Enrich, transform, and rebuild knowledge in social sciences from the global south: a criticism to the Second Convivialist Manifesto – Research proposal
Enrich, transform, and rebuild knowledge in social sciences from the global south: a criticism to the Second Convivialist Manifesto
A research proposal
The Second Convivialist Manifesto, an initiative from the non-utilitarian movement in social sciences (MAUSS), based originally in France, represents one of the most important philosophical challenges of today. It carries out a criticism of capitalism not only from an economic perspective, as from an ethical point of view. It also proposes to build a new model of life among human beings.
Nevertheless, this interesting approach seems to forget or not to consider at all what is occurring in the global south, especially in Africa. For this reason, this paper aims to contribute to enrich the convivialist perspective through an analysis considering interconnections with peripheral philosophical thoughts, like Ubuntu, Ethnophilosophy, and suma qamaña, inter alia.
In the protracted and current transformations of societies, diversity is part of reality, both in the global south and in the global north, the landscape is changing at a higher speed than our conceptual framework. There is urgency to recognize the epistemic diversity of the global south. It may be the most pressing concern in the context of the decolonizing and contesting processes around the world, and this is relevant for the convivialist proposal; and accordingly, from the south, the epistemic injustice is central concern for local people, often disempowered at the social, economic, political and knowledge levels.
So, following the framework of the convivialist movement, what must be or could be improved? What changes, in terms of social and environmental issues must be addressed? What new conceptualizations and questions should we include in the research program? What has not been thought of and that could change the direction or options left to us? What discussions and debates must we go through before making decisions? What research methods could be fruitful at this stage of the program?