalize or intercultural-
ize the business sciences relativizes the centrality of national cultures, contrasting them
with the influence that different industrial, institutional, and professional cultures have
on the shape of a business or administrative organization as a whole. The intercultural
dimension is, once again, the result of a merely additive notion of the sum of different
cultures that are discernible and classifiable as objectified entities.

Intercultural psychology and communication

In contrast to this kind of theorization about what is intercultural, so-called inter-
cultural psychology and its fruitful and prolonged exchange with linguistics and
psychopedagogy have developed theories of the intercultural that are much less
schematic. Their starting point is similar to that of business studies. The encounter
between individuals from two different cultures generates a mutual recourse to recip-
rocal stereotypes as a reaction to cultural ambiguities. Therefore, the communicative
aspect is considered essential for redirecting this initially invigorated ethnocentrism
toward an encounter with the other.
As an interdisciplinary field in which psychological, linguistic, anthropological, and
pedagogical approaches converge, intercultural communication studies this kind of
experience of surprise, understanding, and identification. The main contribution of
anthropology consists of distinguishing between the emic and etic perspectives when
analyzing the communicative act, while linguistics and foreign-language teaching
systematize the notion of communicational competence and transfer it to the inter-
cultural sphere. Beyond the cognitive prerequisites of knowledge about the other,
the intercultural situation requires the skills of empathy, sociability, and mediation
within heterogeneous contexts. These kinds of competences are acquired only through
interaction.
These communication models often contrast with many real communication
situations, which are characterized by asymmetrical power relations between the
participants in the communicative event. Even in intercultural activities that are
programmed to be explicitly intercultural, such as so-called cultural encounters,
the persistence of ethnocentric and universalist criteria limits the possibility of real
dialogue beyond cultural differences. The limits of this focus become quite obvious
when its practical methods and recommendations go beyond their peculiar contexts
of origin to more conflictive social situations. Intercultural communication has been
developed that resorts to a reduced number of artificially ideal communicational
situations: ongoing training for employees in multinational companies; encounters
between European youth of different nationalities in summer camps and explicitly
intercultural retreats; foreign-language teaching, especially to university students
in international exchange programs; diplomatic or commercial negotiations at the
international level; and tourism.
Even the so-called training for intercultural mediators represents a privileged situa-
tion, given the externally induced character of the encounter, which is favored through
14 I N T E R CU L T U R A L I T Y

the training activity. This becomes evident if we contrast these often artificially har-
monious prototypes of intercultural communication with the models of competence,
interaction, and communication displayed in strongly ethnicized and racialized post-
colonial contexts, such as in the case of communication between “whites” and “blacks”
both in the United States and in Europe. Accordingly, the main problem of this approach
lies in its tendency to personalize and individualize the communicative dimension, thus
underestimating the persistent influence of group ideologies in the very act of commu-
nication between two individuals.

