Globalisation, Societies and Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/cgse20

Decolonial pathways in education: Walter Mignolo,

epistemic delinking, and the risks of ethno-essentialism

Michalinos Zembylas

To cite this article: Michalinos Zembylas (03 Feb 2025): Decolonial pathways in education:
Walter Mignolo, epistemic delinking, and the risks of ethno-essentialism, Globalisation,
Societies and Education, DOI: 10.1080/14767724.2025.2459110

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2025.2459110

© 2025 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 03 Feb 2025.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1477

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cgse20
GLOBALISATION, SOCIETIES AND EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2025.2459110

Decolonial pathways in education: Walter Mignolo, epistemic

delinking, and the risks of ethno-essentialism
Michalinos Zembylas
Open University of Cyprus, Programme of Educational Studies, Latsia, Cyprus & Chair for Critical Studies in Higher
Education Transformation, Nelson Mandela University, Gqeberha, South Africa

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This article critically examines Walter Mignolo’s influential framework of Received 7 November 2024
‘epistemic decolonisation’, particularly his concept of ‘delinking’ from Accepted 23 January 2025
Western epistemologies. While Mignolo’s approach has inspired
KEYWORDS
substantial decolonial scholarship in education, I argue that his Decolonial theory; epistemic
emphasis on breaking away from Western knowledge systems can delinking; ethno-
inadvertently lend itself to ethno-essentialist and authoritarian essentialism; Walter
interpretations. Drawing on critiques of decolonial theory from recent D. Mignolo; education
scholarship, I discuss how epistemic decolonisation’s narrow focus on
dismantling Western knowledge hierarchies risks overlooking complex
historical, material and political dimensions essential to anticolonial
thought. The article engages with instances where decolonial rhetoric
has been co-opted by nationalist and authoritarian agendas to reinforce
exclusionary and anti-democratic educational policies, particularly in
contexts like India and Russia. By highlighting these risks, this article
underscores the importance of maintaining a nuanced, politically
informed approach to decolonial theory in education that avoids
essentialist assumptions and takes into consideration that potential
pitfalls of some versions of decoloniality.

Introduction
In recent years, many scholars in the field of education have engaged with the so called ‘decolonial
turn’, a movement that seeks to challenge and dismantle the lingering colonial structures and Euro­
centric biases within knowledge production and educational systems (e.g. see Andreotti et al. 2015;
Gaztambide-Fernández 2012; Shahjahan et al. 2022; Stein 2023; Takayama, Sriprakash, and Connell
2017; Tuck and Yang 2012; Zembylas 2021). This decolonial perspective, which emerged from the
critical work of thinkers such as Walter Mignolo, Ramón Grosfoguel, and Aníbal Quijano, emphasises
the need for ‘decoloniality’, or the active undoing of colonial power structures and epistemic hierar­
chies that continue to marginalise non-Western knowledges and voices. These thinkers assert that it is
essential not only to reveal the pervasive coloniality in various facets of social and political life, includ­
ing education, but also to actively engage in decolonising knowledge production. This engagement
includes initiatives like curriculum redesign, the decolonisation of research methodologies, and insti­
tutional and policy changes aimed at fostering inclusivity and valuing diverse epistemic traditions.
One of the most widely cited figures of decolonial scholarship within the field of education is the
Argentinian (US-based) literacy critic and philosopher Walter Mignolo (2007, 2011, 2012, 2021;

CONTACT Michalinos Zembylas [email protected] Open University of Cyprus, P. O. Box. 12794, Latsia 2252, Cyprus
© 2025 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. The terms on which this article has been published
allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
2 M. ZEMBYLAS

Mignolo and Tlostanova 2008; Mignolo and Walsh 2018). Mignolo’s work has been deeply influ­
ential in developing a framework for understanding decolonisation as an epistemic project, rather
than solely as a political or territorial one. His emphasis on ‘epistemic decolonisation’ draws atten­
tion to the ways that coloniality shapes and limits knowledge production, framing Western epistem­
ologies as historically tied to colonial power structures. By exploring these dimensions, Mignolo
argues that true decolonisation requires ‘delinking’ from dominant, Eurocentric ways of knowing
and instead centering local knowledge systems that have been marginalised or suppressed under
colonial rule. In this sense, Mignolo advocates for the adoption of ‘pluriversality’, a concept that
highlights the value of multiple, diverse epistemic traditions in place of a single, universalised Wes­
tern perspective.
Mignolo’s work has resonated strongly within the field of education (e.g. see Golding 2017;
Shahjahan and Morgan 2015; Silova, Millei, and Piattoeva 2017; Zembylas 2023), where scholars
have applied his concepts to challenge the entrenched colonial frameworks that shape educational
structures, policies, and curricula. By utilising Mignolo’s notion of delinking, for example, some
of these scholars advocate for alternative epistemologies and pedagogies that break from Euro­
centric traditions. ‘Delinking’, write Silova, Millei, and Piattoeva (2017), ‘challenges the ‘emanci­
patory project’ of modernity and colonial relations and sets out to decolonise knowledge, thus
interrupting dominant understandings about the organisation of the world, society, and edu­
cation’ (S75). In this sense, Mignolo’s work has inspired efforts to reframe knowledge production
through localised, indigenous, and marginalised perspectives, encouraging educators, scholars,
and educational systems to validate and incorporate these diverse knowledges as essential com­
ponents of curriculum redesign, research methodologies, and institutional reform. This work
advances the decolonial project within education by paying close attention to the epistemic foun­
dations of decolonisation.
However, Mignolo’s exclusive focus on the epistemic aspects of decolonisation, along with his
broad claims about the nature and impact of Western modernity and coloniality, has attracted
some criticism. Temin (2024), for example, argues that Mignolo’s singular focus on the epistemic
dimensions of decolonisation ‘frequently diminishes and/or displaces some of the more compelling
dimensions of anticolonial thought and decolonisation that have been traced in recent historiogra­
phy and in fields such as Indigenous and settler-colonial studies’ (1). Also, Harruch (2024) contends
that Mignolo’s rejection of modernity and his generalising, de-historicised approach that coloniality
is constitutive of modernity and vice versa rests on ‘an oversimplified conception of modernity’ as a
Eurocentric civilisational project – a conception that is ‘theoretically flawed and politically perni­
cious’ (251). Similarly Vickers (2020) in the field of education has critiqued claims made by
some scholars who cite Mignolo that they rely ‘on highly generalising claims regarding the nature
and significance of Western ‘coloniality’, uninformed by any balanced comparative analysis of colo­
nialism as a historical phenomenon’ (166).
These criticisms turn our attention to some important distinctions between decolonial theory
and anticolonial thought and politics (Naicker 2023). Anticolonialism is generally understood as
an intellectual and political endeavour aimed at exploring diverse forms of resistance to colonialism
and imperialism across the globe (Zembylas 2024). Contrary to this understanding, decolonial the­
ory often attributes coloniality exclusively to ‘the West’ as a monolithic source of oppression
(Naicker 2023). However, this anti-Western reductionism, points out Naicjer, may fall short in
addressing the complexities of contemporary global inequalities and injustices. More concerningly,
such perspectives have, in some cases, been co-opted by authoritarian regimes, such as those in Rus­
sia and India, to reinforce education policies that subvert the ideals of equity and the recognition of
marginalised groups (Lewis and Lall 2024; Mochizuki 2023; Vickers 2020). These regimes, write
Lewis and Lall,
capitalise on grassroots and academic calls for increased freedom from Western neoliberal hegemony, linking
to and co-opting the work of decolonial national philosophers who call for the empowerment of local
 GLOBALISATION, SOCIETIES AND EDUCATION 3

