In this paper we engage with and contribute to the critical project of highlighting the dilemmas that arise from structurally unequal and unjust social, political, and institutional realities when dealing with past wrongs or, better phrased, historic injustices. We emphasise the present-time character of historic injustices. We think that there is a risk of allochronism in discussing historic injustices mainly as wrongs done in the past. This risk consists in making people forget that redressing these injustices is something to be (...) done in an unjust present structured by domination, and that those very past wrongs and harms helped to shape the present-time condition of structural injustice. As the misplacing in the past phenomena that occur in the present and in one’s practical context, allochronism has the effect that people do not feel responsible for those present-time injustices that derive from wrongs done in the past. Our aim is to propose one way of dealing with this risk of misallocating responsibility (and thus accountability), which consists in intersecting the notion of historic injustices with the notion of coloniality. After showing how an approach oriented by the notion of coloniality helps surmount the negative effects of allochronism and provides a significant complement to a structural approach to injustice (Sect. ‘ Coloniality and Responsibility for Justice ’), we turn to Frantz Fanon (Sect. ‘ Fanon ’) and José Carlos Mariátegui (Sect. ‘ Mariátegui ’) to illustrate the relationship between coloniality and justice and how it is possible to render a construal of ‘past wrongs’ without losing sight of their pervasiveness in the present time. (shrink)

El presente artículo ofrece una revisión crítica de la noción de injusticia hermenéutica de Miranda Fricker a partir de dos elementos de la obra de Frantz Fanon: 1) la «historicidad» como una carga cultural en las categorías sociales que es productiva, lo que exige cuestionar la definición de injusticia hermenéutica como ausencia o tergiversación de categorías; 2) la redefinición que Fanon hizo del «esquema corporal» de Merleau Ponty: la experiencia vivida del cuerpo, lo que muestra que los recursos hermenéuticos no (...) son solo categorías mentales, sino que están imbricados con la dimensión material. Nuestro objetivo es mostrar cómo estos dos elementos de la teoría fanoniana hacen una contribución a la noción de injusticia hermenéutica y por qué esta es relevante para entender la injusticia estructural del racismo. (shrink)

In this introduction the coordinators of the First Congress of Postcolonial Studies (Buenos Aires, 5th, 6th, 7th December 2012) review some of the main questions and guidelines which characterized the workshops. Starting from a heated debate on the categories and the epistemological proposals developed by postcolonial studies and decolonial feminism, the Congress accepted the challenge of producing a South/South dialogue through the consolidation of a space of interdisciplinary discussion in the different theorical fields inquiring post-colonial experience.

El artículo intenta establecer las configuraciones que asume el humanismo crítico en la escritura de Aimé Césaire en la encrucijada de la diferencia colonial, entendida desde una perspectiva decolonial, y a partir de una noción de espectralidad que deriva y se diferencia de las perspectivas derrideanas. Así entonces, se destaca el hecho de que la escritura de Césaire produce una fuerte impugnación de los procesos de la representación colonial y abre el campo de la experiencia política y cultural signada por (...) la heterogeneidad. The article tries to establish the settings that the critical humanism assumes in Aimé Césaire´s writing at the crossroads of the colonial difference, which is understood from a decolonial perspective, and from a notion of spectrality which derives and differs from the Derridean perspective. So then, the article remarks the fact that Césaire´s writing produces a strong challenge to the processes of colonial representation and it opens the field of political and cultural experience marked by heterogeneity. (shrink)

Focusing on the contributions of Frantz Fanon's writing to the construction of a theory of the postcolonial subject, this book engages post-structuralist discussions on subjectivity and explores the most important readings and discussions of Fanon's work. Problems such as historicity, contingency, and the positions of the subject in postcolonial contexts receive special attention together with phenomenological approaches to Fanonian writing. The central idea is to give Fanon a privileged place in social, political, and cultural analysis. The objectives of the book (...) are to insert Fanon’s texts in contemporary critical theory on modernity and coloniality and to incorporate Fanon in the epistemological and conceptual context of the academy. This innovative work allows us to understand Fanon’s writing as key to linking the experiences and critical developments between the global south and the global north. (shrink)

