Search results

The chapter explores how tourism creates even more dependence as spaces become gentrified and too expensive for local occupation through colonial tropes, and accumulation models. Tourism consumes gently. In the wake of Hurricanes Irma, Maria, and Dorian, The Bahamas and Puerto Rico have experienced an accelerated strike on their natural and social resources: from land deals and tax concessions to power infrastructure and school closures. Debt has plagued the countries; the policies designed to get them out of debt prior to the natural disasters, then converted into man-made disasters, have only deepened dependence and indebtedness. In fact, both have become externalized communities where land is being accumulated through dispossession. Tourism is more than just hotels and resorts; it is now the gated communities and private islands that build on coloniality and inequalities. Tourism, disaster capitalism, and green grabbing accumulate by dispossessing locals of land in the name of improving their economic health. Economic well being seems to result in loss.

Oriented to ongoing student and university momentums for decolonial futures, the purpose of this paper is to interrogate the role and status of mainstream international development curricula and pedagogies by critiquing two absences in the sub-discipline’s teaching formulae: appropriations and assassinations.

The author draws from a decade of research on oil extraction in Central Africa, including ethnographic work with two communities in Cameroon along the Chad–Cameroon Oil Pipeline; four years of research (interview-based and unofficial or grey materials) on the 1983 August Revolution in Burkina Faso and assassination of Thomas Sankara; and five years of experience teaching international development in North America, Western Europe and North and Eastern Africa.

Through a critical synthesis of political and rhetorical practices that are often considered in isolation (i.e. political assassinations and corporate appropriation of Indigenous knowledges), the author makes the case for what the author calls pedagogical disobedience: an anticipatory decolonial development curricula and praxis that is attentive to the simultaneity of violence and misappropriation within colonial operations of power (i.e. “coloniality of power” or “coloniality”).

This paper contributes to debates within international development about the future of the discipline given its neo-colonial and colonial constitutions and functions with a grounded attention to how this opens up possibilities for teaching praxis and scholarship in action.

Drawing upon the concepts of transmodernity, pluriversality and border thinking the author stands in a more practical fashion for the co-creation of an-other performative CMS which fosters the decolonization of (critical) management studies – as a way to contribute “to concretely changing the world(s) for the better” (as claimed by the organizers of the symposium “should critical management studies get anything done?” held at the Academy of Management Meeting in 2012 in Boston).

From a more practical and less opaque perspective on border thinking it is shown how and why border thinking can both enable and constrain critical scholars and people to move across the borders of the colonial difference and from Eurocentric modernity toward transmodern pluriversality.

The current performative turn of CMS fails to address the agency of critical knowledge as a potential reworking of Occidentalism which can be mobilized to “manage” the rise of alternatives and knowledges from the rest of the world in general and from emerging economies in particular.

Border thinking as a crucial concept from the coloniality/modernity research program from Latin America is taken as an important contribution from the colonial difference to the co-creation of decolonial management studies (DMS), an-other performative CMS which fosters the construction of a world in which many worlds and knowledges can coexist as a way to change it for the better.

The purpose of the paper is to problematise the emerging interest on international management from a critical point of view, considering the potential contribution of Latin American perspectives and to introduce the content of the special issue on “Critical international management and international critical management: perspectives from Latin America”.

The paper shows the relevance acquired recently by international management and the international advance of critical management studies, but also demonstrates their inherent limitations because of their universalistic standpoint that inhibit them to consider the governance issues of international management that are obvious from a Latin American standpoint.

The paper finds the relevance of some Latin American perspectives to break down the universalistic point of view of IM and CMS introducing a “pluriversalistic” geopolitical position to consider alternate projects to neoliberal globalisation contributing to realise the necessary decolonial shift to produce symmetrical dialogue across the border.

The paper shows that the contributions included in the special issue open new ways to critically consider and renew international management as a field of knowledge, but also demonstrates the relevance to think on the internationalisation of critical management during the recent years. They contribute to foster the new constitution of knowledge production around complex/diachronic issues reconceptualising research projects as co‐operative ventures of multiple voices and orientations from multiple places.