knowledge producers and the reinstatement of traditional ways of being and knowing within these contexts.
(2024, 1472)
Analysing recent development in the Indian education landscape, Mochizuki (2023, 2) shows how
delinking strategies actually undermine justice and equality, ‘unwittingly or deliberately supporting
exclusivist nationalism and a neoliberal agenda’. Similarly, Vickers laments that ‘The neoliberal
cadres of the OECD or World Bank, along with nationalist autocrats from Beijing to Budapest,
will be more than happy for ‘critical scholars’ to fulminate against a vaguely-defined ‘West’ while
embracing ‘epistemological diffidence’’ (2020, 184).
This article critically examines Walter Mignolo’s influential framework of ‘epistemic decolonisa­
tion’, particularly his concept of ‘delinking’ from Western epistemologies. While Mignolo’s
approach has inspired substantial decolonial scholarship in education, I argue that his emphasis
on breaking away from Western knowledge systems can inadvertently lend itself to ethno-essenti­
alist and authoritarian interpretations. I borrow the term ‘ethno-essentialism’ from Naicker (2023)
to denote the reduction of diverse cultural and epistemological practices to a singular, fixed essence
attributed to a particular ethnic or cultural group. In this sense, one can speak about a ‘pure’ Afro­
centric, American-centric, or other localised epistemology, framing them as homogenous and
unchanging rather than dynamic, contested, and plural. By invoking a generalising anti-Western
rhetoric of ‘returning to local roots’ that draws on decolonial arguments, I argue that right-wing
nationalist and authoritarian regimes seek to suppress dissent and delegitimise domestic critics
in various educational settings. This dynamic raises critical questions about the complexities and
risks of implementing decolonial theory in different political contexts.
Needless to say, this article does not reject decolonial theory. Instead, my aim is to reflect on the
potential pitfalls of some versions of decolonial thinking and to argue for a more nuanced and criti­
cal approach to its application in education. While decolonial critique is essential, it is important to
recognise that our theoretical perspectives have real consequences, especially when used in different
political contexts. I focus particularly on one decolonial scholar, namely, Mignolo, both due to his
substantial influence across education and other fields, and to avoid the risk of overgeneralising
about decolonial scholars (cf. Temin 2024). This focused analysis allows for a nuanced critique
that acknowledges both the value and limitations of a specific decolonial approach without collap­
sing all decolonial approaches into a set of monolithic claims.
This article is structured into four sections. The first section outlines the key aspects of
Mignolo’s version of decoloniality, with particular emphasis on his concepts of epistemic deco­
lonisation, delinking, and pluriversality. The second section engages with critiques of Mignolo’s
decolonial framework, examining its potential pitfalls – epistemic, material and political. The
third section discusses the dangers of ethno-essentialist claims emerging from the convergences
of this version of decoloniality theory and authoritarian or right-wing nationalist regimes. In the
fourth section, I draw on two recent examples from educational research that show how epis­
temic delinking can be misappropriated by authoritarian regimes; my analysis aims to extend
this work, especially in conceptual terms. The paper concludes with exploring the theoretical,
political, and educational implications of critiquing decolonial perspectives such as Mignolo’s,
underscoring the risks of an epistemic decolonisation framework that is rooted in ethno-essen­
tialist claims on knowledge production. By highlighting these risks, this paper emphasises the
importance of maintaining a nuanced, politically informed approach to decolonial theory in
education that avoids essentialist assumptions and takes into consideration the potential pitfalls
of some versions of decoloniality.

An overview of Mignolo’s decolonial framework

In the following overview, I will examine three foundational concepts that, in my view, represent
Mignolo’s most significant contributions to the decolonial turn and serve as the backbone of his
decolonial framework: (1) Mignolo’s prioritisation of ‘epistemic decolonisation’ over strictly
4 M. ZEMBYLAS

political or material aims, reflecting a commitment to transforming the foundations of knowledge

itself rather than simply addressing its outcomes; (2) the concept of ‘delinking’, or the active disen­
gagement from the coloniality inherent in Western epistemic frameworks, which Mignolo presents
as essential to fostering decolonial thought; and (3) the concept of ‘pluriversality’, which positions
diverse ways of knowing as necessary for countering Eurocentrism and dismantling (neo)colonial
structures of knowledge production. I will elaborate on each of these contributions in turn, high­
lighting how they collectively challenge the dominance of Western-centric epistemologies and
seek to open spaces for alternative perspectives and approaches to knowledge.
First, Mignolo’s (2011, 2012) conceptualisation of ‘epistemic decolonisation’ focuses on disman­
tling the dominance of Western ways of knowing, challenging what he terms the ‘coloniality of
knowledge’. This coloniality, in Mignolo’s framework, refers to the pervasive influence of Euro­
centric epistemologies that, he argues, continue to marginalise and suppress non-Western knowl­
edge systems. Mignolo’s framework, then, highlights the tension between Western epistemologies
and the epistemic traditions of colonised peoples, emphasising how the former have historically
been instrumental in justifying and perpetuating colonial domination. For example, Western Car­
tesian dualism, with its strict separation of mind and body, has often underpinned the logic of dom­
ination by privileging rationality and dismissing Indigenous knowledge systems as ‘primitive’ or
‘superstitious’. This epistemological framework supported colonisation by legitimising European
claims to civilizational superiority and erasing alternative worldviews. In contrast, Indigenous epis­
temologies, advocate for a holistic and relational understanding of life that centers community, har­
mony with nature, and ethical coexistence (Simpson 2014). These traditions resist colonial
hierarchies by challenging the extractivist and anthropocentric underpinnings of Western thought,
offering pathways toward emancipation and epistemic justice by affirming diverse ways of knowing
and being that promote equity and sustainability. Such clashes between epistemic systems reveal
how knowledge itself becomes a site of struggle and liberation.
To Mignolo, then, modernity – which is seen as completely entangled with coloniality – is
entirely reduced to a product of Western-centric epistemology (Harruch 2024). This is why
Mignolo believes that decolonisation must go beyond political issues (e.g. independence; economic
transformation); it requires a fundamental restructuring of knowledge production itself. Epistemic
decolonisation, then, involves questioning and disrupting the epistemological hierarchies that
emerged from colonialism, which privileged European forms of knowledge while deeming Indigen­
ous and other non-Western epistemologies as inferior or ‘other’.
In general, Mignolo is clearly prioritising the epistemic dimensions of decolonisation, essentially
suggesting ‘unlearning’ modern knowledge forms; this is evident across many of the key concepts
that Mignolo has developed over the years such as ‘geopolitics of knowledge’, ‘epistemic disobe­
dience’, and ‘border thinking’ (Temin 2024). As he emphasises:
What matters is not economics, or politics, or history, but knowledge. Better yet, what matters is history, poli­
tics, economics, race, gender, sexuality, but it is above all the knowledge that is intertwined in all these prac­
tical spheres that entangles us to the point of making us believe that it is not knowledge that matters but really
history, economy, politics, etc. (Mignolo and Walsh 2018, 135)

