In the early 1920s the world was just starting to heal from the catastrophic effects of what was till then the most intense polycrisis of the modern era, comprising the devastation of World War I, an even deadlier influenza pandemic, increasingly loud claims to independence by Europe’s colonies, and the attempts to reground a European-dominated world system in the ashes of three great empires – Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, and Russian – that for centuries had ruled over the lion’s share of the Eurasian land mass. The severely shaken 19th century liberal order seemed poised for a titanic showdown with a burgeoning Communist imaginary that had already dethroned one empire and seemed destined to spread to the heart of Europe. But then the rapid rise of fascism across Europe forced Liberal and Communist politicians and intellectuals to rethink their most basic assumptions about the nature, functioning, and aims of modern cultural as well as political power.
With the exception of Italy, where fascism’s initial rise led liberal thinkers like Benedetto Croce and Piero Gobetti to offer early and concerted critiques and develop the concept of an anti-fascist “liberal revolution” (rivoluzione liberale - Basso and Anderlini, 1961), most liberal thinkers had neither enough incentive nor the imagination to meet the ideological challenge of fascism, and were in fact far more concerned with communism until World War II (Gentile & Croce, 2023 and Basso and Anderlini, 1961). Marxists could not adopt a similarly laissez fare attitude towards the emergent ideological challenge, precisely because fascism had quickly colonized much of Marxism’s discursive terrain, seizing the political and cultural initiative with “action in which doctrine is immanent,” as Mussolini first put it.[1]
It was in this increasingly violent cauldron of politics, identity, and culture where what today is understood as the 20th century “Critical Theory” tradition emerged in Italy and Germany in the wake of World War 1, and particularly of fascism’s sweeping rise to power over and crushing of ostensibly well-positioned Communist parties in Italy and Germany. The two main forces were Antonio Gramsci and his singular explorations of the cultural foundations of state power, and the scholars of the Institute for Social Research (Institut für Sozialforschung) in Frankfurt, known popularly as the Frankfurt School. Each in their own way, and without direct connection, engaged in a very similar project of attempting to save the intellectual and political project of Marxism, by developing and arguing for a far more comprehensive and holistic grounding for social research, and through it, praxis.
The rise of fascist regimes and the unprecedented violence they generated as part of consolidating, expanding, and then defending their power, necessitated a much broader kind of scholarship than that produced by dogmatic Marxist or traditional liberal approaches. Rather, it was necessary to produce comprehensive analyses of societies by studying cultural, economic, and political dynamics, discourses, and events holistically and in terms of their mutual embeddedness within a broadly materialist framework, rather than as disciplinarily distinct and/or hierarchized areas of investigation (Dahmer, 2015). Max Horkheimer’s definition of this approach in his 1937 essay “Traditional and Critical Theory” as a specifically “critical theory” (Kritische Theorie) still well-describes both the roots and the ongoing goal of critiquing contemporary societies from within (i.e., “immanently”), with the hope of changing them systemically towards a more progressive direction through that process and the knowledge it produces.
Critical theory was at the forefront of meeting the challenge of fascism before, during and in the aftermath of World War II, but by the late 1960s new forms of theory and praxis, particularly poststructuralism and Maoism, were inspiring theorists and activists alike. In the next decade, the term “critical theory” itself was appropriated and depoliticized by literary critics such as Murray Krieger and Samuel McCulloch (Krieger, 1990).[2] This was also a moment when new forms of analysis emerged that continued the critical theory tradition. On the one hand, the radical feminist and closely related Black radical traditions became increasingly important, both rooted in Marxist analytics, with major figures such as Angela Davis, studying with Marcuse and Adorno. On the other, out of the broad field of comparative literature emerged the generative triad of “postcolonial thinkers:” Edward Said, Gayavotri Chakravorti Spivak, and Homi Bhabha.
One century after the rise of fascism and the birth of critical theory, in the 2020s, the world faces a new set of interrelated crises that together constitute an equally if not potentially graver threat to humanity’s collective future. These include two major wars at the doorstep of Europe – in Ukraine and Palestine, which besides being tragic on their own terms risk sparking a third World War, or at the least and by no means less tragic, the end of international law as a tool to mitigate violence during armed conflicts (Falcioni and Daniele, 2023).
In this article we focus on four theoretical streams – subaltern, postcolonial, settler colonial studies, and decolonial theories and methodologies – that we argue can felicitously converge and augment their individual and collective analytical power through engaging the world’s oldest system of critical thought and praxis: that produced by Indigenous thinkers, culture bearers, and activists.
Laying the groundwork for subaltern studies, postcolonial theory argues that no history in the modern world – neither of Europe nor the societies it colonized – is comprehensible without a strong focus on the act, process, and implications of colonialism. This view not only provincializes teleological Eurocentric narratives of linear progress and development (which either ignore or excuse the massive violence of imperialism/colonialism) – and in so doing also anticipates Euro-American postmodernism, but puts the Global South at the center of modernity’s “forgotten history” (Chakrabarty, 2007; Elam, 2019).
As indicated above, postcolonial studies emerged in two phases. The first comprises the writings of key anti-colonial thinkers, politicians and writers who since the late 1940s gathered around the journal and then publishing house Présences Africaines, such as Alioune Diop, Léopold Senghor, Aimé and Suzanne Césaire, Franz Fanon (1952, 1959, 1961, 1964), Kwame Nkrumah (1965), Wole Soyinka (1965), Amilcar Cabral (1970), Ngugi wa Thiong’o (1986), Ali Shariati (1979, 1980) and other scholars hailing from the semi-colonized (in the case of Iran), late colonial, and newly independent countries of the Global South. The second group, first reaching prominence in the second half of the1970s and based in the United States and United Kingdom, was centered around the above-mentioned triad of Edward Said, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (who was also a founding member of the Subaltern Studies collective), and Homi Bhabha.
An important lineage of postcolonial theory emerged in Italy with the tradition of operaismo initiated in the 1960s by Toni Negri, Mario Tronti, Raniero Panzieri, and the editorial board of Quaderni Rossi (Roggero, 2023). Operaismo inspired a renewed Marxian framework for critiquing the economic, political, and cultural manifestations and dynamics of late capitalism, epitomized by the work of Sandro Mezzadra (2008). In this environment, during the 1990s a small group of historians led by Angelo Del Boca proposed a critical reassessment of Italian colonial history (Del Boca, 1969, 1976, 1986), while a circle of postcolonial comparative literature and cultural studies scholars developed in Naples around Lidia Curti and Iain Chambers (Chambers and Curti, 1996).
