Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Interculturalidad from below : an Indigenous movement's encounter with Peruvian intercultural education… Sarmiento, Paola 2016

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata


24-ubc_2017_february_sarmiento_paola.pdf [ 1.58MB ]
JSON: 24-1.0340523.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0340523-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0340523-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0340523-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0340523-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0340523-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0340523-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

  INTERCULTURALIDAD FROM BELOW: AN INDIGENOUS MOVEMENT’S ENCOUNTER WITH PERUVIAN INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION POLICY by PAOLA SARMIENTO B.A, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, 2010  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS  in  The Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (Educational Studies)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) December, 2016  © Paola Sarmiento, 2016   ii  Abstract This study examines the discursive encounter about the notion of Interculturalidad between the Chirapaq Indigenous organization of Peru and the official Peruvian intercultural education policy. Taking a multi-perspective approach, it addresses how an Indigenous organization discursively (re)constructs the notion of Interculturalidad and how this (re)construction challenges and resists the Peruvian government’s dominant construction reflected in an official policy. The study draws on a hybrid decolonial theoretical framework, which is informed by decolonial theory, conceptualizations of Interculturalidad, and the principle of interrelatedness of Indigenous knowledges. In terms of methodology, the study utilizes a dual Foucauldian-inspired critical discourse analysis approaches. This dual discourse analysis is applied to the Indigenous organization’s written and spoken texts on intercultural education and the text-based official policy document. The findings demonstrate that the Peruvian intercultural education policy is principally dominated by an instrumental conception of cultural diversity, one which does not address the root causes of racism, marginalization, exclusion, and social asymmetries in Peru. Furthermore, the study found that the policy language fails to recognize the holistic nature of Indigenous knowledge systems. On the other hand, the Indigenous organization’s intercultural discourse was found to be intrinsically related to the problem of the colonial power structures that have subordinated all dimension of Indigenous peoples’ lives, while its (re)conceptualization of Interculturalidad constitutes an opportunity to centre Indigenous views on knowledge, language, and territory. The gulf between these divergent intercultural discourses speaks to the different frameworks in which each is grounded and their different conceptions of education for Indigenous students in the Peruvian context. Taking this Indigenous organization’s conceptions and the study’s findings into account, recommendations are made for improving the Peruvian intercultural education policy. Some of   iii  these recommendations are to affirm the inseparability of Indigenous knowledge, language, and territory within the intercultural education policy, and to ground it in a decolonial framework.     iv  Preface This thesis is original, unpublished, independent work by the author, Paola Sarmiento.    v  Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................ ii Preface ............................................................................................................................ iv Table of Contents............................................................................................................. v List of Tables ................................................................................................................ viii List of Figures ................................................................................................................. ix Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... x Prologue ........................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter One: Introduction .......................................................................................... 10 1.1. Purpose of the Study and Research Questions ................................................... 11 1.2. Significance of the Study ................................................................................... 12 1.3. Rationale of the Study ........................................................................................ 12 1.4. Situating the Notion of Interculturalidad in the Latin American Context: An           Overview of Multiples Meanings  ........................................................................ 13 1.5. Inter-Cultural Relations and Social Asymmetries in a Diverse Peru ................. 17 1.6. An Overview of the Indigenous Movement in Peru .......................................... 19 1.7. Thesis Layout and Organization ........................................................................ 25 Chapter Two: Literature Review ................................................................................ 28 2.1. Education for and by Peruvian Indigenous Peoples from a Historical                  Perspective ............................................................................................................ 28 2.1.1. Indigenous Education during Inca Empire, Spanish Coloniality, and               Peruvian Independence ................................................................................. 29 2.1.2. The Missionaries’ Bilingual Education for Indigenous Peoples ................ 31 2.1.3. Indigenismo, Educational Reform, and Indigenous Education .................. 32 2.1.4. Local-Scale Educational Programs for and by Indigenous Peoples ........... 36 2.1.5. Indigenous Community Education in Peru ................................................ 42 2.2. Interculturalidad as Education Policy in Peru .................................................... 46 2.2.1. The Development of Top-Down Peruvian Intercultural Education                        Policies: Unstable Management, the Technocratic Turn, and Legislation             Increase ......................................................................................................... 47 2.2.2. Peruvian Government’s Intercultural Education Discourse: Silences and          Paradoxes ...................................................................................................... 53   vi  2.2.3. Peruvian Intercultural Education Policy Implementation: The Encounter                 with Multiple Bottom-Up Perspectives and Demands .................................. 58 2.3. Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 63 Chapter Three: Theoretical Framework .................................................................... 66 3.1. Decolonial Theory ............................................................................................. 67 3.1.1. Coloniality, or the Other Side of Modernity .............................................. 69 3.1.2. Colonial Difference .................................................................................... 72 3.2. Conceptualizations of Interculturalidad ............................................................ 74 3.2.1. Walsh’s Discussions on Interculturalidad: A Path to Decoloniality .......... 75 3.2.2. Aman’s Discussions on Interculturalidad: Interconnections with                 Territory, Language, and Identity ................................................................. 78 3.3. Indigenous Knowledge and the Principle of Interrelatedness............................ 80 3.4. Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 82 Chapter Four: Methodological Framework ............................................................... 84 4.1. Researcher’s Paradigmatic Stance ..................................................................... 85 4.2. Using a Combination of Critical Discourse Analysis Approaches .................... 86 4.3. Articulating a Coherent Methodological and Theoretical Framework .............. 91 4.4. Research Methods .............................................................................................. 93 4.4.1. Data Collection ........................................................................................... 93 4.4.2. Data Analysis ............................................................................................. 96 4.5. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 106 Chapter Five: The Chirapaq Indigenous Movement’s Discursive Construction                       of the Notion of Interculturalidad............................................................................... 108 5.1. Peruvian Cultural Diversity in Chirapaq’s Intercultural Discourse: More                        about Coloniality, Less about Superficial Diversity .......................................... 109 5.2. Indigenous Languages, Knowledges, and Territory as Foundational in the              Chirapaq’s Intercultural Discourse ..................................................................... 114 5.3. Indigenous Identity in the Chirapaq's Intercultural Discourse: Decoloniality                ‘From Ourselves’ ................................................................................................ 121 5.4. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 123     vii  Chapter Six: From the Chirapaq’s Texts to a Peruvian Intercultural Education               Policy: Contrasting and Discussing a Discursive Encounter with                        Interculturalidad ......................................................................................................... 126 6.1. From the Chirapaq’s Texts to Peruvian Intercultural Education Policy: The                    Question of Cultural Diversity ........................................................................... 127 6.2. From the Chirapaq’s Texts to Peruvian Intercultural Education Policy: The                Question of Indigenous Languages, Knowledges, and Territory ....................... 134 6.3. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 140 Chapter Seven: Conclusions and Policy Recommendations ................................... 143 7.1. Overview of the Study’s Theoretical and Methodological Decisions ............. 143 7.2. Interculturalidad from Below: the Chirapaq’s Encounter with Peruvian                       Intercultural Education Policy – Main Conclusions ........................................... 147 7.3. Intercultural Education Policy Recommendations........................................... 151 7.4. Limitations of the Study................................................................................... 155 7.5. Suggestions for Further Research .................................................................... 156 References .................................................................................................................... 159 Appendix 1………………………..……...………………………...…………………158      viii  List of Tables  Table 1. The Chirapaq’s Written and Spoken Texts on Intercultural Education                      Selected ............................................................................................................. 95 Table 2. Guide for Doing Critical Discourse Analysis Combining Fairclough’s                  Analytical Devices with Foucauldian Tools. .................................................... 97 Table 3. Complete List of Themes and Sub-Themes ...................................................... 99 Table 4. Analysis Beyond Linguistic Aspect of the Texts Following Foucauldian                        Analysis..................................................................................................................... 101       ix  List of Figures  Figure 1: Organization of Research Findings According to Research Questions and                   Research Purpose ........................................................................................... 105      x  Acknowledgements I would like to express gratitude to the Chirapaq Indigenous organization from Peru. Thank you for your guide and advice in the selection of the texts analyzed in this study. I am very thankful to my supervisor, Dr. Handel Wright, for his continuous support and encouragement through the completion of my course work and thesis. His expertise has made the research process stimulating and enriching. I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Gerald Fallon and Dr. Cash Ahenakew, who provided insightful comments during this research process. I am also grateful to Dr. Vanessa Andreotti for her important feedback to this thesis and for allowed me to have new insights on it. I would finally like to thank my partner and my parents. Thank you, Mauricio, for your incredible support during the writing of this thesis. Thanks to my parents for teaching me how to love whatever I do.1  Prologue Researcher Positionality My research interest in Peruvian intercultural education1 has been influenced quite significantly by my experience as a fieldworker in Indigenous and peasant communities in my home country of Peru. Although my early fieldwork experience has contributed to my current motivations as a researcher, my time as a Masters of Education student has played a key role in my confronting the relationship between my ethnoracial identity and my positionality as a researcher. In my first semester as a Masters student, a professor said: “What is seen as researcher depends not only on what is being observed but also on who is looking”. Since then, I have seen the need to go back and forth from my personal history, through my work experience, to my time as a student and researcher at the University of British Columbia (UBC).  My schooling involved studying in different public schools situated in rural towns or impoverished urban areas in Peru. During this time, I interacted with students who were socially, culturally, economically, and educationally disadvantaged and discriminated against due to their ethnic characteristics (black students or students with Indigenous features)2. I grew up learning to (racially and culturally) discriminate, and with the fear of being discriminated against. For instance, when I was nine years old, I learned that nobody wanted to be friends with black students because ‘they would stain your skin if they touch you’.3 I knew that the student with a                                                           1 As I will explain more fully later, intercultural education is linked to Indigenous education in Latin America. Indeed, in Peru, intercultural education means Indigenous education officially promoted and supported by the government.  2 The definition of who is Indigenous in Peru is a very complicated issue. For now, I only want to indicate the bare bones of the form of discrimination. These peers were discriminated because of their physical/cultural features associated with Indigenous people such as the color of their skin, or the way they talked, etc., whether or not they were not necessarily “officially” recognized as Indigenous. 3 This was a common joke made by some white students to black students in one of my schools.   2  motoseo4 accent will be teased by classmates and teachers. At nine years old, I was already aware of the differences among people, yet unaware of the real meaning of these differences. Also, I was aware of my Mestizo5 sociocultural status, which positioned me as privileged, somehow ‘better than’ many of my peers. However, it was during my last year at school, when I moved out from a public rural school to a private urban one located in Lima6, when ‘my better place’ was redefined. There, I learned what it feels to be a dark-skinned rural student within the mainstream White/Whitened/Mestizo7 Limeña society. These were years marked by experiences of discrimination, academic frustration, and shame because of who I was. I still remember one teacher who told me that I was not doing well in class because “rural students are stupid” and another who said: “Morenitas8 do not complain”, when I requested a review of the grade I earned on an assignment.   I grew up hearing my father’s stories about my grandmother and her community: she was an illiterate Quechua speaker peasant who lived in the highlands and whose life was marked                                                           4 Motoseo is a term that references phonological transference when bilingual speakers of Quechua (Andean Indigenous language) and Spanish “confuse” the vowels when speaking Spanish; thus, they are consider inferior to the ones who do not. Motoseo has been considered a mechanism of oppression and discrimination against Peruvian Quechua speakers, who have Spanish as a second language (Zavala ,2011). 5 The term Mestizo is a broad identifying category that makes reference to the intermingling of Spanish and Indigenous peoples. In Peruvian social imagination, the Mestizo individual model has a face with Indigenous phenotypes, he/she is Spanish speaking and does not speak Quechua, and he/she does not practice any Indigenous religions or hold Indigenous worldviews (L.M, Valdiviezo, 2012; García, 2003). 6 Lima, the capital of Peru, has a concentration of the best schools, universities, and job opportunities in the country.  7 I use this ethnoracial category following Catherine Walsh’s insights on coloniality and power relationships among different ethnic groups in Latin America, which are based on the idea of race and racialization. She explains how it is over simplistic to describe dominant elites as White people while Whitened/Mestizo groups also occupy a privileged and dominant position in society, such as in the case of Peruvian society. See, for example, Walsh (2010). 8 Morena(o) is a popular term used in Latin America to refer to individuals of dark skin tones.   3  by discrimination and poverty. Even though my father never referred to her explicitly as an Indigenous woman or a woman with indigenous roots—whether because he was unaware she was Indigenous9 or admitting that meant jeopardizing our ‘better’ Mestizo status—I clearly imagined my grandmother as an Indigenous woman.10 Therefore, I think that my father’s stories about my grandmother kept me close to one rural Indigenous-peasant reality ‘from the eyes’ of a close yet also distant figure to me. Not surprisingly, I tried to keep this dimension of my life hidden from my peers during all my adolescence and part of my youth. I believe that reveling in these aspects of my personal history, that is, being nominally Mestizo while dark-skinned with suspected, partial Indigenous roots11 explains the development of my intellectual motivations, but also explains my complex position as a researcher. I think that all my personal and school experiences converged and together influenced my interests in diversity education and in Indigenous education in particular. Thus, during my undergraduate studies, I sought to understand how culture, ethnicity, and identity create varied experiences within school and educational spaces. Thinking about and writing my personal history has also led me to acknowledge the permanent tension with which I grew up; a tension between developing an Indigenous problematic’s sensibility and trying to distinguish myself as a Mestizo.12 It is the acknowledgment of this tension that has brought me to understand my self-denying dual position as a researcher, which I explain hereafter.                                                           9 As mention before, (self) identify Indigenous roots in Peru is a complex and contentious issue. 10 Perhaps I constructed this image of her not only because she spoke Quechua but also because throughout my father’s stories I knew her special (or different) relation to the land. 11 I am aware that most of Peruvians have Indigenous roots. However, aiming to explore my research and academic interests, I consider it important to mention how these roots may have an impact on my positionality as a researcher. 12 Perhaps because I learned it was a strategy for navigating racism and transcending social and class hierarchies.   4  After I finished my undergraduate studies, I had the opportunity to participate in research studies linked to intercultural education in Peru (as mentioned at the beginning of this prologue).13 As part of my job, I had formal and informal conversations with Indigenous students, their parents, Indigenous leaders, and teachers about their school experiences and expectations. To summarize, what I heard were multiple, complex, and sometimes competing views on and demands of education. For instance, students were scared of high school transition because they would be forbidden to speak their mother tongue, teachers thought that students’ language and culture were obstacles to their education achievement, and parents demanded an educational system that would result in their children being fully included in the dominant society14; other parents and leaders argued for an educational system that was respectful of their Indigenous traditions, cultures, and languages. Aside from these stories, what struck me deeply was that some of these actors were frustrated yet still possessed powerful voices, which strongly sought to participate in the decisions about their children’s education—strong voices that also told me how the authorities did not attend to their demands for education and for other dimensions of their lives. These voices echoed strongly in my mind and sometimes overwhelmed me with what I believed was more than I could handle.  Specifically, I think that I empathized and gained a true sense for their demands, namely, recognition and inclusion of experiences, such as cultural discrimination. Nonetheless, their voices also confronted me on my lack of knowledge about Indigenous people’s educational struggles and my limited (personal and professional) resources for giving meaning to some of these struggles (e.g. I could not understand why some parents                                                           13 Only in the Andean region or highlands. 14 Some of them did not want their children to learn Quechua because “it is useless to claim their rights” as Quechua people.   5  rejected the opportunity for their children to learn Quechua at school and asked for them to be educated in Spanish or even English instead).  It was also a confrontational experience because I was faced with the tension of being a non-Indigenous researcher trying to work within and understand an Indigenous community. For instance, in some communities, women refused to talk with me because I came from “the city”, while some male leaders rejected my presence, turning their backs on me when I was around.15 Although I recognized the expressions of this tension, it has taken me time to read into the depth of these expressions. In general, it has been difficult to acknowledge the location from which I speak out, think, write, and attempt to do research on Peruvian Indigenous education: As an outsider, a privileged Mestizo woman, and a whitened, educated, and in short, privileged scholar.  It is in the acknowledgment of my different positions (and limited knowledge) where my graduate studies played a key role giving me the spaces to keep revisiting and challenging my time doing research in Peru. My work experiences and courses at UBC together contributed to my becoming increasingly interested in the policy that lay at the foundation of the Peruvian intercultural education system that I partially saw through the stories of the various local actors. Particularly, I became interested in how traditionally excluded perspectives are taken into account in the policy making process. Guided by this interest, I immersed myself, through different courses assignments, in the literature on intercultural education in Andean Latin American countries and I tried to constantly think about the Peruvian case in different discussions about diversity education in my classes. All of this caused me to restate that a real and democratic improvement                                                           15 It happened once when I was informally talking with a group leaders in a community and another leader approached us. They all turned their backs on me and started to speak in Quechua. Another person there explained this reaction to me. According to him, Indigenous leaders in that community do not discuss political community issues in front of women; especially if the women involved do not speak the language of the community.    6  in Indigenous education, or even transformation thereof in Peru, must include the perspectives from ‘below’ or from the bottom up in the policy making process. In particular, I came to the strong conclusion that one of the leading perspectives should come from Indigenous social movements. One overarching dual question arose that inspired this study: What are the discourses arising from Peruvian Indigenous social movements about intercultural education, and how do they engage with the dominant intercultural education policy discourse? This is a central question that later I narrowed down, as discussed in Chapter One of this thesis. At this time, I also started to interrogate the very nature and characteristics of research itself. The opportunity to read the work of some critical scholars as well as some discussions about doing research from this paradigm16 led me to question whether objectivity, neutrality, and an apolitical position are really possible or even desirable when it comes to doing research in this case. My answer, after two years as a graduate student, is a definitive “no”.17. Conversely, I have found in a critical paradigm a coherent lens for the type of research I aim to do; namely, a study wherein I can express my solidarity with Indigenous peoples’ struggles and my future aspiration to work with them as an ally (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008; Regan, 2012).  The question then became how to answer the complex research question that inspired this study: What are Peruvian Indigenous movements’ discourses on intercultural education, and how do they engage with the dominant intercultural education policy discourse? I wondered how to answer this question from my own critical perspective by doing research “in ways that either                                                           16 Some key books during my time as MA student were Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Freire, 2000) and Justice and the Politics of Difference (Young, 1990). Other examples are "L'affaire du foulard" (the scarf affair) (Benhabib, 2008) and Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy (Fraser, 1990). Also, my reflections on doing research from a Critical paradigm, from Glesne (2014) and Creswell (2012). 17 I will develop this in more detail in my methodological chapter.   7  appropriate or ignore Indigenous knowledge system[s]” (Regan, 2010). The process of seeking these answers led me to the decision to take a multi-perspective approach and to draw on different theories and methods from different fields of study. This was an impossible decision to make without the insights of my advisor and the members of my thesis committee. One of these theories was decolonial theory (Mignolo, 2007a, Quijano, 2000). Concepts from decolonial scholars offered lenses to ‘start the conversation’ on intercultural education from the historically-negated sociocultural structures that organize my country, a structure that continues to negate and silence Indigenous peoples’ perspectives in all dimension of their lives.  Particularly, the insights of Walter Mignolo (2007b) and Catherine Walsh (2004, 2007) were pivotal in bringing to the fore, through my theoretical framework, alternative Indigenous understandings of intercultural education. However, it was during the process of thinking about theory, while reading my data, where I also questioned the sufficiency of using only decolonial lenses to give meaning to a view on intercultural education articulated from an Indigenous perspective. Therefore, aiming to respect and not to ignore Indigenous perspectives, I combined decolonial theory with Battiste’s (2000, 2002) insights on Indigenous knowledges. A broader explanation of the way these different theories were articulated is found in Chapter Three of this thesis. The readings of the Indigenous scholar Marie Battiste (2000, 2002) on Indigenous knowledges, particularly (selected chapters from) her book Protecting Indigenous Knowledge and Heritage: A Global Challenge (2000), were central to this study. They were central to gaining a better understanding of and taking into account the holistic nature of Indigenous knowledge systems to give deeper meaning to Indigenous views on intercultural education. Reading her work gave me more pause for thought than I thought it might. It gave me the opportunity to increase my awareness on my privileged position as a researcher and on my   8  limited and different worldview.  Her discussion on ‘what is Indigenous knowledge’ was crucial: “no short answer exists…it is a question loaded with Eurocentric arrogance… The first problem in understanding Indigenous knowledge from a Eurocentric point of view is that Indigenous knowledge does not fit into the Eurocentric concept of culture” (p. 35). This has been a statement present throughout the whole thesis process. It opened me to the possibility of understanding my experience of discomfort and insecurity while writing on Indigenous peoples’ expectations on intercultural education from my different, privileged, Mestizo perspective. My process of thinking about theories also continued when I had to select my methodological framework. I wondered: How can I maintain coherence between my critical paradigmatic stance and my methodology? What analytical approach could I use to examine a top-down and a bottom-up discourse on intercultural education? I found some answers to these questions in Foucauldian-inspired approaches to discourse (Fairclough, 2001; Carabine, 2002). Therefore, I combined them in a complex methodological framework to understand not only a dominant view on intercultural education (the policy view), but also a perspective from ‘below’, an Indigenous perspective in the same matter.  To conclude this prologue, I would like to summarize my motivations to write this thesis and to connect them with this research study. My schooling experiences in Peru, the sensibility (sometimes conflictive) that I developed to my grandmother’s Indigenous heritage, the discrimination that I witnessed and heard against Indigenous peoples during fieldwork, the tensions and my privilege that I could not clearly recognize while I was doing research in my country, and my time as a student and researcher at UBC; all together have played a central role in developing my motivations to write this research thesis—at different times and at different levels. Thus, the reader of this thesis will find, in the following chapters, the articulation of and   9  dialogue among different theories and scholars aiming to effectively examine the discursive encounter on the notion of Interculturalidad (in its original Spanish) between an Indigenous social movement and the official Peruvian intercultural education policy. The readers also will find where I stand as a researcher and my attempt to express, through research, my solidarity with the struggles of Indigenous peoples in my country, a solidarity that I express by bringing one Indigenous perspective on intercultural education from the margins to the center of attention.      10  Chapter One: Introduction This study examines the discursive encounter about the notion of Interculturalidad18 between the Chirapaq19 Indigenous organization and the official Peruvian intercultural education policy (IE), which is developing ongoingly today.20 Using a decolonial framework (Mignolo, 2007a, 2007b), informed by aspects of Indigenous Knowledges (Battiste, 2000), and a combination of critical discourse analysis models as methodology (Fairclough, 2001; Carabine, 2002), I analyze the Chirapaq’s publicly-accessible written and spoken texts to make meaning of the movement’s position on and perceptions of intercultural education21 and the ongoing Peruvian IE policy document. Thus, in this study I take the position that the Chirapaq’s discursive construction of Interculturalidad can serve, intentionally or not, as a counter-discourse to the official government policy and hence, that the Chirapaq can resist, challenge, and (re)create their own version of Interculturalidad.                                                            18 The closer translation of Interculturalidad from Spanish to English might be Interculturality, however, there is not a clear consensus about this. While most scholars engage with Latin American’s diversity education discussions using the term “Interculturality” as translation (e.g. Dibos 2005), others use Multiculturalism (e.g. Yashar, 2006; García, 2003) or Interculturalism (e.g. López, 2009; L.A. Valdiviezo, 2010). Few others have opted to keep the original Spanish version, not only to avoid confusion with Western approaches, but also as a way to clearly position the work on Interculturalidad as coming from “the South” (Solano-Campos, 2013) or as a way “to break out of the prison-house of colonial vocabulary” (Aman, 2014, p. 208). Because of these last arguments, I have opted for using the Spanish version in this thesis. 19 The complete name of this Indigenous movement is Chirapaq - Centre for Indigenous Culture of Peru. Chirapaq is a Quechua word that means sparkle of the starts. 20 For this study, I analyze the ongoing official law of ‘Intercultural Education for all and Intercultural Bilingual Education’ —which in Spanish is Política de Educación Intercultural y Educación Intercultural Bilingüe. Throughout the document, I will use IE policy to make reference to it, while EIB is used to make reference to previous Intercultural Bilingual Education policies or the education system/model (e.g. EIB policy or EIB system). 21 Regardless, Interculturalidad can be considered to be a broader social discourse on diversity than Intercultural Education. In this study, I focus my analysis on the meaning or the sense it has been given within an intercultural education discourse.    11  In this introductory chapter I begin by delineating the scope of the research—specifically, the purpose of the study, the research questions, and the significance and rational of the research. Following this, I discuss the multiple meanings that Interculturalidad has taken on in Latin America (LA) (a central notion of this study), then, I explain what Peruvian society’s Inter-cultural relationships are like (the sociocultural context), and, finally, I discuss central features of Peruvian Indigenous movements (the type of organization that is the focus of my research) and, particularly, the Chirapaq’s trajectory. The chapter ends with an outline of the remaining chapters of the thesis.  1.1. Purpose of the Study and Research Questions The goals of this study are three-fold. First, to bring to the fore one version of Interculturalidad from a historically-excluded Peruvian ethnic group, Indigenous peoples, and illuminate how an Indigenous movement critically engages with the dominant discourse in the Peruvian context. Second, to contribute to the continued generation of spaces where Indigenous movements of Peru can participate in the dialogue about Peruvian intercultural education policies. And third, to propose recommendations for improving Peruvian intercultural education policy development by considering the position of a Peruvian Indigenous movement.  Three fundamental questions underpin this study:  (i) In what ways do the Chirapaq’s written and spoken texts on intercultural education construct the notion of Interculturalidad,–not only with regards to but also apart from government policy discourse?   - What are the central themes that inform their discursive construction of Interculturalidad?    12  (ii) In what ways does Peruvian 2016 IE policy document construct the notion of Interculturalidad? - How does the IE policy construct the themes that inform the Chirapaq’s intercultural discourse?   (iii) How could the Chirapaq’s discursive construction of Interculturalidad resist or challenge the Peruvian IE policy discourse?  