In line with this, Mignolo views the primary role of decolonisation as epistemic: ‘The basic, most
fundamental, de-colonial task is in the domain of knowledge, since it is knowledge that holds
the colonial matrix of power together and that con-form subjectivities’ (Mignolo and Walsh
2018, 177). This focus on epistemology, therefore, prioritises the reconfiguration of knowledge pro­
duction, over political or material aims, as essential to achieving decolonisation.
Second, Mignolo (2007, 2011, 2021) emphasises that epistemic decolonisation involves a process
of ‘delinking’ from the West – which, he considers as having a unified rhetoric, that of ‘domination,
exploitation, expropriation, and control’ (Mignolo 2021, 38). Delinking, according to Mignolo,
requires a conscious rejection of Western-centric categories, theories, and methodologies. He
describes delinking as a pathway toward epistemic liberation, where previously marginalised
 GLOBALISATION, SOCIETIES AND EDUCATION 5

societies reclaim their intellectual autonomy and reassert their worldviews, unencumbered by colo­
nial impositions (Mignolo 2011). For this liberation to happen, writes Mignolo, decolonisation
needs to be pointed towards ‘conceptual (and therefore epistemic) projects of de-linking from
the colonial matrix of power’ (2007, 451). Mignolo’s concept of ‘the colonial matrix of power’ is
evident in the enduring economic and political relationships that connect the Global North and
South, as well as in the ways academic perspectives on international development continue to
frame inequality in terms of these hierarchical ties (Lewis and Lall 2024). This matrix reinforces
existing global structures of dependency and shapes discourse around higher education by main­
taining the dominance of certain knowledge systems (Stein 2023).
Furthermore, Mignolo suggests that epistemic delinking can empower communities to resist
and redefine the very terms that have historically subjugated them (Mignolo and Walsh 2018).
By developing concepts and practices rooted in their cultural contexts, communities move
from a position of subordination to one of epistemic agency. Mignolo sees this shift as integral
to a larger decolonial project that not only diversifies knowledge, but also provides a means of
resistance against ongoing Western cultural and epistemic imperialism, thus supporting a
more inclusive and equitable global order. In other words, Mignolo (2021) gives analytic and pol­
itical priority to the sphere of local culture and knowledge, arguing that recognising and valoris­
ing these perspectives is crucial for challenging hegemonic narratives. Ultimately, his work calls
for a fundamental rethinking of how knowledge is produced and validated, asserting that the
inclusion of diverse epistemic traditions is vital for achieving true decolonisation in education
and beyond.
All in all, Mignolo’s concept of delinking involves breaking away from the dominance of Euro­
centric epistemologies and engaging with knowledge systems rooted in the lived experiences and
traditions of colonised peoples. In practical terms, decolonial pedagogies inspired by Mignolo’s
ideas would seek to design curricula and educational materials that prioritise this delinking. For
instance, in curriculum design, this could involve integrating Indigenous perspectives into subjects
like history, science, and philosophy, not as supplementary or exoticised content but as equally valid
frameworks for understanding the world. Educational materials might include oral histories, texts
by indigenous scholars, and collaborative projects with local communities to center their epistemic
contributions. In Western contexts, this approach requires a shift in institutional attitudes, fostering
an openness to epistemic humility and reciprocal learning. Implementation might involve pro­
fessional development programmes to equip educators with the tools to teach from a decolonial
lens, the co-creation of curricula with marginalised communities, and the redesign of assessment
practices to value diverse forms of knowledge production. Ultimately, decolonial pedagogies in
Western institutions demand a commitment to transforming not only content but also the
power dynamics embedded in the structures of education.
Third, Mignolo’s concept of pluriversality is central to his critique of Western-centric epistem­
ology, which he argues has been imposed globally through colonialism and continues to dominate
through the colonial matrix of power (Mignolo 2007, 2011). Pluriversality challenges the univers­
ality of Western thought by advocating for a world where multiple epistemologies coexist without
any single knowledge system asserting dominance. This stands in opposition to what Mignolo sees
as the reductionist ‘one-world’ view promoted by Western epistemology, which often presents itself
as the universal standard for truth and progress. By promoting pluriversality, Mignolo calls for a
decolonial rethinking of knowledge that values diverse ways of knowing – particularly those mar­
ginalised or suppressed by colonialism (Mignolo 2007; Mignolo and Walsh 2018).
Importantly, pluriversality is more than just tolerance for other epistemic frameworks; it
demands active recognition and validation of these frameworks in shaping a genuinely multipolar
world (Temin 2024). Mignolo argues that the Western-centric model has systematically erased
Indigenous, Afro-descendant, and other non-Western epistemologies, effectively limiting the
scope of what can be considered knowledge (Harruch 2024). Pluriversality, therefore, seeks to lib­
erate knowledge from the colonial logic ‘on which modern imperial epistemology was founded and
6 M. ZEMBYLAS

is maintained’ (Mignolo and Tlostanova 2008, 120). By fostering pluriversality, Mignolo envisions a
path toward epistemic justice that allows a plurality of voices and experiences to shape our under­
standing of the world. According to Mignolo, this cannot be addressed strictly through material
forms of social and political justice – e.g. economic transformation – hence, the emphasis on plur­
iversality becomes a pressing task for those invested in decolonisation efforts.
In summary, Mignolo’s prioritisation of epistemic decolonisation calls for a structural trans­
formation of how knowledge is recognised and valued. By advocating for delinking and promoting
pluriversality, he challenges the Eurocentric dominance of knowledge systems and suggests that
true decoloniality must prioritise diverse epistemic frameworks rather than political or material
aims. Mignolo’s decolonial framework draws a stark epistemic and cultural divide between the
West and the non-West, establishing a binary that presumes a fundamental incompatibility
between Western and non-Western frameworks of knowledge and politics (Harruch 2024;
Temin 2024). By framing decolonial theory as a necessary break or delinking from the dominance
of Western epistemology, Mignolo suggests that societies in the Global South require unique theor­
etical approaches that authentically reflect their histories, cultures, and experiences of colonialism.
This perspective implies that theories originating in the West inherently fail to serve emancipatory
aims in non-Western contexts, thus privileging localised, alternative frameworks as essential for
decolonial work.