The Italian neo-Marxian critique comprised powerful activist movements such as Ya Basta!, Tute Bianche, Disobbedienti, and Uninomade, in dialogue with the European and World Social Forums. It also intersected with the work of US-based scholars like Georgy Katsiaficas (who studied under Frankfurt School luminary Herbert Marcuse), as well as Michael Hardt and David Graeber, whose analyses of autonomous movements and politics helped provide the intellectual foundation for the anti-corporate globalization movement (Negri and Hardt, 2000; Mellino, 2004 and 2005). The “Italian effect” (Nielson, 2005; Nielson and Mezzadra, 2013) critiqued Said’s initially monolithic interrogation of colonial discourse in preference for a greater focus on early and routine agency and interventions by colonized subjects into the colonizing process imposed on their societies. Such a perspective enabled a shift in focus away from less critically productive binaries of colonizer and colonized towards explorations of “hybridization, negotiation and resistance” (Mellino, 2004; Mezzadra, 2008, pp. 8, 10) that would also characterize the work of Bhabha and Spivak.
While rarely discussed in this context and as a part of the global genealogy of postcolonial thought, the Maghreb was home to some of the most piercing and imaginative critiques – from the novels of Assia Djebar, Mohammed Choukri, and Driss Chraïbi, to critics and scholars like Abdellatif Laâbi (1966), Abdallah Laroui (1978, 1982, 1999), Mohammed Arkoun (1979), Muhammed Abd al-Jabri (1991, 1995, 2010), and Mahdi Elmandjra (1996), and journals such as the original Souffles – not only critical of colonialism but also of the local orders it replaced and, at least in the case of Morocco, in some ways strengthened with independence. Specifically, less studied and documented, but in many ways vanguard, is the contribution of feminist North African intellectuals, scholars, and activists. Women’s marginal positionality in the processes of post-colonial nations-state building and the system of knowledge production allowed them to elaborate a nuanced critique both to colonialism and imperialism and to Arab nationalism. With few exceptions, however, in particular the triad of Fatima Mernissi, Assia Djebar, and Nawal al-Saadawi, North African women intellectuals tend to be less acknowledged as culture and intellectual producers. Indeed, they face a double erasure: they are erased from the anticolonial and postcolonial nationalist canon, which with the exception of few towering figures, such as Gayatri Chakravarty Spivak, Chandra Talpade Mohanty, and Nawal al-Saadawi, is male-centered, and they remain neglected by, if not erased, in the global feminist canon, which remains dominated by Anglo, American, and (Western) European women. Equally important, their focus on applying and transmitting knowledge through grassroots activism, pedagogy, mentoring of younger scholars and activists, and care of community, does not fit into the parameters that define the work of intellectuals in the Euro-American tradition. In contrast, we consider such activities to be core components and generators of critical theory, warranting the same attention and recognition as the more theory-focused writings of their male counterparts, who tend to remain more comfortably ensconced in the theoretical confines of what Lukács (1971) derisively referred to as the “Grand Hotel Abyss.”
Feminist scholars of North Africa and South West Asia have addressed the marginalization of women’s voices within postcolonial studies by exposing and exploring their genealogical roles in anti-colonial and nationalist movements, shedding-light on the specificity and originality of women’s approaches to discourses of national liberation (Badran, 1996; Lazreg, 2019), their particular experiences of and responses to discourses of modernity (Abu Lughod, 1998) and to secularism and political agency in the context of Islamist and pious Islamic movements (Mahmood, 2011; Deeb, 2011; Salime, 2011), and by building “counter-archives,” which feminist scholars describe as collective record keeping of radical and unauthorized stories (Salime, 2022; Dakhli, 2020).
Whether women or men, most every African and Arab writer sought, one way or another, to confront the “extreme stress” (extrême de tension) of the early postcolonial period without relying on a “petrified contemplation of the past” (contemplation pétrifiée du passé) or recognizing either “niche, minaret or border,” as the first issue and “manifesto” of the original Souffles described it (Laâbi 1966a). Such a broad opening to “friends” wherever they might be to participate in this local intellectual journey, is, as we’ll see, an important principle of Indigenous intellectual thought and praxis, providing an early clue of the natural sympathy between the writings of critical North, sub-Saharan, and Sahelian African intellections during the era of decolonization and the present generation of activist Indigenous intellectuals.[3] It also is the hallmark of what we term dirty praxis (also described as “critical theory from below”) – that is, a praxis whose practitioners reside far from the “Grand Hotel Abyss” where, as Lukács (1971: 21) derisively argued, the icons of Frankfurt School’s first generation came to call home after the War.[4]
Deeply related to postcolonial studies, subaltern studies emerged in the early 1980s as a community of Southeast Asian scholars trained in the UK, soon thereafter becoming an approach and method of (largely) historiographic inquiry. The works of Ranajit Guha and other economic historians, were crucial to building the field in the early 1980s. Influenced by the “new social history” developed by E.P. Thompson a generation before, with increasing interest in researching the lives, experiences, views, and agency of non-elites, Indian subaltern studies inspired similar historiographic research in other formerly colonized countries, becoming among the most important approaches within the burgeoning field of postcolonial theory and studies. By focusing on “subaltern” (as Gramsci termed them) and marginalized groups that had little if any access to economic or political power, subaltern studies forced a “radical rethinking of knowledge and social identities authored and authorized by colonialism and Western domination” (Prakash 1994: 1475; Gramsci 1975).
Subaltern studies soon became one of the most important methodologies in the broader field of postcolonial studies. However, as the world entered further into the twenty-first century, the need both to problematize and complexify the idea of the subaltern subject and the possibility for postcolonial “development” required more radical analytical frameworks (Bayat 2017). As has been noted, part of the problem was that, while they acquired increasing legitimacy, both postcolonial and subaltern studies began to favor the more textual, literary, and cultural analyses of representations; in the process, they lost focus on deeply archival economic research (Chaturvedi, 2000: p. xi) – or, as we term it, their theories became “clean” and their praxis – to the extent there was any – no longer rooted in action through engagement with ongoing struggles facing marginalized and oppressed communities.[5] But, we believe that the issue is even deeper, rooted in the grounding epistemology of these fields.
Both subaltern and postcolonial studies were centered on research into Asian and (mostly North) African societies, especially Algeria and, with Said, Palestine. While all these regions gradually and then rapidly came under increasing control of highly aggressive and even genocidal European empires in the 18th through 20th centuries, the situation didn’t represent a new encounter, but rather constituted a radical transformation in balances of power within longstanding systems of economic as well as cultural exchange and diffusion. The impacts were qualitatively different and of shorter duration than those of European colonization of “first contact” societies in the Americas, Australasia, and inland Africa (that is, African societies that were not regularly participating in extra-Continental economic, political and/or cultural networks), where the vast majority of what today are understood as Indigenous societies were located, and where the arrival of Europeans brought the rapid conquest, genocidal decimation, and incorporation of societies into systems from which they were previously largely isolated, with even more devastating results.