El artículo se concentra en el cruce conceptual y político de dos escrituras, las de Frantz Fanon y Gilles Deleuze y Félix Guattari, en el momento en que trabajan una crítica a la representación como categoría filosófica y política. Aprovechamos las inducciones que están en él para trazar nuestra propia intervención en dicha crítica. Hemos puesto en contacto estas dos escrituras porque apostamos a comprenderlas dentro de un movimiento crítico de la modernidad, pero también de la colonialidad. Esta última categoría, (...) con frecuencia escamoteada, permite conectar textos, conceptos y escrituras para entender la dimensión organizacional de los cuerpos en la diferencia colonial y en la racialización. Los textos de Fanon son anteriores, cronológicamente hablando, a los de Deleuze y Guattari. No obstante, los tres autores participan del proceso crítico que se inició a mediados de siglo XX, en particular a partir del movimiento histórico de la descolonización. Si bien cada una de estas escrituras apunta inicialmente a audiencias distintas, ambas ofrecen intervenciones asimilables entre sí para una heurística en nuestro presente de la relación modernidad/colonialidad. Abstract This article focuses on the conceptual and political crossroads of two contemporary writings, Frantz Fanon´s and Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari´s, and it read them in the precise moment they develop a critique of representation as a philosophical and political category. We take inductions that are in it to draw our own involvement in such criticism. Both writings are committed not only to produce a critical movement of modernity but also of coloniality, especially Fanon. The latter category, often retracted, is crucial to connect texts and concepts to understand the organizational dimension of bodies in the colonial difference and racialization. Fanon´s texts predate, chronologically speaking, to Deleuze and Guattari work. However, both are part of the critical process that began in the mid-twentieth century, particularly from the historical movement of decolonization. While each of these writings is initially aimed at different audiences, both offer comparable interventions which make sense for a heuristic, in our present, of modern/colonial relationships. (shrink)

The article addresses the relationship between modernity and coloniality in the field of colonial theories, both postcolonial and decolonial, emphasizing the problems of representation and putting in the foreground the problem of not having a language suitable to express the tensions that the same relationship produces. For this, it discuss the crossroads of the coloniality and modernity, present in representative authors of these theories, and it assumes such a crossroads as a cultural and theoretical arena. From there, a reading exercise (...) is proposed, as an example, in texts by Joseph Conrad and Frantz Fanon. Finally, the article discusses some nuances of the problem of representation that could affect our understanding of the processes of subjectivity, their histories and the morphologies of our knowledge. (shrink)

La circulación de la escritura de Frantz Fanon en medios intelectuales y políticos de los años sesenta y setenta en la Argentina, ofrece la oportunidad de analizar dos dimensiones centrales de sus tesis sobre el colonialismo: por un lado, el carácter revisionista que ellas tienen con respecto a visiones eurocéntricas de la modernidad y, por otro, las formas específicas en que se articularon con algunas posiciones intelectuales del período. Recorremos algunos aspectos de tres lecturas de Fanon: las de Francisco Delich, (...) José Sazbón y Carlos Fernández Pardo y las ponemos en relación con los debates poscoloniales y descoloniales acerca de la colonialidad del saber y la diferencia colonial. The circulation of Frantz Fanon's writings in the political and intellectual milieu of the sixties and seventies in Argentina offers the opportunity to analyze two central dimensions of his theses about colonialism: first, their revisionist nature in relation to Eurocentric visions of modernity, and second, the specific ways in which they articulated with some intellectual points of view from that period. We visit here three readings of Fanon, by Francisco Delich, José Sazbón and Carlos Fernández Pardo, and place them in relation to postcolonial and decolonial debates about the coloniality of knowledge and colonial difference. (shrink)