1.2. Significance of the Study  The research on Peruvian IE policies points to—sometimes explicitly (Aikman, 2012; Dibos, 2006; L. A. Valdiviezo, 2006a and 2006b; L. M.Valdiviezo, 2012) —the continued absence and underrepresentation of the multiple voices and demands of Peruvian ethnic groups, not only in this research area but also in the intercultural education policy making process. Therefore, this study is significant as it extends intercultural education policy analysis by exploring and sharing an Indigenous movement’s bottom-up contestation of the dominant policy discourse. Also, it builds on the existing literature by giving attention to the viewpoints of a distinctly underrepresented sector of society, namely, Peruvian Indigenous movements. In general, Peruvian Indigenous movements constitute a sector that is characterized by their lack of input into Peruvian intercultural education policies (Garcia, 2003), their situation as recipients and objects rather than as constructors and subjects of intercultural education (García, 2004; L. A. Valdiviezo, 2010) and one of the many Peruvian ethnic groups whom social structures have been more aggressively applied (L.A Valdiviezo, 2012; Walsh, 2007). 1.3. Rationale of the Study  This study aims to contribute to the continued relatedness of Peruvian intercultural education policies and an alternative Indigenous movement viewpoint. Therefore, I advocate for   13  the centrality of including other marginalized Peruvian groups in the policy making process as part of having an authentic dialogue about Peruvian intercultural education, where minoritized and ethnicized groups’ expectations and demands are taken into account. 1.4. Situating the Notion of Interculturalidad in the Latin American Context: An Overview of Multiple and Competing Meanings 22 The notion of Interculturalidad in LA has taken on multiple, competing, and sometimes overlapping meanings depending on what is referred to—official policies, educational practices, intellectual perspectives or social movements’ demands—and its politics along the political continuum: conservative, liberal, or critical versions. In this section, I provide a brief overview of these multiple forms of Interculturalidad with the aim of offering an introductory frame of reference23 for understanding a central concept for this thesis, and to illuminate its relevance for LA’s Indigenous peoples.  “ [Interculturalidad] is a social and political project aimed at transforming social structures, institutions and relations (…) a process that seeks to leave behind the colonial an mono-cultural shadows that, dominated by a Western culture, have destroyed Indigenous identities and knowledges and reduced them to a folkloric level” (The National Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador [CONAIE], 1994, p. 6) (my translation).                                                            22 This discussion principally focuses on the experiences of Andean countries, such as Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru. 23 Some aspects that I explain here, specifically those related to educational policy and practices, will be revisited and explained in depth in the Literature Review chapter and in the specific case of the Peruvian context.   14  As illustrated in this quotation, some scholars assert that the conceptualization of Interculturalidad emerged in the late 80’s from the Indigenous social movements’ awareness24 of the exclusion and subordination of their identities, knowledges, and languages as result of Hispanic colonization (Aikman, 1997; Aman, 2014; López, 2001a; Tubino, 2004; Walsh, 2009a; Williamsom, 2004).25 The Spanish conquest left a complex cultural and racialized diversity, Eurocentric hierarchies, and power dynamics. In this context, Interculturalidad was and is still used by Indigenous movements as a conceptual tool to challenge and reflect on colonial structures and as a rhetorical device through which to demand the recognition of their rights (Solano-Campos, 2013; Walsh, 2007; Williamsom, 2004).26 In short, an alternative, Latin American conception of Interculturalidad came from Indigenous intellectual activism and, as articulated by them, it can be theorized as an act of agency and resistance.  At the level of official policies, and as a response to Indigenous movements’ claims, the initial rhetoric of Interculturalidad has been taken and “adapted” by many of LA’s governments and multilateral institutions. Specifically, it has reposed on the energy, resources, and focus vested on the education sector (López, 2001a; Walsh, 2009b).27 However, the governments’                                                           24 This affirmation may be contested. Although most scholars recognize the key role that Indigenous movements (especially from Ecuador, Bolivia, and Mexico) have played in the construction of the notion of Interculturalidad, López (2001a) argues that this notion has originated, principally, within the Social Sciences, while Ferrao (2010) highlights its development as inside Afrodescendent social movements. 25 Hispanic colonial ideology is based on beliefs concerning European superiority and the creation of hierarchies among socio-cultural groups. Specifically, it is a system of beliefs that normalizes structural inequalities among cultural groups with African, Asian, Indigenous, and Middle Eastern roots and puts European (especially Hispanic) cultures in a privileged position, oppressing all other cultures, for nearly five centuries (L.M. Valdiviezo, 2012).  26 While Aman (2014) and Walsh (2009a) have suggested that what unifies LA’s Indigenous movements of the Andean Region is their awareness of coloniality; other scholars have highlighted that this awareness might differ –more or less in proportion – according to the Indigenous movements’ sociohistorical context of their respective countries (López, 2001a) 27 The exceptions are Bolivia and Ecuador, which substantially modified their constitutions, declaring their countries as multinational and multicultural in 2009 and 2008, respectively.   15  “official” versions of Interculturalidad lost, in many LA countries (e.g. Peru), its original transformative meaning and sense of social criticism.  In fact, official Interculturidad has been articulated as a discourse and set of policies synonymous with Liberal Multiculturalism (Tubino, 2001; L. A. Valdiviezo & Valdiviezo, 2008; Walsh, 2005, 2009a). Lopez’s (2009) analysis of different Latin American intercultural education policies highlights this assertion. For Lopez , Interculturalidad  has been principally defined in these policies as “learning to live together, as dialogue and complementarity among cultures with different backgrounds (...) it is principally about generating positive feelings, tolerance, [and] respect to ethnic and cultural diversity” (p. 9). As this quote illustrates, emphasis on diversity, tolerance, and respect not only directs  attention away from the original critique of the colonial structures (Walsh, 2009a), but also serve as central elements in the rhetoric of  Liberal Multiculturalism—a perspective that aims to manage cultural diversity by assuring social stability and the unexamined “inclusion” of all citizens in the modern nation state (Tubino, 2001; Walsh, 2009b). At the level of school practices, the notion of Interculturalidad (embedded in intercultural education) can been translated as “the way in which Indigenous students should interrelate with the dominant society and not vice versa” (Walsh, 2005, p.17), thereby failing to recognize non-European and non-Indigenous sociocultural groups. Thus, intercultural education has been aimed only at Indigenous students, and it places emphasis on learning Spanish as a way to communicate within a Westernized culture. Furthermore, this conception of Interculturalidad has been focused on a folkloric dimension of culture and diversity (García, 2004; L. A. Valdiviezo, 2010).  At the same time, various forms of Interculturalidad have been developed and discussed in Latin American academia. In fact, Interculturalidad has been the dominant, indeed pervasive approach to diversity education; this is extensively examined by Latin American scholars and scholars   16  engaged in LA scholarship28 (Aman, 2014; Dibos, 2006; López, 2001b; Solano-Campos, 2013; Tubino, 2001, 2005; Walsh, 2009a, 2009b). These different approaches range in scope – from those exclusively centered in “the problem of diversity” and in a set of desirable values to attain (e.g. respect, relationship building, and harmony) (García Canclini, 2004; Hamel, 2008), through critical approaches that question the causes of the non-dialogue among cultures (Tubino, 2001, 2005), to decolonial perspectives, which come from LA’s Indigenous movements and their alliances with scholars and other social movements (Walsh, 2009a, 2009b, 2010). What the critical and decolonial approaches have in common is their starting point: A critique of the historical, sociopolitical, economic, and epistemic29 societal structures that have made a “horizontal” interaction with “Other” cultural groups impossible (Tubino, 2001, 2005; Walsh, 2009a, 2009b, 2010).  Thus, I highlight that Interculturalidad has been historically used as part of the sociopolitical struggles of LA’s Indigenous peoples.30 Therefore, any one particular notion of Interculturalidad is not only that it a term that comes from the “South”, but that in the name of Interculturalidad, Indigenous peoples’ demands have sought and in some cases found a space to be heard.                                                              28 However, Interculturalidad is still underrepresented in the literature written in English on diversity education. Instead, diversity education is dominated by Anglo-American discourses and approaches of (Critical) Multiculturalism, and Interculturalism, etc. (Aman, 2014, Solano-Campos, 2013). 29 It is important to highlight that only Walsh’s Decolonial Critical Interculturality approach makes reference to an epistemic dimension as part of colonial social structures. 30 Although not exclusively. For instance, in Peru, Afrodescendents movements, and allied scholars, have started to demand Afroperuvian inclusion in the Intercultural Education policy making process (L.M., Valdiviezo, 2012).    17  1.5. Inter-Cultural Relations and Social Asymmetries in a Diverse Peru “Peru, the country of all bloods”31 is a well-known phrase that has been used for decades by Peruvian politicians, scholars, and writers to highlight the diversity of races and cultures that coexist in this country. Peru is a multi-cultural and multilingual country of more than 30 million inhabitants, wherein approximately 43% are Indigenous 32 33 (the second largest Indigenous population in LA) (Trivelli, 2005), 12% Afroperuvian (L.M, Valdiviezo, 2012), 40% Mestizos, 9% European-Peruvian, 2% Middle Eastern-Peruvians and 9% Asian-Peruvians (Godenzzi, 2006). Also, 40 different Indigenous Amazon languages are spoken by 130 ,000 Peruvians, and 3.4 million Peruvians speak one (or both) of two Andean Indigenous languages, Quechua and Aymara. 70% of Peru’s population speak the official language: Spanish. Moreover, 70% of Peruvians live in urban areas, while 27% live in rural Peru as a result of a large migration that started 4 decades ago and has significantly transformed the cities by bringing more masses and diversity into them—especially to Lima, the capital city (Dibos, 2006).  However, the situation is different in the case of Indigenous peoples, of whom a large proportion of the population are concentrated in rural areas—in theAndes or in the Amazon jungle—with a small though significant percentage living in the cities – 34% and 6.6%, respectively (Kudo, 2003).  In this context of diversity, ethnic and cultural relations among Peruvians have historically been characterized as being aggressive, asymmetrical, and marginalizing against ethnic, non-white/Mestizo groups, particularly, against Indigenous and Afroperuvian groups,                                                           31 This phrase was originally used by a renowned Peruvian writer, Jose María Arguedas. The Spanish version is “Perú es un país de todas las sangres”. 32 In Peru, “Indigenous people” is an expression used for making reference to natives from two different ecological and geographical zones: the Amazon (jungle) and the Andes (or highlands).  33 Other studies report 24% (CEPAL, 2015) or 13% (Nation Institute of Statics and Information of Peru, 2007) of Indigenous population in Peru. The variability of this percentage differs according to the criteria used to define who is considered Indigenous in Peru, which is not a simple matter in this country. See Trivelli (2005) for a brief discussion of the proxy used for Indigenous identity in Peru.   18  whose sociocultural identities. Therefore, they are considered to be those sociocultural groups which most notably suffer the everyday threat of sociostructural oppression and exclusion in a society dominated by a minority elite (L. M. Valdiviezo, 2012; Valdivia, Benavides & Torero, 2007).  These types of relationships among Peruvians are one of the most important legacies of Hispanic coloniality, which—based on the idea of race and racialization as elements of social structuring—has hierarchized the sociocultural differences among different groups in the Latin American context (Walsh, 2009b). This is a racialized hierarchy, where “Western descendants, white, and “whitened” people are at the top, Mestizos are in the middle, and Indigenous and Afrodescendents peoples are on the lower rungs of power" (Viaña, Walsh, & Tapia, 2010, p. 78) (own translation).  Likewise, poverty, violence, exclusion, and discrimination in Peru are closely intertwined with the cultural and ethnical background of the population. This is demonstrable by the poverty distribution, poverty rate, and education achievement rates in Peru. The lower economic stratum is constituted by the Indigenous and Afroperuvian groups; thus, while Indigenous peoples have a poverty rate of 64% —twice the national rate—among Afroperuvian peoples this rate is 34% (Benavides et al., 2007). Also, Indigenous and Afroperuvian peoples are considered to be “less educated” with the lower cultural assets (L.A. Valdiviezo, 2006), and with fewer opportunities to complete higher education in Peru (1.7% and 1.9% of Afrodescendent and Indigenous peoples, respectively, complete it against the 13% of the national rate) (Benavides et al., 2007).  One of the most intense and prolonged episodes of political violence in the history of Peru fell differently upon different ethnic groups. An internal armed conflict between the   19  government and two terrorist groups34 revealed existing, deep, and painful divides and cultural misunderstandings among Peruvians. Thus, the final report of The Peruvian Commission of Truth and Reconciliation (CVR, 2003) discerned that 75% of the victims who died were from the Andean or the jungles regions – the poorest, the least educated Peru, those who spoke Indigenous languages as their mother tongue.  Racism in Peru—one of its biggest problems—is also a daily expression of Peruvians in their inter-cultural relations. It particularly affects Indigenous and Afrodescendents peoples (Benavides et al., 2007), it is not overtly acknowledged, and it is ethnico-social (a combination of race and culture)35 but in general a darker or more Indigenous appearance means a higher possibility to be discriminated against or looked down upon (Callirgos, 1993, Dibos, 2005).  So far, I have established the background from which point I argue two things. One, that Interculturalidad does not exist in practice in Peru, it only exists at the level of discourse; and two, that there is a need to keep discussing and constructing forms of Interculturalidad that can look at the historical patterns of exclusion, violence, and discrimination permeating inter-cultural relations among Peruvians. 1.6. An Overview of the Indigenous Movement in Peru and the Chirapaq Indigenous Movement’s Trajectory In the last few decades, Latin America has experienced the emergence of Indigenous collective action and politicization, principally as a response to the implementation of a                                                           34 The terrorist groups were Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) and Movimiento Revolucionario Túpac Amaru (Revolucionary Movement Túpac Amaru, MRTA). This conflict took place in Peru between 1980 and 2000. 35  Benavides et al. (2007) points out that the experience of racism in Afrodescendents and that of Indigenous peoples is distinct in Peru. While for the former group race and phenotypic characteristics are at the core of this experience, for the latter group race is associated, in addition to racial and phenotypic characteristics, with social and cultural elements (e.g. language, traditional dress).   20  Neoliberal policies system in the region. Thus, the economic instability and the threat against Indigenous communities’ local autonomy has given rise to important Indigenous movements in countries such as Ecuador, Bolivia, Guatemala, and Mexico (Grey Postero, 2006; Sawyer, 2004; Yashar, 2005). In this context, Peru constitutes a unique case wherein Indigenous movements are generally characterized by a lack of political activism and mobilization, fragmentation, and an absence of a national-scale presence (Benavides et al., 2007; Garcia, 2003; Quijano, 2006; Tubino, 2004; Yashar, 2005). It is a notorious case because other LA countries with similar geographic (Andean countries), demographic (significant Indigenous population), and political trajectories (colonial, corporatist, and Neoliberal regimes) have taken a different path and, in fact, have seen the emergence of powerful national Indigenous organizations (e.g. Ecuador, Bolivia) (Garcia, 2003; Quijano, 2006; Yashar, 2005). This begs the question, “why has Peru followed a different path?” (Yashar, 2005, p. 225). There are different answers to Yashar’s question, which I think should be seen as complementary rather than competing.   Albó (2008), García (2003), and Quijano (2006) assert that the absence of Peruvian Indigenous movements is partially the result of a series of government initiatives that blocked an ethnic dimension or consciousness among Indigenous peoples. Thus, a strong history of landowners’ racism against the “Indio”36 and a series of ‘cultural whitening’ policies, most significantly throughout the early 21st century, made the term ‘Indigenous’ synonymous with ‘poor’ or ‘servant’; a veritable reason why nobody wanted to be recognized as such in Peru. Also, the Marxist government policies of the late 1960’s37 organized highland Indigenous                                                           36 It was the ethnic term used for making reference to Indigenous people during Spanish Colonization in Peru. 37 These policies were enacted during the leftwing government of the General Velasco Alvarado, who began in Peru a series of major reforms (agrarian, educational, industrial, etc.). According to Velasco, his project was driven by a desire to give more justice to the Peruvian poor.   21  populations around class-based labels and prohibited the use of the term ‘Indian’; promoting, instead, Indigenous identification as peasants (highlands) or natives (in the Amazon).   However, one of the most common arguments heard today is focused on the political violence, repression, and persecution on the part of local terrorist groups (Sendero Luminoso and MRTA) and the Peruvian government during its internal war (1980-2000): a war that did not allow the development of spaces available for grassroots organization, particularly in the highlands and around to an Indigenous identity discourse. Thus, while Sendero Luminoso militants brutally eliminated all rival sources of political power, Peruvian government forces interpreted any sort of gathering as a potentially subversive threat. Because Sendero originated in the highlands38, the government often assumed a link between the terrorist group and Andean Indigenous communities, making it particularly difficult to politically organize around ethnic banners. Indeed, Indigenous people generally hesitated to self-identify publicly as such (Albó, 1992; García, 2003; Tubino, 2004; Yashar, 2005). Yashar (2005), on the other hand, offers another explanation for the so-called weak Peruvian Indigenous national movement. To her, it is not only the result of its internal war—which, she recognizes, closed off political associational spaces—but also it has been negatively impacted by the failure of Velasco’s government’s corporatist policies (1960-1970)39, which weakened Indigenous community networks. Thus, the uneven distribution of benefits from land                                                           38 Sendero Luminoso principally recruits among Indigenous people; however, Sendero and MRTA did not promote ethnic claim making per se. Indeed, they undermined Indigenous communal systems (García, 2003). 39These policies were part of the Agrarian reform program to expropriate farms and redistribute land ownership. Thus, Velasco implemented a corporatist citizenship regime in Peruvian rural areas with the aim of building worker-owned enterprises and fostering a cooperative spirit.    22  reform40 and the state reform to control community organizations41 created distrust and tensions within and between peasant-Indigenous communities rather than the cooperation and the collaboration intended and needed for the construction of networks through which Indigenous peoples could mobilize.  Despite the resulting fragmentation and weakness of Peruvian Indigenous movements, some scholars (Ludwing, 2011; Quijano, 2006; Yashar, 2005) highlight the existence of some regional and local organizations that have reached relatively greater representation in the Amazon and southern Andes (e.g. Puno) 42, though they still lack a national presence. According to Yashar (2005), the development of these organizations is explained basically by: (i) their ability to create political associational spaces despite the violent civil war; (ii) the Sendero’s failure to organize themselves in their regions, and; (iii) the support received by professionals and NGOs, who provided organizational capacity (extending resources, office space, etc.). The most recognized, national movements are AIDESEP (the Interethnic Association of Development for the Peruvian Jungle) and CONAP (National Confederation of the Peruvian Amazon); which defend cultural, environmental, and territorial rights of Indigenous from the Amazon, and also defend claims for self-determination. Another movement is UNCA (Union of Aymara Community), the first to be self-defined around an Indigenous Aymara identity in its                                                           40 For instance, the distribution of lands was more beneficial for ex-Hacienda workers in contrast with the Indigenous communities. While the former received individual share-outs, the latter benefited only from infrastructural investments (Yashar, 2005). 41 For instance, the government created internal political divisions over authority structures, favoring younger comuneros (community members) who speak Spanish. Also, by demarcating community boundaries, it created conflicts among communities over those boundaries (Yashar, 2005).  42 I am only mentioning here those organizations recognized by the literature as grassroots Indigenous movements with a long tradition in Peru. In the case of the Chirapaq, they define themselves as an Indigenous movement with local presence.   23  region (Puno). UNCA also demands the recognition of their worldviews and their democratic inclusion in Peru (Ludwing, 2011). 1.6.1. The Chirapaq Indigenous Organization The Chirapaq is a local movement that emerged 25 years ago, in Ayacucho, a Peruvian region located in the south-central Andes of the country. It is an Indigenous movement run by Quechua and Amazonian Indigenous activists, leaders, and intellectuals, who work as defenders of Indigenous peoples’ rights in the Peruvian context. According to the institutional memory of the Chirapaq (2014), they organized themselves as an Indigenous movement with the primary aim to support and help Indigenous peoples who were victims of the political violence and the internal war that affected Peru for more than two decades (1980-2000 officially)43. It is worth mentioning that this national internal war was initiated earlier and lasted longer in Ayacucho. Against this background, the Chirapaq initiated their work relating cultural recovery with the defense of Indigenous peoples’ lives (Institutional memory of the Chirapaq, 2014).  The founding members of the Chirapaq came from the Peruvian movimiento Indio (The Indian movement) of the 70’s, which later became Centro de Culturas Indígenas del Perú (Centre of Indigenous Culture from Peru) or the Chirapaq. During their initial years, the Chirapaq’s activist work was principally dedicated to the development of Comedores Populares (meal centers)—which provide food to Indigenous communities displaced by violence—and to the strengthening of Indigenous peoples’ identity and culture. After the 90’s, this Indigenous movement has developed different activist works, which can be organized into the following lines of occupation: Indigenous women’s rights, Indigenous leadership development, Indigenous                                                           43 According to the CVR (2003), Ayacucho became the most dangerous war zone during the Peruvian internal war. The main victims were Quechua-speaking peasants (Indigenous) from rural communities.   24  peoples’ intellectual property, Indigenous identity and culture, Indigenous food and agricultural practices, and racism and discrimination. Indigenous education in Peru is a topic transversally discussed across all of the Chirapaq’s activist work, and is especially concentrated in their work, “Indigenous identity and culture” (The Chirapaq, 2014). The topic of Indigenous identity and culture is one that I will expand upon in my literature review chapter, specifically in the section on Indigenous education in Peru. Likewise, two of the Chirapaq’s programs with more impact on Indigenous communities have been Ñoqanchiq (a Quechua word that means “from ourselves”) and Soberanía y Seguridad Alimentaria (food sovereignty and security). While the former has been focused on Indigenous children and their overcoming the internal war’s traumas, as well as the strengthening of their identity through Indigenous arts and education (developed in more detail in the next chapter), the Soberanía y Seguridad Alimentaria program has been centered on the recovery of Indigenous traditional foods and nutritional and agricultural practices. To this respect, the Chirapaq contends: Our lines of work seek for the recuperation and revalorization of Indigenous knowledges and culture. However, it is not only about affirmation or recuperation of our culture; in fact, our work is about challenging the economic and social structures that have impacted on in the current situation of Indigenous peoples from Peru—that is, racism, discrimination, exclusion, and subordination of the Indigenous. Our effort is a huge effort for social re-signification, wherein all Peruvians should be involved. (Institutional memory of Chirapaq, 2014, p. 39) (my translation)  Furthermore, the Chirapaq’s official website also shares their other important achievements as an Indigenous organization. For instance, they contributed to the formation  of La Organización Nacional de Mujeres Andinas y Amazónicas del Peru (The National movement of Andean Women and Amazonian Indigenous movement from Peru)—one of the first   25  Indigenous women’s movements in this country— and of La Red de Organizaciones de Jóvenes Indígenas del Perú (The organization of young Indigenous leaders). The Chirapaq has also participated in the creation of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous issues of the United Nations and in the formulation of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. This year, the Chirapaq Indigenous leader and founder, Tarcila Rivera, has been elected as a member of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous issues of the United Nations for the next three years.  In the last five years, the Chirapaq Indigenous movement has turned to the production of academic knowledge on Indigenous peoples’ issues with the aim to include Indigenous peoples’ struggles and perspectives and to improve their activist work. As the Chirapaq contend, “we want Peruvians to use our academic work. We want this knowledge production to serve as argument” (The Chirapaq, 2015, p. 6). Some of their most recent publications are Juventud, Educación Superior y Movimiento Indígena en el Peru (Youth, Higher Education, and Indigenous Movement in Peru) (2015), La Mujer Indígena y la Economía (Indigenous Women and the Economy) (2015), and Quiénes son Indígenas? (Who are Indigenous?) (2015). 1.7. Thesis Layout and Organization  In what follows, I provide an outline of the thesis, after which follow six additional chapters. In chapter two, I review the literature on Indigenous education and intercultural education policies in the Peruvian context. The first section of this chapter begins discussing the historical background of the education for and by Indigenous peoples; specifically, how Indigenous schooling44—and its different meanings and approaches—have largely remained the responsibility of the government, NGOs, churches, and dominant intellectual elites wherein                                                           44 Before and after the first intercultural education policy.   26  Indigenous movements’ and communities’ participation have been limited or excluded. However, some exceptional programs—although unsupported by the state—with a greater degree of Indigenous control over their own education is also examined. The second section of the chapter is focused on answering the question of ‘where are we now?’ in terms of Peruvian official intercultural education policies. After a brief review of the trajectory of these policies and programs, I discuss the research on contemporary intercultural education policy discourse and their (mis)encounter with the multiple, competing, and context-based voices. Chapter two concludes by making the point that the voices of Indigenous movements and communities were and are still absent from the intercultural education policy making process; hence, there is a need to keep the conversation going and to keep researching on these multiples perspectives ‘from below’ as a way to highlight the necessity of their participation in the policy design.  Chapter three and four comprise the theoretical and methodological framework for this study, respectively.  This study takes a multi-perspective approach and draws on theories and methods from different fields that are suitable to or in dialogue with a critical theory paradigm (Guba and Lincon, 1991) in order to effectively examine the discursive encounter about Interculturalidad between the Chirapaq Indigenous movement and the official IE policy. Chapter three discusses the theoretical framework, which combines and draws on decolonial thinkers, such as Walter Mignolo, and Andean Indigenous movements and their allied non-Indigenous scholars’ decolonial conceptions of Interculturalidad. Some particular aspects of Indigenous knowledges also inform the framework. All of these theories give the lenses for bringing to the fore Other, Indigenous, bottom-up demands, perspectives, and worldviews. This is done while also taking into account the Latin American colonial context and Indigenous movement’s struggles for decoloniality. After situating my critical stance as a researcher, chapter   27  four gives a justification for why a combination of discourse analysis models is the best methodology for this study and how the theories presented in chapter three can be combined with the methods of Fairclough’s and Foucault’s critical discourse theories to form a coherent framework. This Foucauldian-inspired critical discourse theory will then be outlined together with how it can be applied to the analysis of the bottom-up Chirapaq’s and top-down IE policy’s intercultural discourse found embedded in written and spoken texts. A self-developed table with the different levels of analysis, tools, and questions that guided my process of doing critical discourse analysis in this study is presented, as well.  Chapters five and six present the findings of this study, while chapter seven concludes the thesis with the main conclusions and policy recommendations. Thus, chapter five analyzes and discusses the written and spoken texts of the Chirapaq organization. This analysis reveals that six central themes inform the Chirapaq’s intercultural discourse: cultural diversity, intercultural relationships, Indigenous knowledges, Indigenous languages, Indigenous territory, and Indigenous identity. Chapter six is focused on the 2016 Peruvian IE policy’s discursive construction of the notion of Interculturalidad, as well as its (mis)encounter with the Chirapaq’s view of same. In doing so, the analysis and discussion is focused on the way the policy constructs the same themes that emerged from the Chirapaq’s texts and how the latter view could serve, intentionally or not, as a discursive act of resistance or contestation to the former’s existing representation. Finally, chapter seven summarizes and reviews the central aim of the study and the theoretical and methodological decisions taken throughout the research. It also summarizes the main points of the findings. Chapter seven ends proposing policy recommendation from a decolonial viewpoint and develops suggestions for further research.    28  Chapter Two: Literature Review Through this study, I seek to examine how the Chirapaq Indigenous movement critically engages with the official Peruvian IE policy discourse. This literature review chapter covers two discussions or areas of research that are interrelated: Indigenous education and Interculturalidad as education policy in the Peruvian context. I start the chapter by reviewing the historical background of the education for and by Peruvian Indigenous peoples, discussing its meaning and approaches, the actors involved, and the roles assigned to Indigenous groups and Indigenous community-based education. Then, I explain the development of intercultural education policies in Peru.  Later, I discuss the research on the government policy discourses and its encounter with multiple bottom-up perspectives and demands on intercultural education. I conclude the chapter by arguing that there is a need to keep expanding upon the research on these multiple, bottom-up demands and perspectives, as in the case of Peruvian Indigenous peoples, which historically and currently are underrepresented in and have little opportunity to contribute to the policy discourse, and have therefore been positioned as receivers rather than constructors of their own ‘formal’ education. 2.1. Education for and by Peruvian Indigenous Peoples from a Historical Perspective In the existing literature there is consensus that, historically, it has been the voices of the central government, NGOs, missionaries, and intellectual elites who principally have determined what type of education Peruvian Indigenous peoples receive (Aikman, 1999b; Devine, 1999; Freeland, 1996; Sumida-Huaman, 2013; L. A. Valdiviezo, 2006b; Zúñiga & Gálvez, 2002). Therefore, Indigenous participation, perspectives, and traditional ways of education (within their communities) have remained largely excluded from their ‘formal’ Indigenous schooling experience. In what follows, I discuss the approaches of Peruvian Indigenous education from a   29  historical perspective. Specifically, I revisit it through five sub-sections, which are organized in terms of the central social actors responsible for Indigenous education. In doing so, I discuss two groups of studies. The first group focuses on historical document analysis using diverse primary sources such as legislation, policy texts, academic papers, and pedagogical materials that address indigenous education in different time periods (Aikman, 1999a; Devine, 1999; Freeland, 1996;; Kvietok, 2015; Trapnell & Zavala, 2013; Zúñiga & Gálvez, 2002). The second group of studies develops historical accounts of Peruvian Indigenous education using secondary sources and these accounts serve as a way to complement their broader research on Peruvian intercultural education (Aikman, 1997; García, 2004; López, 2009; L. A. Valdiviezo, 2006a, 2006b).  