Intercultural philosophy, theology, and hermeneutics

In contrast to these empirical attempts to analyze the communicative mechanisms
that function within intercultural processes, nascent intercultural philosophies and
theologies start out with the need to overcome the ethnocentric legacy of Western
thought—canonized as the one and only philosophy—through the progressive inter-
culturalization of philosophical activity. Different conceptual proposals have been
developed to interculturalize Western philosophy and/or theology.
For instance, starting from the contrastive analysis of the Hindu and Christian reli-
gious and cosmological systems, Panikkar (1990) and others propose the development
of a comparative science of philosophy, analogous to the model of “interreligious dia-
logue,” in which the intercultural dimension arises from the harmonious and dialogical
exchange between languages, religions, and cultures. Furthermore, the Latin Ameri-
can tradition of theology and philosophy of liberation (e.g., Raúl Fornet-Betancourt,
Enrique Dussel, León Olivé), with its critical, emancipatory, and transforming dimen-
sion, in particular, is contributing to the development of a new philosophy that is poly-
phonic, potentially utopian, and enculturated in its different contexts. In order to criti-
cize and deconstruct the Western notion of human rights as well as its “epistimecidical”
attitude toward other cultural traditions, Santos (2010) opts for a “diatopic hermeneu-
tics,” a transcultural dialogue that transcends the commonplaces of each culture by
raising the consciousness of reciprocal incompleteness by engaging in dialogue.
Beyond the different nuances drawn by each contribution in aspects such as the
type of dialogue and the transforming and/or dissident character of the thought
under discussion, the common element of these highly normative proposals lies in the
step-by-step emergence of a new kind of intercultural rationality, conceived of as the
product of a transrationalization of the different philosophical models. In spite of the
emphasis these authors have placed on the transformable character of intercultural
relations, a static, singularized, and often mentalist notion of culture subsumes what is
intercultural in metaphors of encounter and dialogue between discrete, never hybrid,
entities.
In recent years, through the contribution of the linguistic and philological perspec-
tive of intercultural communication, an attempt to abandon the reductionism and
the schematic aspect that are still inherent in the notions of interculturality analyzed
up to this point can be discerned. It is, above all, a result of the encounter between
foreign-language teaching, interpretive anthropology, and the persistent hermeneutic
tradition that the first interdisciplinary theoretical–methodological program with
 I N T E R CU L T U R A L I T Y 15

regard to what is intercultural is formulated. This intercultural hermeneutics (Stagl

1993) conceives of itself as an extension and systematization of the classic transcen-
dental hermeneutics that—with evident Kantian echoes—reflects on the conditions
that make Verstehen (comprehension, understanding) and communication between
human beings possible. Within this paradigm, all acts of Verstehen are understood to
be tentative, approximational, and necessarily circular procedures of the Gadamerian
“fusion of horizons.” The result of this contrastive, interpretive operation is to generate
an intersubjective meaning.
In the anthropology dedicated to interculturality, as well as in the nascent inter-
cultural philologies, this hermeneutic notion is broadened, resorting to the originally
Schützian, phenomenological concept of lifeworld. The plurality of lifeworlds, shaped as
self-referential wholes that give meaning to their members, requires the pluralization of
comprehensional models. The possibilities of intercultural comprehension, which seeks
to translate between these lifeworlds, depends not only on linguistic competence and
skills, as intercultural communication suggests, but also on the development of reflexive
dialogues.

Interculturality between intersectional diversities

and decoloniality

Apart from these disciplinary and interdisciplinary developments, which illustrate the
emergence of subfields of academic specialization, in more general terms the latest
anthropological and social science debates on interculturality reveal once more a persis-
tent division between Northern and Southern academic stances and priorities. Broadly
speaking, whereas in Northern contexts interculturality is increasingly embedded in a
larger constructivist, anti-essentialist, and intersectional notion of diversity, Southern
definitions of interculturality emphasize its close link to subaltern, emancipatory social
movements aiming at decolonizing asymmetrical knowledge systems, memories, and
state–society relations.

Diversity and intersectionality

Since the 1990s, and particularly since the turn of the century, interculturality is
increasingly discussed, perceived and problematized in the global North in terms of
diversity and particularly of cultural diversity (Dietz 2009). The former, aforemen-
tioned (over)emphasis on difference faces the problem of how to include other gender-,
migration-, or disability-related sources of difference and how to address possible
intersections between these sources of difference. Therefore, the concept of difference,
which suggests the possibility of neatly distinguishing between its respective traits
or markers, is being gradually replaced by the notion of diversity, which in contrast
emphasizes the multiplicity, overlapping, and crossing between sources of human
variability. In this sense, cultural diversity is increasingly being employed and defined
in relation to social and cultural variability in the same way as biodiversity is being
used when referring to biological and ecological variations, habitats, and ecosystems.
16 I N T E R CU L T U R A L I T Y