In this context, the emergence of settler colonial studies offers a crucial contribution to subaltern and postcolonial studies, focusing on the processes through which colonized populations were invariably removed from their lands, either being confined to ever smaller and less productive lands, ethnically cleansed or, as happened in the Americas and Australia, exterminated as part of the process of creating what Crosby (2004) terms “neo-Europes.” Like subaltern studies, which is richly archival in its method, in providing an unprecedentedly deep understanding of the process of colonization and its ideological, discursive, economic, and political roots and dynamics, settler colonial studies provided even more evidence in support of what Peruvian theorist Anibal Quijano termed the “coloniality of power” (2000) – the permanence of colonial epistemologies and practices in the post-colonial world.
Settler colonial studies provided crucial new insights into the dynamics, depth, breadth, and resilience of settler colonial processes, in the process offering powerful challenges to the dominant Eurocentric colonial modernist narratives of states as varied as Israel, Algeria, and the United States.[6] There is also a strong connection between settler colonial studies and the first generations of both critical theory and postcolonial studies, as key figures such as Albert Memmi as well as Aimé Césaire were explicit in the assessment of colonialism as essentially fascism exported to Europe’s conquered domains (Memmi, 1957; Césaire, 2000 [1950]; James, 2017; LeVine, 2022).
It should come as no surprise that among the cohort of scholars adopting and expanding subaltern, postcolonial, and settler colonial studies was a group of Latin Americanists who, inspired by the Indian subalternists, formed the Latin American Subaltern Studies group (LASS) in 1992 (Rodríguez, 2007, pp. 44, 46). By adopting subaltern and postcolonial studies questions and methodologies, the LASS group was able both to foreground subaltern historical voices and agency in Latin American historiography. Equally important, “There was an explicit validation of ancient Amerindian cultures, a desire to unearth their old epistemological ways of organizing the universe and a desire to validate them. There was also a need to link old Indigenous epistemologies to new Indigenous struggles and this demanded a systemic analysis of capitalism” (ibid., p. 51). Herein lies the roots of what is today termed “decolonial” studies or thought.
Feminist thinkers were and remain at the core of this process. Panamanian philosopher Linda Martìn Alcoff critiqued epistemologies that do not include Indigenous women’s knowledges while affirming the need to understand knowledge in the social and cultural context that generates it (Alcoff, 2011, p. 68). The intellectual genealogy of this approach also travels through Raewyn Connell’s Southern Theory (2007), Jean and John Comaroff’s Theory from the South (2012), and Roxanne Dunbar-Ruiz’s An Indigenous People’s History of the United States (2015), and reflects the insight of feminist scholars of colour that the subaltern is not only able to speak about their subalternity, but to do so while cognizant of and accounting for their particular gender, class, ethnic, and related positionalities – what Brazilian feminist philosopher Djamila Ribeiro conceptualizes as their “place of speech” (lugar de fala) (Ribeiro, 2020, p. 80).
The recognition of the importance of pre-contact/Indigenous cultures and their unique modes of thinking and being, to understand the impact of European colonial modernity led directly to a far more critical interrogation of modernity and colonialism than was possible with subaltern or postcolonial studies (cf. Pomeranz, 2001; Riello, 2021; LeVine, 2005b). The Indigenous peoples of the Americas, and later of Australasia and Africa, were literally the fuel for that emerging system – as it was their conquest, and the terrible violence and unprecedented wealth it produced, that enabled Europe to change the balance of power vis-à-vis the Subcontinent and East Asia. Indeed, the “coloniality of power” and the irredeemably colonial foundations of modernity at large are at the heart of decolonial theory, showing the generative power of colonialism in the emergence and evolution of capitalism, nationalism, and modernity, and the inseparability of all four processes for understanding the unique creative and destructive power of each (Allen 2021; LeVine 2005a, 2022).
Decolonial theory, as shaped by scholars such as Enrique Dussel (1974), Anibal Quijano (1971, 2000), Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe (1985), Ernesto Laclau (2005), Néstor García Canclini (1995), Gloria Anzaldúa (1987), Walter Mignolo (1992, 2001), María Lugones (2003, 2007, 2010), Linda Alcoff (1993 with Potter, and 2011), was born from these insights. The decolonial thinkers share an understanding that the “project” of modernity (Habermas, 1990) is not salvageable or transformable from within, and particularly not through the mere act of gaining formal independence. Understanding modernity as inescapably colonial leads to a very different view, epistemologically and ontologically, towards the future as well as the past, the consequences of which neither the European lineages of Critical Theory, nor subaltern, or postcolonial approaches, can fully address. For that, new perspectives emerging from even more subaltern voices, places and histories, needed to come to the fore.
Developed first by “Western”-trained Indigenous scholars and practitioners working in and on their communities, the concepts and arguments associated with Indigenous theories and methodologies have increasingly been taken up by non-Indigenous scholars looking to work in Indigenous communities, and more recently, Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars and practitioners desiring to adopt Indigenous ways of being, knowing, and doing to non-Indigenous contexts, themes, questions, and problems (Cull, Hancock et al., 2018). We term this full range of Indigenous theories, methodologies, research, and pedagogy, and the deeply reflexive and immanently, praxically critical, (by no means uniform) epistemologies and ontologies in which they are rooted, an “Indigenous Praxis Matrix,” or IPM.
Building on the increasing calls for a truly “global critical theory” (GCT) (Challand and Bottici 2021), we argue that IPM is at the core of what today must be understood as an expanded and reframed GCT that moves beyond without losing the impetus and impact of the earlier, European genealogy of the term. Such an approach, we argue, enables open, respectful, non-extractive, and relational engagement with the world’s oldest and most powerful forms of critical theory produced by Indigenous peoples for thousands of years (Trivedi, 2020), while also benefiting from and contributing to the insights of postcolonial, subaltern, settler colonial, and decolonial theories and praxis. Put simply, engaging Indigenously grounded critical theory is, in our view, crucial to meeting the multiple crises facing humanity in the twenty-first century. Building on the work of Avalos (2020), and in a context where even the most celebrated practitioners of Critical Theory doubt their ability to push the dialectical movement of contemporary capitalism towards a transversal or transformational moment where new political-economic imaginaries become realizable (cf. Adorno, 1966; LeVine and Reynolds, forthcoming), we argue that IPM offers the epistemological, methodological, and political tools for Critical Theory finally to achieve its dialectical, and through it political, promise.