2.1.1. Indigenous Education during the Incan Empire, Spanish Coloniality, and Peruvian Independence Wood (1986) states, in his historical analysis of the precolonial Andean Indigenous education, that not having a Western-like model of school structures does not mean that the Andeans did not have a system of education. He continues, elaborating that "the Indians had architecture, sculpture, weaving, ornamentation, music, and dance before the Spaniards came, and ceramics and its related arts were so sophisticated that the Spaniards could teach the Indians nothing except how to work in glass” (p. 8). Likewise, Wood explains how Indigenous education was based in Quechua45 cosmology and Indigenous religion. This knowledge was taught in the Yachahuasi (house of learning), where the children of Incan nobility learned from their elders of matters such as language, astrology, philosophy, religion, and government, all together. Later, these children taught their subjects only some of these themes because it was a top-down                                                           45 Quechua was the official and dominant language during the Inca Empire; however, multiple other Indigenous languages coexisted with it.   30  education approach and a class-divided society (nobility and the masses). As Wood also explains, not all Indigenous peoples learned the same subject matter in their systems of education. During and after the Spanish colonization, official Indigenous education took a totally different path. Thus, it is possible to talk about an initial attempt at bilingual education for Indigenous peoples during colonial times (16th-19th century) and the first decades of Peruvian independence from Spain (García, 2004; L. A. Valdiviezo, 2006b). García (2004) explains, in her historical account of Peruvian language policies, that during colonial times bilingual education was, specifically, a process of castellanización, the teaching of Spanish language with the subsequent suppression of Indigenous mother tongue. As exemplified in the quotation below, one argument used by colonizers for supporting castellanización was to articulate the aim of compulsory Indigenous education to the eventual disappearance of Indigenous ways of life—which is deeply embedded in their language— and, therefore, the assurance of settlers’ power and control over the colonized people (García, 2004; Valdiviezo, 2006b).  Quechua language, myth, and song preserved idolatry and fantasy and encouraged hatred of the Spaniards, and a major effort was recommended to eradicate the Quechua language and culture once and for all on the model of the eradication of Arabic on the peninsula (Manheim, 1984, p. 298, as cited in Valdiviezo, 2006b; p. 36). Thus, rural schools were created where Indigenous children were to learn Spanish (García, 2004). Around 1781, Quechua language, cultural practices, and artistic expressions were explicitly prohibited. As García (2004) notes, although Quechua language did not disappear in Latin America, Spanish colonizers succeeded in “relegating it to its current status as an undervalued language” (p. 350). During the first decades of Peruvian independence (1821),   31  Indigenous education maintained a similar assimilationist rhetoric; however, this time the central argument to support the teaching and promotion of Spanish was “the unification and strengthening of the newly independent nation under one language” (Valdiviezo, 2006a, p. 36). In short, during the colonial period and early independence, Indigenous education was about controlling or ‘civilizing’ the indigenous subject through learning the colonizer language and culture and thereby erasing their own.46 2.1.2. The Missionaries’ Bilingual Education for Indigenous Peoples  Aikman’s (1999a) historical analysis of the emergence of Peruvian Indigenous education states that although missionaries from various Christian churches developed different educational programs for Indigenous people in Peru47, the earliest and the longest-lasting traditional program has been the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) (1945-onward). The SIL is a Protestant organization with a linguistic tradition that operates around the world translating the Bible into Indigenous languages and providing literacy training for Indigenous people, aiming for further conversion to Christianity (Aikman, 1997; García, 2004; López, 2009). Freeland (1996) contends, in his study about the theoretical discourses of Peruvian educational local-scale programs developed for Indigenous people during the 90’s, that the SIL approach to Indigenous education was a transitional model toward Spanish language and Christian values, wherein language “is used as the vehicle through which ‘unhealthy’ aspects of Indigenous culture will be substituted with the ‘universal’ values of Christianity” (SIL, 1979, as cited in Freeland, 1996, p. 6).                                                            46 Trapnell & Zavala (2013) explain that during this period, Indigenous education was about Quechua or Aymara Indigenous (Indigenous from the highlands) while Amazonian Indigenous where totally ignored. In the best-case scenario, Amazonian Indigenous were represented as “the savages”. 47 For instance, Aikman (1997) briefly explains how the Catholic Church took care of bilingual education for Indigenous from the Amazon at the beginning of the 1900’s.    32  The SIL signed its first contract with the Peruvian government in 1945. During its first year of work, the SIL offered educational programs only in the Amazon and it was thought of as a complementary initiative to the government’s Indigenous education policies. However, it was never supervised by the state and, actually, it filled the vacuum left by the government in this area (García, 2004; Freeland, 1996). During this time the SIL focused on the study of Indigenous language: they produced dictionaries, alphabets, and Bibles in Indigenous languages; they organized linguistic courses; and they translated books with important ‘moral’ lessons from Spanish to Indigenous languages. Around 1970, the SIL became the most important initiative for Indigenous bilingual education and teacher training in Peru. Indeed, they had full administrative power over Indigenous education in the Amazon until 1990 48 (Aikman, 1999a; Freeland, 1996). The SIL still exists in Peru; however, it does not have the influence it had in the past because other, locally-based programs have been developed in the Amazon and Andean region of Peru. Locally-based programs that are discussed below. 2.1.3. Indigenismo, Educational Reform, and Indigenous Education In the early 20th century, The Indigenismo movement – a liberal urban-based movement composed of a small intellectual elite – appeared in LA, including in Peru.49 Devine’s (1999) historical study of Indigenismo’s education policies and its impact on Peruvian Indigenous identity and education provides key insights about this period. According to Devine (1999), although this movement was characterized as having multiple and contradictory views within                                                           48 The SIL had totally autonomy in developing the schooling model for Amazons Indigenous students and for the design of teacher-training programs. 49 Indigenismo began as a body of literary, cultural, and linguistic discourse that problematized Indigenous citizenship; however, it also penetrated state policies and national politics. It has been understood as a post-colonial elite response to the historical subjugation and exclusion of Indigenous peoples from the nation states (Aikman, 1999a; Devine, 1999)   33  and between their different variations, they had in common concern about Andean Indigenous subordination and the exclusion of Indigenous peoples from Peruvian society.  Furthermore, they saw formal education as an answer 50 to the so-called ‘Indian problem’.51 This is an observation that is also made by Aikman (1999b), Kvietok (2015), and Zúñiga and Gálvez (2002). Devine (1999) continues by explaining that there were two radical versions of Indigenismo that were particularly influential on Peruvian Indigenous education52: A purist anti-mestizo Indigenismo and a Marxist Indigenismo. While the former idealized Indigenous peoples’ race and culture and sought for their isolation and preservation through schooling, the latter conversely looked for Indigenous integration (or assimilation) into the nation-state as a way to improve their social status and life conditions. These Indigenistas ideologies were translated into specific educational policies and practices between 1940 and 1975. One representative of these Indigenistas ideologies was Luis E. Valcárcel, a purist Indigenista53 who became Minister of Education in 1945. Valcárcel developed the Education Plan of 1947, which impacted Indigenous education in three forms. First, it led to literacy campaigns for Andean and Amazonian Indigenous children, and was developed all over rural Peru. Second, it proposed that Indigenous children should complete school being able to speak three languages: Quechua, Aymara, and Spanish (a proposal that was                                                           50 Formal education was considered one answer but not the only one.  Indigenous problems were also about economic and social factors (Trapnell & Zavala, 2013). 51 For the Indigenistas, their condition of poverty and marginalization constituted a significant part of the problem and were obstacles to the strengthening of the Peruvian nation. It is important to highlight that Indigenistas’ visions excluded Indigenous from the Amazon (García, 2004) 52 Other important Indigenistas also played an important roles on Indigenous Education, such as Jose Carlos Mareátegui and José María Arguedas (García, 2004; Valdiviezo, 2006). 53 According to La Cadena (1998), Valcárcel believed that the corruption of pure Indian culture through undesirable contact with the 'outside' world would lead to a racial degeneration of Indigenous peoples.    34  not put into practice). Third, it led to the creation of the Rural Schools Nuclei54 (Valcárcel, 1981, cited in Devine, 1999), which is the most representative and well-known education initiative of Valcárcel. The Rural School Nuclei were schools created only for Andean Indigenous students and with the aim of preserving Indigenous culture and language by maintaining them separately from urban, non-Indigenous parts of Peru. The program principally mandated that students should stay in their communities—their “only proper place” (p.68)—and should preserve their customs, technologies, beliefs, and native language with the support of school. Also, the schools presented to students an idealized Andean reality free of conflict and, in Valcárcel’s words (1981, cited in Devine, 1999), “it was the state's responsibility to determine which aspects of the mass of modern culture deserve to be admitted into Indigenous students’ culture” (p. 69). As Devine (1999) contends, this imposed anti-assimilationist model “forges a state out of two physically and culturally separate nations that would ideally never have to meet” (p.69).  On the other hand, The Marxist Indigenismo was represented by the president Velasco, who developed what has been considered by many as the most significant and radical educational reform in Peru (1968-1975) (Aikman, 1999b; García, 2004; Valdiviezo, 2006a; Zúñiga & Gálvez, 2002). Although most of the literature on this educational reform highlights its positive impact on Indigenous education (García, 2004; Kvietok, 2015; Valdiviezo, 2006b; Zuñiga & Gálvez, 2002), some authors are less than enthusiastic about it (Aikman, 1999b; Devine, 1999; Trapnell & Zavala, 2013). However, there is a common agreement: Velasco’s intentions were to challenge the existing power dynamic, transform the structures that affect                                                           54 In Spanish, the Rural Schools Nuclei is called Nucleos Escolares Campesinos.   35  Indigenous peoples, and promote equity and social justice in Peru. Velasco’s intentions are illustrated in his statement:  “The educational reform is aimed at creating an educational system: that satisfies the necessities of the entire nation; that will reach the great masses of [indigenous] peasants, always exploited and always deliberately kept in ignorance; that will create a new consciousness among all Peruvians of the basic problems of our country; and that will contribute to forging a new type of man within a new social morality” (Velasco, 1972, as cited in García, 2004, p. 354) Zuñiga’s and Gálvez’s (2002) document analysis of Velasco’s bilingual policy, and Trapnell’s and Zavala’s (2013) extensive document examination of the Peruvian educational thinking around diversity during the 20th century55, offer a detailed overview of the most important of Velasco’s reforms that affected Indigenous education. According to these studies, these reforms led to: (i) the replacement of the ‘Indian’ category—and therefore the avoidance of questions about race and culture—for a class-based category (peasant); (ii) the recognition of Peru as multicultural and plurilingual society in the General Education law (1972), and; (iii), the designation of Quechua as an official language co-equal with Spanish and to be taught as a second language in all educational levels (1975). 56 Additionally, Velasco approved the first Peruvian Bilingual policy (1972) and different bilingual educational projects only for Indigenous students.57                                                           55 Using discourse analysis, the authors examine 32 texts produced from the 20th century to our days. They examine diverse texts such as legislation of different levels, books, academic papers, pedagogical material, interviews, songs, etc. 56 This was a symbolic recognition because in the practice Quechua was never taught in non-Indigenous public schools. 57 Many of Velasco’s reforms (including the educational reform) did not see the light. A combination of a personal illness and internal and US-backed resistance to Velasco’ radicalism forced him to be replaced in 1975 by the conservative wing of the military (Aikman, 1999; Freeland, 1999).   36  Certainly, as several scholars state (García, 2004; Kvietok, 2015; Trapnell & Zavala, 2013; L. A. Valdiviezo, 2006b; Zúñiga & Gálvez, 2002), Velasco’s educational reform not only put, as a priority, certain Indigenous rights into the political agenda – as it was never done by any Peruvian legislation (such as citizenship, education, and no discrimination) – but also offered a broader vision about linguistic and cultural diversity.58 This was new and revolutionary in Peru and even in LA. Nonetheless, as Valcárcel did with the Rural Schools Nuclei, Velasco also imposed an educational reform that negated Indigenous people’s right to decide the type of education they needed and kept maintaining the conception of Indigenous and national citizen as two incompatible categories that could only be integrated if the former learned the culture and language of the dominant Peruvian group (Aikman, 1999a; Devine, 1999). 2.1.4. Local-Scale Educational Programs for and by Indigenous Peoples. 59   During the last year of Velasco’s government, several pilot bilingual education programs for and by Indigenous peoples were initiated in the Southern Peruvian Andes and Northern Amazon. Due to the lack of government political will and economic resources to support them, they have been considered “a patchwork of diverse and disconnected programs” (Freeland, 1996, p. 5), which ranged in origins, means, support, and duration (Freeland, 1996; Kvietok, 2015;Valdiviezo, 2006a). For instance, local actors initiated some of them with no international support. Other actors depended on support from the Peruvian Ministry of Education, while support for others came from international sources. These local-scale programs have also used                                                           58 For instance, the General Law of Education (Ministry of Education, 1972, p. 29) said: “Peruvian education will take into account the existence of diverse languages and cultural expressions in this country as well as it will seek for their preservation and development. Education will respect the different cultural identities of Peruvian ethnic groups”.  59 For now, I discuss only three local-scale programs due to their impact of educational policy and trajectory; however, there were other programs of this nature in Peru. See García (2004), footnote 10, for more information about them.   37  diverse approaches to Indigenous education, such as transitional models (aiming to shift the child from the home language to Spanish), maintenance models (fostering the students’ mother tongue and emphasizing cultural identity and Indigenous rights), and intercultural education models (aiming to promote Indigenous peoples’ traditions or negotiate with other knowledges, logics, and beings, among others) (Freeland, 1996, Valdiviezo, 2006a). Kvietok (2015) states, in a historical and contemporary analysis of four instances of Peruvian multilingual policy negotiation (from 1970 onwards) that one of the programs that had a significant impact on Peruvian Indigenous education policies was The Experimental Bilingual Education Project of Puno60 (PEEB) of 1975-1991. PEEB was the result of an agreement between the government and The West German Co-operation Society (GTZ), and its aim was to develop two-year bilingual transitional programs in Quechua- and Aymara-speaking Indigenous communities. Nonetheless, the non-interventionist government gave the GTZ the opportunity to re-define their aims. Therefore, the GTZ opted for a maintenance model of bilingual education or, as presented in the quotation below, for the use of Indigenous language as both medium and subject of instruction to be maintained throughout schooling: “The mother tongue will serve as an instrument of education while at the same time it will itself be developed, with the purpose of reinforcing its use by pupils (...) the second language will be systematically taught with the purpose of getting pupils to use it in an efficient manner in their interrelationship with members of the majority culture” (PEEB, 1982; as cited in Kvietok, 2015, p. 27) Later on, PEEB also found the space to re-think the content of their curriculum, in order to incorporate local Indigenous knowledges and to promote a balanced relationship with the                                                           60 A city located in the South of Peru.   38  majority culture (Freeland, 1996; Kvietok, 2015). Six years after its implementation, PEEB was officially incorporated into state policy.  However, its expansion failed due to the government’s lack of resources, professionals, and adequate equipment. Freeland (1996) highlights two main critiques of PEEB. First, it was a top-down international initiave that lacked the participation of Indigenous organizations and the acceptance of many Indigenous parents. Second, the curriculum content did not offer discussions that examine power relationships between Indigenous peoples and the Spanish-speaking dominant culture, nor did it speak of ethnic rights. Another local program was the Upper Napo Bilingual Intercultural Education Project (PEBIAN) of 1975. It was established in response to Napurana Indigenous people’s demands for education, as well as to the activism of the local Indigenous movement Alto Napo61 (Freeland, 1996; Kvietok, 2015; Trapnell & Zavala, 2013). What is interesting about PEBIAN is that, unlike PEEB, it focused on developing critical education that questioned and transformed national culture. In fact, their central aims were inspired by Freirean ideals of education for liberation62 and their curriculum tackled conflict and inequalities head on (Freeland, 1996). Kvietok (2015) illustrates these issues when discussing the following questions taken from PEBIAN textbooks63 and addressed to Napurana students:   Who is the owner of our house? And of our chacra? Who is the owner? Is it good for a patrón [master], a señor, to come from the outside to become the master of our land? (Fernández, 1983, as cited in Kevietok, 2015, p. 29)  Why do some only take the bad from the Whites? The vices.                                                           61 According to Trapnell & Zavala (2013), it was the first Peruvian Indigenous movement involved in Indigenous Education. 62 Trapnell & Zavala (2013) explain that PEBIAN was also advised by a missionary of Theology of Liberation. 63 The names or the books are “We are owners of our land” and “We The Napurana”   39  In order to take the good things from other cultures do we have to throw away what we have? Think carefully. (Fernández, 1983, as cited in Kvietok, 2015, p. 30).  Following Kvietok’s (2015) insights, these questions show how PEBIAN attempted to stimulate critical reflection about Indigenous experiences of oppression and their relations with the dominant culture, as well as the re-valuation of their ways of life. Additionally, these two questions exemplified a more comprehensive understanding of intercultural relationships wherein students are actors who can “negotiate what elements of different traditions they will reject or embrace with a primary focus on straightening and maintaining Napuruna traditions” (p. 30) (author’s emphasis). In fact, PEBIAN has been considered the first program developed by Indigenous peoples that include an intercultural approach  (Freeland, 1996; Kvietok, 2015; Trapnell & Zavala, 2013), while some scholars have suggested that they were the first to actually use the term Interculturalidad in the Peruvian context (L.A Valdiviezo & L.M Valdiviezo, 2008). Furthermore, the first program to be proposed, designed, and entirely co-developed by a Peruvian Indigenous movement has been the Teacher Training Project of AIDESEP movement from 1988-onwards (Aikman, 1997; Freeland, 1996). The strength of AIDESEP, and therefore its program, has laid in the way it links 41 regional Indigenous movements capable of giving an autonomous unitary response to Amazonian Indigenous needs. Taking advantage of the laissez-faire approach of the government in power, AIDESEP enjoyed considerable autonomy to develop its own curriculum64, which breaks out of the conventional frameworks by basing                                                           64 This program has been principally focused on teachers training, however, it has also elaborated some pedagogical materials for students and teachers. So far, AIDESEP has trained Indigenous teachers from 15 different Indigenous communities. These teachers have principally worked in EIB schools in the Amazon (government model of schooling for Indigenous peoples) (Trapnell & Zavala, 2013).    40  themselves first and foremost on Indigenous cultural traditions and worldviews as a way to strengthen it and weaken the monopoly of Western knowledge (Aikman, 1997, 2012). AIDESEP’s priority is also the critical reflection of Peruvian reality from different perspectives; thus, its initiative goes further than other local-scale programs and takes a holistic approach combining Indigenous and Western thinking (Freeland, 1996). Likewise, AIDESEP starts from Interculturalidad rather than bilingualism (as PEEB or PEBIAN did) “because it considers that the main problem of education in native communities is not one of language, but of the role assigned to the school as a mechanism of ideological domination” (Freeland, 1996, p. 16). The expansion of the Teacher Training Project of AIDESEP was very difficult and expensive; because of this, Peruvian state has not been capable of assuming its cost, and the program has depended on the unstable support of International co-operation and on their own internal support.  Finally, it is relevant to discuss in this sub-section the Chirapaq’s work on intercultural education, developed in urban areas of Huamanga (Ayacucho) from 1992 onwards (Chirapaq, 2014, 2015). As outlined in the introductory chapter, the Chirapaq developed different programs initially focused on Indigenous children who, as victims of Peruvian internal war, were orphaned children and displaced from their communities to urban areas. One of these programs has been Ñoqanchiq (or “From ourselves”). Ñoqanchiq’s central goal has been the revitalization of Indigenous children’s identity as well as the recuperation and maintenance of Indigenous knowledges’ intergenerational transmission using, as a resource, the teaching and learning of indigenous arts (Chirapaq, 2014). As the Chirapaq contends: “We found in our traditional arts a path to come back to ourselves” (Institutional memory of the Chirapaq, 2014, p. 88). Thus, the program has generated spaces for the elders or Yachaq (who are part of the program) to teach the children indigenous music and dances, pottery, typical Indigenous loom, and stone sculpture. For   41  instance, through the learning of Indigenous music and dance children learn how to relate with the Pachamama (Mother Earth) and the central role of these Indigenous art expressions in their ceremonies. In the same vein, children are taught about animals, plants, and their environment through working in pottery and in typical Indigenous loom, while they learn the Indigenous cosmologies and dreams embodied in Indigenous stones sculptures and indigenous handlooms. Recently, the Chirapaq developed and intercultural education proposal, denominated Aportes para una educación de calidad, intercultural, e inclusiva (Contributions for a quality, intercultural, and inclusive education) which is presented as follows: Schooling is a central space for the definition of “what being Indigenous means in Peru”. The formal education system in this country has historically reproduced the contempt against our languages and it has made invisible our knowledges systems and contributions…this is a model of education that has sought to assimilate us to the dominant society... Against this background, we bring forward a model of education that goes ‘from’ Indigenous peoples to all Peruvian society. We propose the articulation and the understanding among knowledges aiming to overcome the exclusion and subordination toward the Indigenous. (Institutional memory of Chirapaq, 2014, p.96) (My translation)  This intercultural education proposal has taken into consideration the experiences and work developed with the Ñoqanchiq program. It is also considered by the Chirapaq (2014) an Indigenous model of education developed by indigenous peoples, where not only their knowledges, languages, and culture are essential elements, but also the stimulation of critical reflection on Indigenous peoples’ historical exclusion, discrimination, and subordination in Peruvian society.     42  2.1.5. Indigenous Community Education in Peru  Wanka Peruvian Indigenous scholar Elizabeth Sumida-Huaman (2014) explains how limited the research is on community-based Indigenous education in Peru and its potential to inform contemporary “formal” Indigenous education’s designs and implementation. She argues that Indigenous peoples in Peru have been educating their children in their own communities before formal schooling was imposed and brought in parallel with this system. However, those systems of education—meaning what parents and community members teach to their children—has remained marginalized by the government and viewed as irrelevant to “formal” schooling for Indigenous children. In the same vein, Sheila Aikman (1999c)—who did an ethnography in the Arakmbut Amazonian Indigenous community to understand how Arakmbut children learn—highlights the sharp contrast between Indigenous community education and government, formal schooling. Both scholars contend that “formal” schooling for Indigenous students in Peru has followed a narrow understanding of education limited to the formality of Western and European paradigms of knowledge and within the four walls of classroom. Sumida-Huaman’s (2014) research with farming families from Hatun Shonko—a Wanka Quechua Indigenous community in the highlands of Peru—illustrates central features of this community education. She explains that the chakra (farm field) is a space of education, wherein teachers are well-regarded community members who communicate environmental, philosophical, and spiritual knowledges. These environmental and spiritual knowledges are principally transmitted through stories, mythologies, songs, feasts, and rituals. An example is the story of the Corn, which she extensively elaborates.65 On the whole, the story teaches children that through shared responsibility to plant and care for Corn Mother, she will continue to care of                                                           65 See also Sumida-Huaman, E., & Valdiviezo, L. A. (2014).    43  them. It also teaches affection for crops in return for their ability to provide for the people, respect the land from which the crops emerge, and thankfulness to all elements of those who help sustain the crops that will sustain the people. Likewise, respect for wild and domestic animals as well as the beauty and medicinal properties of plants are also taught by rituals and songs. For instance, flowers are used by everybody during planting, and their healing properties are explained through songs. At the end of planting “the flowers worn by the farmers are placed gently on the recently planted soil, expressing the hope and prayer that the crops will flourish as beautifully as the flowers themselves” (p. 79). According to Sumida-Huaman (2014), the philosophy behind this is a sense of interdependence that acknowledges the participation of many healthy elements for successful crop. Similarly, Indigenous children’s learning through mythologies was discussed by Aikman’s (1999c) study. She finds that young Arakmbut learn hunting, fishing, gardening, and gathering in the forest through traditional myths. For instance, Aikman describes the myth of Serowe as follows:  A boy’s transformation into a young man in conjunction with his progression through different stages of learning from fishing in the shallows to standing on the high bank with harpoon arrow to fire at a larger fish, and finally to making the fish trap. (p. 117)  Furthermore, Aikman (1999c) and Sumida-Huaman (2014) both discuss the teaching of values in Indigenous community education. While the former explained how elders use traditional Arakmbut mythologies to teach children the values of obedience, patience, respect and trust for their community, the latter describes the songs and stories used to teach the values of reciprocity, humility, respect, faith, sharing, and suffering. As Sumida-Huaman highlights, these interrelated values are critical elements that define Indigenous education practices in Hatun Shonko and they   44  are described by community members in complex ways. For example, the three ways in which suffering is taught in Hatun Shonko are the following: (a) as children work hard in the chakra, they learn to suffer – meaning that to eat requires their own sacrifice of time, labor, and their respect of the work and the natural elements around them; (b) as parents work in the chakra, they want for their children to observe how they suffer, meaning how hard they work to care for the family; (c) on a larger level, parents expect their children to learn that life is not easy, but that suffering is inextricable from comprehending and practicing reciprocity, learning to share even what little one has, always remaining humble. (Sumida-Huaman & Valdiviezo, 2014, p. 81)  Observation and reverence are also important ways to teach and learn in Hatun Shonko Indigenous community education, especially when it is about understanding cosmological principles for farming. Thus, children learn the necessary knowledge about moon cycles, the sun, and start times for planting because to their influence on the success or failure of a crop (Sumida-Huaman & Valdiviezo, 2014). On the other hand, Aikman (1999c) describes that in the Amazonian Indigenous community children learn basically from experience and dreams. By experience, for example, a boy first learns about hunting in the company of his mother and siblings using a sling to shoot a bird. Around 12 years old he begins to accompany his father on trips on the forest, where he watches. As he moves through adolescence he increasingly hunts alone and pursues bigger animals. By dreaming, Arakmbut children learn that the knowledge about ecology of the forest and behaviour of the animals to hunt are in the spirit world; therefore, men and women must slowly build up an ability to contact them. Such a contact is made through dreams. Dreams also teach them about illness and natural specimens to cure them.  Finally, Sumida-Huaman (2014) and Aikman (1999c) both describes the central role of the elders (men and women) in Indigenous children’s traditional education. They are the repositories   45  of much of their community knowledge. The time spent with elders is left to the student’s discretion and interest. To conclude this first section I will rearticulate some central ideas. ‘Formal’ and ‘informal’ traditional education in Indigenous communities existed before the arrival of the colonizers and these continue up to the present. However, Indigenous community education systems have remained totally excluded from schooling models developed by dominant sectors of Peruvian society (e.g. government, NGOs, missionaries)—models of education that have failed to recognize the ways that communities contribute to the development of Indigenous children (Aikman, 1999c; Sumida Huaman, 2014; Sumida-Huaman & Valdiviezo, 2014). Likewise, from colonial times to the beginning of the 20th century, ‘formal’ Indigenous schooling in Peru has been principally a top-down imposition coming from the state, intellectual elites, international co-operation, or missionaries. Overall, although there have been few exceptions (e.g. local programs) and slight variations (e.g. Velasco’s Educational Reform), ‘formal’ schooling has been an educational model that sought Indigenous assimilation to the dominant society through Spanish language and to the detriment of Indigenous culture (Aikman, 1999a, 2012; Trapnell & Zavala, 2013). In other words, it was an assimilationist bilingual education for Indigenous peoples.  The historic role of the government and Indigenous movements in Indigenous education is particularly relevant. The literature reviewed suggests that the Peruvian state’s role has moved between two positions: from assuming an assimilationist approach to ‘formal’ Indigenous education (especially before Velasco’s government) to lacking political will to prioritize Indigenous schooling in its agenda (which is more clear during the time of the local-scale programs). Trapnell and Zavala (2013) support this last statement when they explain that the   46  Peruvian government limited its role, at the beginning of the 90’s, by signing agreements with international co-operations for the development of Indigenous education programs that, later on, would be abandoned. In other cases, the government ignored or hindered the educational initiatives coming from Indigenous peoples. Despite the fact that most of the top-down initiatives in the 20th century excluded or limited local actors’ participation and, in fact, positioned Indigenous peoples only as recipients, a few pivotal local Indigenous movements found spaces to re-create their own models of education, where Indigenous language, cultural, and colonial subordination were at the core.  2.2. Interculturalidad as Education Policy in Peru  Interculturalidad emerged in LA as an alternative form of education for Indigenous people, and it has been a concept with important centrality in education policies debates since the end of the 80’s. Different scholars state that the centrality of this concept is explained, principally, by the presence and demands of a new set of political actors in the LA context, namely indigenous grassroots organizations66 (Aikman, 1997; Aman, 2014; López, 2001a; Tubino, 2004; Walsh, 2009a; Williamsom, 2004). As advocates for the recognition of their cultural and educational rights through intercultural education, some indigenous organizations have triggered discussions of and use of Interculturalidad for the first time in LA.67 As García (2005) contends, “intercultural education occupies a special place in the contemporary history of indigenous mobilization. During authoritarian times (1990-2000), intercultural education was                                                           66 Hornberger (2000) also notes the relevant role and influence of international organizations in the direction and development of intercultural policies in Latin American Andean countries, such as UNESCO and GTZ. 67 As explained in the first chapter, this statement has been contested by some scholars.   