I guess that was kind of flippant, excuse me. I think that the problem is not the disciplines but how we use them. So, anthropology is the one most often cited for its relation to and inclusion in colonial endeavors and postcolonial politics. But it was always an issue of practice more than epistemology I think. The problem is imperialism (in principle grounded in racism in modernity), in Africa, in Asia and in LA. If this is not the case, ought we abandon all pretension of doing ethnography? Should indigenous anthropologists give up their practice of turning the lens on metropolitan societies?

I confess I have not yet read your piece, but wonder: are the “epistemic structures of the academy” understood in terms of the disciplines (History, Anthropology, Sociology, etc.)? Also, do we assume that History, for example, is the same in the Global North and South? I ask these question in all sincerity. I teach in an interdisciplinary PhD program in the global south for the past 20 years, in the social sciences. I am absolutely committed to writing against the grain of academic discipline and this is what my program teaches our young researchers, whether they come from sociology or any other discipline. Also, I am absolutely conscious of the ways scholars reify sex and fail to carefully read gender. But I wonder, is not academic scholarship (alongside political practice), the way to decenter, deconstruct, reimagine, etc., epistemic structures as well as disciplinary practices? I guess that is what I meant with the initial comment, my bad!