以作者名、篇名、關鍵字或DOI查詢

期刊目錄列表 - 71卷(2026) - 【教育科學研究期刊】71(3)九月刊
回上一頁

W. D. Mignolo解殖觀點之多元宇宙視野對批判性全球公民教育的啟示 作者:
國立暨南國際大學國際文教與比較教育學系 黃文定

卷期：71卷第3期
日期：2026年9月
頁碼：227-259
DOI：https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202609_71(3).0008

摘要：

　　本研究旨在分析W. D. Mignolo之解殖觀點，以瞭解歐洲中心主義的起源與運作的結構性因素，歸納超越歐洲中心主義的可能途徑，探討其解殖觀點對批判性全球公民教育╱全球教育╱國際教育的啟示，並分析其觀點的限制。本研究採用教育詮釋學的方法達成上述研究目的。從本文的分析可知，歐洲中心主義乃是源自現代性╱殖民性世界體系中權力的殖民模型之運作，其結構性因素包含兩個層次：表述內容與表述機制，前者包含知識╱理解、治理、經濟以及分類系統四個領域，後者包含組織制度、行動者以及語言三個要素。為了超越歐洲中心主義，Mignolo提出「解殖性思考」（或「知識解殖」）作為解方，包含脫鉤、知識不服從以及邊界思考（具體體現在多場域詮釋學）等策略。最後，本研究提出「邁向多元宇宙視野的解殖取向批判性全球公民教育」取徑，以開展全球公民教育╱全球教育╱國際教育多元宇宙視野，並促進全球知識正義。

關鍵詞：W. D. Mignolo、全球公民教育╱全球教育╱國際教育、知識正義、解殖性思考、歐洲中心主義

《詳全文》 檔名

參考文獻：
Mignolo, W. D.（2021）。解殖：全球殖民性與世界失序（王嘉蘭、周俊男、唐慧宇、黃杰，譯）。國立陽明交通大學出版社。（原著出版於2002-2020年）
【Mignolo, W. D. (2021). Global coloniality and the world disorder: A decolonial take (C.-L. Wang, J.-N. Zhou, H.-Y. Tang, & C. Huang, Trans.). National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University Press. (Original work published 2002-2020)】
Said, E. W. (1999)。東方主義（王志弘、王淑燕、郭菀玲、莊雅仲、游美惠、游常山，譯）。立緒。（原著出版於1978年）
【Said, E. W. (1999). Orientalism (C.-H. Wang, S.-Y. Wang, W.-L. Guo, Y.-C. Chuang, M.-H. You, & C.-S. Yu, Trans.). New Century. (Original work published 1978)】
史書美（2016）。理論臺灣初論。載於史書美、梅家玲、廖朝陽、陳東升（主編），知識臺灣：臺灣理論的可能性（頁55-94）。麥田。
【Shih, S.-M. (2016). A preliminary study on theory in Taiwan. In S.-M. Shih, C.-L. Mei, C.-Y. Liao, & D.-S. Chen (Eds.), Knowledge Taiwan: The possibilities of theory in Taiwan (pp. 55-94). Rye Field.】
朱啟華（2013）。W. Rein理念學說的修正及其教育意義。當代教育研究季刊，21（1），1-28。 https://doi.org/10.6151/CERQ.2013.2101.01
【Chu, C.-H. (2013). W. Rein’s doctrine of ideas and its implications. Contemporary Educational Research Quarterly, 21(1), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.6151/CERQ.2013.2101.01】
汪宏倫（2010）。台灣的「後現代狀況」。載於黃金麟、汪宏倫、黃崇憲（主編），帝國邊緣：台灣現代性的考察（頁509-548）。群學。
【Wang, H.-L. (2010). Taiwan’s “postmodern condition”. In J.-L. Hwang, H.-L. Wang, & C.-H. Huang (Eds.), The edge of empire: An examination of Taiwanese modernity (pp. 509-548). Socio.】
» 展開更多
中文APA引文格式
黃文定（2026）。W. D. Mignolo解殖觀點之多元宇宙視野對批判性全球公民教育的啟示。教育科學研究期刊，71（3），227-259。
https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202609_71(3).0008
APA Format
Huang, W.-D. (2026). The Implications of a Pluriversal Horizon Within W. D. Mignolo’s Decolonial Perspective on Critical Global Citizenship Education. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 71(3), 227-259.
https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202609_71(3).0008