Foregrounding and interacting with the matrix of Indigenous theories and praxis – that is, IPM – is becoming ever more urgent today, as even the most immanently critical and decolonial analyses of the common threats to and challenges faced by humanity are proving unable to produce praxis that can successfully transform the collectively suicidal policies of what we name global necrocapitalism. As more of the world’s settler colonies literally burn, scientists and occasionally even politicians are beginning to recognize the expertise and rights of Indigenous peoples to move beyond being mere “trustees” (as so many “land acknowledgements” describe them) to stewards, managers, and, in an increasing but still small number of cases, once again “owners” (in the sense of Anglo-American, not Indigenous property rights and law) of land that is at the precipice of destruction from the rapidly worsening impact of global heating. IPM, with its deep historical roots that are particularly sensitive not merely to the environmental threats but equally to the political and ultimately spiritual challenges ever more of the world faces, offers the best possibility for developing powerful, positive and future-oriented critiques and, as important, projects to heal and transcend the present, nearly terminal situation in which we find ourselves.
If contemporary Indigenous studies is a core – if till now overlooked – part of GCT, what makes it unique today (but not historically speaking) is that while few subaltern studies, postcolonial and even decolonial scholars focus their engagement and advocacy beyond their writings to direct engagement with the messy everyday struggles of subaltern and marginalized peoples (what we term dirty praxis), the clear majority of Indigenous studies scholars come from still marginalized communities and see their research and pedagogy as part of a broader program of direct activism and praxis on the ground on their behalf. In this way they hew closer to the direct engagement of the first generation of twentieth century critical theorists (Luxemburg, Gramsci, the early Frankfurt School, Fanon, and the like) than scholars associated with the other critical approaches discussed here.
We further argue that what is necessary today is to develop not merely collaborative epistemologies – that is, learning to create shared ways of seeing and knowing the world to facilitate more meaningful dialog, knowledge production and action. Equally important is the development of collaborative ontologies – the holistic, shared, and empowered regrounding, together, of our foundational experiences and understanding of being in the world.[7] Only through sharing our most basic experiences of being-in-the-world can we develop authentically collaborative ways of knowing and acting in it, and through these activities finally move away from an increasingly necrocapitalist modernity, and towards a global political, economic, cultural, and discursive system that heals rather than destroys our world.
Because of this, it is not as simple a thing as merely adopting and utilizing Indigenous theories and methodologies, even if one is her or himself Indigenous. Doing so in itself requires taking on a level of responsibility towards those from and through whom the field has evolved, and thinking through the first principles, that are not present in other fields; specifically foregrounding: respect, concern, relationality, and permission from and collaboration with the communities under study, being non-extractive in the production of knowledge from one’s research, and having a very clear and accepted understanding of how one's use of this knowledge can benefit Indigenous communities of collaboration (cf. FNQLHSSC, 2018). Canadian First Nations (Cree) writer Chyana Marie Sage has clearly articulated the importance of such a collaborative enterprise when she discussed the “mental toll” on First Nations intellectuals, artists, and activists of constantly having to educate White-identifying counterparts not only about Indigenous histories, cultures, and contemporary political and economic realities, but even more basic, that there are a multiplicity of sometimes competing identities and agendas among the hundreds of Indigenous communities across settler colonized countries such as present-day Canada, the United States, and Mexico (Sage, 2023; Na’puti and Cruz, 2022; Simpson 2017).
It is no longer enough simply to perform allyship with and support for Indigenous intellectuals, activists, artists, and scholars. Their non-Indigenous colleagues need to become educated enough on their own terms to bring something more, and proactive, to shared spaces of learning and activism. We need to move way beyond “Indian Country 101” (Nature Conservatory, 2023) as the foundation for joint intellectual production and political praxis, and IPM is one way, we believe, to move forward. It is possible to meet the criteria established by the last twenty years of Indigenous theories and methodologies through their deployment outside of Indigenous contexts, with the goal of furthering a project of human emancipation centered on the experiences, knowledge, and praxis of Indigenous and other oppressed, occupied, and precarious peoples and communities.
Our goal here is to help lay the groundwork for the kinds of conversations that would establish a consensus among those working in Indigenous studies and particularly in the areas of Indigenous theories, methodologies, and praxis, on how their work and their knowledges can be used by non-Indigenous scholars in non-Indigenous contexts in ways that respect the core methodologies parameters outlined by the groundbreaking works that began appearing in the 1990s, with texts like Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s Decolonizing Methodologies (1999), sociologist Aileen Moreton Robinson’s Talking Back to the White Woman (2000), Emma Pérez’s The Decolonial Imaginary (1999), Chela Sandoval’s Methodology of the Oppressed (2000), Taiaiake Alfred’s Peace, Power, Righteousness: An Indigenous Manifesto (1999), Shawn Wilson’s Research is Ceremony (2008), Margaret Kovach’s Indigenous Methodologies (2009), and Bagele Chilisa’s Indigenous Research Methodologies (2012). Several works by Indigenous Chicana and Mexican thinkers and activists anticipated this trend by a decade, including Gloria Anzaldúa’s 1987 Borderlands: La Frontera/The New Mestiza, and the writings of the Zapatista movement, curated and voiced by Mexican philosopher turned revolutionary leader Subcomandante Marcos.
To define the parameters of contemporary IPM we need first to engage deeply with these foundational works of Indigenous theories and methodologies, understand how they emerged into the scholarly ecumene from the field of Indigenous education (where the majority of Indigenous students interested in academic or scholarly careers were not surprisingly directed), and consider the necessity to develop far stronger connections and pathways between pedagogy, research, and theorizing in light of their insights. Finally, while the idea of specifically Indigenous praxis has been discussed recently by scholars with respect to the transformation of models of education and pedagogy (Pewewardy, Lees and Clark-Shim, 2018), our focus is on the broader implication of these writings, beyond either Education studies or Indigenous studies per se.