47  one of the few causes that activists could advance without necessarily inviting government repression” (p. 12). However, the way different governments’ intercultural education programs have been developed in different LA countries varies greatly. For instance, L.A. Valdiviezo (2006b) explains how, in Bolivia, official policies on intercultural education have been developed by the government in close collaboration with Indigenous movements, teachers, and social organizations. Meanwhile, in Ecuador, they are the result of pressure from the bottom-up by well-organized grassroots Indigenous movements. In contrast, Peruvian intercultural education has remained in the hands of the government and funding agencies, thus taking away ownership and commitment from Indigenous groups (Aikman, 1997; Cueto, Guerrero, León, Seguin, & Muñoz, 2010; Hornberger, 2000; Zavala, 2007). According to García (2005), what the Peruvian experience of intercultural policy lacked in comparison to Ecuador and Bolivia was the involvement of grassroots Indigenous groups.  In this section, I discuss the main characteristics of the development of top-down intercultural education policies in contemporary Peru. Then I illustrate, through the research in the area, the distance between the government discourse on intercultural education and bottom-up demands and expectations on this matter. 2.2.1. The Development of Top-Down Peruvian Intercultural Education Policies: Unstable Management, the Technocratic Turn, and Legislation Increase Interculturalidad emerged in Peru at the educational policy level at the end of the 80s and after 10 years of inactivity in this area.68 In 1987, the Peruvian Ministry of Education (MINEDU)                                                           68The last time a government issued a policy related to Peruvian cultural diversity was in 1972, in the government of Velasco.   48  created the Office of Bilingual Education and the first Bilingual Intercultural Education policy (EBI) in 1989, which became—two years later—Intercultural Bilingual Education policy (EIB), in 1991. 69 Both policies incorporated the term Interculturalidad for the first time, occurring in official Peruvian legislation. Use of the term was in an effort to recognize the cultural and ethnic diversity of Peru (Ombudsman’s Office of Peru, 2011; Zavala & Córdova, 2003; Zúñiga & Gálvez, 2002). However, the 1991 EIB policy went further than its predecessor, and recognized, at least discursively, Interculturalidad as “the guiding principle to the entire Peruvian education system” (Law 27818, 1991, art. 1) (My translation). Therefore, it was not thought of—as was the 1989 EBI policy—as a school model only for Indigenous children (Trapnell & Zavala, 2013; Zúñiga & Gálvez, 2002). Moreover, the 1991 EIB policy was couched in terms of dialogue among cultures and promotion of cultural tolerance, a promising discourse for different policymakers and scholars (Aikman, 2012). During these years, Interculturalidad discourse was also incorporated in other relevant national legislation, which still exists today. For instance, the Peruvian National Constitution (1993) highlighted “the state’s obligation to promote intercultural and bilingual education,                                                           69 Different scholars have focused on investigating the Peruvian government approach to bilingual education (embedded in contemporary intercultural bilingual policies) (see, for example, Zavala & Córdova, 2013). According to Zavala and Córdova (2003), most contemporary bilingual policies in Peru (e.g. EIB 1989, EIB 1991) were grounded in a maintenance model of bilingual education. This model has been addressed only for Indigenous students, and it has sought to protect their languages (and cultures). To achieve this aim, both languages—the dominant and the minoritized language (i.e. Spanish and Indigenous languages, respectively) —are used at school. At the base of this model will be the recognition of a plural society and, therefore, the re-valuation of its different languages and cultures. However, the implementation of these bilingual policies has differed from their discourse. Thus, in practice, bilingual policies have moved between a submersion model and a transitional model of bilingual education. In the first model, Indigenous students are ‘submerged’ in a school that only teach in Spanish, therefore, students must learn to ‘swim’ in the dominant language. This approach aims for students to use only Spanish at school as well to assimilate them to the hegemonic culture. In the second model, Indigenous students are allowed to use their mother tongue during the first years of schooling. Later on, they start a transition to a ‘regular’ program, wherein the teaching and learning process is exclusively in Spanish. Thus, Indigenous languages serve only as a ‘bridge’ to learn Spanish.   49  depending on the characteristics of each region” (article 17), while the General Law of Education (Law 28044, 2003, art. 9) also recognized “the cultural, ethnic, and linguist diversity of Peru as a basis of a national identity” (My translation). According to several scholars, however, the years after the enactment of these policies were characterized by instability in the management of the EIB policy by its lack of priority in the national agenda, and a heavily technocratic orientation (Aikman, 2012; Cueto et al., 2010; García, 2004; Trapnell & Zavala, 2013; Zavala & Córdova, 2003; Zavala, 2007). Thus, at the same time that Interculturalidad was included in education and social policies, the direction in charge of the EIB policy implementation was dissolved due to lack of funding. Five years later, it was reconstituted because of international pressure, but with a lower status; as the Unity of Intercultural Bilingual Education (UNEBI), it was formed with a reduced budget and only had five staff members. During its 10-year existence, UNEBI was dedicated exclusively to the production and translation of teaching manuals in various Indigenous languages70 (García, 2004; Ombudsman’s Office of Peru, 2011).  In 2000, UNEBI was again renamed, this time as the National Division of Intercultural Bilingual Education (DINEBI), and received better funding and more autonomy in education policy decisions (Ombudsman’s Office of Peru, 2011). The efficacy of DINEBI is evidenced in the increased legislation development in its time, such as the 2002 EIB policy71, the National Politics of Language and Cultures in Education72 (NPLCE) (2002), and the National Plan of the Intercultural Bilingual Education                                                           70 It produced 94 bilingual teaching manuals in Aymara, five Quechua variations, and various Amazon language (García, 2004). 71 In reviewing the literature, I found some contradictions in relation to this policy. It is not mentioned or found in some government official databases (e.g. government official legal legislation searcher), policy makers’ presentations (power point DIGEIBIRA, 2015), or even some academic documents (e.g. Aikman, 2012; García, 2004). However, it is mentioned and analyzed by other scholars (e.g. Zavala, 2007; Pescheira, 2010). 72 Also known as Guidelines for Intercultural Bilingual Education policy   50  (2005).73 Nonetheless, DINEBI’s efforts for putting the EIB program on the national agenda through legislation development did not succeed. As the Ombudsman’s Office of Peru (2011) concludes in its research about the level of EIB policy implementation74, it had been deemed inadequate, arbitrary, and was therefore neglected by the Ministry of Education officials, who have showed indifference and lack of political will. As a way of examples, the Ombudsman’s office reported that the NPLCE and the National Plan of EIB have never been monitored or assessed by MINEDU, they were created as legislation placed low on the priority hierarchy75, and they were not known by many officials who worked in the MINEDU. During this time, the DINEBI’s focused its work, yet again, in mere, superficial adaptations of a national curriculum and in the definition of technical criteria for curriculum diversification (García, 2004; Ombudsman’s Office of Peru, 2011). Trapnell & Zavala (2013) explain that the lack of prioritization of intercultural education in the national agenda can be explained as the result of Peru’s integration to a neoliberal model of development during the 90s. According to them, it was a period where privatization and marketization of education were strongly fostered. 76 As a result, a technocratic discourse in                                                           73  None of these policies area running at this time. 74 The Ombudsman’s research analyzed different policies and databases. As well, it interviewed functionaries of the Ministry of Education. 75 It was approved by a Directorate resolution, which means that a National Director issued the policy. The Directorate resolutions have the lowest hierarchy in contrast with vice-ministerial resolutions (issued by a vice-minister), ministerial resolutions (issued by a minister), and supreme resolution resolutions (issued by more than one minister) (Ministry of Education, official website). 76 At the end of the 80’s, Peru experienced the worst economic crisis in its history (e.g. it reached high rates of inflation and unemployment) that created the conditions to generate consensus among political elites to start a structural transformation process of Peruvian government toward a free market economy (the so-called ‘Peruvian structural adjustment’). In this transformation, the attraction of international capital and private investment became the central goals of the state. Thus, the state reduced its participation and intervention in all Peruvian economic sectors (education, health, labor, agriculture, foreign trade, etc.) and provided all the conditions (e.g. limitless guarantee to the protection of investment) for the market to be the main mechanism that rules resources allocation (e.g. the market decides where to invest) (Gonzales de Olarte, 2007) (see, Torres 2005, for further information). For   51  education emerged in Peru, wherein education was considered instrumental, and a technical and “neutral” process. Under this logic (strongly influenced by International cooperation), the measurement of educational output has been prioritized over any other educational initiative or approach in order to develop a “successful, competitive, and flexible labor force” (Trapnell & Zavala, 2013, p. 33) (my translation). Thus, within this technocratic framework, intercultural education was reduced to material production, translations, and development of criteria for curriculum diversifications—activities that could be quantified, supposedly with certainty.77 Since 2011, the development and implementation of intercultural education policies has fallen under the charge of the new Direction of Intercultural Bilingual and Rural education (DIGEIBIR and recently DIGEIBIRA), which has promoted an increase in legislation, through the elaboration of new laws, directives, and regulations that build on or expand prior EIB policies and guidelines (Kvietok, 2015; Ombudsman’s Office of Peru, 2011; Trapnell & Zavala, 2013). As Kvietok suggests (2015), DIGEIBIRA activity has surpassed any other in the last few decades.  For instance, they introduced the first national EIB curriculum proposal (2013), inducted a new Law of Languages (2012), produced an ethno-linguistic map of Peru, and generated a quantifiable provision of and demand for EIB schools. Also significant is the definition (for the first time) of what an Intercultural Bilingual school is (IBE)78 (2012), and the                                                           instance, in the educational sector, there was an uncontrolled growth of private schools and universities without any supervision or intervention of the state. These private schools and universities were characterized by positioning students only as consumers (i.e. marketization of education), by offering extremely low fees and tuitions and, by offering a low-quality of education focused on developing ‘competitive citizens’ able to insert themselves in Peruvian society (Garcia, 2004) 77 For instance, García (2004) explains that the indicators used by the office in charge of intercultural education in the period 1997-2001 to show their achievements were: (i) number of bilingual teaching manuals developed in different Indigenous languages, (ii) number of bilingual teachers trained. 78 The DIGEIBIRA identifies Intercultural Bilingual schools as those which serve students who “have as a mother tongue the Indigenous language spoken in the community, district, province or region”, or who have different degrees of proficiency but for whom “the indigenous languages is the language that predominates among students and the community” (Ministry de Educación, 2013, p. 2).    52  creation of a National Commission of EIB (CONIBE) (2012) with the aim of guaranteeing the participation of Indigenous organizations in the EIB policy-making process (Kvietok, 2015; Ombudsman’s Office of Peru, 2013). It is also worth mentioning the fact that, in the moment I am writing this thesis, a new intercultural education policy has been approved79 (see Appendix 1 for an account of this policy) and the National Plan is awaiting approval by the Peruvian Presidency of the Council of Ministers as of January 2016. The National Plan has been consulted, for the first time, with seven Peruvian Indigenous organizations (Villarán, personal communication, March 31st).80 This policy re-affirms, as previous policies have done, that intercultural education will be fostered for all Peruvians (not only for Indigenous students) and it will be addressed in all levels of schooling (elementary and high school). Additionally, it adds three other issues superficially addressed or ignored in previous intercultural education policies. First, the target population is specifically mentioned: Indigenous students, Afroperuvians, Asian and European descendants’ students. Second, it recognized marginalization and discrimination in Peruvian society and it articulates a discourse of inclusion, anti-racism, and anti-discrimination. Third, it expands, at least discursively, the intercultural education system to urban areas of Peru (Ministry of Education, 2016). According to MINEDU (Ombudsman’s office, 2013), currently there are 1,030,897 students in EIB Peruvian schools who have an Indigenous language as a mother tongue or as a second language (the current student population consists of speakers from 47 different Indigenous languages; 4 of these languages are from the Andes and 43 are from the Amazon).                                                           79 The new EIB policy has been approved on July 9th 2016. 80. According to Sumida-Huaman & Valdiviezo (2014), further research is needed to understand how such processes has involved Indigenous movements democratically – or not – and how these processes impact the Indigenous political voice often disenfranchised from national participation. Chirapaq Indigenous movements has not been part of this consultation (Chirapaq representative, personal communication, January, 5th).   53  This number includes those students that do not speak an Indigenous language (only Spanish), but identified themselves as Indigenous. Likewise, there are 19,962 EIB primary schools, which are mostly located in rural areas, as well as in 22 Peruvian regions. It is important to highlight that these numbers do not necessarily represent the EIB schools that actually have been implemented. They represent the students and schools that, according to the MINEDU, should be part of the Peruvian EIB system. 2.2.2. The Peruvian Government’s Intercultural Education Discourse: Silences and Paradoxes The discourse of the official Peruvian intercultural education policies has been examined with different methodologies and intentions. Researchers in the area tend to employ a combination of interviews, studies, and document (textual and discourse) analysis to examine the official government positions or interpretations of Interculturalidad and closely related concepts81  (Dibos, 2006; Hornberger, 2000; Peschiera, 2010). A few other studies developed ethnographic approaches (Aikman, 2012; L. A. Valdiviezo, 2006b) or interviews studies (L. M. Valdiviezo, 2012; Zavala & Córdova, 2003) to gain a better insight of these discourses as they function with and within the wider impacts of EIB policy implementation. The sources of analysis have also been diverse. While some scholars examine the intercultural discourse of policymakers or discourses embedded in specific text-based education policies—such as EIB policies, the General Law of Education, and the NPLCE policy (Hornberger, 2000; Zavala & Córdova, 2003; L. A. Valdiviezo, 2010)—others analyze national policy documents where Interculturalidad’s or intercultural education’s aims are discussed but are not the central focus— such as the Peruvian National Constitution, the National Agreement, or the CVR report (Dibos, 2006; Peschiera, 2010;                                                           81 Such as diversity, language, culture, and sociocultural relationships.   54  L. A. Valdiviezo, 2006b; L. M. Valdiviezo, 2012) (see Appendix 1 for an account of these national and educational policies).  Even when the methodologies and sources used for the analysis of Peruvian intercultural education policies differ from study to study, there are three central agreements in their results: that the discourse constituting intercultural education policies: (i) denies (through omission of discussion) the sociocultural inequalities and tensions in the nation-state (Aikman, 2012; Dibos, 2006; Peschiera, 2010; L. A. Valdiviezo, 2006b, 2010; L. M. Valdiviezo, 2012); (ii)  does not fully reflect Peruvian diversity (nor contains the paradoxes of  Interculturalidad without diversity) (Hornberger, 2000; L. M. Valdiviezo, 2012), and; (iii), serves as an intercultural practice that is only for Indigenous people (and thus does not engage in the dialogue between indigenous and non-indigenous it supposedly espouses) (Dibos, 2006; Peschiera, 2010; L. A. Valdiviezo, 2006a; L. M. Valdiviezo, 2012; Zavala & Córdova, 2003). Thus, Peruvian Interculturalidad is currently defined in the NPLCE policy (Directorate Resolution 75-2005-ED, 2005, art. 8) as “horizontal dialogue, agreement, and shared activity between people from diverse groups and cultures in our country” (my translation). This policy also explains that “more diversity means more richness, therefore, it is important that the state and the society recognize the positive impact of having a multicultural country.” As for the General Law of Education (Law 28044, 2003, art. 8), it asserts that Interculturalidad: Assumes the richness of cultural, ethnic, and linguistic diversity of Peru, and finds in the acknowledgment and respect for differences as well as in the mutual knowledge and learning attitude of the other, support for a harmonious coexistence, and exchange among the diverse cultures in the world. (My translation)   55  L.A Valdiviezo’s analysis (2006b, 2010) of these policy documents and others—as part of her ethnographic study about the EIB policy implementation— suggests that Interculturalidad is basically conceptualized as a harmonious relationship among cultures or, as a given, a respectful exchange, wherein diversity is seen as a positive asset that should be celebrated. Dibos’ (2005), Pescheira’s (2010), and Hornberger’s (2000) share this interpretation through their respective policy document analyses. While the former points out the prevalence of a “harmonious coexistence” discourse through five national and education policy documents82 and among MINEDU policymakers, Pescheira and Hornberger additionally emphasize the benign and apolitical tone used in specific EIB policy texts (e.g. the 1991 EIB policy, the 2002 EIB policy, and the NPLCE policy). It is precisely this last point that has been an important object of criticism through the research in this area. Several scholars claim that the Peruvian government’s conceptualization of Interculturalidad silently denies substantial issues of inequality and of internal domination often present in encounters among cultures (Aikman, 2012; Peschiera, 2010; L. A. Valdiviezo & Valdiviezo, 2008; L. A. Valdiviezo, 2006a, 2010; L. M. Valdiviezo, 2012; Zavala & Córdova, 2003). As Valdiviezo (2010) states, the government discourse does not address the existing tensions between ethnic groups and more specifically the exclusionary social practices towards historically subordinated groups in Peru, such as Indigenous and Afroperuvian people. Even when a few national policies recognized the importance of non-exclusion and non-discrimination in Peruvian intercultural society (e.g. the National Constitution of 1993, and the National Agreement), they still do not point out (or they completely ignore) the structural                                                           82 Among the literature reviewed, Dibos does the broadest policy analysis of Interculturalidad’s conceptualization by the Peruvian government. She examines text-based policy documents of three foundational commitments (The Constitution, The National Agreement and The Truth and Reconciliation Commission), and written and spoken texts (interviews to policymakers) of three executive agencies of the Peruvian State (The Presidency of the Council of Ministers, the National Office of Intercultural Bilingual Education, and the Ministry of Women and Social Development).    56  conditions underpinning them (Dibos, 2005). While for some scholars this is an incipient way to interpret Interculturalidad (Hornberger, 2000; Zavala & Cordova, 2003), others argue that the emphasis on “harmonious coexistence” is actually a deliberate mechanism that functions to render mute the issues of the marginalization of and discrimination against ethnic minorities, and it responds to the assimilation interests of Peruvian dominant groups (Peschiera, 2010; L. M. Valdiviezo, 2012). The paradox of Interculturalidad without diversity embedded in intercultural education policies has been discussed in several studies. L.M. Valdiviezo’s (2012) analysis of five national and education text-based policies83 (as a part of a broader interview study with Afroperuvian movements) and Hornberger’s (2000) examination of EIB legislation show that at the same time Peruvian diversity and pluralism is mentioned and—in some way—recognized in key Peruvian policy texts, they do not describe the extent of this diversity or it is reduced to the binary of Indigenous people/non-Indigenous people, where Indigenous peoples (and non-Indigenous) are represented as a homogeneous socio-ethnic group, while other groups remain invisible. For example, while the National Constitution (1993, art. 2, as cited by Valdiviezo, 2012, p. 18) affirms that “the state recognizes and protects the ethnic and cultural diversity of the Nation,” it also says later on that “the official languages [in Peru] are Spanish, and, in the regions where they predominate, Quechua, Aymara, and other Indigenous languages” (art. 48). Following L.M Vadiviezo’s (2012) insights on this document, the National Constitution only mentions two families of Indigenous languages (Quechua and Aymara) while different research shows the existence of 15 Other families of Indigenous languages in Peru. Likewise, throughout                                                           83 The 1993 National Peruvian Constitution, the NPLCE policy, General Law of Education, National Curriculum design, National Education Project toward 2021.   57  this document, the difference between Indigenous languages and Spanish is used as the unique criterion to refer to Peruvian cultural diversity. L.M. Valdiviezo (2012) finds similar results in his examination of the General Law of Education and the NPLC policy, wherein according to him there is no identification of those Other Indigenous cultures or languages besides Quechua and Aymara, nor is there any specific mention of cultural groups that comprise Peruvian cultural diversity and therefore remain invisible (e.g. Afroperuvian and Asian descendants). On the other hand, Zavala and Córdova (2003) state that it is paradoxical to talk about Interculturalidad as the recognition of diversity and dialogue among cultures and, at the same time, promote its practice—through intercultural education—only in rural Indigenous areas. In this respect, the analysis of policy texts by Dibos (2005), Pescheira (2010), and Valdiviezo (2006a, 2010) illustrate this paradox. Pescheira finds that the 2002 EIB policy (Law 27818) aims to recognize cultural diversity and foster intercultural education for all Peruvians. Similarly, Dibos (2005, p.44) shows how the DINEBI’s mission states that EIB programs offer “an education that is pertinent both culturally and linguistically to the diverse peoples in Peru….” Contradictorily, they also find, in the same or other policy texts, that intercultural education should be promoted “only in regions where Indigenous people live” (Law 27818, 2002, art. 1) and it is restricted to rural areas where Spanish is not the mother tongue (General Law of Education [Law 28044], 2003). As illustrated in the previous quotations, intercultural education in the government's discourse is contradictory in the sense that it cannot be inter-cultural if its practice is not meaningful for all Peruvian citizens such as Indigenous peoples from urban areas, Spanish-speaking Peruvians of African, Asian descent, and dominant groups (L. A. Valdiviezo & L. M. Valdiviezo, 2008; Zavala & Córdova, 2003).  Additionally, “the law’s rhetoric isolates   58  Indigenous sectors and detaches responsibility from other sectors in Peruvian society” (Sumida-Huaman & Valdiviezo, 2014). So far, the research on the contemporary Peruvian government’s intercultural education discourse highlights important issues: The discourse of the Peruvian government reflects a tension between an adopted rhetoric of pluralism with the persistence of intercultural education policies that seek the elimination of differences, negate power imbalances, and prioritize a notion of biculturalism (Indigenous and national) rather than Inter-culturalidad (Inter-culturality)—a biculturalism that also fails to meet the wide range of needs and demands of Indigenous peoples. 2.2.3. Peruvian Intercultural Education Policy Implementation: The Encounter with Multiple Bottom-Up Perspectives and Demands In the analysis of the literature, I identified two groups of studies on the implementation of Peruvian intercultural education policies. The first group focuses their attention on teachers’ beliefs and the ways they translate official policies into pedagogical practices. A second group examines bottom-up demands on intercultural education (e.g. parents, community leaders, and social movements) or their counter-narratives to dominant views on this schooling approach (e.g. NGO’s or International organizations). After the analysis of both groups of studies, it is possible to recognize the existence of smaller research studies that focus on the implementation of Peruvian intercultural education policies. As several scholars emphasize, there is a need to go further than knowing if the policy is implemented or not and extend the research to include examinations of intercultural education perspectives and practices at the micro-level, as well as conduct examinations from the bottom-up (Cueto et al., 2010; Dibos, 2006; Kvietok, 2015; Trapnell & Zavala, 2013; L. A. Valdiviezo, 2006b; Zavala, 2007).    59  Among these scholars, some highlight the relevance of focusing the research on closing the distance between the policy discourse and the demands of those who must live with its effects (Aikman, 1997; García, 2004; Trapnell & Zavala, 2013). These voices of Interculturalidad in education are important not only because popular participation, support, and ownership are fundamental elements that may determine the sustainability of intercultural policies and programs, but also because “the true test of democracy lies in closing the distance between policy and users’ needs”  (García, 2004, p. 362). In a few words, it lies in people's possibilities to access and to participate in decision-making over issues that affect their lives. In following through with this argument, I focus the literature review of the next section on the bottom-up demands on intercultural education and their counter-narratives to dominant views on this schooling approach.84 Situated in this group of studies85, García (2004) investigates, through ethnography in Quechua communities of Peru, the different intercultural education policy discourses among Indigenous parents, non-Indigenous activists, and EIB teachers. In her analysis, she especially calls attention to the powerful discourse of rejection and resistance of Quechua parents to the promotion of an EIB program by NGO activists in their children’s schools. While the activists foster the teaching of Quechua at school as a strategy to revive and maintain Indigenous language, cultural pride, and ethnic identity; parents claim that EIB teaches their children nothing that is going to be useful in their everyday reality and, in fact, it continues their process of                                                           84 For more information about research on teachers’ belief and pedagogical practices see L.M Valdiviezo 2006b, 2010; Rosales and Cussianovich, 2012; Sumida-Huaman and Valdiviezo, (2014); Zavala and Córdova (2003). 85The frameworks used by the authors are diverse: Decolonial theories (Aman, 2014b; L. M. Valdiviezo, 2012) , identity politics theory (Garcia, 2003; García, 2004), intercultural education conceptualizations (Aikman, 2012; L. M. Valdiviezo, 2012)., and critical pedagogies (L. M. Valdiviezo, 2012).   60  differentiation within Peruvian society. García (2003) illustrates clearly the Quechua parents’ perspective with the following statement made by a participant:  Teach our children Quechua, and they will remain poor. Teach them Spanish, English, or French and they will get ahead (…) if Quechua were privileged the situation might be different, (…) but until that happens, our tactics for the improvement of our children's education are still determined by our reality. (García, 2003, p. 80) In her two analyses of these parents-activists encounters, García (2003, 2005) also shows how parents resist activists’ perspectives not only through discourse but also through practice. For instance, Quechua parents ask of an NGO’s activist, in retribution for their support of the EIB program, to organize literacy sessions to learn Spanish and then teach it to their children.  García’s (2003, 2004, 2005) work contributes two important insights to this literature review. On one hand, a real defense of EIB as a means of alleviating social injustice for Indigenous peoples should incorporate Indigenous parents’ concerns about education instead of dismissing them because they are concerns that come from the position and reality of those who receive or experience this policy. On the other hand, parents’ resistance to EIB policy highlights their potential to position themselves as subjects and constructors, not just as reproducers, objects, or receivers of a top-down discourse.  Aikman’s (2012) ethnography finds a similar rejection of EIB implementation by Kirazwe86 Indigenous parents, who live in the Peruvian rainforest. Nonetheless, her study expands upon García’s analysis and offers a wider view of how “fragmented and contested, diverse and multiples” (p. 239) intercultural education discourses are. Thusly, she examines how two bottom-                                                          86 She uses a pseudonym to make reference to the Indigenous community.   61  up Peruvian Indigenous perspectives on EIB (Kirazwe parents and FENAMAD Indigenous movement87) differ between them and from a dominant global policy discourse on intercultural education (Global Education For All [EFA]). While EFA discourse is reduced to technical discussions of transitional language policy from Indigenous language to dominant majority language, Kirazwe parents and the Indigenous movement have placed high political demands on the EIB. However, these political demands are also competing between each other and are highly complex in themselves. On one hand, the Indigenous movement’s demands fluctuate from self-determination in education to strengthening of Indigenous identity (with a focus on language revival) through intercultural education. On the other hand, Kirazwe parents reject the EIB program because it labels them as “Indigenous”, a term seen as synonymous with backwardness in their local context, where migrations have situated Mestizo values and knowledge as the mainstream. As Aikman argues, Kirazwe parents’ demands reflect a different understanding of intercultural education “as shaped by historically entrenched unequal social relationships between groups marginalized by cultural and linguistic markers” (p. 236). Godenzzi’s (2005) discourse analysis complements García’s (2004) and Aikman’s (2012) findings, and shows a different understanding of Interculturalidad coming from Indigenous perspectives. In his particular examination of Indigenous parents’ narratives, embedded in different Peruvian historical and academic texts88, he finds that Interculturalidad is understood as a middle point where Indigenous people are not excluded from the modern world and, at the same time, they do not have to give up their culture and values. In other words, it is seen as a space                                                           87 This Indigenous movement represents the Kirazwe community at the regional level. Its name is The Federation of Natives of Madre de Dios and its Tributaries. 88 He explains that the narratives and testimonials studied by historians and social scientists are considered, in his study, discourses to be analyzed.    62  wherein different knowledges and subjectivities are interwoven. It is important to mention that Godenzzi’s analysis offers limited information about the documents examined and the context that might explain this discourse interpretation. A few studies, including Aikman’s, have explored the intercultural education discourses of Peruvian social movements organized around ethnic banners. Aman (2014) uses interviews to investigate how Indigenous leaders from the Andean region (Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia)—who are also students in a university run by Indigenous movements’ alliances—define the notion of Interculturalidad. Aman’s study demonstrates that, as with Aikman’s (2012) findings, Interculturalidad is understood as a tool for claiming Indigenous particularity and identity. But, in this case, recognition of Indigenous particularity includes language, knowledge systems, values, and beliefs that “have been silenced within official education policy ever since the conquest” (Aman, 2014, p. 214). Aman’s analysis also demonstrates how “territory emerges as fundamental for Interculturalidad” (p. 215) in Indigenous leaders’ definitions because it is inseparable from knowledge and language and how their discourses are permeated by their awareness of the impact of Spanish colonialism on Andean Indigenous peoples.  Likewise, L.A. Valdiviezo (2012) and L.M. Valdiviezo (2006a) found slightly different intercultural education discourses as they come from the perspective of Afroperuvian movements. While L.A. Valdiviezo (2006a) examines Afroperuvian leaders’89, artists’ and, politicians’ discourse on intercultural education in a national conference called “Afroperuvians towards an intercultural education”; L.M. Valdiviezo (2012) develops an archival and interview research with two Afroperuvian organizations—Center for Research and Promotion of Afroperuvians                                                           89 According to L.M. Valdiviezo (2006a), they were leaders of Afroperuvian movements from Lima and few nearby cities. The conference was organized by the Organization for the Development of the Afro-Chalacos and The Commission of Andean, Amazonic and Afro- Peruvian Affairs (CONAPA).   