Critiques of Mignolo’s decolonial framework

In this section, I aim to analyse critiques of Mignolo’s decolonial framework by identifying three
primary pitfalls. First, Mignolo’s essentialist conception of modernity and the West oversimplifies
Western epistemologies while romanticising non-Western perspectives. Critics argue that this
binary approach risks caricaturing the West as a homogenous entity responsible for all colonial
structures, while idealising the Global South as the primary site of resistance and ‘authentic’ knowl­
edge production, an approach that can reinforce stereotypes and ignore diversity within each
region. Second, Mignolo’s emphasis on epistemological decolonisation – which prioritises the
delinking of knowledge systems from ‘the West’ – often overlooks the material and political dimen­
sions of anticolonial struggles, which traditionally focus on tangible outcomes such as land recla­
mation, political representation, and economic justice. This emphasis on epistemology at times
misidentifies or even sidelines the core objectives of anticolonial thought and politics, which fre­
quently emphasise political liberation alongside cognitive liberation. Finally, Mignolo’s framework
has been critiqued for failing to sufficiently historicise colonial practices and to account for the
specific needs and goals of Indigenous scholars, who often call for a recognition of their political
(e.g. sovereignty) and material (e.g. land return) aims over purely epistemic concerns. Critics
suggest that decolonisation should be grounded in both the historical realities of colonialism and
the lived experiences of Indigenous and marginalised communities, which cannot be fully
addressed by focusing on knowledge production alone. Each of these critiques is further discussed
below.
One of the central criticisms of Mignolo’s approach to modernity and the West lies in his
portrayal of Western epistemologies as a singular, monolithic force, which he considers inher­
ently complicit in colonial domination. By consolidating a wide range of ideological traditions –
e.g. conservatism, Christianity, liberalism, socialism, and even Enlightenment thought – into a
single tradition and concept assumed to be Western or modern, Mignolo overlooks significant
distinctions between these traditions and their complex internal debates (Harruch 2024). For
example, while elements of liberalism have indeed been used to justify colonial expansion,
others have provided a foundation for civil rights movements and anti-colonial arguments
(Vázquez-Arroyo 2018). Similarly, Marxism has played a significant role in anti-colonial and
liberation struggles, yet it is also criticised by Mignolo as part of the Western colonial project
(Temin 2024). This unvarying treatment of Western ideologies as uniformly oppressive
 GLOBALISATION, SOCIETIES AND EDUCATION 7

simplifies the reality of Western intellectual traditions, ignoring the historical and political ten­
sions that have, in many cases, fostered resistance against colonial powers rather than compli­
ance with them.
Moreover, by romanticising non-Western perspectives, Mignolo’s framework risks reinforcing
an essentialist view of the Global South, implying that these societies inherently possess more ‘auth­
entic’ and liberating epistemologies (Moosavi 2020; Temin 2024). This framing creates an idealised
dichotomy between the West and non-West, attributing a purity or innocence to the latter that is
historically inaccurate and politically limiting (Vickers 2020). This binary can obscure the roles that
complex social movements and diverse political ideologies from within both Western and non-
Western contexts have played in resisting colonial structures (Harruch 2024). This binary also
fails, according to Harruch, to acknowledge that the Global South has been shaped not only by
resistance to colonialism but also by internal social conflicts and power dynamics that cannot be
explained through a purely anti-Western lens. Thus, critics argue that Mignolo’s emphasis on
the West as the ultimate locus of coloniality risks perpetuating an uncritical valorisation of non-
Western epistemologies, rather than fostering a nuanced understanding of global power dynamics
and emancipatory potential across contexts (Temin 2024).
Another criticism of Mignolo’s framework is that his emphasis on epistemological decolonisa­
tion often overlooks the material and political dimensions of anticolonial struggles. As Temin
(2024) writes, ‘Mignolo (mis)identifies political decolonisation exclusively with limited struggles
for the political form of national independence’ (5). In other words, Mignolo critiques anticolonial
struggles for national liberation as having an overly limited conception of transformation, one
focused mainly on the replacement of colonial rule with native rule by seising control over state
institutions. He suggests that these movements primarily aim to transfer political power within
existing frameworks of state authority, rather than challenging or dismantling the underlying struc­
tures of coloniality. By framing anticolonialism in this way, Mignolo suggests that such struggles
often fail to achieve deeper, epistemic decolonisation, as they continue to rely on inherited Western
notions of statehood, governance, and authority (Temin 2024).
However, as Temin argues, this perspective is limited, because it fails to take seriously the com­
plex histories of anticolonialism(s), hence Mignolo’s depiction of ‘decolonisation as a narrowly pol­
itical, entirely top-down, uncritically Eurocentric, and modernisation-oriented political telos […] is
unpersuasive’ (2024, 5). Temin points out further that ‘Mignolo’s portrayal of the narrow horizons
of anticolonial movements disavows their complexity, conceptual innovation, and their popular,
worldmaking, and critically attuned dimensions’ (2024, 6). Mignolo’s focus on ‘the epistemic’
diminishes the contributions of key anticolonial thinkers like Fanon and Césaire, who view antic­
olonialism as both an intellectual and political project that unites diverse practices and experiences
of resistance against colonialism and imperialism worldwide (Zembylas 2024). By emphasising
epistemic decolonisation, Mignolo shifts attention away from the multifaceted efforts of these thin­
kers, which involve not only critique but also concrete, collective action against colonial structures.
This approach risks sidelining the anticolonial legacies that have sought to transform oppressive
political and social realities in ways that directly confront imperial power dynamics across various
global contexts.
Finally, Mignolo’s framework has been critiqued for insufficiently contextualising colonial prac­
tices within their specific historical timelines and for not adequately addressing the distinct needs
and aims of Indigenous scholars (Temin 2024). Many Indigenous scholars (e.g. Coulthard 2014;
Simpson 2014; Tuck and Yang 2012; Wolfe 2006) emphasise the importance of acknowledging
local cultural and political practices as well as land rights, which often require tangible political sol­
utions beyond Mignolo’s largely epistemic focus. Critics argue that by centering the decolonisation
of knowledge, Mignolo’s approach risks overlooking these concrete priorities that are essential to
Indigenous movements and their visions of self-determination and sovereignty.
In particular, Temin (2024) makes two important claims regarding Mignolo’s approach to colo­
nial power structures. First, Temin argues that Mignolo misinterprets forms of colonial domination
8 M. ZEMBYLAS

that are more accurately understood through frameworks like settler colonialism and indigeneity,
which focus on ongoing territorial occupation and cultural erasure. Hence, Temin suggests, it is
misleading to treat these interconnected material and ideological practices as merely elements or
outcomes of the ‘coloniality of knowledge’. Second, Mignolo’s emphasis on epistemic decolonisa­
tion, rather than a historically situated analysis of power relations, overlooks how epistemology
itself is shaped by material and ideological power structures (Temin 2024). This lack of focus on
material power relations limits the framework’s ability to fully address the role of colonialism in
shaping societal structures and ideologies. As Temin summarises the political implications of
Mignolo’s framework:
[T]he turn to coloniality as a purely epistemic register of critique directs significant interpretive attention away
from the crucial fact that settler epistemic and aesthetic disavowal of the grounds of Indigenous mobilisation
and critique are part-and-parcel of settlers’ long-term accumulation of material and intergenerational wealth
through removal and displacement. (2024, 9)