In this regard, the Maghreb, with journals like Souffles and the Tunisian radical journal Perspectives – both journals created by young Leftists in the 1960s which were brutally repressed, imprisoned and tortured by the King Hassan II in Morocco and the President Bourguiba in Tunisia, has much to contribute to the IPM through their long history of immanently critical literary as well as political praxis, even if during this period they did not see themselves or their struggles through an Indigenous lens. Indeed, precisely because of the ongoing colonialities of power in post-independence Morocco and Tunisia, such immanently critical intellectual and artistic production warrants far greater attention from scholars of critical theory and GCT – particularly decolonial scholars – than they have received.[8] So do writers and philosophers, from Driss Chraïbi and Assia Djebar to Abdallah Laroui and Kateb Yacine, who have powerfully documented, diagnosed, and interrogated the highly imbalanced intersections of colonialism, modernity, nationalism, gender, religion, and political economy in the late colonial and postcolonial eras.
Amazigh intellectuals, activists, and artists, such as Souffles founder Abdellatif Laâbi and Algeria writers Assia Djebar and Kateb Yacine (Aïtel, 2014), have engaged in what today would be described as decolonial critiques of the (post)colonial condition in the Maghreb, although they did not focus explicitly on the Amazigh component of their identities in most of their work. Indeed, the multiple spaces and positionalities of identity (Algerian, Arab, and Amazigh) presented in their writings needs to be historicised in relation to the colonial and the postcolonial experience, particularly one where enforced Arabization became a centerpiece of government policy. As literary scholar Fazia Aïtel well describes the often-muted Amazigh presence in their work: “Being Amazigh is not just an identity but a process in the making,” one that is the result of an at once local and global “dialectical encounter with the other (whether the other is French, foreign, or simply the non-Berber Algerian compatriot)” (2014. pp. 8, 15). Building on Aïtel’s profound textual analysis, we suggest that a re-reading and reappraisal of the works of Amazigh intellectuals of the immediately postcolonial generation through the lenses of Indigenous and decolonial scholarship could productively address the general absence of engagement with Amazigh (and through it, Indigenous) identities and issues in the majority of their writings (see Djebar, discussed in Aïtel, 2014, pp. 202-241).
More recently, Amazigh cultural and intellectual production – which developed along various phases since the 1930s – as well as the successful struggles to recover “forbidden pasts” and win greater rights and representation from language to politics after decades of “postcolonial obliteration” by Arabizing governments, has much to contribute to the development of the IPM (Boukous, 2011, pp. 270-71; El Hali, 2014; El Guabli, 2021, 2023a), even though there remains some disconnect between Amazigh studies and Indigenous studies in discussions of Indigenous epistemologies, ontologies, and research methodologies. In particular, in contrast to the dynamics of first contact settler colonialism, while Imazighen have been powerfully “othered,” first by colonial rule and then by Arabizing nation states across North Africa (El Guabli, 2023a), their experiences were the result of changing balances of power with myriad migrants, traders, armies, and empires who have passed through their territories over several millennia, rather than from the rapid decimation caused by the sudden influx of European guns, germs, and steel beginning half a millennium ago. Moreover, unlike most first contact Indigenous communities, Amazigh peoples continue to comprise a large minority (and in the Moroccan case, possibly a majority) of the population of Maghrebi countries, which has made the experiences of recuperating their language, culture, and rights quite different than, for example, the challenges faced by Indigenous Americans or Australians.
Other non-first contact Indigenous experiences, in particular Palestinian, Sahrawi, and Kurdish struggles for survival and freedom, also have much to contribute to these conversations and praxes, precisely because of their unique experiences and dynamics and the clear necessity for international solidarity, especially with other Indigenous communities, to continue in the face of intense violence and repression (Nabulsi, 2023; Fadel, 1999; Demir, 2021). The experiences of Amazigh, Palestinian, Sahrawi, and other women and queer groups, and the powerful feminist and queer praxes that have emerged through their struggles across these cultures, are particularly powerful yet underrepresented in this regard (Gagliardi, 2020; Sadiqi, 2016; Alqaisiya, 2022). The Indigenous Praxis Matrix we have envisioned here can only be strengthened by the incorporation of Amazigh and other North African and Southwest Asian experiences, which will in turn augment its transdisciplinary research impact.
Deeper Collaborations, Broader Ontologies
Frankfurt School co-founder Max Horkheimer succinctly put it in one of the founding texts of the School: “If experience and theory contradict each other, one of the two must be re-examined” (1937). Now imagine if the experience in question goes back not hundreds, but thousands of years, and more. Simply put, if critical theory can rightly be conceived of as profoundly powerful and complex when its roots are only slightly more than two centuries deep, how powerful and complex must Indigenous epistemologies and ontologies be in societies that have been in situ for 15, 20, 30, or even 70,000 years?
And so, it is here that the river of Critical Theory empties into a sea of Indigenous experience, thought, criticism, and indeed, survival, which returns long before Critical Theory’s origins in the post-Enlightenment thought of Kant, Hegel, and Marx.[9] It also comprises far more varied experiences than the “traditional” focus on first contact cultures. With the future hurling headlong towards both tragedy and farce, Indigenous scholars directly engaging issues of theory, methodology, and praxis aren’t the only ones who remain vital to such an enterprise. Those engaged in far more deeply and affectively ontological explorations of the past, present, and future of Indigenous, and more broadly, human beings are also essential. These include storytellers such as the North Queensland Apalech Clan writer Tyson Yunkaporta and his focus on “Sand Talk” (2019), the Gay’wu Group of Women’s “Song Spirals,”[10] the language-based explorations of Indigenous embodied practice and deep histories by Ngarigu anthropologist Jakeline Troy and her colleagues associated with the recent volume Everywhen (McGrath, Rademaker and Troy, 2023), and the in-depth presentation of various forms of Australian Indigenous decolonial and future-oriented intellectual and social practices in the context of ongoing state-sponsored marginalization, researched and curated by Bronwyn Carlson, Madi Day, Sandy O'Sullivan and Tristan Kennedy (2023) as well as other attempts to share Indigenous epistemologies and ontologies with the wider human collectivity.
At the same time, “other” decolonial and Indigenous experiences and analyses[11] will widen the spirals of time, place, and thought into new dimensions, linking even more deeply to the broader global struggles for dignity, justice, sustainability, and increasingly survival beyond the colonial geographies of North and South. To these we can add the emancipatory pedagogies, research and praxis of CRT, ethnic studies, queer, Asian-American and increasingly Arab-American studies, which through constant struggle with conservative forces in the United States, and involvement with Palestine, have become key sources for new iterations and streams of GCT and through it the development of the IPM.
