Resumo Aníbal Quijano foi um dos teóricos sociais latino-americanos mais astutos e decididos da segunda metade do século 20. Seus ensaios pioneiros sobre a ‘Colonialidade do Poder’ não só inspiraram o projeto da Modernidade/Colonialidade/Decolonialidade, como também influenciaram inúmeros intelectuais e ativistas não necessariamente envolvidos na chamada ‘Virada Decolonial.’ Embora Quijano não tenha deixado um texto no qual todas as características de sua teoria sobre ‘Colonialidade’ sejam sistematizadas, pode-se supor que o extenso ensaio ‘Colonialidade do Poder, Eurocentrismo e América Latina,’ publicado pela primeira vez nos anos 2000, pretendia fornecer uma visão geral do seu pensamento. O objetivo deste fórum é debater criticamente o legado do sociólogo peruano durante um período que o próprio Quijano posteriormente descreveu como a ‘crise da raiz da colonialidade do poder global.’ Na primeira seção, José Gandarilla apresenta os antecedentes e precursores latino-americanos do uso do termo ‘Colonialidade.’ Em seguida, Haydeé García reflete sobre a perspectiva interdisciplinar em Aníbal Quijano, o peso da totalidade e suas articulações históricas. Finalmente, Daniele Benzi abre e discute algumas questões a respeito do ‘capitalismo colonial/moderno e eurocentrado’ através da perspectiva da Sociologia Macro-Histórica.

Abstract Aníbal Quijano has been one of the most astute and purposeful Latin American social theorists of the second half of the 20th century. His pioneering essays on the ‘Coloniality of Power’ not only inspired the project of Modernity/Coloniality/Decoloniality, but have also influenced countless intellectuals and activists who were not necessarily involved in the so-called ‘Decolonial Turn.’ While Quijano has not left behind a text in which all of the characteristics of his theory on ‘Coloniality’ are systematised, it can be argued that the lengthy essay ‘Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism and Latin America,’ published for the first time twenty years ago, was intended to provide such an overview of his thought. The purpose of this forum is to critically debate the legacy of the Peruvian sociologist during a period which Quijano himself later described as the ‘Root Crisis of the Coloniality of Global Power.’ In the first section, José Gandarilla presents the Latin American antecedents and precursors of the use of the term ‘Coloniality.’ Next, Haydeé García reflects on the interdisciplinary perspective in Aníbal Quijano, the weight of totality, and its historical articulations. Finally, Daniele Benzi opens up and addresses some queries regarding ‘colonial/modern and Eurocentered capitalism,’ from the perspective of macro-historical sociology.

This article discusses the diverse levels in which the modernity's sociocultural program exhibits chiaroscuros that they are but symptoms of a multiform and deep crisis from which is promised labyrinthine every output since it threatens the humanity's future in a diversity of levels, social orders and temporary densities. Thus, the issues of: modernity/coloniality, the crisis of historical depth being experienced by capitalism and the challenges of emancipatory politics; are analyzed in the framework of a benjaminian methodological strategy that understands its dialectic as in a suspension state, hence our contemporaneity looks in the double standard of the duration and simultaneity but without allowing venture a hypothesis on purpose of openings which signify a historical discontinuity.

En este artículo se discuten los diversos planos en los que el programa sociocultural de la modernidad exhibe claroscuros que no son sino los síntomas de una crisis profunda y multiforme de la cual cualquier salida se promete laberíntica, pues compromete el futuro de la humanidad en una diversidad de planos, órdenes sociales y densidades temporales. Es así que los temas de la modernidad/colonialidad, la crisis de hondura histórica por la que atraviesa el capitalismo y los desafíos de la política emancipatoria son analizados en el marco de una estrategia metodológica de cuño benjaminiano que entiende su dialéctica como en estado de suspensión; por ello, nuestra contemporaneidad se mira en el doble rasero de la duración y la simultaneidad, pero sin permitir aventurar una hipótesis a propósito de aperturas que signifiquen una discontinuidad histórica.

The author proposes to review the philosophic and epistemology fundamentals on which modern scientific knowledge is based. The objective is to explore the way in which occidental thinking has built a kind of science through the concepts of logos and episteme in opposition to myth and doxa. Later, a review is provided on how these concepts operate in the organization of dominant knowledge by means of a construction of academic disciplines, separated in the physic-natural and humanist traditions in the center of a modern University. In its contemporaneous form, it considers the way capitalism works in such an institution; this is done on the framework of tension for the possible instrumentalization of all knowledge. The paper promotes an alternative proposal that tries to get out of disciplinary framework with the main objective of building a critical way of approaching reality through the recognition of its complexity.

El autor se propone revisar los fundamentos filosóficos y epistemológicos en que se basa el conocimiento científico en la modernidad. El objetivo es explorar la forma en que el pensamiento occidental ha construido un tipo de ciencia a través de los conceptos de logos y episteme en oposición al mito y a la doxa. Posteriormente, se realiza una revisión de cómo operan estos conceptos en la organización del saber dominante por medio de la construcción de las disciplinas académicas, separadas en las tradiciones físico-naturales y humanísticas al seno de la universidad moderna. En su forma contemporánea, en planos en los que el capitalismo opera sobre tal institución, esto se efectúa en el marco de una tensión por la posible instrumentalización de todo conocimiento. El artículo promueve una propuesta alternativa que trata de salirse de los marcos disciplinarios con el objetivo de construir una forma crítica de abordar la realidad a través del reconocimiento de su complejidad.

It is presented in this work, a synthetic but not hence less exhaustive revision of a group of authors and thought currents that, during the the late sixties and principles of the seventies, undertake the analysis of the capitalist system from perspectives that face it in one or another way as a whole reaching the world and of lasting temporality. Those interpretations, through this method, question the hegemonic and conventional versions that about this topic had prevailed. Lastly are suggested the potentialities that the Latin American thought exhibits in these debates.

Se presenta en este trabajo una revisión sintética pero no por ello menos exhaustiva de un conjunto de autores y corrientes de pensamiento que, entre finales de los años sesenta y principios de los setenta, emprenden el análisis del sistema capitalista desde perspectivas que de uno u otro modo lo encaran en cuanto totalidad de alcances mundiales y temporalidad de larga duración. Dichas interpretaciones a través de este proceder cuestionan las versiones hegemónicas y convencionales que sobre el tema habían predominado. Se sugieren, por último, las potencialidades que el pensamiento latinoamericano exhibe en estos debates.