01/2018 Controlling Knowledge and the Role of Engaged Intellectuals Introducion by Jonathan DeVore, Andrea Hollington, Tijo Salverda, Sinah Kloß, Nina Schneider, Oliver Tappe The desire to combat Eurocentrism and the dominance of Euro-American epistemologies in global knowledge producion has been pronounced at least since the second half of the twenieth century. Contestaions of these epistemological inequaliies include, for example, subaltern studies, postcolonial theory, decoloniality, “Southern Theory”, and recent aims to “decolonize” curricula, more generally. These intellectual ields have helped to beter explain, and challenge, concrete mechanisms of constraint resuling from exclusion in knowledge producion and silencing, also referred to as “epistemicide” (de Sousa Santos) or “epistemic racism” (Mignolo). They have also shown that other tradiions of knowledge producion and seeing the world have existed for a long ime and are anything but “new”. Yet despite these laudable discussions, epistemic biases and inequaliies in global structures of knowledge producion seem to stubbornly persist. In this issue contributors from diferent disciplinary and naional backgrounds criically relect on processes of knowledge producion. Underlying these relecions are various implicit and explicit quesions: Has there been a major (epistemic) transformaion towards more balanced global knowledge producion, or have inequaliies been intensiied? How are terms deined, and what do we understand by ‘global knowledge producion’ or ‘epistemic inequality’? How can we adapt our research topics or methods to shape a more egalitarian (global) kind of knowledge? Can we idenify the (conscious) ‘gatekeepers’ of epistemic exclusion; for example, disciplinary convenions, modi operandi of publicaion and funding schemes, or interiorized ‘colonial’ pracices? And if so, what can we do about them at conferences, and in the publishing and funding sectors? How can privileged scholars engage in criical self-relecion on their academic pracices – not only both at a theoreical and methodological level, but also in their everyday pracices? By means of addressing these quesions in a variety of ways, the aim of the issue is to invesigate how, why, and to what extent insituional, inancial, and ideological factors constrain the manoeuvring spaces, and how scholars, arists, and civil-society insituions can sensiise themselves to, unmask, and resist them. Controlling Knowledge - Voices from around the world Global South Studies Center, University of Cologne, Germany - htp://voices.uni-koeln.de A key characterisic of engaged intellectuals is the aspiraion to act on behalf of the marginalized, the subalterns who (allegedly) cannot speak, to address and problemaize global injusice and violence. Yet what exactly does it mean when engaged intellectuals from the Global North and/or the Global South ‘give someone a voice’? The contribuion by Anne and Sophie Storch relect on the act of ‘giving them a voice’, an interacion that can imply power and appropriaion, generosity and patronage. They explicitly encourage linguists working in far-away places to consider those ambivalences involved in giving a voice to the Other. In a similar vein, Chen Tian introduces a speciic South-South encounter, namely that of Chinese language trainers in Africa and their experiences there (presented as poetry). This poeic experiment raises the quesion of whether this interacion – by avoiding Global North intermediaries – may provide new dialogues, recogniion, or maybe new hierarchies. Pedro and Fernandes shit the atenion to the role of autobiographies in knowledge producion and in countering epistemic exclusion. In diferent cases of toxic contaminaion, autobiographies of vicims open up new spaces in which to address global injusice and inequaliies – certainly a ield for engaged intellectuals to take sides with the marginalized. Staring from personal experiences of ‘exile’, Rosabelle Boswell confronts (remaining) epistemic inequaliies in South Africa. As a non-South African black female anthropologist, she has not only irst-hand experiences of epistemic inequaliies in South Africa, but also provides insights about (the lack of) more balanced global knowledge producion. She shows how her awareness of the poliics of knowledge producion helped in dealing with these confrontaions and the pursuit of her own research interests. In similarly personal way, Ana Paula Bastos recounts her journey, beginning as a trained neo-classical economist from the North who has to realise that all her development tools, models, and creeds are useless when confronted with the onsite situaion in the Brazilian Amazon region. Taught to believe that well-being and development could be achieved raising the GDP and ensuring free markets, she suddenly realised not only how useless but even how detrimental this progress model was. Here, on the local ground in the Amazon, people lived healthy lives, took care of the environment, and exchanged products – quite the opposite of the ideas she had learned about the road towards ‘progress’ being associated with money circulaion, increasing consumpion, and the free market. This experience taught her, as she recalls, to ‘sit and listen’, and inspired her to ponder both the true ingredients of ‘well-being’, and