In light of these implications, Temin suggests an alternative to Mignolo’s epistemic politics,

which he refers to as ‘worldly anticolonialism’: ‘[W]orldly anticolonialism addresses epistemic chal­
lenges to colonial categories such as dominant universalisms with an eye targeted to their identifi­
able historically situated political effects’ (2024, 10). In other words, an analysis rooted in worldly
anticolonialism would investigate how categories of thought materialise within specific anticolonial
struggles, which are shaped by varying colonial power relations. This approach examines how colo­
nial legacies influence political imaginaries and group dynamics, not just through epistemic terms,
but also through concrete political and historical processes that continue to define postcolonial and
settler societies today.

The risks of epistemic ethno-essentialism

In the preceding sections, I have examined Mignolo’s framework for decoloniality, particularly
his emphasis on epistemic decolonisation, and discussed critiques that focus on its political and
material implications. This section goes further into the troubling potential of his notion of
delinking from the West – a concept which, while intended to challenge Eurocentric frame­
works, also appeals to certain forms of right-wing nationalism that manipulate its principles
for exclusionary agendas. The appeal lies in Mignolo’s conceptualisation of delinking as a sever­
ance from Western modes of thought, which right-wing nationalist movements interpret as
legitimising their own calls for a ‘return’ to selectively idealised, often ethno-nationalist,
traditions.
This selective adoption of decolonial concepts underscores an important critique: when sever­
ance from the West is framed as an absolute goal, it risks reinforcing exclusivist ideologies that
reject global solidarity and ignore historical interdependencies (Hull 2021). By situating knowledge
production outside of an interconnected historical context, Mignolo’s framework can unintention­
ally reinforce nationalist appropriations that reject valuable cross-cultural influences in favour of
insular ideologies. This highlights the need for more nuanced approaches on decolonisation in edu­
cation that address epistemic critique alongside careful consideration of diverse political landscapes
and the ethical imperatives they raise.
My analysis begins with Hull’s (2021, 2022) critique of decolonial theory, particularly his exam­
ination of what he terms ‘epistemic ethno-nationalism’, which he associates with Mignolo and other
decolonial thinkers. Hull’s argument focuses on the metaphysical interpretation of colonial differ­
ence that underpins this form of nationalism within decolonial thought. By revisiting this critique, I
aim to explore the political implications of this perspective for understanding decoloniality.
According to Hull,
Epistemic ethnonationalism denies that there are universal epistemic standards by which the truth, coherence
or well-foundedness of beliefs can be assessed . . . [E]pistemic ethnonationalism associates with each ‘ethnos’
 GLOBALISATION, SOCIETIES AND EDUCATION 9

or ‘ethnie’ a set of beliefs, concepts or theoretical frames proper to it, such that a member of E1 who embraces
concepts, theories or methods proper to E2, E3 or E4 ipso facto reveals themselves to be at best confused or
brainwashed, at worst a collaborator or fifth-columnist. Epistemic ethnonationalism therefore denies that
achieving advances in knowledge and in ethical and political values can be a shared global endeavour. Instead,
it insists that each ethnos/-ie must develop its own truth or knowledge, its own values. (Hull 2022, 135, orig­
inal emphasis)

In his analysis, Hull raises important concerns regarding the intersection of far-right critiques of the
‘oppressive’ West, as exemplified by the neo-Traditionalism emerging in Russia, and the epistemic
decolonisation critique of Western hegemony that is grounded in epistemic ethnonationalism.
According to Hull (2022), there are notable similarities between these theoretical frameworks
that pose significant challenges for anticolonial struggles. By identifying these convergences, Hull
highlights the potential risks of aligning decoloniality too closely with ethnonationalist and author­
itarian discourses that may ultimately undermine the broader goals of liberation and justice. Hull’s
critique serves as a crucial reminder of the complexities and nuances inherent in contemporary
decolonial discourse, urging scholars to critically examine the implications of their theoretical
positions.
For example, let us return to Mignolo, who writes the following about race and gender:
Race and gender are two concepts of Western modernity that make us believe they ‘represent’ something that
exists. Behind race there is an implied logic of classification (the logic of coloniality) assuming that people
belong to different races and the markers are blood and skin colour. Behind gender there is an implied
logic of classification assuming that there are women and men. The classifications shape and guide our per­
ception of society. However, decolonial gnoseological assumptions say that names and classifications do not
refer to what there is but frame what we perceive (Mignolo 2021, 85).

As Hull (2022) explains, Mignolo’s argument extends beyond a straightforward rejection of tra­
ditional categories of race and gender. He asserts that all concepts ultimately fail to genuinely
reflect the commonalities and differences present in the real world. Unlike critiques based solely
on biological evidence, Mignolo’s approach is metaphysical, arguing that concepts are incapable
of accurately referencing objective reality (Hull 2022). He contends that beliefs can only be deemed
valid within specific cultural or geographical contexts – essentially, they are valid for ‘Westerners’ or
others within particular group identities (Mignolo 2011; Mignolo and Walsh 2018). By condemning
the ‘universalising’ tendencies of Western thought, Mignolo firmly rejects any notion of conver­
gence with ‘Western’ epistemologies, advocating instead for a focus on localism (Hull 2022).
In particular, Hull (2022) suggests that neo-Traditionalism (e.g. Dugin’s Eurasianism in Russia)
and decolonial theory, though originating from different convictions – one aiming to revive a time­
less Tradition and the other to expose and halt exploitation and oppression – arrive at similar pos­
itions. Both frameworks assert that each cultural group has its own unique values and knowledge
systems that are valid only within that group; this assertion appears respectful of cultural diversity
but risks enforcing conformity to predetermined cultural values on individuals within those groups,
regardless of their personal beliefs. Hull further argues that both neo-Traditionalism and decoloni­
ality reject the idea of objective, universal truth, holding instead that truth is only valid relative to
specific cultural or evaluative frameworks. Both neo-Traditionalism and decoloniality criticise ‘the
West’ for centuries of economic exploitation and the imposition of Western beliefs, values, and
rational standards onto non-Western societies. Both argue that the dominance of Western knowl­
edge systems has convinced some non-Western groups to view these frameworks as universally
valid, thus the proper response is ‘epistemic disobedience’ to challenge this enduring coloniality
(Hull 2022).
These concerns about the convergence between neo-Traditionalism and decoloniality theory
invite a deeper reflection on the implications of these theoretical positions; this is certainly a worth­
while argument to pursue. However, it would be misguided, in my view – and here I depart from
Hull’s (2022) argumentation – to attribute this convergence to decoloniality theory or to fault it for
aligning with far-right and authoritarian ideologies. The central point that must be highlighted, in
10 M. ZEMBYLAS