63  (Lundu) and Center of Ethnic Development (Cedet) —and in one school located in a black community of rural Peru. Both authors find that the development of a collective Afroperuvian identity is at the core of the participants’ discourses and aims; an identity that, according to the participants, has been completely ignored in Peruvian intercultural education policy and practices. However, while L.A. Valdiviezo (2006a) argues that many leaders’ identity discourse ignores the tensions and inequalities between different ethnic groups, L.M Valdiviezo (2012), shows Lundu’s and Cedet’s awareness of the exclusion, marginalization, and structural racism against them and Indigenous peoples in Peruvian society. In fact, Lundu and Cedet propose to include in the national education curriculum all of the racial, ethnic, and cultural Peruvian groups, as well as African history and the critical analysis of Spanish colonialism, which mostly (dis)affected Indigenous and Afroperuvian peoples. 2.3. Conclusion This literature review provides important insights into the characteristics of Peruvian Indigenous peoples’ education from a historical perspective, as well a critical perspective on the design, discourse, and implementation of intercultural education policies in contemporary Peru. Historically, Peruvian Indigenous education was, first and foremost, a top-down bilingual assimilationist model of schooling for Indigenous peoples, promoted by different Peruvian dominant groups (NGOs, missionaries, and intellectual elites) and with an unstable presence of the Peruvian government.  Therefore, Indigenous peoples were excluded from the design of their own education and were positioned as mere recipients or objects of curriculum and discourse. However, a few Indigenous movements and communities found possibilities and spaces within the existing context to re-define this imposed model of schooling in their own terms.     64  Intercultural education policies and EIB programs emerged in Peru, more than two decades ago, as a response to the broader context of LA Indigenous movements’ mobilizations for the recognition of their identity and educational rights and, therefore, as an alternative form of education for Indigenous peoples. Nonetheless, in contrast with other LA countries, the responsibilities inherent in these policies and programs lay principally on (a frequently absent) neoliberal and technocratic Peruvian government. The small-scale, qualitative research studies conducted on contemporary intercultural education policy implementation show the differences between multiple, fragmented, and competing bottom-up perspectives on intercultural education with a “harmonious coexistence” official government discourse. These discourses collectively highlight a distance between policy and their users’ demands; a distance that reflects the absence of bottom-up voices in the origin phase of the Peruvian intercultural education policies. As Aikman posits (2012), there is need to relate Peruvian intercultural education policy to the demands of the minoritized and ethnicized users of this type of schooling.  Within this literature, the studies on Peruvian Indigenous peoples’ perspectives on intercultural education—who not only represent the users of EIB programs, but also have lived with its effects for more than two decades—shows, similarly, their absence and underrepresentation in the government discourse, as well as their resistance to the dominant view on this matter (e.g. against non-Indigenous activists, global discourses). For instance, while some Indigenous movements demand identity recognition and include discussions on Peruvian colonial past to define Interculturalidad (Aman, 2014b), the government still takes a technocratic approach to intercultural education (Trapnell & Zavala, 2013) and its discourse negates the power relationships among different Peruvian groups (Dibos, 2006; Peschiera, 2010). The distance between Indigenous peoples’ demands with the government’s intentions echoes the   65  historical role assigned to Indigenous peoples in relation to their own education: exclusion instead of participation, recipients instead of constructors, passive objects instead of political activists.90  Based on these insights, I argue that this study builds on the existing literature in two ways. The first is by analyzing one of the multiple bottom-up perspectives on intercultural education as a way to keep highlighting the need to include them on the EIB policy making process. The second is by bringing attention to the viewpoints of a sector of Peruvian society still underrepresented and historically excluded from the development of their own education: Indigenous peoples. I focus my analysis on a particular Peruvian Indigenous movement because Indigenous organizations constitute a sector that is characterized by their lack of input into education policies and political participation in Peruvian society. Therefore, through this study, I seek to examine how the Chirapaq Indigenous movement from Peru critically engages with the official and ongoing EIB policy discourse.                                                            90 As it is suggested by some research and theory on Peruvian Indigenous movements’ features.   66  Chapter Three: Theoretical Framework This study draws upon the intellectual and theoretical work of different decolonial thinkers and their approaches to coloniality, difference, and Interculturidad to examine how Chirapaq Indigenous movement critically engage with the official Intercultural Education policy discourse.  I principally draw on Walter Mignolo’s discussions on coloniality and colonial difference. While the former concept starts from the point that LA societies maintain the same power structures of colonial times, and reveal how the logic of coloniality operates; the latter brings knowledge to the center of power relationships.  The study also borrows from decolonial conceptualizations of Interculturalidad, which come from Andean Indigenous movements and their alliances with the non-Indigenous scholars Catherine Walsh and Robert Aman. Interculturalidad, then, is understood as Othered thinking, pointing to the transformation of social structures, the building of symmetric relationships, and the decoloniality of different spheres of Indigenous peoples’ lives. Finally, the decolonial framework is informed by Indigenous scholars’ writings on the Interconnectedness of Indigenous knowledge (IK); particularly, by the insights of Marie Battiste. Interconnectedness highlights the relevance of understanding the different aspects of IK from a holistic perspective and challenges any attempt to compartmentalize it. Overall, my theoretical framework combine different notions that allow me to think and understand Chirapaq Indigenous movement’s and the Intercultural Education policy’s discourses from difference and the colonial legacy. This section is organized in three parts. In the first part, I start by giving an overview of decolonial theory, then, I discuss the main assumptions of coloniality and colonial difference. In the second section, I situate the work of Catherine Walsh and Robert Aman with Andean Indigenous movements and, later on, I develop their insights on Interculturalidad. In the third   67  section, I explain key ideas of Indigenous knowledge and its principle of interconnectedness. I conclude the chapter by revisiting central assumptions and commitments of the concepts discussed through this chapter. Then, I elaborate on the intersection among them used as constitutes this theoretical framework and, finally, I explain how I plan to use the theoretical framework for my research study. 3.1. Decolonial Theory91  This study draws on concepts that are thought of, developed, and discussed under an emerging decolonial paradigm—also known as the modernity/coloniality collective—which comes from the work of Latin American scholars.92 (De)coloniality is the term preferred by this collective of scholars since, among other things, it emphasizes that colonialism has not finished yet. In their view, different colonies around the world were decolonized only in the political and legal dimension (or what they call a first decolonization); while racial, epistemic, economic, and spiritual colonial structures have been maintained until present times (or what they denominate the second decolonization or coloniality) (Castro-Gómez & Ramón Grosfoguel, 2007).  For instance, Quijano (2000) argues that, after the independence of many Latin American countries,                                                           91 Mignolo (2011) makes an important distinction between decoloniality used by decolonial scholars in LA (in sensu stricto) and decoloniality used beyond the academy (in sensu largo). For him, the term is used in sensu largo to project and enact (as in the case of Bolivia) the decolonizing of the state, the economy, and education. In his words, "the sense and the force of decoloniality come from its being used to articulate new politics of knowledge rather than new contents" (p. 58). He continues, explaining that “decoloniality is used among Indigenous intellectuals around the world, African as well Latinos/as, intellectuals and activists, and in the United States. Indigenous leaders and intellectuals do not need White Latin Americans to tell them what coloniality is and what decoloniality means” (p. 58). On the other hand, the term sensu strictu is used in scholarly works and it is connected with scholarly activism—a legitimate activity that is generating fruitful collaborations between critical thought in the academy and political society. 92 Some of these scholars are the Argentinean semiotician Mignolo, the Argentinean philosopher Dussel, the Colombian anthropologist Escobar, and the Peruvian sociologist Quijano. Other prominent members of the collective called Modernity/Coloniality, who have had an impact on the construction of a decolonial theoretical framework, used in this thesis, include Santiago Castro-Gómez, Edgardo Lander, María Lugones, Nelson Maldonado-Torres, Eduardo Restrepo, Freya Schiwy, and Catherine Walsh.    68  colonialism was re-articulated by the new White/Whitened/Mestizo elite in new institutions and practices, but the racialized colonial structures, where Indigenous and Afrodescendent peoples are positioned in the lower rungs of power, have prevailed. In this light, Mignolo (2003) also adds that “there has been a change in the logic of colonialism, but it does not represent something new. It may be different in relation to colonialism of 18th or 20th centuries, but by no means does it represent a new historical phase that radically breaks with the past” (p.45) (My translation). In a few words, colonization mutated into coloniality; therefore, decoloniality as an analytical tool is needed in order to unveil it (Mignolo, 2011).  A central feature of decolonial theory is its genealogy, which differentiates decolonial theory from postcolonial studies. Mignolo (2007b, 2011) argues that a distinction is important because the two terms (decolonial and postcolonial) have different points of origin. The decolonial theory originated from the experience of decolonization in the Third World, and in the works of Indigenous, Afro and Afro-Caribbean intellectuals and activists. The point of origin of the postcolonial perspective is the experience of decolonization of British India, and owes much to Edward Said’s, Gayatri Spivak’s, and Hommi Bahaha’s influential works, which are also influenced by post-structuralism (Mignolo, 2007b, 2011). More specifically, the modernity/coloniality collective starts from other sources: the decolonial shift already implicit in Nueva Cronica and Buen Gobierno by Waman Puma93 (16th century); from the Tupac Amaru uprising (1781)94; in the fracture of Marxism in its encounter with colonial legacies in the Andes, articulated by the Jose Carlos Mariategui95 (1920s); and in the radical political and                                                           93 He was a Quechua Indigenous chronicler who confronted Spanish conquests during colonial times. For a further analysis of Waman Puma decolonial viewpoint see, for example, Mignolo (2011). 94 Tupac Amaru was an Indigenous leader of a revolution against the Spanish colonizer. For a further explanation of Tupac Amaru uprising see, for example, Mignolo (2011). 95 He was a Peruvian-Mestizo thinker, and was critically aware of the consequences of Spanish imperial formation of colonies in Indias Occidentales and of the dangers of the emerging imperial history of the   69  epistemological shifts enacted by Amilcar Cabral, Frantz Fanon, Rigoberta Menchu, among others. Following Mignolo’s (2011) insights, although decolonial and postcolonial theories were built on a common legacy—the colonial experience—and they may walk in the same direction, they are following different paths.96  3.1.1. Coloniality, or the Other Side of Modernity Under a decolonial framework, a wider definition of coloniality first requires an understanding of modernity. According to Mignolo (2007a), modernity is an invention that created the idea of tradition through the construction of binary opposites, and alludes to Enlightenment, rationality, and science. Put differently, the dividing line between those who are modern and those who are not is marked by the very discourse that defines modernity. For instance, Mignolo (2007a) explains, the Indigenous peoples provided the mirror with which Europeans, as an identity and as a culture, could recognize themselves as modern. Thus, modernity may be understood as the location in time of the ideals to be attained, and to situating modernity as existing in the geopolitical space of Western Europe97 (Mignolo, 2007b). Escobar (2010, p. 9) also reflects about modernity as follows:  With the modern ontology, certain constructs and practices, such as the primacy of humans over non-humans and of some humans over others (the colonial divide between us and them); the idea of the autonomous individual separated from community; the belief in objective knowledge, reason, and science as the only valid modes of knowing; and the cultural construction of “the economy” as an                                                           US, as well as its resultant politics toward Latin America. Mareátegui made coloniality (although he did not use the word) the center of his critique (Mignolo, 2011). 96 It is common to find within Mignolo’s writings this phrase used to distinguish decolonial theory form postcolonial studies: “The decolonial shift is a project of de-linking while post-colonial criticism and theory is a project of scholarly transformation within the academy”. See, for example, Mignolo (2011, p. 37). Also see Mignolo (2003, 2007). 97 And in some North American countries, later on, as well.   70  independent realm of social practice— all of these ontological assumptions became prominent. The worlds and knowledges constructed on the basis of these ontological commitments became a universe.   As illustrated in this quotation, modernity operates in this way: it positions the colonized as pre-modern and conceptualizes them as barbaric, primate, unfinished, and incomplete, while European civilization (or European descendent civilization) is positioned as superior, as a universal global process, and as a point of arrival (Dussel, 1993; Mignolo, 2007a, 2007b). Therefore, the rhetoric of modernity hides a “darker side” (Mignolo, 2007b, p. 451). He argues that this rhetoric disguises “a destructive logic hidden underneath keywords such as ‘salvation’, ‘development’, and ‘progress’, or, to put it differently, coloniality” (p. 470). Coloniality is, then, the other side of modernity; the side that negates, excludes, occludes, or turns difference into subordination, emphasizing the perceived “shortcomings” of the Other in order to justify coloniality as necessary (Mignolo, 2007b). In Mignolo’s (2007b) words, “there is no modernity without coloniality” (p. 466).  It is in this dialectical relation between modernity and coloniality where decoloniality makes its entrance—as a dimension that is also constitutive of modernity. In that respect, Mignolo (2007a, 2011) explains that modernity’s oppressive logic produces an energy of discontent within those who react against its violence. Further, he argues that modernity creates an energy that does not allow the operation of the logic of coloniality nor believes the fairy tales of the rhetoric of Modernity” (Mignolo, 2007a, p. 27) (My translation).98  Likewise, Escobar (2007) explains that the analytical category of modernity/coloniality, which is positioned as a nexus to accentuate their inseparability or dialectical relationship, is                                                           98 Perhaps the best way to represent the relation modernity/coloniality/decoloniality is using Mignolo’s (2011) metaphor, in which “modernity is a three-headed hydra, even though it only reveals one head, the rhetoric of salvation and progress” (p. 26).   71  grounded in the following premises: (i) an emphasis on locating the origins of modernity in the expansion of geographical consciousness in Europe as part of the conquest of America and the control of the transatlantic trade; (ii) a persistent attention to colonialism in the making of a capitalist world system dominated by modern Europe; (iii) the domination of others through racial taxonomies, with the simultaneous devaluation of their knowledge systems and cultures, highlighting the tenacious denial of dependency on any external sources, and; (iv) the acknowledgement of Eurocentrism as the form of knowledge underlying Modernity/Coloniality, through which Europe has been able to claim universality for itself.  Under this logic, what coloniality/modernity offers is the possibility to read the alleged universality as rooted in a particular history—a universality that has multiple layers of cultural assumptions, ideological choices, and philosophical and religious persuasions that all connect back to Europe (Aman, 2014b).  Therefore, the contribution of using a modernity/coloniality as an analytical tool may be, as Mignolo states (2007b, p. 476), “to avoid the ‘modern expectation’ that there is a word that carries the true meaning of the thing instead of the form of consciousness and the universe of meaning in which the word means”. Thus, the modernity/coloniality tool gives me the opportunity to think from difference towards the constitution of alternative local and regional worlds. It is helpful to open up the reconstruction and the restitution of silenced histories, repressed subjectivities, subalternized knowledges, economies, and languages depicted under the names of modernity, as in the case of Indigenous peoples in Latin America (Mignolo 2007b).     72  3.1.2. Colonial Difference Colonial difference is the term I use to describe the hierarchy that forms and sustains inter-subjective relationship through European/European-descendent epistemology.99 According to Mignolo (2011), the discourse of modernity created the logic of colonial difference, giving the illusion that knowledge (Western knowledge and, later on, North Atlantic knowledge) is absent of or separate from location, and therefore its universality imposes the assumption that it must needs be reached by all countries/regions/colonies in the world. Mignolo uses the notion of colonial difference to reveal the existing power relationship among the different knowledges and subjectivities in the world—a power relationship that is justified by the discourse of coloniality of power or “the idea of race”.100 To Mignolo, colonial difference is the mechanism used—from the 16th century to the present—for the subalternization of non-Western knowledges and cultures by the Western colonizer101, or, within the contemporary Latin American context, by the White/Whitened/Mestizo elites. It has consisted, on the classification of peoples (and their knowledges, subjectivities, cultures), of hegemonic thought, and highlights their differences and alleged inferiorities with respect to who makes the classification(s).  Mignolo (2003) argues that framing difference only in cultural terms—which is predominant in multicultural concepts and discourses—is a mistake. Instead, to frame certain inter-subjective relations in terms of colonial difference is to acknowledge that t social                                                           99 A term discussed by Mignolo under a decolonial framework. However, Aman (2014b) states that colonial difference was first coined by Partha Chartterjee in The Nation and Its fragments (1993). 100 Coloniality of power is a concept discussed by Anibal Quijano (2000). To him, the central criterion used by the Spanish colonizer to exert power over the colonized peoples has been the “idea of race”. The “idea of race” means the classification and hierarchisation of human beings based in their race, where Indigenous and Afrodescendents peoples are in the lower ranks of power. Around the category of race, other subjectivities, identities, and knowledges were linked and, therefore, hierarchized following the same structure. 101 In his book The Idea of Latin American he talks about the hegemony of Euro-American knowledge.   73  classifications (such as race, ethnicity, culture and subjectivities) —are not horizontal but vertical. For instance, in relation to Latin America he says: The “differences” between Latin America and Europe and the US are not just “cultural”; they are, well and truly, “colonial differences.” That is, the links between industrial, developed, and imperial countries, on the one hand, and could-be-industrial, under-developed, and emerging countries, on the other, are the colonial difference in the sphere where knowledge and subjectivity, gender and sexuality, labour exploitation of natural resources, finance, and authority are established. The notion of cultural differences overlooks the relation of power while the concept of colonial difference is based, precisely, on imperial/colonial power differentials. (Mignolo, 2005, p. 36) Thus, the conceptualization of colonial difference recognizes the power dynamics at work in how dominant regions and Western-descendent elites have represented their Others. Notwithstanding such taxonomies, reading affirmations of difference in intercultural discourses as colonial rather than cultural is a way to break from the logic of the same in which the non-Euro/American is depicted as existing on the same historical trajectory but further behind; their knowledge systems subject to the same standards but less developed (Aman, 2014b). Another example of colonial difference used by Mignolo (2003) makes reference to the history of colonization of the Andean civilizations.102 He explains that when missionaries noted that Indigenous peoples did not have written language, they concluded that they did not have knowledges. Following his reflections, this interpretation was made under a colonial difference logic, in which knowledge was thought under the alleged universal (Western) perspective of the 16th century: the Renaissance University, which was irretrievably                                                           102 Or the Incan Empire, which was the largest empire in Peru and occupied most of present-day Peruvian territory.   74  linked to alphabetic writing in the Greco-Latin tradition. Therefore, he continues, the knowledges that have been produced out of the Western epistemology are not strictly knowledges (In Latin America it is especially the case for Indigenous and Afrodescendents knowledges).  It is, in fact, what colonial difference calls into question: the process through which the world became unthinkable beyond Western epistemology. The way the colonial difference marked the limits of knowledge production, unless modern epistemology was exported/imported to those places where thinking was impossible (Mignolo, 2011). 3.2. Conceptualizations of Interculturalidad  As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, this study also draws on Walsh’s (2004, 2007, 2009a, 2009b) and Aman’s (2014a, 2014b) decolonial discussions on Interculturalidad. The relevance of their work lies in the fact that they both think, write, and theorize not only from a decolonial viewpoint, but especially in alliances with Andean Indigenous movements. While Walsh’s theorization of Interculturalidad is the result of her scholarly and activist work with Indigenous movements from Bolivia and Ecuador103, Aman’s insights comes from an empirical work with Indigenous leaders from Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador.104 Therefore, both discussions on Interculturalidad may offer new possibilities to think about Intercultural education policies from                                                           103 Catherine Walsh (2010) explains that she is a scholar and activist, who has worked with Ecuadorian and Bolivian Indigenous and African-descendants organizations not as an expert, but as ally, and in topics such as Interculturalidad and decoloniality. As Walsh goes on to explain, Indigenous movements’ Interculturalidad has guided her work on Interculturalidad, it is grounded in praxis, and it may be considered a construction from below” (p. 89) (My translation).   104 Aman’s (2014a, 2014b) insights comes from his research with Andean Indigenous leaders, who were taking a course on Indigenous Educational models provided by an Indigenous organization spread over the Andean region. In his research, he aims to open a space for discussing the notion of Interculturalidad, its status, and significance. It is important to mention that, for Aman, he does not intend through his study to offer a comprehensive account of approaches to Interculturalidad among Indigenous alliances in the Andes: “what must be kept in mind when assessing my results is that these findings are based on a small sample of leaders, and also that this educational initiative [the course] is only one among many in the region” (p. 64).    75  a place of Indigenous enunciation, to take in consideration Indigenous peoples’ struggles and demands for decolonization while discussing Intercultural education policies, and to acknowledge the intellectual work of Andean Indigenous movements and leaders on this matter. 3.2.1. Walsh’s Discussions on Interculturalidad:105 A Path to Decoloniality One fundamental feature of Walsh’s discussions on Interculturalidad is that she links it with decoloniality, and vice versa, as a way to highlight Ecuadorian and Bolivian Indigenous movements’ articulation of the notion. For instance, she illustrates this articulation through her conversation with Luis Macas, an Ecuadorian Indigenous leader.106 Of importance to her is Macas’ declaration that: We have to decolonize. The problem we have in the Andean countries is the existence of the colonial tare; it is a structural problem. Once we start talking about decoloniality, we can talk about Interculturalidad. In the process of Interculturalidad, Indigenous values, principles, and knowledges need to be not only respected but also considered a contribution to the society as a whole—as substantial elements for an alternative approach. (Macas, 2004; as cited in Walsh, 2009a, p. 53) (My translation)  Thus, Walsh (2009b) argues that Interculturalidad will only have significance, validity, and impact if it starts from the critique of the historical societal structures that have made a horizontal interaction impossible among different sociocultural groups. She also explains that the aims of Interculturalidad and decoloniality converge at multiple points.  While Interculturalidad proposes Other, alternative understandings of cultural diversity, foregrounding the problem of a Eurocentric stratification, decoloniality is the political and conceptual tool for making visible the                                                           105 In most of Walsh’s papers, she uses Decolonial Critical Interculturality to make reference to her approach to Interculturalidad. In Spanish, it stands for Interculturalidad Crítica Decolonial. 106 Ex-president of the Ecuadorian Indigenous movement CONAIE.   76  colonial structures embedded in this stratification for establishing a course of action, and for giving way to those Other forms of understanding. In sum, decoloniality might be a requirement to reach Interculturalidad and Interculturalidad might be a path to decoloniality (Walsh, 2012b).  In this sense, Interculturalidad is not focused on “the problem of diversity” or the dialogue among cultures (as diverse Intercultural policies in LA) per se. Instead, it is committed to unveil and transform the causes of the non-dialogue or—as Walsh (2005, 2008) posits—the colonial structures that have hierarchized the differences among different groups in LA, a racialized and naturalized hierarchy, where “Western descendants, White, and ‘Whitened’ people are at the top, Mestizos are in the middle, and Indigenous and Afrodescendents people are on the lower rungs of power" (Walsh, 2010, p. 78). According to her, these colonial structures—based on the idea of race and racialization as elements of social structuring107—have evolved in a permanent and conflictive social-racial system of classification in contemporary Latin American societies.  In this system, White-Mestizo supremacy has been consolidated in all dimensions of peoples’ life, therefore, Other logics, knowledges, and ways of life have been subordinated.  Another central feature of Walsh’s insights on Interculturalidad is that, as mentioned above, they neither come from the state, the academy, nor studies about social movements. Rather, they come from Andean Indigenous movements’ political discussions and demands for decoloniality; through their alliances with other social movements that also have experienced subalternization (e.g. Ecuadorian Afrodescendents movements); and their dialogues with people –who are aware of coloniality– have joined in solidarity. Using her words, Interculturalidad is a notion that “construct[s] Other response[s] to the sociopolitical and epistemic past and present of Latin American reality from a place of Indigenous enunciation”                                                           107 Or what Quijano denominates Coloniality of Power.   77  (Walsh, 2007, p. 50) (My translation). It is a political project committed to bring to the fore rationalities, logics, and ways of life historically delegitimized and colonized in LA societies. A commitment also expressed by Virgilio Hernández (1999, as cited in Walsh, 2009b, p. 59), another activist of Ecuadorian Indigenous movements, who—in an interview with Walsh—says: Interculturality is just the possibility of Other life, of a different project. [Interculturality] is an alternative project that challenges the irrational logic of capitalism, wherein we are currently living. It is bringing at the core of the conversation Other modes of knowledges and thinking, those historically colonized. (My translation)  Here, it is important to highlight two issues. On one hand, this Interculturalidad should not be understood as a return to some kind of authentic identity. In fact, it implies passage through the European categories that have denied the Others by revealing that those categories that pass for universal are in themselves particularities. On the other hand, it should not be considered as an Indigenous project or as a project of “the difference”; on the contrary, since colonial difference is not only an ethnic problem, it must concern and include all citizens and sectors of society (Walsh, 2009b). Finally, in Walsh’s view, the “Inter” in Inter(culturalidad) means to interchange, negotiate, articulate, associate, and engage with other different logics, rationalities, and beings, wherein knowledge can be always re-evaluated and, more importantly, coloniality must be discussed. However, in symmetric interactions the aim is not to construct “new mixed identities” or to blur differences; conversely, one’s own difference will allow for the re-creation of new understandings, identities, and ways of co-existences (convivencia) without losing particularity or distinctiveness (Walsh, 2004, 2005). In Walsh’s (2009b) words, “the relation   78  among different cultures must be a dialogic interaction between belonging and difference in a constant challenge of the hegemony of the dominant culture” (p. 46) (My translation).  In summation, Walsh’s work with Andean Indigenous movements offers a different version of the definition of Interculturalidad, which is grounded in the struggles of Indigenous movements. It is clearly indicative of Other thinking, pointing to the transformation of social structures, the building of symmetric relationships, and decoloniality of different spheres of historically-excluded peoples’ lives. 3.2.2. Aman’s Discussions on Interculturalidad: Interconnections with Territory, Language, and Identity Aman’s (2014a, 2014b) discussions on Interculturalidad enter in dialogue with Walsh’s insights when he explains how Interculturalidad, as coded among Andean Indigenous alliances (Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia), has less to do with cultural and ethnic diversity, and it is intrinsically related to coloniality. As one Bolivian Indigenous leader says, in conversation with Aman (2014a):  It’s important to understand that the indigenous processes are processes of continuity from the conquista to now… there has never been a moment when there was a good relationship between the Indigenous population and the colonial state and later on the republican one. In this sense, I think that interculturality in itself as a concept is already marked by the colonial relation. For me, there are strong veins linked to the very structure of the nation-state and the colonial structure that is maintained by the state. There you have terribly racist arrangements (p. 214)  Following Aman’s (2014a) reflections, the Indigenous leader shows an awareness of coloniality and how it is linked to the aftermath of the colonization of the continent five centuries ago. In other words, there is an awareness of the effects that the independence from Spain has   79  had on Andean Indigenous peoples’ lives—of how the structures imposed during colonization has been preserved by the White/Mestizo elites. Additionally, the Andean Indigenous leaders’ definition of Interculturalidad brings to the fore their struggles for the recovery of Indigenous territory and their different relationship with it. As Aman (2014a) discusses, the Indigenous leaders find in Interculturalidad a strategic space, where to highlight the interconnection of territory with Indigenous identity and with life itself. Using Aman’s words, “With one element being interrelated with another, life becomes inseparable from territory, cosmology and language” (p. 215). These reflections may be illustrated with the following quotations, which come from Indigenous leaders of Bolivia and Peru, respectively, when they are asked about Interculturalidad: What we’ve always been fighting for is the issue of political decisions about the territory. The basis of life is in the territory and it defines everything. Of course, it also has its proper manner of expression; in this case it also signifies a way of life and the conservation of life itself…” (Aman, 2014a, p. 215) It is my territory that gives me my identity… she is our mother who provides us with our food. We also respect our water without contaminating it because the water is life, it has life … We also respect our Apus that surround us and protect us always. (Aman, 2014a, p. 221) Likewise, the role of language on Indigenous identity also arises from the interviewees’ Intercultural discourse.  While one Indigenous leader explains how Indigenous languages are essential for their identity because it is capable of communicating their true views and values, the other interviewee stresses their concern for losing Indigenous identity in learning Spanish. As Aman (2014b) explains, speaking only in Spanish, a European language, reinforces the historical power structures that obligated Indigenous peoples to communicate in the language of the   80  colonizer. In other words, the very act of speaking is a continuous reminder of the colonial legacy. Overall, Aman explains that the historical struggles of Andean Indigenous peoples may find a space to articulate them in the discourse of Interculturalidad; an Intercultural discourse wherein territory is essential and inseparable from knowledge, cosmology, and language. Overall, Aman’s work with Andean Indigenous leaders reveals two insights. First, there is an interconnected relationship between Coloniality and Interculturalidad within the Indigenous leaders’ discourses, as Walsh has argued on a more theoretical level. Second, Indigenous peoples find a space to articulate their struggles within the discourse of Interculturalidad—a discourse wherein the recovery of territory is essential and is inseparable from knowledge, cosmology and language. 