Transdiscipline, decoloniality and education from a genealogical perspective

Purpose This paper explores the genealogical relationship between transdisciplinary and decolonial studies within the educational field, focusing on their failure to dismantle colonial and racist attitudes as proposed by Frantz Fanon and interpreted by Nelson Maldonado-Torres. It argues that while transdisciplines emerged to challenge the exclusionary practices of modern disciplines rooted in Enlightenment thought, they ultimately became normalized within academic structures, thereby losing their transformative potential. The analysis highlights how disciplinary societies have historically governed individual subjectivities and how the shift to control societies has further marginalized transdisciplinary studies. By examining the interplay of knowledge, power, and subjectivity, the study calls for a re-evaluation of decolonial efforts that move beyond mere inclusion to genuinely confront hierarchical inequalities entrenched in academic discourse. The analysis emphasizes the need for a genealogical approach to understand the dynamics of power and knowledge in shaping subjectivities and to promote genuine emancipation from colonial legacies in education. Design/methodology/approach Philosophical genealogy. Findings The main goal of transdisciplinary approaches was to dismantle the colonialist and racist foundations that underlie the structure of Western modernity, which emerged from the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. Specifically, the intention was for transdisciplinary analysis to uncover the “dark side” of the Enlightenment and, once revealed, destroy the mechanisms by which individuals are controlled through bourgeois democracy (governmentality). This involves how individuals behave within the control system through normalization (subjectivation), based on what has been established as true discourse via the disciplines (veridiction). Nevertheless, this objective was not fully realized since transdisciplinarities are defined and determined in relation to the disciplines that dominate academic institutions and research centers. Consequently, in order to gain space within these institutions, transdisciplinary fields had to assimilate or normalize themselves to these disciplines, which gradually diminished their transformative power. Nonetheless, what they did succeed in achieving was the crisis of the disciplinary society model. Yet, this model was not destroyed; rather, it evolved and transitioned into a model of regulation, modulation, or self-regulation. In this new technology of power, diversity and inclusion of traditionally excluded sectors are accepted and promoted, as the control is no longer placed on the process or development of analysis or research. This shift allowed the recovery of certain subordinated knowledge, knowledge that had been disqualified and treated as non-conceptual, insufficiently elaborated and hierarchically inferior because it fell below the level of knowledge or scientific rigor demanded by the disciplines. Moreover, this also facilitated the full inclusion of transdisciplinary approaches within academia and research institutions. Research limitations/implications Contrary to what it seems, scientific knowledge is not being disqualified as something false, irrelevant or dispensable. What is being affirmed is that what needs to be eliminated is its use as a centralizing, hierarchical, normalizing, and excluding knowledge: this is the battle against the power effects inherent to discourse considered by the disciplines as scientific. This is the battle against the effects of power inherent in the discourse considered by the disciplines as scientific, and that is why antidisciplinary studies are needed that are organized in an analogical and non-hierarchical way. On the other hand, this battle must also be fought in the area of veridiction, that is, where said discourse is disseminated, through an education that involves questioning the truth and the way in which it is accessed, in the same way that it questions the political structures that shape the individual, that is, an education that leads to the recovery of expropriated and subjugated knowledge. Practical implications We can better understand the background of educational systems emerging from both the industrial and information ages, so that we can counteract the negative effects on educational institutions. Social implications If the goal is to create knowledge communities that can foster healthy coexistence among different sectors of society, then this article is relevant for understanding the processes and methods that hinder such a goal. Originality/value The main contribution of this article is that it provides a different perspective from a genealogical and phronetic approach.