Explore the vast range of titles available.

Introducción: este ensayo surge de la reflexión sobre el quehacer de la práctica odontológica en el cuidado-atención de la salud bucal en las personas con discapacidad, y la influencia del modelo disciplinar en esta interacción. Se considera pertinente este abordaje, teniendo en cuenta los imaginarios colectivos de los que siguen siendo protagonistas las personas con discapacidad y su asociación con el aspecto monstruoso. Objetivo: poner en el contexto de la duda las prácticas disciplinares de la odontología con respecto a las personas con discapacidad, cuestionando su enfoque y utilizando, para ello, la categoría de la sospecha propuesta por Foucault como punto de partida. Método: el texto expuesto es un ensayo reflexivo y crítico, en el que se discute la atención-cuidado en la práctica odontológica con las personas con discapacidad, bajo las categorías del modelo disciplinar, la teoría de la sospecha, el pensamiento abismal y la subalternidad, con sus correspondientes autores. Esto posibilita una reflexión profunda sobre esta temática. Conclusiones: la medicina y sus afines como la odontología son ciencias disciplinares, están soportadas fijamente en el icono significativo de la academia científica, por ello, es necesario reflexionar sobre la práctica propia de la odontología y su hacer disciplinar. Si bien, estos conocimientos han sido oficializados, niegan en su esencia otros conocimientos, pero, si la condición es tratar al ser humano en su totalidad y con sus diferentes condiciones, se debe considerar en el proceso el uso de conocimiento proveniente de otros saberes o formas de leer las realidades.

The subaltern has frequently been understood as a figure of exclusion ever since it was first highlighted by the early Subaltern Studies collective’s creative reading of Antonio Gramsci’s carceral writings. In this article, I argue that a contextualist and diachronic study of the development of the notion of subaltern classes throughout Gramsci’s full Prison Notebooks reveals new resources for “refiguring” the subaltern. I propose three alternative figures to comprehend specific dimensions of Gramsci’s theorizations: the “irrepressible subaltern,” the “hegemonic subaltern,” and the “citizen-subaltern.” Far from being exhausted by the eclipse of the conditions it was initially called upon to theorize in Subaltern Studies, such a refigured notion of the subaltern has the potential to cast light both on the contradictory development of political modernity and on contemporary political processes.

Archaeologists, like many other scholars in the Social Sciences and Humanities, are particularly concerned with the study of past and present subalterns. Yet the very concept of ‘the subaltern’ is elusive and rarely theorized in archaeological literature, or it is only mentioned in passing. This article engages with the work of Gramsci and Patricia Hill Collins to map a more comprehensive definition of subalternity, and to develop a methodology to chart the different ways in which subalternity is manifested and reproduced.

Seeing as colonialism is ubiquitous to where International Relations (IR) comes from, what it explains and who it represents, many have argued that the decolonisation of the discipline is impossible. However, in this agenda-setting introduction, I place decolonisation squarely in the realm of possibility and ask, ‘what would a decolonised field look like?’. In answering this question, the contributions in this forum take point of departure from varied sites within the discipline, as they seek to materialise real change that reimagines what IR is and does as a discipline that was established as a scholarly defence for colonialism. Herein they propose decolonisation as a structure that upends the discipline’s colonial epistemological roots, rethinks core concepts and underlines the need to forefront geographies, peoples, and perspectives that were underrepresented in a colonial discipline. Equally, they recognise that decolonisation is a messy affair, that takes a non-linear trajectory. However, seeing as colonialism did not just inflict material impoverishment but also sought to alienate the colonised from their sense of self, this messiness is only expected. So, rather than be discouraged by this, this forum views the non-linear trajectory to be an unavoidable facet of any attempt at decolonising the discipline.

The work of Félix Acuto encourages archaeologists to compromise more strongly when it comes to the praxis towards, with and for the Indigenous people. Understanding archaeology as a practice oriented by the political stance of decolonization, Acuto’s work promotes making it available – through its knowledge, methods and techniques – as a dedication in time and experience to the projects and struggles of Indigenous people in Latin America. The goal is to contribute to the double decolonization that these populations are undergoing, via their shedding of what has been imposed on them by Western society and by the relationship that the state establishes with them – that is to say, arguing that interculturality is the way.

This article examines the dialectical dynamic between oppression and resistance in Persepolis, Marjane Satrapi’s graphic memoir, through the lenses of postcolonial and feminist theory. Drawing on key conceptual frameworks such as “subalternity” (Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak), “intersectionality” (Patricia Hill Collins and Sirma Bilge) and “orientalism” (Edward Said), the study explores how identity, voice, and agency are negotiated under conditions of political and religious authoritarianism and diasporic displacement. The analysis foregrounds not only the external apparatuses of domination but also the internalized mechanisms of control that shape subject formation. Furthermore, the article critically engages with Pascale Casanova’s model of world literary circulation, arguing that Persepolis subverts dominant aesthetic paradigms by achieving global recognition without compromising its cultural specificity. By employing a hybrid medium—the graphic novel—and juxtaposing minimalist visual style with thematically dense political content, Satrapi produces a counter-discourse that resists exoticization and reclaims narrative sovereignty. Ultimately, the memoir destabilizes binary constructions of East and West and articulates a space for complex, intersectional identities and narrative subversion.

There has been increased scholarly and policy attention to “localized” responses to displacement, in the hope that further empowering local actors may unlock new means of protecting refugees’ rights and addressing their needs. However, these efforts have often oversimplified power relations within localization processes, bringing some players into focus while occluding others, and devoting insufficient attention to how localization processes and the power dynamics surrounding them have evolved over time. In response, this article draws on theories of subalternity and subaltern agency from the field of postcolonial studies to develop a more nuanced conceptualization of power in localization processes in the refugee regime. We contend that subalternity is best understood as a fluid, relational position that changes over time, such that particular refugees and displaced groups may oscillate between dominant and marginalized, subaltern subject positions, within intersecting systems of power. We probe refugees’ subaltern agency in terms of resistance and persistence, and deepen this account through analysis of localized responses to Burundian refugees in Tanzania, focusing on the localization of efforts to secure durable solutions for refugees. We argue that localization scholarship, particularly in the context of the refugee regime, needs to move beyond homogenized, dehistoricized, and romanticized notions of grassroots, refugee-led responses and focus on complex and fluid power configurations among diverse local actors.

Introduction The following contributions comprising an extended review of Milinda Banerjee and Jelle Wouters’s Subaltern Studies 2.0 emerge out of a symposium on “Globalization or Global Apartheid” held at University of California, Irvine, which culminated in a roundtable discussion of the book by contributors Adriana Johnson, Vinay Lal, and Richard Pithouse. According to the book, the “fall” of Subaltern Studies must be plotted onto the triumph of neoliberalism which definitively proved that the “subaltern” hailed by the earlier project could not resist the onslaught of state and capital (33). [...]their concerns lie not in solely addressing whether the subaltern can speak or considering the ramifications of the historical erasure of subaltern struggles, but in accentuating the ontological category they propose should supplant the earlier varieties of the subaltern. In spite of its radical and inclusive intent, by confining itself to the realm of “human communities,” the earlier project inadvertently elides “the interdependence between human and nonhuman” (5)—which Banerjee and Wouters attempt to correct. [...]while the authors think the original project’s emphasis on “community” offers the “best chance to resist state and capital” (4), their own project departs from Subaltern Studies 1.0—including in how they conceptualize community—in significant ways.