Indore (Madhya Pradesh): A new study by the Indian Institute of Management Indore has called for a fundamental rethink of how philosophy is taught, researched and practised, arguing that decolonising the discipline requires far more than adding non-Western thinkers to reading lists.
Published in the prestigious journal Philosophy Compass, the study co-authored by Prof Swati Arora argues that philosophy’s Eurocentric foundations are not simply the result of an incomplete canon but are rooted in centuries of colonial knowledge destruction, marginalisation and delegitimisation—what scholars describe as epistemicide.
According to the researchers, colonialism did not merely erase alternative philosophical traditions from history. It reshaped the discipline itself, making European philosophy appear universal while pushing other intellectual traditions to the margins.
Drawing on Frantz Fanon’s philosophy of decolonisation, the study argues that meaningful change requires dismantling the structures through which colonial power continues to reproduce itself.
The authors also build on Sylvia Wynter’s work to examine how a particular conception of reason centred on the supposedly universal figure of “Man” contributed to colonialism and continues to influence exclusion in modern philosophy.
A key contribution of the paper is its new “ignorance-epistemicide cycle” framework. The researchers argue that once alternative knowledge systems have been erased or delegitimised, later generations inherit an intellectual landscape in which these absences appear normal.
This creates a self-reinforcing cycle through which existing canons, curricula, citation patterns and academic standards continue to reproduce historical exclusions.
The study also introduces the concept of the “colonial intellectual”, distinct from Fanon’s “colonised intellectual”.
It refers to scholars within contemporary academic institutions who may unintentionally reproduce inherited Eurocentric assumptions through everyday practices such as curriculum design, peer review, hiring, research evaluation and citation.
The authors consequently argue that responsibility for decolonisation extends across the academic ecosystem, including educators, editors, reviewers, supervisors and institutional leaders, who can reshape how knowledge is produced and transmitted.
The implications extend beyond philosophy departments. As universities worldwide seek to internationalise curricula and promote inclusive knowledge systems, the study warns that representation alone is insufficient.
Institutions must also examine the norms that determine which traditions are considered authoritative, how knowledge is validated and how academic excellence is assessed.
The researchers conclude that historical reconstruction is valuable not merely for recovering forgotten traditions but for identifying where colonial epistemic structures continue to influence contemporary academic practice.
The study therefore positions decolonisation not as simply expanding the philosophical canon, but as a deeper process of epistemic restructuring—one that broadens philosophy’s conceptual resources while challenging the inherited structures that determine whose knowledge counts.