3.3. Indigenous Knowledge and the Principle of Interrelatedness Battiste (2000) starts chapter two of her book Protecting Indigenous Knowledge and Heritage explaining what Indigenous knowledge (IK) is not. After pointing out the impossibility of giving a comprehensive or even short answer to that question, she elaborates on three central ideas. First, Indigenous knowledge does not fit within Eurocentric conceptualizations (i.e. they do not fit into the Eurocentric system of classification or quest for universal definitions). From Indigenous worldviews, every way of life is a manifestation of human knowledge, heritage, and consciousness, and is a mode of ecological order. Second, Indigenous knowledge is not a uniform concept across all Indigenous peoples; rather, “it is spread throughout different peoples in many layers” (p 35). In fact, its diversity may be considered its unifying characteristic. Third, it cannot be separated from the person who has the knowledge to be codified into definition. It is part of the individual, the community, the clan.   81  Battiste (2000) suggests then that the best starting point to understand Indigenous knowledges is to be focused on the process of understanding rather than the process of classification. In other words, it is important to be open to an alternative thought—to accept that “this is an intellectual adventure not comfortable travel” (p. 39). Influenced by Battiste’s insights, my decolonial framework is informed by Indigenous knowledges—particularly with the idea of interrelatedness—in the awareness of my limitations to fully understand it from my worldview and in such a short time, 108 as well as in the awareness of the impossibility of ignoring those aspects of IK articulated within the Chirapaq Indigenous movement’s discourse on intercultural education. As I elaborated at the beginning of this thesis, I write from my own critical paradigm with the commitment to either appropriate or ignore IK systems. Battiste (2000) explains that IK is an adaptable, changeable, and dynamic system based on skills and problem-solving techniques that change over time. It derives from local peoples’ daily experience (shared with others), perceptions, thoughts, memory, intuitions, and from a spiritual world discovered in visions and dreams (Battiste, 2000, 2008; Brant Castellano, 2000). Different Indigenous scholars explain that a central aspect or dimension in IK is its interrelatedness and connectedness (Brant Castellano, 2000; Baskin, 2006; Battiste, 2000; Fitznor, 1998). As Battiste (2000, p. 41) states, “strands of connectedness do exist, however, among Indigenous thought. Cajete sees these strands stretching all the way from the polar regions of North America to the tip of the South America”. Thus, in an Indigenous worldview, all things are related to each other. Society operates in a state of relatedness, wherein peoples, objects, and environment are all connected (Baskin, 2006; Battiste, 2000; Fitznor, 1998). In other words, knowledge is an expression of the relationship between and within the people, their                                                           108 A limitation that principally arose when I realized my expectations of finding the kind of definitions that Battiste explains are not possible to articulate when it comes to IK.     82  ecosystems, and other living beings that share Indigenous lands. This interrelatedness applies also to each individual; in fact, Indigenous identity comes from these interrelationships (Baskin, 2006). Therefore, all the aspects of a person—physical, psychological, emotional, and spiritual—cannot be viewed in isolation. IK then cannot be fragmented neither separated—as it is usually done under an Eurocentric approach— because its unity is the basis for maintaining social, economic, and diplomatic relationships with others as well as disturbing it creates disharmony or imbalance (Battiste, 2000, 2007).  Likewise, Indigenous languages and land are also essential dimensions in IK unity. While Indigenous languages are vital for keeping Indigenous peoples’ relationship with their environment because it communicates the sacred knowledge about it; Indigenous land plays a central role in creating the everyday interrelatedness that forms the basis of Indigenous values and beliefs (Battiste, 2000; Lawrence, 2010).  In other words, it is the one element that sustains the web of relationships embedded in the world. It is important to mention that land also carries IK—the stories, the songs, and the ceremonies, which teach how to be a human. Therefore, as Battiste (2000) contends, any attempt to change Indigenous language or lands is an attempt to modify or destroy IK. 3.4. Conclusion The theoretical framework of this thesis rests on the notions of coloniality, colonial difference, and Interculturalidad; which are also combined with and informed by the principle of interrelatedness of IK. Therefore, all these lenses together form a hybrid theoretical framework for this study. Coloniality, colonial difference, and Interculturalidad start a critical conversation about society and inter-cultural relationships by unveiling and challenging the taken-for-granted colonial hierarchies that have subordinated all dimensions of ethnic minorities’ lives. Therefore,   83  these lenses support decolonization and engage with the experiences and perspectives of the dominated, colonized, marginalized, and subordinated peoples, as in the case of Indigenous peoples from Peru. The notion of interrelatedness, on the other hand, explains the holistic nature of Indigenous knowledges and questions any attempt of fragmenting or compartmentalizing it. Thus, it allows us to acknowledge an essential dimension according to which Indigenous peoples live, learn, and situate themselves as Indigenous peoples. In sum, these notions combined offer a useful lens to bring Other Indigenous bottom-up demands, worldviews, and perspectives to the fore, taking into account the Latin American colonial experience and the struggles of Indigenous movements for decoloniality. They allow the affirmation that Other, different constructions of Interculturalidad are necessary and indeed possible. With this in mind, I use a hybrid theoretical framework in this study, taking up the Chirapaq Indigenous movement as both distinct in their indigeneity and impacted by Spanish colonialization. Therefore, their discourses on Interculturalidad are considered to be related to their own culture, perspectives, and decolonial struggles, and in a conversation with a Peruvian government—which has been historically characterized by reproducing coloniality through using dominant narratives on, for example, Interculturalidad and intercultural education.     84  Chapter Four: Methodological Framework Through this study, I seek to investigate the discursive encounter between the Chirapaq Indigenous movement and the Peruvian IE official policy about the notion of Interculturalidad. Using a decolonial theoretical framework informed by some aspects of Indigenous Knowledge (IK), and a combination of critical discourse analysis models as the methodology, I analyze the Chirapaq’s publicly-accessible texts and the ongoing Peruvian IE policy document to make meaning of their positions on and perceptions of intercultural education. The aims of this study are to illuminate how the Chirapaq Indigenous movement critically engages with the dominant government discourse, and to propose intercultural education policy recommendations that incorporate an Indigenous, bottom-up perspective. The three key questions that this study will answer are as follows: In what ways do the Chirapaq’s written and spoken texts on intercultural education construct the notion of Interculturalidad?  In what ways does Peruvian 2016 IE policy document construct the notion of Interculturalidad? How could the Chirapaq movement’s discursive construction of Interculturalidad challenge or resist, the current Peruvian IE policy discourse?  This chapter organizes my methodological framework in four sections. In the first section, I explain my critical paradigmatic stance as a researcher. Later on, I discuss the theoretical assumptions of the critical discourse analytical approaches used in this study as my methodology. Particularly, I elaborate Fairclough’s (2001) central premises on discourse analysis, its relevance to meeting the aims of this study, and a justification for combining (or complementing) this approach with Foucault’s109 analytical tools.  In section three, I articulate                                                           109  Foucault did not develop specific discursive analytical tools; however, some scholars engaged with Foucauldian discourse analysis have purposed some specific steps, levels of analysis, or guiding   85  the dialogue between critical discourse analysis and my theoretical framework—discussed in chapter three—with the goal to form a coherent theoretical and methodological framework. Finally, I discuss the methods used in the analysis of the empirical texts of the Chirapaq Indigenous movement and Peruvian IE policy. I end the chapter with central conclusions on this methodological framework. 4.1. Researcher’s Paradigmatic Stance A paradigm represents “a worldview that defines, for the researcher, the nature of the world, the individual’s place in it, and the range of possible relationships to that world and its parts, as, for example, cosmologies and theologies do” (Guba & Lincon, 1991, p. 3). Guba and Lincon (1991) explain that a paradigm may be viewed as a set of basic beliefs that deals with ultimates, or first principles. These authors add that it is useful and informative for a researcher to situate herself within the research and clearly indicate her paradigmatic stance because her worldview has relevance in the way that the researcher navigates the research process and understands the data collected. As indicated earlier, I am a critical researcher, and this study is primarily rooted in a critical paradigm (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Therefore, I approach this study with the ontological view that there are multiple constructed realities, which are subjective, maneuverable, and sometimes made to serve the political, economic, and social interests of some people and not others.  In these realities, certain individuals occupy a position of greater power and prestige, while individuals with Other, different characteristics may be associated with a higher likelihood of exclusion, subordination, marginalization, and discrimination. In fact,                                                           questions, taking in consideration Foucault’s main theoretical assumptions. See, for example, Caravine, (2002) and Arribas-Ayllon and Walkerdine (2012).   86  ethnicity, race, gender, class, sexual orientation, religion—and their intersectionality—constitute those criteria that define peoples’ position in society.  Additionally, in terms of epistemology, I reject the positivist assumption that knowledge can be wholly deterministic or objective (Guba & Lincoln, 1991). The idea that knowledges are predictive or that there is a right and wrong knowledge denies the power dynamic that allows certain ideas to concretize within social imaginations in order to perpetuate privilege for some and lack of privilege for others. Thus, I suppose that knowledges are political constructions intrinsically related with power. In other words, individuals are constantly negotiating which knowledges will be legitimized and privileged over others, and producing, therefore, hierarchies of knowledge (Glesne, 2014). However, I consider that these realities and knowledges may be constituted by peoples’ accounts, and challenged and resisted by peoples’ human agency. Finally, in relation to my axiology, I aim to approach research in a way that it contributes to the generation of social change and, therefore, to a more just society. Thus, I attempt to express, through research, my solidarity with historically subordinated and excluded peoples in my country, to show my aspirations to work in alliance with them, and to keep contributing in the work of bringing the perspectives of the margins to the center. 4.2. Using a Combination of Critical Discourse Analysis Approaches  For this study, I principally draw on Fairclough’s (2001) critical discourse analytical approach, which is complemented with Foucauldian tools for analyzing discourse. Following Jorgensen’s and Phillips’s (2002) insights, I utilize Foucauldian-inspired models for doing critical discourse analysis. Throughout this section, I explain the decision of using critical discourse analysis as my methodology based on its suitability with my critical paradigmatic stance and on the possibilities it offers to address the aims of this study. Toward the end, I   87  discuss how a combination of these approaches and methods is needed for the analysis of both a top-down (IE government policy) discourse and a bottom-up (the Chirapaq Indigenous movement) discursive perspective on Interculturalidad. This explanation is particularly relevant, since CDA is usually used to conduct top-down investigations (the discourse of the powerful).    Fairclough’s approach to discourse analysis do not only constitute one of the different models that exist for understanding and analyzing discourse and language, but also it is an approach situated within the critical discourse analytical movement—well-known as Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)110 (Gee, 2011; Jorgensen & Phillips, 2002). Although CDA embraces several linguistic frameworks and methods, among which there are both similarities and differences, all of them have in common their explicit critical paradigmatic stand (Benwell & Stokoe, 2010; Phillips & Hardy, 2002; Jorgensen &Phillips, 2002; Rogers, Malancharuvil-Berkes, Mosley & Hui, 2005; van Dijk, 1998; Meyer, 2009).  CDA, as a product of Critical Theory, rejects neutrality of any particular interest. Instead, they both point out the necessity of unveiling and denouncing how inequality, discrimination, and abuse of power are hidden, reproduced, and contested. But, CDA is particularly concerned with the discursive dimension of this power or, put differently, with how discourse is implicated in power relationships (Janks, 1997). Likewise, CDA, as Critical Theory, takes an explicit sociopolitical stance by showing solidarity with those who suffer most, as well as it is interested with generating change in reality through research and critical understanding (Phillips & Hardy, 2002; Jorgensen & Phillips, 2002; Rogers et al. 2005; van Dijk, 1998).  This close dialogue and suitability between CDA and Critical Theory allows me to continue, through my methodology,                                                           110 Jorgensen and Phillips (2002) explain that the label “Critical Discourse Analysis” is used in two different ways. Norman Fairclough uses it both to describe the approach that he has developed and, but it is also used as the label for a broader movement within discourse analysis of which several approaches, including his own, are part.   88  on the path of doing research from my critical paradigmatic stance and, therefore, to reach my goals as a critical researcher, particularly in this study. That is: (i) starting the conversation about Peruvian intercultural education through the issue of (colonial) power, which is embedded in sociocultural structures that has permeated the inter-cultural relationships among different Peruvian ethnic groups; (ii) doing research with the possibility to disclose my solidarity with Indigenous peoples from Peru, who are historically excluded and subordinated peoples in my country, and; (iii) proposing intercultural education policy recommendations as a step toward social change. Furthermore, a CDA approach is useful for a critical analysis of the Peruvian IE policy text since it allows a detailed investigation of what particular representation this policy creates—through their construction of Interculturalidad—about Peruvian society, education, and ethnicized groups, such as Indigenous peoples. As Fairclough (1995, as cited in Kim, 2014) contends, discourse is language in use, but language is not only about “saying”, it is also about “doing” (i.e. what actual practices they request readers to do) and being (i.e. how they represent something/some peoples). Or, in Foucault’s view, discourse tells you “what is, how is, and what is not” (Carabine, 2002, p. 268)—herein lies the power of discourse. In the same vein, the selection of a CDA approach  (as well as Foucauldian analytical tools) as part of my methodology lies in the fact that it utilizes discourse as a central concept, which is understood as a space to represent and construct the social world, identities, and social relationships with others (Hyatt, 2013; Taylor, 2004). Discourse is then a site of struggle over meaning, where language (or discourse) is used tactically (Taylor, 2004). This understanding of discourse is useful to the analysis of a bottom-up perspective on Interculturalidad for two reasons. On one hand, the central role that discourse occupies in this approach (or any other   89  discourse-oriented approach) enables me to emphasize, recognize, and focus the attention on the strongly discursively-mediated space (a website in Spanish) developed by the Chirapaq Indigenous movement to talk about Peruvian intercultural education—through written and spoken texts. On the other hand, the conceptualization of discourse within CDA allows me to see the Chirapaq’s website not only as a channel to communicate their intellectual work on intercultural education and in the dominant language of Peruvian society, but especially as a political space to discursively construct and (re)present their own understanding of Interculturalidad, as well as a space of struggle over the meaning of Interculturalidad. With this in mind, I contend that CDA can also be used for a bottom-up analysis. The particular selection of Fairclough's approach—and not other models within the CDA practice—is also supported by the suitability of its basic premises about discourse, power, and "the subject" with my own paradigmatic stance and the aims of this research. These premises correspond in some cases with a Foucauldian position, while others have distance from it (Jorgensen & Phillips, 2002).  First of all, I agree with Fairclough when they contend that there are many directions in the study and opportunities to critique social issues, not just discourse. As they explain, discourse is only one dimension of reality, which is in a constant dialectical relationship with other dimensions of reality; a non-discursive aspect of the social world (Meyer, 2009; Rogers et al, 2005). Second of all, I also argue for Fairclough’s understanding of power, the subjects, and the nature of their relationship—an understanding that shows a less deterministic approach. Specifically, I agree with her Foucauldian view of power as being one of oppression as well as of production in the sense that power can be resisted and reshaped by individuals (Rogers et al., 2005). This view diverges from other CDA approaches (e.g. van Dijk) in which power is always oppressive and imposed over passive subjects. Nonetheless, Fairclough   90  starts to diverge from the Foucauldian viewpoint when they talk about the agency of subjects within discourse (i.e. their freedom of action). While Fairclough believes in the efficacy of human agency for changing and mastering discourse (e.g. peoples can use discourse as resources with they create new constellations of words), Foucault presents subjects as totally constrained and determined by power: as a powerless, no-self-thinking subject (Fairclough, as cited in Benwell & Stokoe, 2010). In this light, Fairclough’s premises on discourse, power, and the subject enable me to expect possible discourses of resistance (or different discourses) from the Chirapaq Indigenous movement and in relation to the notion of Interculturalidad. It is important to mention here that I also draw on Fairclough’s CDA model for reasons related to the process of data analysis. She explains in a highly pedagogical way the analysis procedures of the linguistic dimension of discourse in contrast with other CDA approaches. This feature may be especially helpful to avoid bias in the process of searching and analyzing data (Jorgensen & Phillips, 2002; Meyer, 2009). Furthermore, her pragmatic, problem-orientated model offers a variety of flexible analytical devices that can be used in different ways depending of the research questions and social problem (Phillips & Hardy, 2002). Therefore, she provides a detailed guide and different tools, through her studies of ethnicity, identity construction, and difference that allow me to answer my research questions more effectively.  For the analysis of the Chirapaq Indigenous movement’s and IE official policy’s perspectives on Interculturalidad, I have chosen to combine the analytical perspective and tools of Fairclough (CDA approach), and complement it with some Foucauldian tools for two reasons. First, the use of only one analytical approach does not offer enough tools for a holistic examination of a discursive encounter between a bottom-up (i.e. Chirapaq texts) and a top-down (i.e. IE policy) perspective on Interculturalidad. For instance, although Fairclough offers highly   91  pedagogical descriptions of how to do critical discourse analysis, his model (as most of CDA approaches) is mainly focused on and used for unveiling “elite discourses” (Bergvall, 1996; Peace, 2003). Second, the use of Foucauldian research devices as a complement to the CDA models described above is relevant for a broader investigation of the intercultural discourses; that is, it is necessary for complementing the linguist analysis of discourse with a more abstract mapping of it (Arribas-Ayllon & Walkerdine, 2012). Overall, while Fairclough’s approach is used to examine the linguistic dimension of these discourses, Foucauldian tools are applied to the analysis at other levels of explanations apart of the details of language. Likewise, both together complemented provide more analytical resources for investigating a bottom-up discourse. 4.3. Articulating a Coherent Methodological and Theoretical Framework As discussed at the beginning of this chapter, I will use this section to articulate the dialogue between the theory and methods of CDA and the theoretical framework of this study. The relevance of this articulation is two-fold. First, it is to develop a coherent study emphasizing the consistency of their central theoretical assumptions through the whole research process. Second, it is the impossible to separate CDA methods of data analysis from its theoretical and methodological foundations. As Phillips and Jorgensen (2002) explain, CDA approaches contain ontological and epistemological premises, theoretical models, and methodological guidelines that form a complete package: “theory and method are intertwined and research must accept the basic philosophical premises in order to use discourse analysis as method” (p. 4). Despite this, CDA advocates a transdisciplinary approach. Therefore, it offers the opportunity to combine different discourse analytical and non-discourse analytical perspectives in order to provide a broader understanding of the phenomenon studied (Hyatt, 2013; Taylor, 2004). In other words, it allows me to open a dialogue between disciplines concerned with discourse (e.g. Fairclough’s approach)   92  and those focused on theorizing social problems (e.g. Foucauldian ideas of power and decolonial theory).  The decolonial framework of this study and the discourse theory of CDA can be used to observe dialogue within central assumptions such as normalization, power, and social change. Thus, both theoretical lenses seek to uncover and challenge the process of normalization embedded both in discourse and in social life, a normalization process through which members of society are conditioned to accept social norms and practices that may not be in their best interests or, in fact, may reproduce their marginalization and oppression (Hyatt, 2013). In the same vein, the decolonial and CDA theories enable us to start problematizing social reality from the perspective of issues of power. While the former brings to the fore the colonial power differentials among sociocultural groups, the latter emphasizes the central role of power in the understanding of language in use (or discourse). Furthermore, CDA and decolonial theory have a transformative critical intent that can be represented and constructed through discourse or decoloniality, respectively. The compatibility of CDA with the decolonial project is also found in their commitments and solidarity with the dominated and marginalized peoples, and their aims to deconstruct and critique master narratives of dominant elites thought (e.g. White/Whitened/Mestizo Peruvian elites).  In sum, CDA and decolonial theory dialogue in their central assumptions and commitments. Although the theoretical framework of this study gives more space and possibilities for promoting and acknowledging Indigenous peoples’ perspectives, CDA theory and methods do not contradict or interfere with this intention. In fact, it provides useful analytical resources for the examination of the discursive strategies used by the Chirapaq to resist, challenge, or re-create the IE dominant policy discourse on Interculturalidad.   93  4.4. Research Methods111  4.4.1. Data Collection To examine the discursive encounter about the notion of Interculturalidad between the Chirapaq Indigenous movement and the Peruvian IE official policy, I collected text-based official policy documents on intercultural education and different types of written and spoken texts from the Chirapaq’s official website (which can be viewed at The Chirapaq has developed a strong online platform that integrates their texts, which are produced in different formats and come from different sources (e.g. television interviews to Chirapaq’s members, radio campaigns, etc.). This website is divided in three sections: “Ourselves” (Nosotros), “Our programs” (Nuestros programas), and “Home”. In the first section, the Chirapaq tells the reader their history and main achievements as an Indigenous movement, and they present the trajectory of the Chirapaq’s members. In the second section, the Chirapaq have organized and uploaded different written and spoken texts related to their activist and academic work. For instance, it is possible to read their academic publications, their bulletins and official statements about different subjects of interest for Indigenous peoples (e.g. education, climate change, food sovereignty), and their informative posters developed for activist campaigns. Additionally, people can watch some of their short films and hear their radio campaigns. In the third section, pictures and information about the current activities and work of the Chirapaq are presented. The selection of the Chirapaq’s written and spoken texts had central two phases. In the first phase, following the criteria recommended by CDA analysts, I searched and selected the most relevant material for the social domain of the study taking in consideration their                                                           111 Translations here and in the following chapters, unless otherwise noted, are my own.   94  accessibility to the researcher (Meyer, 2009; Phillips & Hardy, 2002; Rogers et al., 2005). Thus, I started searching the texts introducing the words “Interculturalidad” and “educación intercultural” (intercultural education) in the Chirapaq’s official website browser. Then, I read all the documents that resulted from this initial search (12 documents), and, lastly, I selected from this list of 12 those written and spoken texts that were available (to download) and explicitly focused on intercultural education, Interculturalidad, or indigenous education in Peru. As a result, I selected seven written and spoken texts of the 12 documents initially collected. The second phase took place in the public library and archives of the Chirapaq Indigenous movement, which are located in their central office in the city of Lima (the capital city of Peru). I visited the Chirapaq’s office in December 2015 on two separate occasions. During the first visit, I had the opportunity to introduce myself and tell one of the leaders of the Chirapaq about the study, who provided me with access to the Chirapaq’s archives (although they are open to the public, it was necessary to make a previous appointment) and share my reasons for my presence. In conversation with him, he suggested that I analyze two additional texts, which I had not previously considered.112 These texts are: the Chirapaq’s academic publication “Higher Education and Indigenous Movements in Peru” (Educación Superior y Movimiento Indígena en el Perú), and the Chirapaq’s informative poster “The Education Rights of Peruvian Indigenous Children” (El Derecho a la Educación de los Niños y Niñas de los Pueblos Indígenas). Moreover, he suggested I seek on YouTube one interview made by an international television news program with the Chirapaq’s president Tarcila Rivera (which can be viewed at In this interview, she addressed, among other things, the Chirapaq’s perspective on Indigenous education in Peru.                                                            112 Because I could not find (the informative poster) or download them (the academic publication) from their website.   95  In the second visit I looked for the Chirapaq texts in their library as their physical versions might facilitate the process of analysis (with the exception of the YouTube interview). Moreover, I looked for more information about the Chirapaq trajectory. I also had the opportunity to introduce myself to the president of the movement, who was told about my study. She gently asked me to share with the Chirapaq the main conclusions of the study. It is important to mention that in August 2016, I received an email from the Chirapaq, wherein they invite me to write a short article for their website discussing some parts or at least one particular result of this study. I have gratefully agreed to do so.  Taking in consideration and prioritizing the Chirapaq’s suggestions, I finally selected the following seven texts:  Table 1. The Chirapaq’s Written and Spoken Texts on Intercultural Education Selected Format of text Title of texts in Spanish Year113 Title of texts translated to English Bulletins/ statements  (1) La desaparición de la lengua indígena en la educación peruana (2) Educación, interculturalidad, cultura y salud en Perú  2013    2008 (1) The disappearance of Indigenous language at Peruvian education system. (2) Education, Interculturalidad, culture, and health in Peru Academic publication  (1) Educación superior y movimiento indígena en el Peru  (2) Interculturalidad and Indigenous rights 2014   2012 (1) Higher education and Indigenous movement in Peru.  (2) Interculturalidad y derechos Indígenas. Short radio campaign (1) Discriminación en el aula  2012 (1) Discrimination at school YouTube interview (1) Cara a cara - Tarcila Rivera 2015 (1) Face to Face –Tarcila Rivera   Informative poster  (1) El derecho a la educación de los niños y niñas indígenas 2012 (1) The educational rights of Peruvian Indigenous children.                                                            113 Year when the text was posted on the website or published.   96  In relation to the IE policy documents, I selected a “typical text” on intercultural education or, as Wodak (2009) suggests, the most representative or key text-based law that currently orientates the Peruvian intercultural education system. Based on this, I selected the 2016 Law of “Intercultural Education for all and Intercultural Bilingual Education”, recently approved in July 2016. The collection of this policy document implied a search in the official website of the DIGEIBIRA (the office in charge of the EIB system) (which can be viewed at 4.4.2. Data Analysis Considering Fairclough’s analytical procedures, Carabine’s (2002) suggestions for doing Foucauldian analysis, and my research questions, I examined the data collected at five levels: (i) identification of themes or objects of discourse; (ii) textual analysis; (iii) discursive practice analysis; (iv) encounter-discourses analysis, and; (v) social analysis of discourses. These levels of analysis are principally influenced by Fairclough’s model, who incorporates most of them, but for the exceptions of “identification of themes” and “encounter-discourses analysis”. The first level was taken from Carabine’s suggestions for doing Foucauldian discourse analysis because it allows a better organization of the different ways Interculturalidad may be spoken of. In the second level, Fairclough’s linguistic analysis of text was complemented with Foucauldian discourse analytical tools, while I added the fourth level of analysis in order to establish an explicit stage where I can contrast the Chirapaq’s discursive construction on Interculturalidad with the interculturaleducation policy discourse. The next table sums up the different levels of analysis and the analytical tools used. It also contains questions that I developed to guide my process for doing critical discourse analysis at each level.   97  Table 2. Guide for Doing Critical Discourse Analysis Combining Fairclough’s Analytical Devices with Foucauldian Tools          Three important features of the data analysis process are important to highlight before explaining it in more detail. First, this was not a linear process of analysis; on the contrary, most of the levels of analysis specified above happened simultaneously. However, I started the process of data analysis with the Chirapaq’s written and spoken texts—particularly with the three documents suggested by the Indigenous movement. Once I concluded this analysis, I turn to the IE policy document, sought the same themes that emerged from the Chirapaq’s texts, and examined the way they were discussed. Thus, the themes identified in the Chirapaq discourse guided the whole data analysis process of this study. This order of analysis was relevant not only to draw on the Chirapaq’s suggestions and interests during the analytical process, but also to bring to the center the Chirapaq discursive construction of Interculturalidad. Second, since the original data is written and spoken in Spanish, I did a discourse analysis in Spanish and then translated the data that need to be shown in this thesis into English. One of the Chirapaq’s texts Levels of Analysis Discursive Analytical tools Questions to guide the analysis (1) Themes Search for regular themes. -What are the themes that emerge from texts/documents?  (2) Text analysis  Analysis beyond linguist aspects of text -How are the themes, which inform the notion of Interculturalidad, framed, presented or discussed?  -What is not spoken of that I might expect to be?  How are these themes interrelated in the discourse on Interculturalidad? Analysis of the linguistics aspects of text -How are the themes, which inform the notion of Interculturalidad, linguistically constructed (3) Discursive practice Interdiscursivity -Are there mixed/hybrid discourses in the intercultural discourses? (4)  Discursive encounter -What are the differences between both discourses on Interculturalidad? (5)  Social analysis of the text - What social structures/conditions (sociopolitical/historical) explain these discourses?    98  (the radio campaign “discrimination at school”), was spoken in Quechua and Spanish (i.e. it used some phrases and sentences in Quechua). For the analysis, this short radio campaign was, therefore, translated from Quechua to Spanish by a Peruvian Indigenous scholar, whom I have worked with in the past. Third, each level required a different type of analysis, as I will explain in what follows (Janks, 1997; Phillips & Hardy, 2002; Wodak, 2009). Level One: Identification of Themes or Objects of Discourse The first level of analysis involved the identification of those themes that regularly and systematically began to emerge from the data material (Carabine, 2002; Wodak, 2009). To accomplish this step, and following Janks’ (1997) suggestions for doing critical discourse analysis, I did repeated readings of the texts to first get an overall “feel” from the data and then identify the most important themes that arise from them. I started the first readings with the Chirapaq’s texts—particularly with the three texts that were suggested by members of the movement. When the texts were extensively reviewed, and were found to cover different subjects besides (or disconnected with) intercultural education and Interculturalidad (e.g. social movements in Peru, the background of the Chirapaq’s leader), I selected and noted every instance or section of these texts where Interculturalidad or intercultural education were explicitly discussed. These were particularly the cases of the academic publication “Higher education and Indigenous movement in Peru” (62 pages) and the YouTube interview “Face to Face with Chirapaq” (24 minutes). For instance, the introductory and presentation sections of the former text contained most of the discussions on intercultural education, while this discussion was in different parts of the interview. This level of analysis overlapped with the second level, discussed below, since identifying the themes or objects of discourse implied at the same time analyzing the way they were (re)presented and framed. Nonetheless, the process of interpretation   99  became more finely tuned and nuanced with each subsequent level. It is important to mention that the Chirapaq’s construction of Interculturalidad represents a case study or an example of the position of one Indigenous movement from Peru on this matter. Therefore, the Chirapaq discourse is indicative of how Indigenous knowledges and languages are positioned in relation to Peruvian IE policy.  