Journal directory listing - Volume 71 (2026) - Journal of Research in Education Sciences【71(3)】September
Top

The Implications of a Pluriversal Horizon Within W. D. Mignolo’s Decolonial Perspective on Critical Global Citizenship Education Author:
Wen-Ding Huang (Department of International and Comparative Education, National Chi Nan University)

Vol.&No.：Vol. 71, No. 3
Date：September 2026
Pages：227-259
DOI：​https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202609_71(3).0008

Abstract：

Research Background and Purposes
　　Global citizenship education is regarded as an important avenue for enhancing the global mobility of younger generations and equipping them to assume global citizenship responsibilities. However, in the context of the “decolonial turn” in academia, there has been persistent critique of its underlying Western-centrism (or Eurocentrism). Taking Taiwan as an example, the purpose of its international education is to enhance students' global citizenship. However, its policy discourse is more or less imbued with Western-centric (or Eurocentric) ideologies. Without challenging Western-centric (or Eurocentric) assumptions, global citizenship education may reinforce the existing Western-centric (or Eurocentric) hegemonic hierarchies of knowledge and thoughts, thereby perpetuating neocolonialism and neoimperialism, and reproducing existing global epistemic injustice. Based on the above research background, the purposes of this paper are as follows:
　　1. To analyze the origin and the structural factors underlying operation of Eurocentrism as revealed by Mignolo’s decolonial perspectives.
　　2. To summarize the possible approaches to transcending Eurocentrism as indicated by Mignolo’s decolonial viewpoints.
　　3. To explore the implications of Mignolo’s decolonial perspectives for constructing critical global citizenship education/global education/international education (critical GCE/GE/IE).
　　4. To analyze the inherent limitations of Mignolo’s decolonial perspectives.
Methodology
　　The method of educational hermeneutics was adopted to achieve the above research purposes, including vorbereitende interpretation, textimmanente interpretation, and koordinierende interpretation. Vorbereitende interpretation involved analyzing and understanding Taiwan’s context and policy discourse surrounding international education, as well as Mignolo’s biography and academic background, which serve as the foundation for interpretation. Textimmanente interpretation consisted of a close reading of Mignolo’s works and categorizing the concepts and arguments contained within the texts. Koordinierende interpretation involved the researcher’s continuous connection of specific works by Mignolo with his other books, journal articles, or interviews, as well as referencing the relevant discussions by other scholars. Simultaneously, Taiwan’s current educational phenomena are incorporated to contextualize the interpretation within the local setting.
Mignolo’s Decolonial Viewpoints
　　The analysis results in this paper indicate that Eurocentrism originated from the operation of the colonial matrix of power within the modern/colonial world system. Its structural mechanisms consist of two levels: the enunciated and the apparatus of enunciation. The former includes four domains– knowledge/understanding, governance, economy, and classification– while the latter comprises three elements– institutions, actors, and languages.
　　In order to break free from Eurocentrism, Mignolo proposed “decolonial thinking” or “decolonizing knowledge” as a solution, which is composed of several strategies, including delinking, epistemic disobedience, and border thinking (specifically manifested in pluritopic hermeneutics).
Implications of Mignolo’s Decolonial Viewpoints for Critical GCE/GE/IE
　　1. Educational scholars and practitioners can utilize the concept of colonial matrix of power to analyze the geopolitics of knowledge within GCE/GE/IE.
　　2. Educational scholars and practitioners should reflect upon and deconstruct the Eurocentric presuppositions embedded in the terminology and mindsets of GCE/GE/IE.
　　3. Teachers can employ pluritopic hermeneutics to broaden students’ pluriversal horizons of international affairs and global issues.
　　4. Educational academics across different locales can utilize the strategies of border thinking to indigenize the epistemologies of GCE/GE/IE.
Limitations of Mignolo’s Viewpoints and Recommendations for Future Research