Latin America has been neglected in management and international business (IB) knowledge for a long time. Such a picture reflects the enduring power of the dark side of the geopolitics of knowledge that “international” sub-fields in management knowledge have to tackle as a key condition of possibility for the co-creation of a truly “international” field of “international business”. In this position paper, the authors aim to analyze the extent to which CPoIB has been a key instrument to tackle Anglo-Saxon hegemony in IB knowledge over the last ten years.

The authors follow a decolonizing perspective to analyse the impact of CPoIB for Latin America international business knowledge production.

The paper argues that CPoIB has given voice to authors who are from Latin America and, most important, work in the region. By doing that, CPoIB has triggered the mobilization of mechanisms of recognition and redistribution that are necessary to offset the neo-imperial side of “international business” and management knowledge. The journal has also helped to foster the co-creation of “pluriversal international business”.

The paper uses a decolonial perspective from Latin America in order to open new questions and challenges to the field of IB.

The purpose of this paper is to consider how practices of critical theorising directed towards present dilemmas of neoliberalisation might inadvertently participate in the reproduction of colonial power.

The paper adopts a critical theoretical approach, focussing on Wendy Brown’s recent work on neoliberalism in particular.

The paper argues that an alignment with colonial power is evident at a methodological level in Brown’s critique of neoliberalism and that this offers indication of how critical theorising in general might begin to reorient itself in ways that better ally it with the creation/promotion of decolonial possibility in contemporary contexts.

The paper makes original contribution to understanding of how western critical theorising actively participates in the reproduction of colonial power. Its value lies partly in demonstrating how this occurs in Brown’s specific case, and partly in suggesting correctives of more general applicability.

The domain of study on mediated suffering is ensconced within an Orientalist paradigm which ideologically structures our visuality and gaze. The consignment of suffering through bodies of alterity and the geo-politics of the Global South encodes the coloniality of power as a dominant reading. It then naturalizes the West as the voyeur in its consumption of the abject bodies of the Global South. Creating a binary through this East-West polarization in the oeuvre of suffering as a realm of study, it creates the hegemony of the West as the moral guardian of suffering, imbuing it with the right to accord pity and compassion to the lesser Other. Beyond elongating the Orientalist trajectory which lodged the body politic of the Global South as a sustained ideological site of suffering, it hermeneutically seals the East as irredeemable, ordaining it through the gaze over the Other as a mode of coloniality. In countering this Eurocentric proposition, this chapter contends that this coloniality of gaze needs further rumination and new sensibilities in the study of mediated suffering, particularly following 9/11 and the shifting of the geo-politics of suffering in which the West is dispossessed through its own manufactured ideologies of the ‘War on Terror’ such that it is under constant threat of terrorist attacks and through the movement of the displaced Other into the Global North. Besieged and entrapped through its own pathologies of risks and threats, the West is projected through its own victimhood and the politics of the Anthropocene within which risks are seemingly democratized by environmental degradation as an overarching threat for all of humanity. Despite these shifts in the global politics, the scholarship of suffering is locked into this polarity. The chapter interrogates this innate crisis within this field of scholarship.

Using a decolonial framework for thinking about knowledge, education and internationalisation, this chapter critically unpacks the historical and contemporary complexities in South African higher education, including the colonial roots of higher education and internationalisation, the Eurocentric hegemony and white domination during colonialism and apartheid, and the lack of epistemic decolonisation in post-apartheid South Africa. The chapter shows how the way internationalisation has been practiced by universities since the end of apartheid has contributed to the maintenance of Eurocentric hegemony and coloniality of knowledge. The chapter highlights the need to rethink, reconceptualise and redefine internationalisation, and unpacks a new definition of internationalisation which takes into consideration historical complexities, contemporary realities and challenges, and the need for epistemic transformation and decolonisation in South African higher education. This is in line with Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o’s decolonial ‘quest for relevance’ of education and knowledge to the people, places and regions in which universities operate, while looking outwards at the world and critically engaging with the plurality of worldviews, ideas, knowledges and ways of knowing. Such a quest could allow students to critically interrogate and understand their being and place in the world, as well as their relationships and linkages to others around the globe.