The following table contends a complete list of the themes and sub-themes that emerged from the data analysis: Table 3. Complete List of Themes and Sub-Themes  Source Emerging themes Emerging sub-themes  Chirapaq’s written and spoken texts 1. Indigenous language and knowledge   Relationships with dominant language and knowledge. Historical causes, and mechanism that contributed to this relation.  Definition/relevance/role of indigenous languages and knowledges  2. Indigenous territory  Struggles over Indigenous territory  Definition/relevance/role of Indigenous territory  3. Cultural diversity  Government’s historical use of diversity   Chirapaq understanding of diversity  4. Inter-cultural relationships  Current relationship among cultures in Peru  Chirapaq’s ideal relationships among cultures  5. Indigenous identity  Causes of self-devaluation of Indigenous identity IE policy text 1. Languages   Relationship with other languages 2. Knowledges  Role of knowledge in learning  Types and relations among forms of knowledges 3. Indigenous territory  Not mentioned in the policy 4. Cultural diversity  Opportunities, utility, and relevance of Peruvian diversity  Position of Indigenous peoples within Peruvian cultural diversity 5. Inter-cultural relationships  .Causes and consequences of conflicts in the relations among cultures    100  The following quotation illustrates how the theme “Indigenous language” emerged from the Chirapaq’s intercultural education discourse:114 If we have to talk about Interculturalidad, it is not enough to talk about language recognition. It is necessary to understand that language is important for us, but as a vehicle of transmission of our culture because there is not a literal translation of our culture. So, if you are thinking about intercultural bilingual education, it is necessary to pay attention to the language dimension of sociocultural actors’ lives. (HispanTV, 2015) (emphasis added) Once these themes were identified within the Chirapaq’s texts, I then looked for them in the IE policy document. All of these themes, with the exception of territory, were found in it. Level Two: Analysis of the Texts  In this second level of analysis, I used Fairclough’s linguistic analytical tools combined with Foucauldian tools for examining the different texts gathered.  Following Carabine’s (2002) suggestions for doing Foucauldian discourse analysis, I investigated the means and ways in which diversity, indigenous language and knowledge, Indigenous territory, and relationship among cultures were discussed or (re)presented in the Intercultural discourse of Chirapaq and the IE policy. I gathered together everything said about the emerging themes as illustrated on the following table (which do not include all the themes):                                                              114 I intentionally use, throughout this sub-section, quotations of the same emerging theme (Indigenous language) in order to better demonstrate the analysis of the data.   101  Table 4. Analysis Beyond Linguistic Aspect of the Texts Following Foucauldian Analysis Themes Way themes were spoken of Indigenous knowledge and language  Constructed by education system as less prestigious, as past, tradition, opposed to development and progress. Subordinated, discriminated, excluded from many centuries ago to the present.  They expressed our world, otherwise we are mutilated. Interrelated with Indigenous identity, culture, and territory Inter-cultural relationships They are not horizontal relationships, some peoples are seen as different, while other as the model. These relationships do not lack of violence and power.  At the same time, the linguist structure and features of the texts and the themes identified were also examined. Drawing on Fairclough’s (2001) analytical devices, I examined the text’s language organization and grammatical features, including analysis of words (the choice of vocabulary, semantic relations between words, metaphorical use of words, the connotations of words), patterns of transitivity, and active/passive voice. These analytical devices allowed me to cast light on how the themes that inform the Intercultural discourses (Chirapaq’s and IE policy) were activated linguistically and arrived at a particular interpretation of the notion of Interculturalidad. The following quotation (on the theme “Inter-cultural relationship”) is useful to illustrate how the linguistic analysis of text was deployed:  Fostering a democratic coexistence [convivencia democrática] demands people’s capacity [la capacidad de la gente] to peaceful resolution of conflict (…). Intercultural education offers the possibility to develop this form of interrelation among people (…). These conflicts have arisen [se han generado] from the encounter and misencounter between people and groups from different cultural traditions. The prejudice, stereotypes, racism, and discrimination are common components [componentes habituales] and they are always present in the interaction among peoples and groups culturally diverse (IE policy, 2016, p. 16)   102  While the words and phrases “have arisen from”, “common”, “always present” denote that conflict, racism, and discrimination are natural or, at best, passive consequences of the relationship among cultures with different backgrounds (or a natural product of being part of certain sociocultural groups), they also obscure the sociopolitical and historical causes, or responsible actors of this type of relationships. Moreover, through the analysis of the transitivity of the text, it is possible to recognize that the central event (racism, conflict, discrimination) is connected only to the peoples and groups who suffer them, while other subjects and objects remain absent (e.g., state, society, colonial structures). This second level of analysis was complemented with the examination of how the emerging themes were interrelated to each other (e.g., language, territory, knowledge are usually mentioned together in the intercultural discourse of Chirapaq) as well as of what were the silences through the texts (e.g. the dominant groups or elites of the Peruvian society are not present or spoken of in the IE policy discourse) (Carabine, 2002; Fairclough, 2001). Level Three: Analysis of the Discursive Practice  The third level of analysis, denominated by Fairclough (1992, as cited in Phillips & Hardy, 2002) as discursive practice, is focused on how text is produced or consumed. At this level, I centered my analysis on interdiscursivity, which is a specific analytical device used to investigate when and how different discourses are articulated together in a communicative event. Thus, the combination of discourse types in new and complex ways may be a sign of discursive change or resistance to dominant discourses (Phillips & Hardy, 2002, p. 27). The interdiscursive examination of this study’s texts sometimes overlapped with the previous levels of analysis; however, once I analyzed the emerging themes— and the way they were linguistically and non-linguistically discussed—I came back to texts for a more detailed interdiscursive analysis.   103  Interdiscursivity was particularly useful to illuminate how the Chirapaq’s intercultural discourse creatively mixed different discourses to resist or re-create the IE policy discourse, as well as to investigate the possibilities of discursive change offered by the IE policy. Although the results of the interdiscursive analysis will be expanded in the next chapter, the following quotation taken from a Chirapaq’s text demonstrates how I used this tool at this level of examination: Indigenous language is essential to intercultural education (…). We consider that, comparatively, I am in a disadvantage because I only speak one language, Spanish, while other students speak two languages (…). On brain development, they are better prepared. It is an advantage to speak more than one language, to speak, for instance, Quechua and Spanish (Education, Interculturalidad, culture, and health in Peru, 2008, p. 2).  A language expresses a world. That is what we attempt to demonstrate, for instance, through our poetry. Through the difference between Quechua poetry and Quechua poetry translated to Spanish. There is a huge difference between the imagination, the feelings, and the world that are represented in one or other language (…). Each language expresses a particular value system. There are even state of mind that are lost in the translation (Education, Interculturalidad, culture, and health in Peru, 2008, p. 3) In the analysis of the text “Education, Interculturalidad, culture, and health in Peru” it is possible to recognize that two types of discourses on indigenous language are articulated in Chirapaq’s intercultural discourse. While the first extract demonstrates an “Indigenous language as advantage” discourse, the second extract connotes a “language as intrinsic to Indigenous world” discourse. The former discourse is apparent in phrases such as “I am in disadvantage”, “I only speak one language”, etc. The latter discourse is apparent in phrases such as “a language express a world”. The way this mixed discourse on Indigenous languages resist or re-create the IE policy discourse will be discussed in the next chapter.   104 Level Four and Five: Discursive Encounter Analysis and Social Analysis of Text  In the four level of analysis, I examined in more detail the similarities and differences between the Chirapaq and the IE policy discourse. This level of analysis was useful to specifically focus my attention on how the Chirapaq was discursively resisting or challenging the policy discourse on Interculturalidad. Finally, in the fifth level, I articulated the results with the “non-discursive, social, and cultural relations and structures that constitute the wider context of the discursive practice” (Phillips & Hardy, 2002, p.32). In other words, I related the results with the hybrid decolonial theoretical framework of this study. As Fairclough (1992, as cited in Phillips & Hardy, 2002, p. 32) contends, this part of the analysis needs to “drawn on other theories that shed light upon the social practice in question”. I developed a figure (see Figure 1) that is a helpful introduction and guide to read the following chapters of this thesis’ findings. It visually represents how the emerged themes have been organized in chapter five and six, and it also provides a procedural diagram of how the research questions and purposes have been met in this study.      105                                Figure 1: Organization of Research Findings According to Research Questions and Research Purpose In what ways do texts from the Chirapaq construct the notion of Interculturalidad? What are the central themes that inform their discursive construction of Interculturalidad?   - Cultural diversity - Intercultural relationships - Indigenous knowledges - Indigenous languages - Indigenous territory - Indigenous Identity   (1) More about coloniality less about cultural diversity (2) Indigenous knowledges, languages, and territory as foundational for Interculturalidad (3) Indigenous identity and decoloniality ‘from ourselves’ What is the ongoing Peruvian IE policy document construction of Interculturalidad?  How does the IE policy construct the themes that inform Chirapaq’s intercultural discourse?    How could the Indigenous movement’s discursive construction of Interculturalidad resist or challenge the IE policy discourse?   - Cultural diversity - Intercultural relationship - Indigenous knowledges - Indigenous languages  (1) Multiples discourses on diversity and absence of (de)colonial discussion (2) Reproduction of colonial differentiation of IK and languages. Absence of territory -Starting the conversation on cultural  diversity by its colonial dimension  -Bringing to the fore colonial structures that subordinate IK, language, identity  -Articulating an Indigenous-centered view with instrumental discourse on IK and languages  -Using image-invoking language (‘mutilation’) to challenge fragmentation of  territory from IK  -Multiples discourses on diversity and absence of (de)colonial discussion -Reproduction of colonial differentiation of IK and language  -Absence of territory  To propose IE policy recommendations To bring to the fore one version of Interculturalidad of historically-excluded Indigenous people, and illuminate how it engages with a dominant discourse in Peru  Research Questions 1 Meeting study purpose 1, 2 Research Question 3 The Chirapaq’ discursive forms of contestation to IE policy discourse - chapter 6 Start to meet study purpose 3 Research Questions 2 Chirapaq IE policy Emerging themes described in chapter 4 Organization of themes in findings chapters Chapter 6 Chapter 5 In hat ays do texts fro  the irapaq construct the notion of Interculturalidad? 106  Figure 1 may be read from left to right. In the first column, the three research questions and sub-questions of this thesis are presented. The second column shows the list of the themes that emerged from the analysis of the Chirapaq’s written and spoken texts and of the 2016 intercultural education policy document. The third column illustrates how these themes were organized into chapter five and six. Specifically, the arrows indicate how the themes were put together and discussed in a particular section of chapter five (composed by three sections) and six (composed by two sections). The column two and three also visually illustrate two aspects. First, how the themes and findings organization that emerged from the IE policy analysis mirrored the Chirapaq’s themes and organization followed in chapter five. Second, how the research questions are answered in chapter five and six. The fourth column demonstrates what research purpose are met in each of the findings chapters. Finally, figure 1 also aims to visually show how the third research question is answered also in chapter six. Thus, it shows discursive ways in which the Chirapaq’s construction on Intercultural (articulated in chapter five) contests or resists the IE policy construction on the same matter (articulated in chapter six). Overall, figure 1 constitutes a visual summary of the findings articulated in chapter 5 and 6 and the way the research questions and purposes have been addressed.  4.5. Conclusion In this chapter, I have argued that a combination of Fairclough’s and Foucault’s critical discourse analysis models provides an effective methodology to meet the aims of this study. Thus, the discourse theory and analytical tools offered by these Foucauldian-inspired discourse analysis approach allows me to illuminate how Chirapaq Indigenous movement discursively engages with the Peruvian IE policy discourse on Interculturalidad.   107  Specifically, these approaches permit me to investigate how the Chirapaq discursively resists or challenges their own version of Interculturalidad developed in a discursively-mediated space: their official website. At the same time, the commitments and theoretical assumptions of critical discourse analysis are suitable to my goals as a critical researcher; that is, starting the conversation about Peruvian intercultural education by the issue of (colonial) power, doing research with the possibility to disclose my solidarity with Indigenous peoples from Peru, and proposing intercultural education policy recommendations as a step toward social change. Moreover, critical discourse analysis is consistent with this study’s theoretical framework, which is also critical of unequal power relations and of the narratives of dominant elites; this thesis is committed to the oppressed peoples and to social change. In chapters five and six, I discuss the principal findings and conclusions (respectively) of this analysis within my hybrid decolonial theoretical framework (i.e. a decolonial and intercultural framework combined with the notion of Interrelatedness of IK). Specifically, I discuss—under this framework— how the themes that emerged from the data analysis (i.e. Indigenous knowledge, indigenous language, indigenous territory, cultural diversity, and relationship among cultures) are represented, framed, or spoken of in Chirapaq’s intercultural discourse and in the ongoing IE policy text, as well as how they together inform Chirapaq’s understanding of Interculturalidad and challenge the IE policy discourse in the same matter.      108  Chapter Five: The Chirapaq Indigenous Movement’s Discursive Construction of the Notion of Interculturalidad This chapter focuses on the way the Chirapaq Indigenous movement represents, discusses, and frames the notion of Interculturalidad115 in their publicly-accessible written and spoken texts and when it talks about intercultural education. The findings and discussion addressed here are a useful starting point for meeting the first objective of the study—centralizing a version of Interculturalidad from the historically-excluded Indigenous peoples from Peru—and its first research question: In what ways do written and spoken texts from the Chirapaq construct the notion of Interculturalidad, not only with regards to but also apart from government policy discourse? The other two questions and objectives of this study—focused on the policy-based construction of Interculturalidad—will be explored in the sixth chapter (see Figure 1). Chapter five is composed of three sections and is organized around the themes that emerged from the data analysis, as well as the way these themes are interrelated (see Figure 1). Bridging the findings with my hybrid decolonial framework, I start by discussing how cultural diversity is spoken of in Chirapaq discourse on Interculturalidad. In the second section, I explore how Indigenous languages, knowledges, and territory together emerge as                                                           115 As mentioned in Chapter One, Regardless Interculturalidad can be considered a broader social discourse on diversity than intercultural education, in this study, I focus my analysis on the meaning or the sense it has within an intercultural education discourse. That is, I analyzed every instance where Interculturalidad was discussed within the Chirapaq’s and the policy’s intercultural education texts. Certainly, both terms (i.e. Interculturalidad and intercultural education, [educación intercultural in Spanish]), and their meanings, overlapped during the data analysis and throughout the findings discussion. However, the focus on only Interculturalidad allowed me to narrow down my analysis and focus my attention on the conceptual dimension of intercultural education (e.g. how is Interculturalidad understood for the movement?), rather than its practical dimension (e.g. how is it implemented?).   109  foundational in Chirapaq’s intercultural discursive construction. Finally, in the third section, I discuss the Indigenous movement’s framing of Indigenous identity. I end the chapter with main conclusions. Throughout the chapter, I argue that the Chirapaq movement’s discursive articulation of Interculturalidad targets and profoundly emphasizes the colonial dimension of its peoples’ experiences in Peruvian society; that is, the colonial structures that have subordinated and muted Indigenous peoples’ cultures, languages, knowledges, and ways of being. In doing so, the Chirapaq construction of Interculturalidad also brings to the fore their particular articulation of their relation to territory, language, and knowledges. The discussion on coloniality is transversal and sometimes involves overlapping aspects of the movement’s intercultural discourse and among its different emerging themes, as will be demonstrated throughout Chapters Five and Six. Although sometimes there is a risk of being repetitive with this colonial discussion in each section of chapter five, I attempt to maintain it in order to show the centrality that coloniality has for the Chirapaq’s understanding of Interculturalidad. It is important to mention that the Chirapaq’s construction of Interculturalidad represents a case study or an example of the position of one Indigenous movement from Peru on this matter. Therefore, the Chirapaq discourse is indicative of how Indigenous knowledges and languages are positioned in relation to Peruvian IE policy.  5.1. Peruvian Cultural Diversity in Chirapaq’s Intercultural Discourse: More about Coloniality, Less about Superficial Diversity  One theme that emerged from my analysis of the Chirapaq’s written and spoken texts on Interculturalidad is ‘cultural diversity’ and the relationship among some ethnic groups in this diversity. But, diversity, as discussed by the movement, has less to do with   110  the opportunities of living in an ethnically and culturally diverse Peruvian society and more to do with the colonial structures of power exerted by Peruvian dominant groups over Indigenous peoples and culture. While the former would presuppose the mutual recognition of diverse parties, the latter discussion on diversity targets Indigenous peoples’ colonial experience of exclusion and subordination in the Peruvian context.116 For instance, in the Chirapaq’s written text, “Higher Education and Indigenous Movement” (2014, p. 6), it says:  The government’s intercultural discourse has fostered Peruvian cultural diversity and dialogue among cultures. Indeed, Interculturalidad is about diversity and relationship among cultures. But, the real questions are ‘how are these relationships sustained?’ ‘How do we live this diversity?’ These relationships do not operate outside of power relations and even various forms of violence. Therefore, Interculturalidad is about the pre-existing power relationships [among cultures] that define how everyone [cada quién] participates in a dialogue among cultures, how everyone is positioned in this diversity.   In this quotation, the Chirapaq speaks of cultural diversity in two forms. First, it starts to link the current power structures that define Peruvian diversity with the past. Although subtle, by using the word “pre-existing,” the movement denotes that these power relations are not only a legacy of an earlier time, but that they have defined the positions of individuals within a hierarchical Peruvian society ever since. This is more explicit in another written text of the movement, wherein the present subordination of the                                                           116 The term cultural diversity used by the Chirapaq movement is the English translation for diversidad cultural, but the meaning is closer to what in the English literature is referred to as cultural difference.   111  Indigenous—within Peruvian Western-modeled society— is linked with the aftermath of Spanish colonialization: Our problem is the devaluation of the Indigenous. This devaluation did not emerge [brota] by itself. It has been learned and imposed. It has been historically reproduced generation after generation since the Spaniards arrived. The idea reproduced since then is that what is ours is not valuable, it is less than what comes from outside [está en menor valor que lo de afuera] (Education, Interculturalidad, culture and health in Peru, 2010, p. 1) In an act of historicizing, the Chirapaq plays with the continuity of the past into the present (e.g. “it has been learned and imposed”, “it has be historically reproduced”) when it comes to the argument that their culture are represented as inferior in Peru. In other words, what the Chirapaq demonstrates is their awareness of how Peruvian colonial past informs Indigenous peoples’ present experience of coloniality, or, as articulated by Quijano (2000) and Mignolo (2011), how Spanish colonization never ended, it only mutated or rearticulated into coloniality. Thus, in the texts of the Chirapaq, coloniality emerges as a constitutive dimension of Peruvian cultural diversity.  The second way in which Chirapaq speaks of cultural diversity involves openly questioning the Peruvian government’s superficial representation of this theme (e.g. “but the real questions are” [2014, p. 6]) — a questioning that is presented in different written and spoken Chirapaq texts. For the Chirapaq movement, the government is not asking the “real” i.e. most relevant (decolonial) questions; instead, it uses cultural diversity rhetorically, as a political slogan, and as a nominal but inauthentic diversity.  As they put it, “the government assumes that saying in different documents ‘Peru is diverse or Peru is intercultural’ they have found the solution to the problem. The real issue is that the   112  government is speaking from a hegemonic position…they do not dialogue as equal with all cultures” (Higher Education and Indigenous Movement, 2014, p. 6) (author’s emphasis). The YouTube interview with one leader of the movement articulated this critique directly:    To speak about diversity and Interculturalidad it is necessary to first recognize that Indigenous cultures are here and Western cultures are here. The formal system of education is here and our forms of education are here…so far, diversity is, for me a politically correct discourse, a rhetoric. (HispanTV, 2015)  While challenging the fact that the Peruvian governments have prevented a discussion on diversity in relation to coloniality, the Chirapaq additionally brings to the fore what Mignolo (2007a, 2007b, 2011) calls the process of colonial difference. That is, the colonial mechanism that has hierarchized and subalternized the Other cultures that did not conform the model of Western progress or modernity or, as the president of Chirapaq articulates above, the process that has positioned Indigenous cultures over there and Western cultures here (to suggest the centrality of Western and the marginality of Indigenous). In sum, the Chirapaq argue for starting the conversation on Peruvian cultural diversity at the point of the colonial differentiation of this diversity, instead of cosmetic or superficial aspects of it because “culture without its relation to power and politics treats it as superficial, as tourism, as exoticism, and so on” (Daza, 2013, p. 262)  Also apparent in these last two quotations from the Chirapaq is its awareness of those actors and institutions that keep reproducing Indigenous peoples’ colonial experience in the diverse Peruvian society, such as within the Peruvian government and in the intercultural education system (e.g. “the government is speaking from a hegemonic position…they do not dialogue as equal with all cultures” [2014, p. 6]).  As different decolonial scholars (Quijano, 2000; Mignolo, 2003; Walsh, 2004) remind us, the continuity   113  of colonialization is based on the reconfiguration of power relations in new discourses, concepts, names, and institutions. It seems that, for the Chirapaq, the state and its models of schooling has principally represented these colonial institutions. In relation to Peruvian formal education, the movement argues for the need to confront and transform the colonial difference reproduced through schooling, in which the Indigenous have been signified as lacking, less-than, and separate from the Western-modeled, modern school system:  Harsh as it might sound, it is important to be mentioned over and over; the differentiated education that we have received, as the level of quality contends, and hierarchies, have constructed us as less than. It has constructed also an unequal and violent society with no respect for diversity and our cultures…it is not the same [when there is] bilingual education only for indigenous peoples rather than a real intercultural education for all Peruvians.  (Higher Education and Indigenous Movement in Peru, 2014, p. 5)  While discussing the role of schooling in the process of differentiation of Indigenous peoples and their cultures in the Peruvian context, the Chirapaq brings to the center one of the most important ‘contradictions’ of the Peruvian intercultural education system. It is the recognition of Peruvian cultural diversity and the fostering of dialogue among cultures, but at the same time, the promotion of its practice (e.g. intercultural schools) only in rural Indigenous areas, a ‘contradiction’ that has revealed the predominance of an assimilationist model of education for Indigenous peoples, which has been historically promoted by the Peruvian governments (Zavala and Córdova, 2003).   A final form in which the Chirapaq texts speak of cultural diversity is by suggesting the replacement of the idea of ‘difference’ for ‘complementarity’ when diversity education is discussed: “we should not pursue differentiated education systems, instead,   114  they [i.e the intercultural education system and national education system] should be complementary and equal. That is, we should have a school that expresses Peruvian cultural diversity not as separated or different worlds, but as complementary worlds” (Higher Education and Indigenous Movement, 2014, p. 8). I argue that by using the word ‘complementary’, the Chirapaq target the decolonization of the meanings that the colonial words ‘different’ and ‘diverse’ have for Indigenous peoples; that is, less-than, subordinated, or Other. In other words, it symbolically and linguistically attempts to turn the “different” into horizontal and equal (because to be complementary means to be equals). The Chirapaq’s attempts to decolonize the word ‘different’ echoes two ideas that comes from both a decolonial and a critical discourse analysis framework: while decolonization is a reaction and response to the oppressive logic of colonialism that neither allows for colonial operation nor believes in the fairy tales of its rhetoric (Mignolo, 2011); discourse may be thought as a (decolonial) resource used by the discursively constituted subject to re-respond, re-signify, and interrupt the way he or she has been constituted (Mick, 2011).   5.2. Indigenous Languages, Knowledges, and Territory as Foundational in the Chirapaq’s Intercultural Discourse  For the Chirapaq Indigenous movement, to speak about Interculturalidad necessarily implies speaking about Indigenous languages, knowledges, and territory. These three recurrent themes arose in my analysis from different Chirapaq written and spoken texts and when it makes reference to intercultural education in Peru. For instance, in the written text The Disappearance of Indigenous Language in Peruvian Education System (2013), the Chirapaq contends that “a real intercultural dialogue must start from the   115  understanding that language and knowledge, in the case of Indigenous peoples, are expressed through territory.” That is, territory is the space or dimension that contains Indigenous knowledges and languages. Similarly, in the YouTube interview ‘Face to Face’ (HispanTV, 2015), it is mentioned that intercultural education is not only about Indigenous language recognition, but also it is the understanding of the relationship between language, Indigenous knowledge, and culture. The presence of these themes in the movement’s intercultural discourse, as illustrated above, is better understood if the history of intercultural education in Peru is taken into account; that is, if it is taken in consideration that, when adopted by the government or dominant groups (e.g. missionaries, international cooperation), Interculturalidad came merely to signify bilingual education (language-orientated education) for Indigenous peoples (Aikman, 1999a, 2012; Trapnell & Zavala, 2013).  Thus, the Chirapaq’s intercultural discourse is permeated by three (sometimes related) ways of discussing Indigenous knowledge, language, and territory. In the first sense, Indigenous languages and knowledges are discussed in connection to the colonial power that has imposed their devaluation in the Peruvian context. In the second sense, the Chirapaq uses mixed discourses to represent the relevance of Indigenous languages and Indigenous knowledges, which go from an ‘Indigenous-centered view’ discourse to a more instrumental discourse. In the third form, the interrelatedness of Indigenous languages, knowledges, and territory with life itself is brought to the fore.  The colonial awareness of the Chirapaq Indigenous movement is articulated when it comes to explaining how coloniality has operated to subordinate Indigenous languages and knowledges through the process of colonial difference (Mignolo, 2007a, 2007b): “they [the   116  government] have constructed our knowledges and languages as educational regression, as past, as tradition, as in contraposition to progress and development. They have created a dichotomy…” (Higher Education and Indigenous Movement, 2014, p. 15). A similar reference is found in the short radio campaign, “Language and Discrimination at School” (2012), which reflects on how Indigenous peoples in Peru have been taught to “position Quechua as less than or behind Spanish.”  What the movement reveals in both quotations is how the Eurocentric biases have historically taught us, through a process of colonial differentiation, to associate Indigenous thought with primitive, unfinished, opposite, or incomplete—as existing on the same historical trajectory yet further behind (Battiste, 2002; Mignolo, 2007a, 2007b). But for Chirapaq, Indigenous knowledges and languages are far from primitive or the binary opposite of Western thought and languages; instead, they both are positioned as complex, enriching, and universal (Higher Education and Indigenous Movement, 2014). The movement draws on more than one discourse when it comes to represents the relevance of Indigenous languages and Indigenous knowledges. Thus, in the case of Indigenous languages, it is discussed (i) as an essential element for the transmission and conservation of Indigenous knowledges, (ii) as an advantage for Indigenous children’s cognitive development, and (iii) as an additional personal skill. While the first is grounded in an Indigenous paradigm, the other two representations seem to be situated in a more instrumental viewpoint. These arguments are articulated in the following quotations: Indigenous language is essential to intercultural education (…). We consider that, comparatively, I am in a disadvantage because I only speak one language, Spanish; while other students speak two languages (…). On brain development, they are better prepared. It is an advantage to speak more than one language, to   117  speak, for instance, Quechua and Spanish. (Education, Interculturalidad, culture, and health in Peru, 2008, p. 2). Our language expresses a world. That is what we attempt to demonstrate, for instance, through our poetry. Through the difference between Quechua poetry and Quechua poetry translated to Spanish. There is a huge difference between the imagination, the feelings, and the world that are represented in one or other language (…). Each language expresses a particular value system. There are even states of mind that are lost in the (Education, Interculturalidad, culture, and health in Peru, 2008, p. 3). Thus, the first discourse is apparent, for example, in the phrase “our language express a world,” while the second one is evident in phrases such as “I am at a disadvantage”, “I only speak one language”, “On brain development”, etc. The third discourse on Indigenous languages can be deduced from the sentence “they are better prepared [when students speak two languages, Indigenous and Spanish language]”. In relation to Indigenous knowledges, it is also recognized in two different discourses. Once again, the Chirapaq movement draws on an Indigenous rationale, in which knowledge is respectful with, inherent in and connected to all of nature and to human existence (Sumida-Huaman, 2014). At the same time— and in the same paragraph—the movement combines this discourse with a more instrumental discourse in which Indigenous knowledges are an additional capacity, opportunity, or advantage for facing the contemporary world: The indigenous knowledges are centered on the respect of human beings, the respect of and relation to the environment, and a rational and respectful use of nature. At the same time, the indigenous paradigm can be a model of success, a capacity for young [Indigenous] peoples that only few can master. Thus, the Indigenous is tradition, ancestry, reality, opportunity, success, and future. (Higher Education and Indigenous Movement, 2014, p. 8)    118  I develop two interpretations of the way the Chirapaq combines different discourses on Indigenous knowledges and languages. First, by using this type of mixed discourse, the Chirapaq attempts to challenge the common Eurocentric representation that Indigenous language and thought are reduced to old, , only ‘useful’ in local context, or essentially unchangeable (Battiste, 2000). Thus, for the Chirapaq, Indigenous knowledge is ancestry but also future, it is tradition and also success. Second, drawing on Walsh’s (2009b) and Mignolo’s (2011) insights on decoloniality, I argue that combining an Indigenous perspective with a Western-influenced instrumental view on Indigenous knowledges and language, the movement attempts to discursively resist a dominant Western logic, in which to recognize ‘something’ means to demonstrate its instrumental value or return. Apparently, what the movement does in this paragraph is to pass through the very European logics that have denied the Indigenous peoples and use them (i.e. using their same language and categories) as a resource that does not only resists the subordination of their languages and knowledges, but also negotiates their centrality in Peruvian intercultural education policies and systems (i.e. positioned them in the government’s education agenda).  