　　1. Being rooted in one’s own cultural tradition is emphasized by Mignolo as an important decolonial strategy. However, as traditional culture faces near-extinction, how can we construct localized theoretical perspectives and epistemologies ex nihilo? Taiwan serves as a case in point: due to foreign colonization severing traditional cultural ties, Taiwan has long exhibited a strong tendency to eagerly embrace and swiftly assimilate foreign cultures. The “self-emptying” orientation presumes that Taiwan’s cultures are inadequate and crude, thus compelled to seek from outside. In the context of severe scarcity of indigenous cultural traditions and academic resources, the pursuit of these assets to construct GCE/GE/IE theoretical viewpoints and epistemology with local characteristics will be an extremely arduous task.
　　2. Mignolo attempts to idealize and romanticize non-Western perspectives and “indigenous episteme” in search of an antidote to coloniality. However, this episteme is often depicted in a static, essentialist, and ahistorical way, which risks reinforcing an essentialist view of the Global South or indigenous knowledge. This could easily lead to the narrowing of one’s own vision through binary logic of “West/non-West”, “Global North/Global South”, and “domination/subordination”, which aligns with the frameworks of ethnonationalism or localism.
　　3. In the pursuit of a pluriversal horizon that incorporates diverse epistemic traditions, value systems, and worldviews from around the world, a prominent practical challenge is the issue of language. Epistemological discourses and cultural traditions from the Global South are often conveyed through local languages (rather than global lingua franca), which presents a significant linguistic barrier for educators engaged in GCE/GE/IE teaching or scholars conducting related research.
　　4. Mignolo’s decolonial viewpoints are overly focused on the epistemological dimension, neglecting the significance of political power, economic structures, and social practices in the struggle against oppression and the achievement of emancipation goals.
　　5. Based on the aforementioned implications and limitations, it is suggested that future research conduct a genealogical analysis of past local (e.g., Taiwanese) scholarly works on GCE/GE/IE. This analysis should examine the ideologies embedded in Western GCE/GE/IE theoretical perspectives and the impacts they have engendered, and identify traditional resources that can be applied to the formulation of indigenized GCE/GE/IE theoretical perspectives and epistemologies. Furthermore, in order to decolonize GCE/GE/IE thoughts and practice, it is essential to first understand how teachers envision GCE/GE/IE and its knowledge and learning that transcend Eurocentric paradigms. This understanding can serve as a foundational basis for the development of decolonial-oriented GCE/GE/IE curricula in teacher training and professional development. Additionally, future research could also explore the theoretical perspectives of other decolonial thinkers, such as N. Maldonado-Torres, B. de Souza Santos, L. T. Smith, and R. Grosfoguel, in greater depth.
Conclusion
　　At the end of the paper, the researcher proposed an approach of “decolonial-oriented critical GCE towards a pluriversal horizon.” In this approach, scholars in the field of education, when analyzing Western theories, ideologies, conceptual frameworks, educational policies or programs, and assessment schemes related to GCE/GE/IE, can adopt a perspective informed by the geopolitics of knowledge. They can utilize the concept of colonial matrix of power to examine the potential causes, structural factors, and consequences of epistemic colonization, and employ the strategies of border thinking to break free from Eurocentrism. On the other hand, teachers, in the process of planning and designing curricula and instructional activities for GCE/GE/IE, can apply the concept of colonial matrix of power to analyze the Eurocentrist underpinnings inherent in Western digital and physical teaching materials and resources. In the classroom, educators can guide students to critically reflect on the asymmetrical power dynamics embedded within the process of knowledge production, its international dissemination, and the reception (consumption) of such knowledge, and the resulting consequences of global epistemic injustice.

Keywords：W. D. Mignolo, global citizenship education/global education/international education, epistemic justice, decolonial thinking, Eurocentrism