In the Northern contexts of interculturality discourses, diversity tends to be epit-

omized as cultural diversity, as the diversity of lifeworlds, lifestyles, and identities,
which in an increasingly glocalized and superdiverse society cannot be separated from,
but end up mixing and hybridizing, each other. Moreover, the discourse on diversity
tends to include not only a descriptive dimension—how cultures, groups, and societies
are diversely structured and how they deal with heterogeneity—but also a strongly
prescriptive dimension—stating how cultures, groups, and societies should interact
within themselves and with each other.
In this connection, the recognition of diversity becomes a political postulate, a claim
articulated by minority organizations and movements that struggle to enter the hege-
monic, supposedly homogeneous, public domain of Western societies (Ribeiro 2007).
In different European nation-states there are rather diverse forms of collective actions
and claims-making procedures, through which ethnic, cultural, national, religious, and
sexual minorities are entering the public sphere. Whereas in the European Union this
redefinition of the political and educational domains by new minority actors is still a
rather new phenomenon, the Anglo-Saxon and particularly US and Canadian contexts
already show long traditions of diversity management as official reactions to minority
claims making. Different levels of court rulings establishing affirmative action and equal
employment opportunity schemes in public institutions, organizations, and enterprises
have forced both public and private actors to introduce diversity mechanisms into their
particular organizational contexts. As a consequence, the whole discourse of diversity,
diversity recognition, and diversity management is turning into an ideology that polit-
ically and even legally promotes the perception of certain traits and features—gender,
ethnicity, culture, sexual orientation, for example—to the detriment of others, such as
social class.
Diversity is therefore to be conceived of not as a mechanical summing up of
differences but as a multidimensional and multiperspectivist approach to the study
of identities, identity markers, and discriminatory practices. It is the intersections
between diverse and contradictory discourses and practices, and not the essence of
given identity discourses, that will thus constitute the main object of the diversity
approach. The notion of intersectionality, which originally stems from the feminist
and multiculturalist debates on the racialization of women from African American,
Latino/a, or other minority backgrounds, leads the discourse of interculturality
to focus on the often cross-cutting reinforcements of discriminatory attitudes and
activities and their impact on an individual’s identity formation and transformation
processes.
Intersectionality may be viewed both from the perspective of identity formation
and from the perception of discrimination, two aspects that tend to combine in
particular situations, which reflect an actor’s identity choices according to the different
levels and types of identities to which he or she has access but also to the particular
visibility of a given source of identity with regard to its stigmatized or nonstigmatized
connotations, intersections are to be traced between multiple, high versus low salient,
as well as between positively versus negatively connotated, dimensions of identity.
Complementing these distinctions, the power differentials inherent in each of the often
dichotomous identity dimensions have to be considered throughout the analysis.
 I N T E R CU L T U R A L I T Y 17

Decolonial interculturality and intercultural citizenship

The intersectional, cross-cutting, and hybrid notion of diversity and interculturality
developed particularly in Northern academic and societal contexts contrasts sharply
with the social and political movement of Southern collective actors such as indige-
nous movements in the Andes and in other Latin American regions who redefine
interculturality in terms of recognizing the colonial nature and origin of intergroup
relations in contemporary postcolonial nation-states (Aman 2015). The coloniality of
social relations, which persists as a form of racialized dominance and still structures
the perception of diversity (Quijano 2007), needs to be replaced by an explicitly
decolonial interculturality, an academic and political program that replaces externally
imposed, Eurocentric binarities and dichotomies with regional and local actors’ own,
intracultural cosmologies, worldviews, and definitions of buen vivir, of sumak kawsay,
of “good living.”
Drawing both from postcolonial academic discourse and from indigenous move-
ments’ claims making, this Southern concept of interculturality is much more explicitly
political and transformative in its normative stance (Walsh 2003). It shares with its
Northern counterpart a constructivist concern with all too simple essentializations of
identity and difference, but decolonial interculturality rejects a postmodern celebration
of hybridity for its own sake. Instead, the recognition of colonial and postcolonial
asymmetries motivates its protagonists to reconstruct collective actors, to remember
historical grievances, to regain spheres of autonomous decision making, and to force
the nation-state and its governing elites to redefine the relationship between state
and society as well as between dominant social groups and historically excluded
indigenous, mestizo, and Afro-descendant communities.
Therefore, interculturality is conceived in Latin American power constellations
as both conflictual and dialogical: the conflictive, often violent nature of intergroup
relations needs to be acknowledged before a dialogue on the future of intercultural
relations may be conducted between all members and groups of contemporary
society. For this purpose, inward-directed intracultural reconstruction of indigene-
ity and of autonomy among the colonized communities is as much a prerequisite as
outward-directed intercultural exchange with the descendants of the colonizers (Rivera
Cusicanqui 2010). In some nation-states, intercultural dialogues that engage with all
groups of society are beginning to transform postcolonial power relations, to redefine
majority–minority constellations by recognizing the plurinational composition of
society. This recognition translates into the emergence of an “intercultural citizenship”
(Alfaro, Ansión, and Tubino 2008), a citizenship regime that is based on intraculturally
specific and interculturally negotiated capacities to exercise human rights in situations
of persistent, historically rooted inequalities and asymmetries.

