Epistemic Extractivism: Difference between revisions
(Created page with " =Description= Carlos Tornel: “As Ivan Illich once warned, powerful ideas can be hollowed out and turned into “plastic words” –flexible, fashionable terms that lose their original force. The pluriverse risks becoming one of them. Originally rooted in deep critiques of development, colonialism, and modernity, the concept has been increasingly absorbed into Global North academic discourse in ways that dilute its radical edge. This process, sometimes called episte...") |
(No difference)
|
Latest revision as of 04:56, 7 October 2025
Description
Carlos Tornel:
“As Ivan Illich once warned, powerful ideas can be hollowed out and turned into “plastic words” –flexible, fashionable terms that lose their original force. The pluriverse risks becoming one of them. Originally rooted in deep critiques of development, colonialism, and modernity, the concept has been increasingly absorbed into Global North academic discourse in ways that dilute its radical edge. This process, sometimes called epistemic extractivism, involves taking concepts born from grassroots struggles and turning them into sanitized frameworks, disconnected from their original contexts.
This co-optation happens in several ways. First, it often shifts the focus toward cultural identity alone, sidelining the political dimensions of collective struggle and the potential for building alliances across differences. Second, it emerges through increasing specialization within academic circles, which turns concepts like the pluriverse into specialized fields of expertise. In doing so, it marginalizes key thinkers who challenge academic norms or work outside traditional institutions – people like Gustavo Esteva, Iván Illich, or Sylvia Marcos. Third, it involves translating powerful concepts from the Global South into abstract theories that fit comfortably within Western academic debates, while ignoring the territorial and political realities that gave rise to them.
A clear example of this is the concept of Buen Vivir, which began as a rallying cry for Indigenous autonomy and alternatives to development. As Phillip Altmann has shown, over time, however, it was turned into state policy and academic discourse that stripped it of its connection to land, struggle, and community, turning it into a vague slogan or development buzzword. The same risk applies to the pluriverse: when reduced to metaphor or celebration of diversity, it loses its meaning as a project of political transformation.”
(https://berlinergazette.de/pluriversal-territories-reclaiming-life-against-extraction-and-erasure/)