my view, is that scholars need to critically examine how these frameworks operate in relation to
specific political contexts. The rejection of universal truth in both theories raises questions about
the political implications of these theories and the risks of what Naicker (2023) calls ‘ethno-essen­
tialist’ claims. For example, it is worthwhile to examine whether and how Mignolo’s geo-politics of
knowledge creates openings to ethno-essentialist claims about how knowledge is produced in differ­
ent political contexts (e.g. Russia, India, China, Hungary). Does his framework imply an Afro­
centric, Islam-centric, or Christian-centric epistemology that ‘is reducible to a geo-political
tradition of cosmological meaning’ (Naicker 2023, 223)? Engaging in this critical examination is
vital to ensure that the quest for cultural recognition does not devolve into a rigid adherence to
identity politics or positionality that ultimately undermines the very values of anticolonial thought
and politics (Zembylas 2024). While it is true that some despotic regimes have invoked anti-Wes­
tern agendas under the guise of promoting traditional or religious values, there is limited scholarly
work in the field of education that directly traces and substantiates these agendas as being derived
from or aligned with decolonial theory. To show the political consequences of epistemic ethno-
essentialist claims in different educational settings, I draw next from two recent examples in the
literature that illustrate how epistemic delinking can be appropriated by authoritarian forces.

The political consequences of epistemic ethno-essentialism in education

In this section, I discuss and analyse two recent publications in the field of education that examine
the implications of approaches that advocate epistemic delinking from the West. The first is Lewis
and Lall’s (2024) investigation into how right-wing nationalist elites in Russia and India have co-
opted the decolonial agenda within higher education. The second example comes from Mochizuki
(2023), who critiques how delinking strategies in India can be appropriated to undermine equality
and recognition for marginalised populations, thereby reinforcing a nationalist and neoliberal
agenda. These examples were selected for two reasons: first, they support the argument presented
in this article; and second, they both reference Mignolo’s concept of delinking, examining its impli­
cations for decolonisation efforts within their respective contexts. In the following discussion, I will
elaborate on each of these articles and highlight the risks of ethno-essentialist claims that arise from
decolonisation efforts across various cultural and national contexts.
Lewis and Lall (2024) argue that authoritarian leaders like Vladimir Putin, Narendra Modi, and
Xi Jinping exploit calls for decolonisation to legitimise their anti-democratic reforms. These leaders
co-opt the rhetoric of local intellectuals advocating for empowerment and the rejection of Western
knowledge, framing their authoritarian measures as necessary to resist Western hegemony. As
Lewis and Lall write:
These leaders capitalise on grassroots and academic calls for increased freedom from Western neoliberal hege­
mony, linking to and co-opting the work of decolonial national philosophers who call for the empowerment of
local knowledge producers and the reinstatement of traditional ways of being and knowing within these con­
texts. (2024, 1472)

This appropriation undermines grassroots movements and suppresses dissent, as universities

become complicit in promoting government narratives and silencing critiques through various
repressive tactics. Lewis and Lall’s analysis show that while decolonisation aims to amplify diverse
voices, authoritarian regimes have distorted this discourse to stifle opposition, reinforcing power
dynamics and discrimination against minorities. Ultimately, this dynamic illustrates the challenges
faced by decolonial efforts in contexts where democratic institutions are eroding, particularly in
India and Russia. As Lewis and Lall explain further:
[T]he weakening of democratic institutions in India and Russia, which reinforces the infringements of rights
and freedom of expression, is legitimised through association with over-simplified decolonial ideas, where to
shut down critiques of the regimes in power, authoritarianism accuses Western liberal thought of creating the
ills of a globalising world. Universities are made to toe this line (willingly or unwillingly) through various
 GLOBALISATION, SOCIETIES AND EDUCATION 11

repressive tactics, such as political appointments, curriculum reform, control of finances, policing of students,
and dismissal or arrests of staff. (2024, 1472)

In particular, Lewis and Lall (2024) mention Mignolo’s concept of decolonial de-linking as an
example of how anti-Western discourse can be potentially co-opted within Russia and India’s
nationalist frameworks. However, unlike Hull (2022), who highlights only the dangers of ethno-
nationalism in decolonial theory, Lewis and Lall provide a more balanced critique and argue that
Mignolo’s work is ‘far more nuanced than anti-Westernist co-option indicates’ (2024, 1475).
They underscore that while both decolonialism and Eurasianism critique modernity, they differ
in their receptiveness to pluralism: decolonialism promotes diverse dialogue and self-critique,
whereas Eurasianism, especially within Russian state structures, stifles dissent and advocates a
Russo-centric model aligned with state authority. This distinction reinforces my earlier argument
that anti-Western rhetoric in decolonial theory cannot be simply equated with decoloniality itself.
However, it also serves as a critical reminder for education scholars to examine how their theoretical
frameworks might be appropriated or misinterpreted in ways that can support nationalist or exclu­
sionary agendas, underscoring the need for vigilance in contexts where anti-Western sentiments
may be mobilised for repressive purposes.
In the second example, Mochizuki (2023) illustrates how delinking strategies in education could
unintentionally or strategically serve nationalist and neoliberal agendas, undermining the goals of
inclusion and equality. His analysis highlights the complexities of implementing decolonial frame­
works in India’s educational system and suggests that there is a need for approaches that mitigate
potential misuse of decolonial concepts in education. In particular, the author examines India’s new
National Education Policy, which entails the agenda of the ruling nationalist party for dewesterni­
zation. This policy, points out Mochizuki, echoes the sentiment that India has suffered from ‘the
colonial matrix of power’ and now it is the time to break from that. The author warns though
that the efforts to decolonise India’s education ‘must not be reduced to positing a simplistic
West–East/North–South/White-Nonwhite dichotomy’ (2023, 14). This binary framing, according
to Mochizuki, casts India as either uniformly oppressed by Western forces (from a decolonial
view) or as a monolithic, irrational, and religious society (from a modernist/colonialist view). A
more nuanced approach is needed, argues Mochizuki, one that recognises the need for epistemic
discontinuity with the colonial past, yet one that does not buy into simplistic and superficial argu­
ments of decolonisation.
All in all, both of these publications emphasise that when nationalist agendas co-opt decoloni­
alism, they strip it of its critical complexity and turn it into a tool for reinforcing national power
structures, rather than questioning hierarchical knowledge systems. This co-opted version of deco­
lonialism superficially opposes Western influence but avoids engaging with nuanced critiques of
power dynamics and social inequalities. Instead, decolonial principles are reshaped to support
exclusionary, nationalist identities, often sidelining minority voices that challenge the singular
national narrative. In countries like India and Russia, as shown in these articles, de-linking from
Western academic discourse is used to justify policies that suppress dissent by categorising certain
critiques as ‘Western-influenced’ and therefore undesirable. These actions serve nationalist objec­
tives by promoting a homogenous national identity based on state-defined ‘traditional’ values, while
silencing diverse perspectives within the nation. Universities, for example, are targeted as potential
sources of Western thought or critical views, leading to restricted academic freedom (Dillabough
2022; Rubin and Bose 2023). This creates an environment where students and academics who ques­
tion the current administrations face limited avenues for open debate. Consequently, the co-opted
decolonial discourse diminishes the democratic and pluralistic ideals it originally sought to pro­
mote, instead entrenching authoritarian governance under the guise of protecting national identity.
My argument here is not to claim that decolonial theory or Mignolo’s framework are ‘respon­
sible’ for their appropriation by authoritarian or right-wing agendas. Such a view would not only
be politically and intellectually naïve, but also oversimplify the complex dynamics at play.
12 M. ZEMBYLAS