Acknowledgments

Parts of this entry have been revised and updated from two earlier publications: Dietz
(2009) and Dietz and Mateos Cortés (2011). A shorter, preliminary version of this article
was published in the journal Perfiles Educativos 39 (156) in 2017.
18 I N T E R CU L T U R A L I T Y

SEE ALSO: Anthropology of Education, Anthropology in Education, and Anthro-

pology for Education; Chile, Anthropology in; Citizenship; Coloniality of Power;
Cultural Brokers; Cultural Transmission; Culture, Concept of; Diaspora; Empow-
erment and Community Participation; Essentialism; Ethnicity in Anthropology;
Ethnicity, Multiculturalism, and Transnationalism; Ethnology; Gender, Nationalism,
and Ethnicity; Gender and Race, Intersectionality Theory of; Habitus; Hybridity;
Identity in Anthropology; Indigeneity in Anthropology; Indigenous Peoples and
Higher Education; Indigenous Theory; Jazz; Literacy Practices across Cultures and
Sectors; Migration; Multiculturalism; Nationalism; Philosophical Anthropology;
Policy, Anthropology and; Politics of Recognition; Postcolonialism; Postcoloniality;
Rights; Social Movements; Transnationalism

REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING

Alfaro, Santiago, Juan Ansión, and Fidel Tubino. 2008. Ciudadanía intercultural: Conceptos y
pedagogías desde América Latina [Intercultural Citizenship: Concepts and Pedagogies from
Latin America]. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú.
Alonso, Ana María. 1994. “The Politics of Space, Time, and Substance: State Formation, Nation-
alism, and Ethnicity.” Annual Review of Anthropology 23: 379–405.
Aman, Robert. 2015. “Why Interculturalidad Is not Interculturality: Colonial Remains and Para-
doxes in Translation between Indigenous Social Movements and Supranational Bodies.” Cul-
tural Studies 29 (2): 205–28.
Barañano, Ascensión, José Luis García, María Cátedra, and María José Devillard, eds. 2007. Dic-
cionario de relaciones interculturales: Diversidad y globalización [Dictionary of Intercultural
Relations: Diversity and Globalization]. Madrid: Editorial Complutense.
Barrett, Martyn, ed. 2013. Interculturalism and Multiculturalism: Similarities and Differences.
Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Bertely, María. 2007. Conflicto intercultural, educación y democracia activa en México [Intercul-
tural Conflict, Education and Active Democracy in Mexico]. Mexico City: CIESAS / Lima:
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990. The Logic of Practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Brubaker, Rogers. 1996. Nationalism Reframed: Nationhood and the National Question in the New
Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dietz, Gunther. 2009. Multiculturalism, Interculturality and Diversity in Education: An Anthro-
pological Approach. Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
Dietz, Gunther, and Laura Selene Mateos Cortés. 2011. “Multiculturalism and Intercultural
Education Facing the Anthropology of Education.” In A Companion to the Anthropol-
ogy of Education, edited by Bradley A. U. Levinson and Mica Pollack, 495–516. Oxford:
Wiley Blackwell.
Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cam-
bridge: Polity.
Gogolin, Ingrid, and Marianne Krüger-Potratz. 2006. Einführung in die Interkulturelle Pädagogik
[Introduction to Intercultural Pedagogy]. Opladen, Germany: Budrich.
Gundara, Jagdish. 2000. Interculturalism, Education and Inclusion. London: Paul Chapman.
Gundara, Jagdish, and Agostino Portera. 2008. “Theoretical Reflections on Intercultural Educa-
tion.” Intercultural Education 19 (6): 463–68.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1998. The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
 I N T E R CU L T U R A L I T Y 19

