Crítica de la razón (moderna, Occidental) impura A critique of impure (modern, Western) reason

This paper asks a series of very direct, if not simple, questions. How and why is it that
we assume that modern knowledge is universal, despite its European genealogy and its
historically recent provenance? What warrant do we have for considering this superior
to the pre-modern knowledges of the West, and the autochthonous knowledges of the
non-West? Are we, in short, right to assume that modern Western knowledge transcends
the circumstances of its historical and geographical emergence and thus that the social
sciences are ‘true’ for everyone- even though to do so is to privilege the modern and the
western, over the pre-modern and the non-Western?