Decolonial theory, especially Mignolo’s concept of ‘delinking’, which has been at the centre of this
paper, was conceived to question Western dominance and empower marginalised voices. However,
when theories enter diverse political landscapes, they can be reinterpreted in ways that deviate from
their original intent. This reinterpretation is not accidental; it builds on specific pitfalls within deco­
lonial theory, particularly its emphasis on epistemic decolonisation, which can at times lead to
ethno-essentialist claims. In the case of Russia and India, nationalist leaders have strategically
rebranded delinking as an anti-Western stance that suppresses critique and promotes a singular
national identity. This does not indicate a flaw in decolonial theory itself but instead highlights
the potential for powerful ideas to be co-opted when not critically examined in context. Scholars
must therefore be mindful of the new geopolitics of education (Moscovitz and Sabzalieva 2023),
particularly how decolonial theories might be adapted and strive to clarify their theoretical, ethical
and political boundaries to resist misuse.

Conclusion and implications

This paper has argued that Mignolo’s framework of epistemic decolonisation – particularly the
notion of ‘delinking’ – carries a risk of fostering an ethno-essentialist politics that, in certain pol­
itical and educational contexts, may resemble elements of far-right or authoritarian discourse
more closely than anticolonial ideals. While Mignolo’s version of the decolonial turn, like any
theoretical approach, offers valuable insights, it also requires critical engagement; scholars invested
in anticolonial critique should interrogate its political, theoretical, and educational implications to
ensure that it aligns with efforts to dismantle colonial power dynamics across varied political and
educational contexts. Although suggesting that decolonial theory and far-right ideologies are ‘unli­
kely bedfellows’ (Hull 2022, 132) may seem exaggerated, I have sought here to explore whether
decoloniality offers a productive way towards anticolonial thought and politics in diverse edu­
cational contexts. This inquiry into Mignolo’s concept of epistemic decolonisation calls for a deeper
engagement with the political and material dimensions of colonial power, moving beyond purely
epistemic considerations. This approach would position decolonial theory within the intricate his­
tories of anticolonialism, drawing on the work and activism of first-wave anticolonial thinkers –
such as Fanon and Césaire – as well as Indigenous scholars, to uphold a vision of anticolonialism
that remains accountable and inclusive.
In his critical analysis of intellectual decolonisation, Moosavi (2020) cautions that while deco­
lonisation efforts are essential, they come with notable limitations. In particular, he identifies five
such limitations that can undermine the effectiveness of decolonisation efforts: the tendency to
oversimplify decolonisation as a straightforward task; the risk of essentialising or appropriating
the Global South; the failure to recognise the varied and complex nature of marginalisation
within academia; the pitfalls of nativism, which may elevate certain cultural knowledge uncriti­
cally; and tokenism, which can reduce decolonisation to superficial gestures rather than mean­
ingful change. Moosavi argues that identifying these pitfalls is critical, as certain approaches to
intellectual decolonisation may inadvertently perpetuate the very coloniality they aim to disman­
tle, thereby reinforcing power hierarchies and marginalisation rather than subverting them. His
insights serve as a reminder that decolonisation must be approached thoughtfully and critically,
ensuring it is grounded in genuine inclusivity and avoids replicating reductive or exclusionary
practices.
Similarly, Naicker (2023) warns that decolonial theory’s ‘exclusively and moralistically exclu­
sionary anti-Westernism begins mirroring the rightist tendencies it sought to locate solely within
a fabricated Western essence’ (237).1 Although such a sweeping critique risks oversimplifying deco­
lonial theory, it raises important concerns about the potential pitfalls of an epistemic approach to
decolonisation, particularly regarding its reliance on identity politics. When decolonial discourse
primarily focuses on rejecting Western frameworks without self-reflection on the consequences
of such move, it risks becoming entangled in the same exclusionary impulses it seeks to challenge.
 GLOBALISATION, SOCIETIES AND EDUCATION 13

This critique points to a crucial tension in decolonial thought: how can scholars engage in mean­
ingful anticolonial work without reducing the complexities of colonial power relations to a binary
opposition between ‘the West’ and ‘the non-West’?
One reason I prefer the term ‘anticolonial’ (Sefa Dei and Lordan 2016; Zembylas 2024) over
‘decolonial’ is because it underscores the need to embed historical awareness and political engage­
ment into decolonial work. This approach challenges scholars to go beyond a strictly epistemic
focus, asking instead whether our decolonisation efforts address material realities and power struc­
tures that perpetuate colonial legacies. While epistemic decolonisation critiques Western knowl­
edge hierarchies, it often stops short of engaging with the political and material mechanisms that
reproduce these hierarchies. This raises an important question for decolonial scholarship in edu­
cation: Are scholars at risk of inadvertently reinforcing essentialist or exclusionary narratives
that may align with nationalist or authoritarian agendas?
Future investigations into anticolonial thought in education should therefore consider sev­
eral critical questions. How can scholars ensure that decolonial work does not become co-
opted to support ethno-essentialist or exclusionary politics, as seen when nationalist discourses
appropriate decolonial language to advance their own hegemonic ends? How can decolonial
scholarship in education remain open to plural voices and multiple narratives without devol­
ving into uncritical nativism? Additionally, how might we address the complex interplay
between local and global forms of oppression without reducing anticolonial thought to a sim­
plistic dichotomy between ‘the West’ and ‘the non-West’? Addressing these questions may
allow education scholars to develop anticolonial approaches that not only critique epistemic
colonialism, but also actively challenge political and material structures that hinder collective
liberation and social justice through educational policies and practices in different political
contexts.

Note
1. Naicker (2023) notes that in The Politics of Decolonial Investigations (2021), Mignolo uses Iran as a
prominent example of de-linking from the colonial matrix of power, dedicating a surprisingly extensive
portion of his discussion to defending Iran’s policies against Islamophobic perspectives (Mignolo 2021,
107). As Naicker wonders, without hiding his surprise: ‘[C]an Iranian state policy be considered subal­
tern epistemology? How is Iran’s theocratic persecution of its internal dissidents and minorities
any different form the decolonial depiction of totalitarian colonial states during the formal colonial
period?’ (237).