It remains incumbent on anyone assuming the mantle of critical theory to understand that “revolutionary theory [must] always tether the negative aspect of critique to the positive task of emancipation” (Rockhill, 2021, p. 156). The meaning and contours of “emancipation” can and should be debated, but if critical theory is to have any place in the struggles for human survival that are already defining the 21st century, struggles for freedom, dignity and equality for all, and the willingness to risk something more than the scorn of one’s colleagues, must be at its heart. It’s worth noting here that Horkheimer, Adorno and other core members of the Frankfurt School argued by the early 1940s that an analysis of anti-Semitism was just as relevant as class oppression for critical theory (see Rabinbach, 2000, especially p. 53). We argue that the genocidal oppression of Palestinians today and the collaborative forms of resistance to it needs to play a similarly prominent role in GCT. At the same time, collaborative ontologies grounded in expanded phenomenologies of Indigeneity will further a necessary conceptual and geographical remapping of the postcolonial condition and contemporary colonialities of power, bringing in peoples and regions that remain marginalized in the still growing field of Indigenous studies (Castañeda, 2023), encouraging new poetics of praxis in a GCT framework, increasing solidarity and thus, empowering scholars and activists wherever they are situated as the struggles for freedom, justice, and increasingly survival inevitably intensify in a world increasingly on fire.
Bibliography:
Abu-Lughod, L. (1998). Remaking Women: Feminism and Modernity in the Middle East. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Adorno, T. (1966). Negative Dialektik, (Negative Dialectics), Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag.
Alcoff, L. M. (2011). An Epistemology for the Next Revolution. Transmodernity 1(2).
Alcoff, L. M. and E. Potter. (1993). Feminist Epistemologies. New York: Routledge.
Alfred, T. (1999). Peace, Power, Righteousness: An Indigenous Manifesto, Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.
Alqaisiya, W. (2022). Decolonial Queering in Palestine, London, UK: Routledge.
Aïtel, F. (2014). We Are Imazighen: The Development of Algerian Berber Identity in Twentieth-century Literature and Culture, Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.
Allen, B. (2021). Indigenous Epistemologies of North America. Episteme, pp. 1–13.
Anzaldúa, G. (1987). Borderlands : The New Mestiza = La Frontera. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books.
Arkoun, M. (1979), Al-Fikr al-ʿarabī. Bayrūt: ʿUwaydat (English translation, 1988, Arab Thought, New Delhi: S.Chand).
Avalos, N. (14 Oct. 2020). Taking a Critical Indigenous and Ethnic Studies Approach to Decolonizing Religious Studies. Contending Modernities, https://contendingmodernities.nd.edu/decoloniality/critical-indigenous-approach/.
Badran, M. (1996). Feminists, Islam, and Nation: Gender and the Making of Modern Egypt. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Basso, L. and L. Anderlini. (1961). Le riviste di Piero Gobetti. Milano, IT: Feltrinelli Editore.
Bayat, A. (2017). Marx in the Islamic Revolution. In Revolution without Revolutionaries: Making Sense of the Arab Spring, Palo Alto, Ca: Stanford University Press, pp.29-48.
Boukous, A. (2011). Revitalizing the Amazigh Language Stakes, Challenges, and Strategies. Rabat, MA: Institut royale de la culture amazighe.
Cabral, A. (1970). Revolution in Guinea: Selected Texts. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.
Carlson, B. M. Day, S. O'Sullivan, and T. Kennedy, (eds.). (2023), The Routledge Handbook of Australian Indigenous Peoples and Futures. London, UK: Routledge.
Castañeda, H. (2023). Tamazgha as Indigeneity-Informed Approach: Transforming Scholarship on Borders and Migration. Tamazgha Studies Journal, 1(1). Available at https://www.tamazghastudiesjournal.org/articles-fall2023-issue-01-article05.
Césaire, A. (2000 [1950]). Discourse on Colonialism. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.
Chakrabarty, D. (2007), Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Challand, B. and C. Bottici. (2021). Toward an interstitial global critical theory. Globalizations. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2021.1989140.
Chambers, I. and C. Lidia. (1996). The Post-Colonial Question: Common Skies, Divided Horizons. London; Routledge.
Chaturvedi, V., (ed.) (2000). Mapping Subaltern Studies and the Postcolonial, London, UK: Verso.
Chilisa, B. (2019 [2012]). Indigenous Research Methodologies, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Comaroff, J. and J. (2012). Theory from the South Or, How Euro-America is Evolving Toward Africa. London, UK: Routledge.
Connell, R. (2007). Southern Theory : The Global Dynamics of Knowledge in the Social Sciences. Crows Nest, N.S.W: Allen & Unwin.
Crosby, A. (2004). Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900–1900, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cull, I., Hancock, R.L.A., McKeown, S., Pidgeon, M. & A. Vean. (2018). Pulling Together: A Guide for Front-Line Staff, Student Services, and Advisors. Victoria, BC: BCcampus. Retrieved from https://opentextbc.ca/indigenizationfrontlineworkers/
Dahmer, H. (2015). Trotsky and the Frankfurt School. Platypus Review, October 1. https://thecharnelhouse.org/tag/helmut-dahmer/
Dakhli, L. (dir.). (2020). L’Esprit de la révolte. Archives et Actualité des révolutions arabes, Paris, Éditions du Seuil.
Deeb, L. (2011). An Enchanted Modern : Gender and Public Piety in Shi’i Lebanon. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Del Boca, A. (1969). The Ethiopian War, 1935-1941. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
---------------. (1976), Gli italiani in Africa orientale. Roma, IT: Laterza.
---------------. (1986), Gli Italiani in Libia. Roma, IT: Laterza.
Demir, I. (2021). Kurdish Transnational Indigeneity. In Hamit Bozarslan, Cengiz Gunes and Veli Yadirgi, eds., Cambridge History of Kurds, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 829-47.
El Guabli, B. (2021). Tankra Tamazight: The Revival of Amazigh Indigeneity in Literature and Art. Jadaliyya, November 1. Available at https://www.jadaliyya.com/Details/43440.
---------------. (2023a). Moroccan Other-Archives: History and Citizenship After State Violence, New York, NY: Fordham University Press.
---------------. (2023b). Where is Amazigh Studies? Africa is a Country, May. Available at https://africasacountry.com/2023/05/where-is-amazigh-studies.
El Hali, R. (25 August 2014). al-Amazighiyya: al-Shu’ub al-‘asliyya, al-‘ard wa-l-sulta [Amazigh: Indigenous Peoples, Land and Power]. Hespress. Available at https://www.hespress.com/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B2%D9%8A%D8%BA%D9%8A%D8%A9%D8%8C-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D8%B9%D9%88%D8%A8-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%B5%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%A9%D8%8C-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%B1%D8%B6-%D9%88%D8%A7-184072.html.
Elam, D. (15 January 2019). Postcolonial Theory. Oxford Bibliographies. Available at https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780190221911/obo-9780190221911-0069.xml.
