Volume 3, Dossier 2: On Europe, Education, Global Capitalism and Ideology

Edited by Marina Gržinić

It is my privilege to engage in the topic of Europe, education, global capitalism and ideology. The possibility to publish this Dossier online as part of de-coloniality at large (of which WKO is an outlet) and the established – as well as of growing – network of decolonial researchers, scholars, intellectuals, artists and activists, made the publication and distribution of the Dossier possible.

I have asked  a new generation of writers from a European context coming mostly but not exclusively from the former Yugoslav area and Austria, as well as from the United States, Latin America, and the second generation of African Diaspora in Austria, all formed within the (west) European humanity system, to re-question its foundation and to implicate a process of straightforward decoloniality, antiracist politics, critique of anti-Semitism and slavery in the present global world of capitalism on all its numerous  levels (from theory, epistemology, art, social and the political).

The Dossier has two parts that are not divided but work in a double time frame. The first part is below; the second is in preparation and will follow.

I would like to thank the writers, Prof. Walter Mignolo, Tracy Carhart and Joseph Tucker Edmonds.

Gržinić proposes to modify the fundamental way of understanding the state of exception. Why state of exception? It is a major dispositive and device of govermentality in the neoliberal global capitalist world. It is important to state that the state of exception is not functioning primarily today, as Agamben developed it, by inclusion/exclusion, but through repetition. Repetition introduces the form of a general equivalence of every politics that would be capable to politicize the overexploited classes and the social now transformed into a necrosocial.

Dokuzović and Eduard Freudmann argue that it is important to understand that the functionality of the center-periphery model as a territorial strategy of dominance is based on the control and regulation of mobility and migration. They, therefore, use the term “fortified knowledge centers” to refer to how this relates to the fortification around the knowledge economy areas, as the EHEA and EU are congruent with the EU border and migration regime supporting the necropolitical border defense projects of Frontex, not only accepting the consequences of drowning boat refugees, but enforcing it.

Salgado’s text takes up threads from other woven texts. Many are from the subject of German as a second language, particularly those that consider the power dimension of language. Others from the field of pedagogy, especially those that chose critical and deconstructivist approaches, which regard education in the sense of it being part of a process of constructing of meaning, thereby defining language as action and as a means for conjecturing a different reality. Other threads come from texts that deal with the situation of migrants in Western Europe from a post-colonial perspective.

In post-war Europe, Western Europe was cut off from the Eastern communist block. In order to share the West’s post-war work load at low costs, people were recruited from (former) Yugoslavia, and Turkey. This labor emigration had effects on the Turkish Republic; the results were a changing agriculture (from subsistence farming to cash-crops) and transforming class structures in villages and towns. These processes were negotiated among and between people and family segments along the manifold migration and remigration experiences which include endless departures, leaving and being left.

Marjanović’s text is a critical analysis of the processes that have been unfolding in Europe since 1989 – processes related to European integration and the creation of the European Union citizenship, as well as with the implementation of neoliberal capitalism in Eastern Europe, or the neocolonial appropriation of Eastern Europe as part of the European unification project. Within this framework, I would like to consider two concepts together. The first is the concept of European Apartheid proposed by French philosopher Étienne Balibar in the 1990s and beginning of 2000s and the other is the concept of Exception to Neoliberalism proposed in recent years by the Chinese anthropologist and theoretician Aihwa Ong.


In this article, Tatlić explains how the old racist core of colonial epistemic has been interlacing pretty well with the new forms of subjugation to the measure in which the very notion of the division that relates to the subjugation as a political decision, became subversive in order to preserve the racist epistemic as a potent tool of rationalization of brutal disbalance in distribution of material wealth. The division in relation to subjugation became subversive because it presents, or started to present the adversarial, contesting, predicament of separation from the violent linkage of the norm and the law, and of the victim and the perpetrator that would later uncover itself as the subtext of strategy of contemporary forms of exploitation.