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID
Michalinos Zembylas http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6896-7347

References
Andreotti, Vanessa, Sharon Stein, Cash Ahenakew, and Dallas Hunt. 2015. “Mapping Interpretations of
Decolonisation in the Context of Higher Education.” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 4 (1):
21–40.
Coulthard, Glen Sean. 2014. Red Skins, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Dillabough, Jo-Anne. 2022. “Higher Education, Violent Modernities and the ‘Global Present’: The Paradox of Politics
and New Populist Imaginaries in HE.” Globalisation, Societies and Education 20 (2): 178–192. https://doi.org/10.
1080/14767724.2021.1954497
14 M. ZEMBYLAS

Gaztambide-Fernández, Rubén A. 2012. “Decolonisation and the Pedagogy of Solidarity.” Decolonization:

Indigeneity, Education & Society 1 (1): 41–67.
Golding, Daniel. 2017. “Border Cosmopolitanism in Critical Peace Education.” Journal of Peace Education 14 (2):
155–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/17400201.2017.1323727
Harruch, John. 2024. “Decoloniality and the Specter of Modernity: Notes for a Theoretical Critique.” Bulletin of Latin
American Research 43 (3): 251–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/blar.13576
Hull, George. 2021. “Some Pitfalls of Decolonial Theory.” The Thinker: A Pan African Quarterly for Thought Leaders
89 (4): 63–74.
Hull, George. 2022. “Epistemic Ethnonationalism: Identity Policing in Neo-Traditionalism and Decoloniality
Theory.” Acta Academica: Critical Views on Society, Culture and Politics 54 (3): 131–155. https://doi.org/10.
18820/24150479/aa54i3/7
Lewis, Alice, and Manisha Lall. 2024. “From Decolonisation to Authoritarianism: The Co-Option of the Decolonial
Agenda in Higher Education by Right-Wing Nationalist Elites in Russia and India.” Higher Education 87 (5):
1471–1488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01074-0
Mignolo, Walter D. 2007. “Delinking.” Cultural Studies 21 (2-3): 449–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950238060
1162647
Mignolo, Walter D. 2011. The Darker Side of Western Modernity: Global Futures, Decolonial Options. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
Mignolo, Walter D. 2012. Local Histories/Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges, and Border Thinking.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Mignolo, Walter D. 2021. The Politics of Decolonial Investigations. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Mignolo, Walter D., and Madina Tlostanova. 2008. “Logic of Coloniality and the Limits of Postcoloniality.” In The
Post-Colonial and the Global, edited by Revathi Krishnaswamy and John C. Hawley, 109–123. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Mignolo, Walter D., and Catherine E. Walsh. 2018. On Decoloniality: Concepts, Analytics, Praxis. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Mochizuki, Yoko. 2023. “Can the Subaltern Decolonise? The Limits and Possibilities of Decolonial Global Citizenship
Education in India.” Prospects. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-023-09656-7.
Moosavi, L. 2020. “The Decolonial Bandwagon and the Dangers of Intellectual Decolonization.” International Review
of Sociology 30 (2): 332–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/03906701.2020.1776919
Moscovitz, Hannah, and Emma Sabzalieva. 2023. “Conceptualising the New Geopolitics of Higher Education.”
Globalisation, Societies and Education 21 (2): 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2023.2166465
Naicker, Vidur. 2023. “The Problem of Epistemological Critique in Contemporary Decolonial Theory.” Social
Dynamics 49 (2): 220–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/02533952.2023.2226497
Rubin, Jee, and Lakshmi S. Bose. 2023. “Dominant or Dominating? Imaginaries of Higher Education in Turkey and
Northern Syria.” Globalisation, Societies and Education 21 (2): 252–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2022.
2124402
Sefa Dei, George J., and Marlon Lordan. 2016. “Introduction: Envisioning New Meanings, Memories, and Actions for
Anti-Colonial Theory and Decolonial Praxis.” In Anti-Colonial Theory and Decolonial Praxis, edited by George J.
Sefa Dei and Marlon Lordan, vii–xxi. New York: Peter Lang.
Shahjahan, Riyad A., Angela L. Estera, Kirsten L. Surla, and Kabria T. Edwards. 2022. “‘Decolonising’ Curriculum
and Pedagogy: A Comparative Review Across Disciplines and Global Higher Education Contexts.” Review of
Educational Research 92 (1): 73–113. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211042423
Shahjahan, Riyad A., and Chantelle Morgan. 2015. “Global Competition, Coloniality, and the Geopolitics of
Knowledge in Higher Education.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 37 (1): 92–109. https://doi.org/10.
1080/01425692.2015.1095635
Silova, Iveta, Zsuzsa Millei, and Nelli Piattoeva. 2017. “Interrupting the Coloniality of Knowledge Production in
Comparative Education: Postsocialist and Postcolonial Dialogues after the Cold War.” Comparative Education
Review 61 (S1): S74–S102. https://doi.org/10.1086/690458
Simpson, Audra. 2014. Mohawk Interruptus: Political Life Across the Borders of Settler-States. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Stein, Sharon. 2023. Unsettling the University: Confronting the Colonial Foundations of US Higher Education.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Takayama, Keita, Arathi Sriprakash, and Raewyn Connell. 2017. “Toward a Postcolonial Comparative and
International Education.” Comparative Education Review 61 (S1): S1–S24. https://doi.org/10.1086/690455
Temin, David Myer. 2024. “A Decolonial Wrong Turn: Walter Mignolo’s Epistemic Politics.” Constellations.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12744
Tuck, Eve, and K. Wayne Yang. 2012. “Decolonisation is Not a Metaphor.” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education &
Society 1 (1): 1–40.
Vázquez-Arroyo, Antonio. 2018. “Critical Theory, Colonialism, and the Historicity of Thought.” Constellations
(Oxford, England) 25 (1): 54–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12348
 GLOBALISATION, SOCIETIES AND EDUCATION 15

Vickers, Edward. 2020. “Critiquing Coloniality, ‘Epistemic Violence,’ and Western Hegemony in Comparative
Education: The Dangers of Ahistoricism and Positionality.” Comparative Education 56 (2): 165–189. https://
doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2019.1665268
Wolfe, Patrick. 2006. “Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native.” Journal of Genocide Research 8 (4):
387–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623520601056240
Zembylas, Michalinos. 2021. “Refusal as Affective and Pedagogical Practice in Higher Education Decolonisation: A
Modest Proposal.” Teaching in Higher Education 26 (7-8): 953–968. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.
1900816
Zembylas, Michalinos. 2023. “A Decolonial Approach to AI in Higher Education Teaching and Learning: Strategies
for Undoing the Ethics of Digital Neocolonialism.” Learning, Media and Technology 48 (1): 25–37. https://doi.org/
10.1080/17439884.2021.2010094
Zembylas, Michalinos. 2024. “Recovering Anticolonialism as an Intellectual and Political Project in Education.”
Educational Theory. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12660.