What does decolonising the curriculum in practice looks like to you?

Most people identify decolonising the curriculum with the movement replacing or adding Global South authors and knowledge that has been lastly neglected or ignored by Euro centred academia. It is true that there is wisdom in every part of the world that surely deserve to be uncovered (by “us”), especially those knowledges and experiences that come from the less powerful voices. Nonetheless, the serious question about decolonising curricula should not bypass one of the most relevant obstacles to me: the fact that the very foundations of the mainstream worldwide influential academia was set by the Global North, mostly the English-speaking academia. That means, that in order to been understood, accepted, have good marks, have publications and “been successful” (be heard! even in your “South topics”) you should perform quite well in at least two aspects: the use of English language and the standardized way of thinking/writing (clear, narrow, concise, etc. … we have all heard about that!). Thus, a movement that embrace the decolonisation curriculum as a serious project, should first reflect deeply into these (and other) foundational aspects, and consistently with that, give some space for diversity and solidarity. The latter, not only in terms of the syllabus design, but also in terms of creating more friendly instances where people from different background can express their ideas and experiences outside of the British high standard paradigm. Those ideas will not solve the issue at stake, but putting some efforts in those instances, I believe there is some chance to move a bit “the centre” in the future.

How has the British Higher Education syllabus from the different Universities you attended, impact your emotional well-being with regards to learning?

There is a big difference between the British Higher Education syllabus and the Chilean one. However, I do not see the main contrast in terms of contents or authors, but mostly in terms of what is expected from us in the University. In the Chilean academia, especially in school of laws, both the student and the lecturer are well evaluated as long as they are great depositaries of knowledge. Breadth is better appreciated than depth, generally. Lecturers who speak quickly delivering a great number of contents are considered to be the most intelligent ones. The same happen with students. In my opinion, this is not only a mere “different way”. It resides in the fact that countries from the South have learnt to import foreigner contents, repeat or replicate them; instead of thinking or creating new ones by themselves. Seeing ourselves as under-developed nations have pervaded deeply into our way of appreciating what should be valued. That idea could be reinforced, if you have the chance to get in touch with Euro-centred academia, especially if you are not from bilingual elite schools where English is privileged in teaching over Spanish. In that scenario you never perform completely the way is expected. You try to imitate that way, you fail to do it, then you progress a bit, but in the process is almost impossible not to feel that you are somehow “incomplete” or “weird”. Then, the challenge is trying to be compassionate with yourself, but at the same time, keep trying in those things that are important for you. I guess is a never-ending negotiating process, where you try to manage being accepted and being yourself, at the same time. In that sense, I believe I am (we are) also part of the problem (problematic consciousness), as I never can really get out of the framework that I pretend to be critical.

What advice would you give to academics who do not include authors who are independent thinkers in their reading lists, instead include mainstream Eurocentric thinkers/researchers?

I would say to them they are definitely losing part of richness and beauty that other perspectives can bring to their scholarship and to their lives. Nonetheless, in my opinion, we must be careful about what we should aim for in this project. The main aim of decolonising curricula should not be just about replacing authors or subjects, for others. That reversal logic could bring us into a trap. We should not have as an aim to do the same what was done to us. I do not see the point in that. Although it is difficult, we should try to move beyond the paradigm of perpetrators and victims. Additionally, there are amazing thinkers from the Eurocentric world that are well deserved to get deep into them. On the other hand, the project should not be just about ‘adding’ some independent thinkers to the main menu, but first making conscious the way that has been built the knowledge that the module/professor will visit. For me, that process is the most relevant not only to appreciate our (Eurocentric) biases in a better way, but also because this awareness could potentially open up the doors for more ambitious goals. Being aware of our false objectivity and consciousness maybe the first step to move the ‘the centre’, not only within that centre, but also somewhere else.