Elmandjra, M. (1996). La décolonisation culturelle, défi majeur de 21ème siècle. Marrakech: Editons Walilli.
Fanon, F. (1952). Peau noire masques blancs. Paris, FR: Éditions du Seuil.
-----------. (1959). L'an v de la révolution algérienne. Paris, FR: Maspero.
-----------. (1961). Les damnés de la terre. Paris, FR: Maspero.
-----------. (1964). Pour la révolutione Africaine. Paris, FR: Maspero.
Fadel, K. (1999). Africa: The Decolonisation Process in Western Sahara. Indigenous Law Bulletin 7 4(23). Available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/journals/IndigLawB/1999/66.html?query=.
Falcioni D. and L. Daniele. (2023). La punizione collettiva della popolazione di Gaza è inaccettabile, il rischio è il genocidio. Interview by Daniele Falcioni to Luigi Daniele, December 14. https://www.fanpage.it/esteri/la-punizione-collettiva-della-popolazione-di-gaza-e-inaccettabile-quello-di-israele-e-genocidio/ .(Accessed on 31 December 2023).
FNQLHSSC, UQAT, UQO, DIALOG Network (2021 [2018]), eds., Toolbox of research principles in an aboriginal context: ethics, respect, fairness, reciprocity, collaboration and culture, Quebec, CA: First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Health and Social Services Commission, Universitédu Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Université du Québec en Outaouais.
Friggeri, F. P. (2012), El potencial revolucionario de la comuna indígena y algunos elementos para su valoración económicopolítica desde el planteo de Marx. Francisco Delich, ed., Marx, ensayos plurales. Córdoba, Editorial Comuniarte, pp. 71-89.
Fullager, K. and M. A. McDonnell. (2018), Facing Empire: Indigenous Experiences in a Revolutionary Age, Age of Revolutions. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Gagliardi, S. (2020). Minority Rights, Feminism and International Law Voices of Amazigh Women in Morocco, London, UK: Routledge.
García Canclini, N. (1995). Hybrid Cultures: Strategies for Entering and Leaving Modernity. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Gay’wu Group of women. (2019). Songspirals: sharing women’s wisdom of Country through songlines. Crows Nest, AU: Allen & Unwin.
Gearon, J. (2021), “Indigenous Feminism Is Our Culture,” Stanford Social Innovation Review. February 11. Available at: https://ssir.org/articles/entry/indigenous_feminism_is_our_culture#:~:text=Loosely%20defined%2C%20Indigenous%20feminism%20is,Indigenous%20women%20and%20their%20families.
Gentile, G. and B. Croce. (2023). Manifesto degli Intellettuali: Fascisti & Antifascisti. Milano, IT: Fuori Scena.
García Canclini, N. (1995). Hybrid Cultures: strategies for Entering and Leaving Modernity. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Gramsci, A. (1975). Quaderni del carcere. Edizione critica dell'Istituto Gramsci (4 voll.), a cura di V. Gerratana, Collana NUE 164, Torino, Einaudi.
Habermas, J. (1990). The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Hendrickson, B. (2022). Decolonizing 1968: Transnational Student Activism in Tunis, Paris, and Dakar. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Horkheimer, M. (1937). Traditionelle und kritische Theorie. Gesammelten Schriften von Horkheimer (hg von Alfred Schmidt), Bd.4 (Schriften 1936 – 1941). English translation can be found in Critical Theory: Selected Essays, ed. by M. O’Connell, New York: Continuum Press, 1999, pp. 188-243.
Hoffman, R. (2013). Respecting Aboriginal Knowing in the Academy. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples 9(3): pp.189-203.
Jābirī, M, ʻĀ. (1991). al-Turāth wa-al-ḥadāthah: dirāsāt wa munāqishāt. Bayrūt: Markaz Dirāsāt al-Waḥdah al-ʻArabīyah.
----------------. (1995). Mas'alat al-Huwiyya: al-ʿUrūba wa-al-Islām wa-al-Gharb [The Issue of Identity: Arabism, Islam and the West]. Bayrūt: Markaz Dirāsāt al-Waḥdah al-ʻArabīyah.
----------------. (2010). The Formation of Arab Reason: Text, Tradition and the Construction of Modernity in the Arab World. London: I. B. Tauris.
James, L. (24 January 2017). What lessons on fascism can we learn from Africa’s colonial past? Africa Is a Country. Available at: https://africasacountry.com/2017/01/what-lessons-on-fascism-can-we-learn-from-africas-colonial-past/.
Kovach, M. (2009). Indigenous Methodologies : Characteristics, Conversations and Contexts. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Krieger, M. (1990). Interview with Samuel C. McCulloch, UC Irvine Oral History archives, July 2.
Laâbi, A. (1966a). Prologue. Souffles 1(1). Available at http://clicnet.swarthmore.edu/souffles/s1/1.html.
-----------. (1966b). Réalités et dilemmes de la culture nationale (I). Souffles 4, pp. 4-12. Available at : http://clicnet.swarthmore.edu/souffles/s4/2.html
Laclau, E. (2005). On Populist Reason. London, UK: Routledge.
Laclau, E. and C. Mouffe. (2001) [1985]. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. London, UK: Verso Books.
Laroui, A. (1978). La Crise des intellectuels arabes: traditionalisme ou historicisme? Paris: La Découverte.
------------. (1982). L'Idéologie arabe contemporaine. Paris: La Découverte
------------. (1999). Islam et Histoire: essai d'épistémologie. Paris: Albin Michel.
Lazreg, M. (2019). The eloquence of silence: Algerian women in question, London: Taylor and Francis.
LeVine, M. (2005a). Overthrowing Geography: Jaffa, Tel Aviv and the Struggle for Palestine. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
-------------. (2005b). Why They Don’t Hate Us: Lifting the Veil on the Axis of Evil, Oxford, UK: Oneworld Publications.
-------------. (2022). Legacies of Colonialism in the MENA Region. In Armando Salvatore, ed., Oxford Handbook of the Sociology of the Middle East. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Lugones, M. (Winter 2007). Heterosexualism and the Colonial/Modern Gender System. Hypatia 22(1): 186–209.
Lugones, M. (2003). Pilgrimages/Peregrinajes: Theorizing Coalition Against Multiple Oppressions. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield.
--------------. (2010-10-01). Toward a Decolonial Feminism. Hypatia. 25 (4): 742–759.
Lukács, G. (1971), The Theory of The Novel A Historico-Philosophical Essay on the Forms of Great Epic Literature, trans. by Anna Bostock, London, UK: The Merlin Press.