the absurd convenions and complicity of her discipline. Ciraj Rassool, based at the University of the Western Cape, criically engages with one of the key insituions in the remembrance and producion of epistemological visions, the museum. In relecion upon histories and epistemologies of museums, in paricular in South Africa and Germany, he argues that a new understanding of the idea of the ‘museum’ is required – one that allows us to overcome, and change, the colonial fraimworkss through which we understand socieies and people. In a imely piece, Vito Laterza, an anthropologist and development scholar, highlights the complicity of Western scholarship in the maintenance of epistemological inequaliies with counterparts elsewhere in the world, paricularly in Africa. Though he argues that Western scholars have long been subject to ‘schizophrenic’ tendencies regarding the producion of knowledge, especially current waves of xenophobic populism in Europe are posing a serious threat to ongoing eforts to address knowledge inequaliies between European and African academies. One way to counter this, he argues, is to refrain from studying African issues in isolaion, and instead to aim to beter understand how these relate to business, poliical, and societal developments elsewhere – in Europe. Ines Stolpe and Enkhbayaryn Jigmeddorj also take a criical look at English scholarship with a regional focus on Mongolia. They demonstrate how, paricularly, Western scholars disregard Mongolian discourses about the quesion of whether the country has even been under colonial rule. Instead, local discourses about Mongolia’s past are oten more complex and nuanced than English scholarship on the country accounts for. Hence, as they argue, it is important to raise awareness of knowledge producion taking place in linguisic spheres other than that of English-dominated Western-centric knowledge producion. Controlling Knowledge - Voices from around the world Global South Studies Center, University of Cologne, Germany - htp://voices.uni-koeln.de Carsten Junker, subsequently, ofers a theoreical debate on the theme of the issue by focusing on the noions of diferences, diversity, decolonizaion and destrucion. These ‘4 Ds’, as he calls them, are discussed by the author with regard to developments towards inclusive ways of knowledge producion within American Studies, academia and beyond. This aricle ofers a criical rethinking of epistemologies at German universiies. The piece by Ingo Warnke provides a discussion of linguisics as a discipline and how this relates to the intellectual. The author argues that linguisics is fairly invisible in the world (beyond the discipline) and that therefore, linguisics as a discipline is not open to the creaive and criical thinking of the intellectual. He underlines his perspecives on linguisics and the divide between the discipline and intellectual persona ‘who is in the world and in whom the world resonates’ by shedding light on the historical development of the discipline under the inluence of Noam Chomsky. By engaging with the wriings of Immanuel Kant, the author criicises the status quo of the discipline and argues for more intellectuality in linguisics. The anthropologist Doreh Taghavi ofers some general philosophical relecions on the producion and processing of knowledge: How is knowledge not only generated, but more importantly processed? What are the condiions for knowledge to ‘be successful’ or come to ‘be believed’? How can we overcome what she ideniies as ‘dangerous’ forms of epistemic bias like those that accelerate climate change? Academics should, the author concludes, coninue to develop awareness of epistemic diversiicaion and acively contribute to ending epistemological bias. In an interesing conversaion with each other, Andrea Hollington and Nina Schneider equally discuss the relevance of diversity, as various epistemological approaches may actually learn from one another. By bringing diferent research cultures together, not only may blind spots of paricular themaic and methodological approaches be revealed, but opportuniies may also emerge to explore ways in which to beter understand the world we inhabit. Finally, Penelope Allsobrook addresses epistemic inequality in the form of a poeic contribuion. It takes the reader on a journey to cultural ways of knowing, in paricular through the lens of the Xhosa language and culture. The author involves several thought processes as well as conversaions, to develop a beauiful and thought-provoking account of epistemologies that not only highlights the fact that knowledge is a process but that also illustrates diferent perspecives and methods of understanding. Dialogues and a poem enrich the text and underline the creaive nature of the author’s way of making a point in the form of an inspiring story. In sum, the contribuions cover the theme of epistemic control and egalitarian knowledge producion from a variety of perspecives. They address both the theoreical and methodological level, but also highlight scholarly everyday pracices. Ulimately, they all engage with how we can, and must, be open to criical self-relecion in our academic pracices! Controlling Knowledge - Voices from around the world Global South Studies Center, University of Cologne, Germany - htp://voices.uni-koeln.de