Hofstede, Geert. 1994. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind: Intercultural Coopera-
tion and Its Importance for Survival. London: HarperCollins.
López, Luis Enrique, and Wolfgang Küper. 2000. “La educación intercultural bilingüe en
América Latina: balance y perspectivas [Intercultural Bilingual Education in Latin America:
Evaluation and Perspectives].” Accessed May 27, 2015, http://www.schwartzman.org.br/
simon/delphi/pdf/lopes_comp1.pdf.
Mateos Cortés, Laura Selene. 2011. La migración transnacional del discurso intercultural [The
Transnational Migration of Intercultural Discourse]. Quito: Abya Yala.
Meer, Nasar, and Tariq Modood. 2012. “How does Interculturalism Contrast with Multicultur-
alism?” Journal of Intercultural Studies 33 (2): 175–96.
Panikkar, Raimon. 1990. Sobre el diálogo intercultural [On Intercultural Dialogue]. Salamanca,
Spain: San Esteban.
Quijano, Aníbal. 2007. “Coloniality and Modernity/Rationality.” Cultural Studies 21 (2–3):
168–78.
Ribeiro, Gustavo Lins. 2007. “Cultural Diversity as a Global Discourse.” Série antropologia 412:
7–33.
Rivera Cusicanqui, Silvia. 2010. Ch’ixinakax utxiwa: Una reflexión sobre prácticas y discursos des-
colonizadores [Ch’ixinakax Utxiwa: A Reflection on Decolonizing Practices and Discourses].
Buenos Aires: Tinta Limón.
Santos, Boaventura de Sousa. 2010. Refundación del estado en América Latina: Perspectivas desde
una epistemología del Sur [Relaunching the State in Latin America: Perspectives from an Epis-
temology of the South]. Lima: Instituto Internacional de Derecho y Sociedad.
Schmelkes, Sylvia. 2009. “Diversidad, complejidad y educación intercultural [Diversity, Com-
plexity and Intercultural Education].” In IX Congreso Nacional de Investigación Educativa:
Conferencias Magistrales [9th National Conference on Educational Research: Keynote
Speeches], edited by COMIE, 297–347. Mexico City: Consejo Mexicano de Investigación
Educativa.
Smith, Anthony D. 1996. “The Resurgence of Nationalism? Myth and Memory in the Renewal
of Nations.” British Journal of Sociology 47 (4): 575–98.
Stagl, Justin. 1993. “Szientistische, hermeneutische und phänomenologische Grundlagen der
Ethnologie [Scientific, Hermeneutic and Phenomenological Foundations of Anthropology].”
In Grundfragen der Ethnologie: Beiträge zur gegenwärtigen Theorie-Diskussion [Basic Issues in
Anthropology: Contributions to the Contemporary Theory Debate], edited by Wolfdietrich
Schmied-Kowarzik and Justin Stagl, 13–49. Berlin: Reimer.
Walsh, Catherine. 2003. “Interculturalidad y colonialidad del poder: Un pensamiento y
posicionamiento otro desde la diferencia colonial [Interculturality and Coloniality of Power:
Thinking and Positioning Otherwise from Colonial Difference].” In Interculturalidad,
descolonización del estado y del conocimiento [Interculturality, Decolonization of the State
and of Knowledge], by Catherine Walsh, Álvaro García Linera, and Walter Mignolo, 21–70.
Buenos Aires: Ediciones del Signo.

View publication stats