Magnat, V. (2012). Can Research Become Ceremony? Performance Ethnography and Indigenous Epistemologies. Canadian Theatre Review, No. 151, Summer, pp. 30-36.
Mahmood, S. (2011). Politics of Piety: The Islamic Revival and the Feminist Subject. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
McGrath, A., L. Rademaker, and J. Troy, (eds.). (2023). Everywhen: Australia and the Language of Deep History, Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Mellino, M. (2004). Quale prospettiva per i “Cultural Studies”? Conversazione con Paul Gilroy. Studi culturali 1(1): pp. 167-90.
--------------. (2005). La critica postcoloniale. Decolonizzazione, postcolonialismo e cosmopolitismo nei postcolonial studies. Roma, IT: Meltemi.
Memmi, A. (1957). Portrait du colonisé précédé du portrait du colonisateur. Paris: Buchet-Chastel.
Mezzadra, S. (2008). La condizione postcoloniale ombre corte / culture Storia e politica nel presente globale, Verona, IT: Ombre Corte.
Mezzadra S. and B. Neilson. (2013). Border as Method, or, The Multiplication of Labor, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Mignolo, W. (Winter 1992). The Darker Side of the Renaissance: Colonization and the Discontinuity of the Classical Tradition. Renaissance Quarterly 45(4): 808–828.
---------------. (2001). Coloniality of Power and Subalternity. In The Latin American Subaltern Studies Reader Duke University Press: Durham and London.
Moreton-Robinson, A. (2000). Talkin’ up to the white woman: Aboriginal women and feminism. St Lucia, Qld: University of Queensland Press.
Mussolini, B. (1932). The Doctrine of Fascism [La dottrina del fascismo]. Encicliopedia Italiana. Available at: https://web.archive.org/web/20060510141603/http://wings.buffalo.edu/litgloss/mussolini/text.shtml.
Nabulsi, J. (2023). Reclaiming Palestinian Indigenous Sovereignty. Journal of Palestine Studies, 52(2): 24-42.
Na’puti, T. R. and J. M. Cruz. (2022). Mapping Interventions: Toward a Decolonial and Indigenous Praxis across Communication Subfields. Communication, Culture and Critique 15: 1–20.
The Nature Conservatory. (2023). Conservation Training, available at https://www.conservationtraining.org/course/view.php?id=309.
Neilson, B. (2005). Provincializing the Italian Effect. Cultural Studies Review 11(2).
Nkrumah, K. (1965). Neo-Colonialism. The Last Stage of Imperialism, London, UK: Panaf.
Perez, E. (1999). The Decolonial Imaginary: Writing Chicanas Into History. Bloomington.
Pewewardy, C., A. Lees and H. Clark-Shim. (2018). The Transformational Indigenous Praxis Model: Stages for Developing Critical Consciousness in Indigenous Education. Wicazo Sa Review 33(1): 38-69 .
Pomeranz, K. (2001). The Great Divergence: China, Europe and the Making of the Modern World Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Prakash, G. (1994). Subaltern Studies as Postcolonial Criticism. American Historical Review, 99(5): 1475–90.
Premier Festival Mondial Des Arts Nègres. (1966). Livre D’or. Paris: Atelier Bernard Gaulin.
Quijano, A. (1971). Nationalism & Capitalism in Peru; a Study in Neo-Imperialism. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.
--------------. (2000). Coloniality of Power and Eurocentrism in Latin America. International Sociology 15(2): 215-232.
Rabinbach, A. (2000). Why Were the Jews Sacrificed?: The Place of Anti-Semitism in Dialectic of Enlightenment. New German Critique 81: 49-64.
Ribeiro, D, (2020). Lugar de Fala, São Paulo, BR: Editora Jandaira.
Riello, G. (2021). Economic and social history. Journal of early modern history 25(6): 488-505.
Rockhill, G. (2021). Critical and Revolutionary Theory For the Reinvention of Critique in the Age of Ideological Realignment. In Daniel Benson, ed., Domination and Emancipation: Remaking Critique, London, UK: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 117-161.
Rodriguez, A. M. et C. Alès. (2007). La géométrie du pouvoir: Peuples indigènes et révolution au Venezuela. Journal de la Société des américanistes 93(2). http://journals.openedition.org/jsa/8293.
Roggero, G. (2023). Italian Operaismo. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sadiqi, F. (2016). Emerging Amazigh Feminist Nongovernmental Organizations. Journal of Middle East Women’s Studies 12(1): 122–25.
Sage, C. M. (2023). The Collective Conservation of Indigenous Land Is Everyone's Responsibility. HuffPost, April 5. Available at: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/indigenous-land-back-conservation_n_642d7d95e4b0c8ff04099153.
Salime, Z. (2011). Between Feminism and Islam Human Rights and Sharia Law in Morocco. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
-----------. (September 2022).A Gendered Counter-archive: Mining and Resistance in Morocco. Development and Change 53(5): 1035-1058
Sandoval, C. (2000). Methodology of the Oppressed. 1st ed. Vol. 18. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Shariati, A. (1979). On the Sociology of Islam. Translated by Hamid Algar. Berkeley, CA: Mizan Press.
--------------. (1980). Marxism and Other Western Fallacies. Translated by R. Campbell. Berkeley, CA: Mizan Press.
Simpson, L. B. (2017). As We Have Always Done: Indigenous Freedom through Radical Resistance, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London, UK: Zed Books.
Soyinka, W. (1965). Before the Blackout, Lagos, Orison Acting Editions.
Stouky, A. (1966). Le festival mondial des arts nègres ou les nostalgiques de la négritude. Souffles 2(3). Available at : http://clicnet.swarthmore.edu/souffles/s2/13.html.
Thiong’o, N. (1986). Decolonising the Mind: The Politics of Language in African Literature, London, UK: James Currey Ltd.
Trivedi, C. (2020). Postmodern paradigm explained. ConceptsHacked. November 20. https://conceptshacked.com/postmodern-paradigm/
Veracini, L. (2010). Settler Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview. London, UK: Palgrave.
Veracini, L. and E. Cavanaugh, (eds.). (2017), The Routledge Handbook of the History of Settler Colonialism. London, UK: Routledge.
Wilson, S. (2001). What is an Indigenous Research Methodology? Canadian Journal of Native Education 25(2): 175-79.
------------. (2008). Research is Ceremony: Indigenous Research methods, Black point, NS: Fernwood Publishing.
Yunkaporta, T. (2019), Sand Talk. How Indigenous Thinking Can Save the World, The Text Publishing Company.