Furthermore, together with Indigenous languages and knowledges, territory emerges as fundamental to Interculturalidad in the Chirapaq discourse, as illustrated in the following quotation from the YouTube interview: A real intercultural dialogue is a dialogue about Indigenous territory. This means having the same possibility to decide, negotiate, and speak as equals [de tú a tú] if, for instance, the government is interested in mining or extractive industry. These activities have to be developed in relation to our collective interest since, so far, they have damaged our territory…for us, these are not simple water sources or simple stones, or just a piece of land. …territory is constructed in an   119  interdependent relationship with us. That is why we pay back to the land [pagamos a la tierra] and we take only what we need. We have a metaphysic dialogue with our territory, with the Apu, with the lake…They have a transcendental relevance for Indigenous peoples and culture. (HispanTV, 2015) Apparent in this quotation are two central issues. First, Indigenous peoples’ historical demands and struggles over the control of their territories; a struggle characterized by a colonial, conflictive relationship with the Peruvian state when it comes to take decisions about them. This colonial relationship is expressed in situations wherein—contrary to the declarative and legal achievements of Indigenous peoples from Peru—Indigenous lands and resources are exploited without their consultation, receiving, in the past, this type of argument by the Peruvian government:  These people [Indigenous peoples] do not wear a crown. They are not first-class citizens where 400 000 Natives can say to 28 million Peruvians ‘You have no right to come to my territory!’ Whoever thinks that way, wants to take us to irrationality and to primitive backwardness. (Former president of Peru Alan García Perez, statement to the press, 5 June 2009) The second issue is the Chirapaq articulation of an alternative rationale on territory. The Chirapaq discursive representation of territory denotes a profound spiritual and ecological (inter)relationship between Indigenous peoples and their land.  Batiste’s (2000, 2002) and Hart’s (2010) discussions on Indigenous land echoes the Chirapaq’s previous quotation. As they explain, land is the foundation of Indigenous existence; she has a vibrant relationship with the peoples and other living beings and spirits that inhabit them. Land is sacred.  Also important to highlight in the previous quotation is that, through bringing to the fore Indigenous modes of relating to and understanding territory (e.g. contrasting it in the   120  same paragraph with the dominant government’s mode), the Chirapaq seems to discursively resist the colonial logic wherein “the singular negates the existence of plural others” (Aman, 2014a, p. 215). In other words, it seems to question the Eurocentric and ‘universal’ idea that only one (Western-modeled) form of relation with territory (i.e. a resource to be exploited, a resource that belongs to human beings) is possible or acceptable (e.g. “they are not simple or just piece of land” [HispanTV, 2015]). The Chirapaq’s resistance is even clearer when it contrasts Indigenous peoples’ relationship between their territory and the Catholic religion, which is the dominant religion in Peru: “For the so-called ‘rational’, it seems silly to ask permission or to talk with the land, however, it is possible for a Catholic to talk with her saints...what comes for us is superstition, while the other act is religion” (HispanTV, 2015). One again, the Chirapaq demonstrates how decolonial struggles arises from Chirapaq written and spoken texts. All the previous quotations touch upon, at different levels, another central element that permeates the Chirapaq’s intercultural discourse. It is an Indigenous view on the interrelatedness among Indigenous knowledges, languages, and territory with Indigenous peoples’ lives themselves, an interrelatedness that applies to, is fully valid, and prominent among Andean and Amazonian Indigenous communities from Peru (Sumida-Huaman, 2014, Gonzales, 2015). The Chirapaq written and spoken texts continuously highlight this unity, interrelationship, and inseparability of the dimensions of Indigenous peoples’ systems. For instance, in the informative poster “The Educational Rights of Peruvian Indigenous Children” (2002) it says: “we think, learn, and relate with the world through our mother tongue. It is inseparable from our knowledges and identity”. The Chirapaq also articulates:   121  In the Andean case, language and knowledge come together with technology, with the use of our environment [manejo de nuestro entorno], for instance, the knowledge about our potatoes—their varieties—is much richer in Quechua….the transmission of our cultural practices, beliefs, and cosmologies, embedded in our lands, make sense only through our languages. Everything goes together with everything [todo va unido a todo]. (Interculturalidad and Indigenous rights, 2012, p. 5)   Thus, where Indigenous languages structure and transmit Indigenous knowledges—and therefore it is a significant factor in the survival of Indigenous worldviews— Indigenous territory is the space or dimension that contains these knowledges (Battiste, 2000; Sumida-Huaman, 2014). Territory is, therefore, where “ceremonies are properly held, stories properly recited, medicine properly gathered, and transfers of knowledge properly authenticated” (Battiste, 2002, p.13). Hence, what the Chirapaq articulates is that Indigenous knowledges are inherently tied to language and territory or, in Battiste’s (2000) words, Indigenous society operates in a state of relatedness, wherein peoples, objects, and environment are all connected. Any attempt to fragmentize its unity not only creates disharmony and imbalance, but also jeopardizes Indigenous peoples’ existence.  5.3. Indigenous Identity in the Chirapaq's Intercultural Discourse: Decoloniality ‘From Ourselves’  Another theme that emerges from the Chirapaq’s intercultural discourse is Indigenous identity, which is spoken of in two ways. In the first sense, as discussed in the previous section, the Chirapaq presents Interculturalidad as bringing to the fore essential, interrelated elements of Indigenous identity: Indigenous languages, knowledges, and territory. This is demonstrated not only in different Chirapaq written and spoken texts, but   122  also in their education program slogan “Ñoqanchiq” (in Quechua), “Desde nosotros mismos” (in Spanish)117, or “From ourselves” (its closest English translation), a slogan used continuously by the Chirapaq when it comes to speak about identity and Interculturalidad:   This proposal for intercultural education is based on the expression ‘from ourselves’, which means the elaboration of educational contents based on Indigenous identity and the revaluation of our knowledges and languages...we develop an educational process and proposal from ourselves, strengthening our traditional knowledge with the aim to develop technology and science in correspondence with our cosmologies (Higher Education and Indigenous Movement in Peru, 2014, p. 6) (author’s emphasis).  But, the Chirapaq also frame indigenous identity in a different way and within their intercultural discourse. Interestingly, the movement also uses their slogan “from ourselves” to give further meaning. For the Chirapaq, Interculturalidad or intercultural education is an opportunity to accept and to re-value Indigenous identity, that is, start from ourselves and look onto the self-devaluation and disavowal of Indigenous identity and culture. Interculturalidad can be an opportunity to explore and overcome the (colonial) rationality in which “[whatever is] mine is worth less that what comes from outside” (lo mío vale menos que lo de afuera) (Education, Interculturalidad, Culture, and Health in Peru, 2010, p. 2). The president of the Chirapaq articulates this reasoning: I think Interculturalidad is related to Indigenous peoples, it is related with our identity, to accept who we are and to value what is ours [la valoración de lo propio] that is why when we started the Chirapaq, we worked on this slogan ‘from ourselves’… if we have insecurities, fear, if we self-discriminate, because                                                           117 Through their written and spoken texts, the Chirapaq uses the Quechua and Spanish versions of the word interchangeably   123  they did this to us, then, we will not have Interculturalidad. Then, we need to have, first and foremost, a look onto ourselves…for instance, when we ask them [Indigenous teachers] to teach in our languages, to speak Quechua, they feel ashamed to speak in Quechua. (HispanTV, 2015), While the Chirapaq underlines Indigenous experience of self-negation and self-devaluation, they also suggest that there is a responsible party (when the movement use the expression ‘they did this to us’) and a process through which these negative (colonial) feelings have been imposed. In other words, the Chirapaq articulates the position that these feelings are not inherent to Indigenous peoples; instead, they are, as Aman (2014a) notes, “symptoms of coloniality” or the consequences of do not fitting within Western narratives. This is clear when the Chirapaq says: “the problem is the self-devaluation of our identity, but it has not emerged from ourselves, it is learned, imposed, and reproduced generation by generation (Education, Interculturalidad, Culture, and Health in Peru, 2010, p. 1). Here, Mignolo’s (2009) and Maldonado-Torres’ (2003) insights on the coloniality of being— both influenced by Frantz Fanon’s thought—are relevant. According to them, the complex of inferiority of the colonized is the result of the coloniality on their beings, of the confrontation between subjectivities wherein only one of them have the control over knowledge, economy, authority, etc. Thus, the complex does not exist in a subject willing to be colonized; rather, the colonized identity is a construction of the colonial process.  5.4. Conclusion  In this chapter, I have specifically focused on the Chirapaq Indigenous movement’s discursive (de)construction of Interculturalidad; the product of the major themes arising in my analysis. I have articulated, through the use of my theoretical framework, the ways in which the six emergent themes are represented and discussed (linguistically and non-  124  linguistically). When it comes to the discourse on cultural diversity, the Chirapaq primarily focuses on Indigenous peoples’ experience of colonial differentiation within the diverse country of Peru, challenging the superficial rhetoric of Peruvian governments, as well as challenging the role of formal education through differentiation. Furthermore, Indigenous languages, knowledges, and territory emerge as three foundational and interconnected themes within the Chirapaq’s intercultural discourse. While the movement targets, once again, the colonially-imposed structures of society that has devaluated, annulled, and muted these dimensions of Indigenous peoples’ lives from within Peru, they also bring to the center their Other (inter)relationships with and views on these elements. Additionally, their rationale on languages and knowledges is articulated together with a more instrumental discourse on them, which may be interpreted as a way to challenge, resist, and negotiate the Westernized representation of their languages and knowledges and their centrality in education policies and school models. The movement also describes Interculturalidad as an opportunity to decolonize Indigenous identity, a process that must start “from ourselves,” to look into Indigenous peoples’ feelings and experiences of self-devaluation as a path to decolonization. For the movement, these feelings are first and foremost an effect of coloniality.  Overall, the Chirapaq discursively constructs Interculturalidad as inseparable from a discussion of (de)coloniality, which seems to be led by the experiences and struggles of the Indigenous peoples themselves. Likewise, an alternative, Indigenous rationale on knowledges, languages, and territory and their interconnectedness, emerges from their discourses – a rationale that combined with Eurocentric categories and language may be   125  seen as strategic in order to pursue, at least at level of discourse, decolonization of their knowledges, languages, and territory.    126  Chapter Six: From the Chirapaq’s Texts to a Peruvian Intercultural Education Policy: Contrasting and Discussing a Discursive Encounter with Interculturalidad Drawing on a decolonial hybrid theoretical framework, this chapter focuses on the way the ongoing Peruvian IE policy (2016) discursively constructs the notion of Interculturalidad, as well as its (mis)encounter with the Chirapaq’s view on the same—the latter has already been thoroughly discussed in chapter five. This chapter is divided in two sections, mirroring the Chirapaq’s emerging themes, interrelationships, and organization in chapter five (see figure 1). First, I start by exploring the various, sometimes overlapping, ways in which the official IE policy text represents Peruvian ‘cultural diversity’, representations that fails to engage with any discussion of the colonial power dimension of diversity. Toward the end of this section, I contrast the government representation with the decolonial view of the Chirapaq on the same theme. Second, I move to the policy construction of Indigenous languages, knowledges, and territory. In this section I articulate how the policy discourse silences and reproduces, through the chosen language, the colonial power relations that permeate these dimensions of Indigenous life, as well as ignores, by omission of discussion, the holistic nature of Indigenous systems of knowledge. I finish the chapter with conclusions. It is important to mention that, in order to answer my research questions, I end each of the two sections of this chapter by contrasting the discourses of the IE policy and the Chirapaq movement. It is in this contrast or encounter that I discuss how the latter view could serve, intentionally or not, as a discursive act of resistance or contestation to the former’s existing constructions and representations (see figure 1).   127  The findings discussed in this chapter meet two objectives of this study: to illuminate how an Indigenous movement from Peru critically engages with a dominant discourse in the Peruvian context, and to contribute to the continuation of generating spaces where an Indigenous movement participates in the dialogue on intercultural education. The third objective of the study will be met in the next chapter (policy recommendations). Moreover, I answer here my two other research questions: What is the ongoing Peruvian IE policy document’s (2016) construction of the notion of Interculturalidad? How could the Indigenous movement’s discursive construction of the notion of Interculturalidad, intentionally or not, resist or contest the Peruvian IE policy discourse? (See figure 1).  6.1. From the Chirapaq’s Texts to Peruvian Intercultural Education Policy: The Question of Cultural Diversity Cultural diversity is the most recurrent theme discussed in the 2016 IE Peruvian legislative text when it comes to Interculturalidad. Thus, while the definition, purpose, and objectives of the policy principally start by or revolve around discussing Peruvian cultural diversity, this theme is also mentioned in other pivotal sections of the policy text, such as its rationale, its objectives, and its guidelines. For instance, the document starts by defining the IE policy as the one that “guides the pedagogical treatment of diversity in all the Peruvian education system and in a contextualized, reflective, and critical way…” (IE policy definition, 2016, p. 9). In the same vein, cultural diversity is presented, in the policy purpose and objective, as both the means and end of intercultural education: [the purpose of the policy is] to guarantee the pertinence and quality of learning for Peruvian children, adolescents, young people, adults, and senior adults through the recognition and positive value of Peruvian society’s socio-  128  environmental reality, and cultural and linguistic diversity. (IE policy purpose, 2016, p. 18) (author’s emphasis) [the policy aim is] in mainstreaming the intercultural perspective in the national curriculum and in the development of teaching and learning processes in such a way as to respond to the diverse Peruvian cultural traditions, as well as to guarantee the recognition and value of Peruvian diversity. (IE policy specific objective, 2016, p. 18) (author’s emphasis) At first glance, cultural diversity is vaguely represented in the policy text as a positive and valuable resource or point of arrival that, therefore, needs to be visualized, recognized, and accepted by all Peruvians. However, a further examination of the policy logic allows me to identify three other ways in which cultural diversity is framed: as a right, as an instrument of growth, and as a means of overcoming exclusion. Cultural-diversity-as-a-right discourse occupies limited space in the policy text; in fact, it is explicitly mentioned only a few times and is intertwined with a cultural-diversity-as-instrument-of-growth discourse: The strengthening of Peruvian democracy is closely related to personal and collective opportunities for development. Thus, it is internationally established that cultural diversity is a right, since it is assumed to be a common heritage of mankind that needs to be recognized and consolidated. But it is also about the link between the management of a society’s diversity and its real opportunities for development and growth (IE policy, 2016, political-democratic rationale, p. 16)   Although diversity-as-right discourse is explicitly mentioned in this quotation, it is not elaborated upon but rather is dissolved into words or phrases such as “opportunities for development”, “management of a society’s diversity”, and “potential of growth” (see next quotation)—which are all used when initially presenting and defining the IE policy. Thus,   129  through the choice of language, the policy denotes an economistic rationale when it comes to speaking of Peruvian cultural diversity. That is, diversity is framed as a good with the potential for individual and collective development and growth, as a good to be invested in with expected positive returns. The presence of this instrumental discourse on cultural diversity, grounded in an economistic framework, corresponds to the neoliberal approach to education that has prevailed in Peru for decades. As Trapnell & Zavala (2013) note:  Since the decade of the 90s, Peru has been integrated into a neoliberal model of development... in this framework, privatization and marketization of education has been imposed. As a result, a technocratic approach to education has been fostered in Peru, which, at the same time, promotes an instrumental approach to education and creates the illusion that education is a technical and neutral process. (Trapnell & Zavala, 2013, p. 33) (My translation).  This instrumental rationale is sometimes intertwined, within the policy text, with the third way to represent cultural diversity (i.e. both discourses are discussed in the same paragraph): A pertinent education system should generate the conditions to make visible, to know, and to value [cultural] diversity, which is understood as having great potential for personal and collective growth. Cultural diversity is able to overcome all forms of discrimination and exclusion based on cultural differences such as gender, age, different abilities, or other causes (IE policy, 2016, target population section, p. 10) Thus, cultural diversity (its value and recognition) is then expected to break down—somehow—the barriers than exclude and discriminate some Peruvian peoples, or it is discussed as a means to overcome exclusion and discrimination (third form of representing cultural diversity). I wish to mention at this point that the goals of having a more inclusive,   130  anti-racist, and anti-discrimination Peruvian society are presented as particularly important throughout the whole IE policy text. In fact, the policy identifies intercultural education as the space to deconstruct “the different forms of discrimination and racism…” (p. 15) and furthermore, it explicitly assumes an intersectional approach, in which it is recognized that “the interaction of characteristics such as gender, language, culure, economic condition, among others” (p. 11) may create overlapping and self-reinforcing layers of disadvantage and exclusion. This reference to exclusion, racism, and discrimination in the IE policy text is particularly relevant since few Peruvian national and education policies address, or even mention, these issues—as it has been noted and criticized by several researchers in the recent past (Aikman, 2012; Peschiera, 2010; L. M. Valdiviezo, 2012; Dibos, 2005).  Nevertheless, even when it seems that the policy is expanding out the discussion on the exclusionary nature of Peruvian society, as in the case of its third form of representing cultural diversity, it keeps failing to engage with an essential issue: a real transformation of exclusion, discrimination, and racism requires more than accepting their existence or recognizing/valuing Peruvian cultural diversity. As the Chirapaq (2014, p. 6) has clearly stated, addressing “the real issue” requires that we start with the fact that some groups are recognized within Peruvian society while others are not, and that some groups exert power over others. In a few words, it requires us to adress the colonial power dimension that constitutes Peruvian cultural diversity. Otherwise—as the movement also argues— cultural diversity becomes a buzz word—a cosmetic or superficial discussion (Battiste, 2000). So far, the IE policy text’s framing of cultural diversity combines, and sometimes overlaps, diverse discourses within it. It mixes a superficial rhetoric on cultural diversity (e.g. it is possitive) with a instrumental rhetoric on it (e.g. it is potential for growth). At the same time, a right-centered discourse on diversity is dissolved (but also combined) within   131  these discourses, while a diversity-to-overcome-exclusion discourse emerges unclearly and ends contributing to obscuring the colonial power structures that constitute this cultural diveristy. While the two former dicourses are predominant through the policy text (they are mentioned several times and discussed in a wider context), the latter two are given limited attention within the text and they are discussed only vaguely.  It seems to me that these various discourses on diversity may respond to their different audiences, that is, the different views and agendas on Interculturalidad (or more specifically intercultural education) that are held by the actors involved in the policy making process. For instance, the policy was designed and written by DIGEIBIRA (the office in charge of intercultural and bilingual education). Later on, it was re-examined via consultation with seven Indigenous movements. Then it was approved by the Ministerial Coordination Comission of the Ministry of Education. Finally, it was approved by the Presidency of the Council of Ministers (Villarán, personal communication, March 31st). Although it is not possible to affirm what discourses are held by what actors, it is clear that these various representations on diversity echo what Fairclough (1995, as cited in Phillips & Hardy, 2002) contends on discourse, namely that it is a site of struggle wherein dominant groups struggle to assert and maintain particular structuring, while subordinated groups struggle for social change. Furthermore, the silence surrounding or lack of discussin of the colonial power dimension that constitutes Peruvian diversity also emerges from the Peruvian intercultural education legislative document in two other forms. First, in different parts of the document it is suggested, through the chosen language, that conflict, racism, and discrimination within Peruvian society are natural consequences of being part of certain sociocultural groups and not others: “These conflicts have arisen from the encounter and misencounter   132  between people and groups from different cultural traditions. The prejudice, stereotypes, racism, and discrimination are common components and they are always present in the interaction among peoples and groups that are culturally diverse” (IE policy, 2016, political-democratic rationale, p. 16).  While the words and phrases “have arisen from”, “common”, “always present” normalize the inequal and exclusionary relationships among different sociocultural groups in Peru, they also obscure the sociopolitical, historical, and colonial causes of these types of relationships. Moreover, the central events addressed in the last excerpt (i.e. racism, conflict, discrimination) are connected only to the peoples and groups who suffer them, while other (colonial) subjects and objects remain absent (e.g., state, society, dominant elites).  The second and related discursive form is that the Westernized dominant elites in Peru (i.e. White/Whitened/Mestizo groups) remain absent from the policy representation of Peruvian cultural diversity. They are only mentioned in this paragraph: “intercultural education focuses on European descendents, as well as Afroperuvian people and Asian immigrants. In the contexts that concentrate Indigenous peoples with particular worldviews and cultures, implementation of the EIB is also needed” (IE policy, beneficiary population section, p. 10). The absence of the dominant elites in education policies from this country has been previously discussed by the Indigenous Peruvian scholar Sumida-Huaman (2014), who contends that, although this discursive absence might be read as instrumental in bringing national attention to Indigenous communities—and, in much lower proportion, Afroperuvian and Asian descendants118 (in the case of this policy),—it blurs the role                                                           118 It is the only quotation wherein Asian descendants are mentioned in the policy text, and one of the few times wherein Afroperuvians are included.   133  dominant groups play in colonial frictions since marginalization, exclusion, and discrimination of people happens in relation to different sectors of society.  To conclude, the current IE policy text represents diversity in various forms, wherein instrumental and superficial discourse prevails over others and seems to be closely grounded in a economistic rationale according to which the value and return of ‘things’ (i.e. cultural diversity) need to be highlighted in order for them to become relevant, meaningful, or valuable. These discourses, together with the normalization of discrimination and inequality (and, therefore, the silence) of the colonial structures that permeate the culturally-diverse Peruvian society contrast deeply with the concerns of the Chirapaq Indigenous movement when it comes to cultural diversity. Thus, where the Indigenous movement discursively targets the colonially-imposed structure of cultural diversity, the 2016 IE policy document takes matters into the opposite direction, silencing this colonial dimension of cultural diversity.  Against this background, I argue that the Chirapaq representation of cultural diversity contests the IE policy discourse by ‘filling the gaps’ that the policy leaves when it comes to framing cultural diversity. In other words, by explicitly naming the colonial actors, institutions (the education systems, the Peruvian government), and (colonial) processes of differentiation that are silenced throughout the 2016 intercultural education policy document. The Chirapaq discourse on cultural diversity contests the policy discourse by profoundly emphasizing the colonial dimension of cultural diversity that the IE policy obscures.      134  6.2. From the Chirapaq’s Texts to Peruvian Intercultural Education Policy: The Question of Indigenous Languages, Knowledges, and Territory Indigenous knowledges and languages are themes particularly discussed in the rationale section of the IE policy document. Two aspects characterize the way these themes are represented in the policy. On one hand, it fails to engage with any discussion on the structures that organize Indigenous languages and knowledges in (colonial) relation to the Eurocentric thoughts and languages of the Peruvian context. On the other hand, the policy text fails to discursively recognize the holistic nature of Indigenous knowledges; that is, it separates or fragments, through omission of discussion, Indigenous languages and knowledges from Indigenous territory.  The IE policy starts its introductory section by stating that “intercultural bilingual education should guarantee Indigenous peoples’ learning taking in consideration their knowledges, histories, practices, values, and the strengthening of their languages” (p. 3). It also continues, explaining that: Those who are Indigenous peoples have the right to learn in their cultural and linguistic frameworks [referents] as well as to have access to other cultural codes, aiming to have the same opportunities that all Peruvian students. Likewise, they [Indigenous peoples] have the right to learn Spanish, the language for national communication, and a foreign language, for communication in broader contexts (IE policy, introduction, p. 3)  Both quotations highlight the importance of Indigenous students learning not only in their languages, but also taking into consideration Indigenous knowledges. The incorporation of this within the most recent IE Peruvian policy is an important step since Indigenous knowledges have been systematically excluded, in discourse and practice, from   135  Peruvian models of schooling and official education policies. For instance, several scholars have repeatedly noted how intercultural education for Indigenous students in Peru has been historically focused on the learning of Spanish (bilingual education) and is to the detriment of their cultures (Aikman, 1999a; Trapnell & Zavala, 2013; Sumida-Huaman & Valdiviezo, 2014).  Despite the recognition of the centrality of these dimensions in Indigenous students’ formal education, the whole policy text prevents any discussion on the asymmetrical relationships between them and the dominant Eurocentric knowledges and languages in Peru (e.g. Spanish and English). Thus, (de)colonial questions emerge and remain unanswered throughout the policy document. For instance: ‘How have Spanish and English become the language for national communication?’ ‘Why does a foreign language serve to communicate in broader contexts?’ A colonial discussion on the historical subjects, objects, and causes of the supremacy of Eurocentric languages in Peru remains also obscured in other parts of the policy document, wherein, in the best scenario, there is a vague reference to the existence of ‘historical and political reasons’ for this supremacy: Because Spanish [castellano] is the most extended language in Peru, due to historical and political reasons, it is the only language capable of articulating the different social groups of this country. All Peruvians have the right then to learn and use this language as an instrument of intercultural relationships… All Peruvians also have the right to appropriate a foreign language for broader communication. (IE policy, 2016, pedagogical rationale, p.15)  Likewise, by using the phrases “Spanish is the only language capable of articulating”, “Spanish is the most extensive language in Peru” (p. 15), or “a foreign language for communication in broader contexts” (p. 3) without a decolonial gaze, the   136  policy does not only normalize the supremacy of Spanish and English119 languages in this country, but also discursively constructs them as having better prestige and utility in the a national and global context, especially in contraposition with Other languages in Peru ( i.e. Indigenous languages).120 A similar differentiation emerges when Indigenous knowledges and Western knowledges are spoken of in different sections of the policy text. It is important to mention that the term ‘Western/Eurocentric knowledge’ is not explicitly used, but it is linked to or suggested in the words ‘European descendants’, ‘global knowledge’, or ‘modern thought’ (see next quotations). As Mignolo (2007b) explains, the modern or the global may be understood as the location in time of the ideals to be attained, and they are situated as existing in the geopolitical space of Western Europe.  In the section “Beneficiary Population” (p. 10) the policy declares the following: “intercultural eduction is focused on European descendents, as well as Afroperuvian people and Asian immigrants. In the contexts that concentrate Indigenous peoples with particular worldviews and cultures, implementation of the EIB is also needed”. The policy continues in the next paragraph, stating that:  “in the particular case of Indigenous people, and because of the different sociocultural and economic processes wherein they are inmersed, there are different sociocultural and linguistic situations…”(p. 11) (author’s emphasis). Drawing on Mignolo’s (2007b) and Walsh’s (2009b) insights on colonial difference, I argue that by using the phrases “particular case” (p. 11), “particular worldviews” (p. 10), “different sociocultural process wherein they are immerse” (p. 11) and linking them only                                                           119 I am of the opinion that ‘the foreign language’ is English, since the government has promoted, in the last years, a series of education policies and practices to improve the teaching and learning of English, and no other foreign language, in Peruvian public schools. 120 In my view, these ‘Other languages’ are Indigenous languages since the officially recognized languages in Peru are Spanish and two of 42 Indigenous languages.    137  with Indigenous peoples, the policy language suggests that only Indigenous peoples have culture or differentiated worldviews, and affirms— simultaneously—the universality of the Eurocentric dominant thought in Peru. In doing so, particularity is turned into difference, but a difference that is distinctly subordinated. On this differentiation, Battiste (2000, p. 16) also reflects that: While some peoples have civilizations, philosophies, romance languages, or cultured societies, other peoples have cultures, dialects, worldviews, and tribal knowledge. Peoples with “civilizations” are regarded as inherently superior to peoples with “cultures” and “worldviews”.  Likewise, the colonial differentiation of Indigenous knowledges continues in other parts of the text, specifically in the Policy lines, where in the former are represented as traditional, non-scientific, or non-modern and in contraposition with the global, universal, or modern (Western) knowledge: [We seek] to foster the use of teaching and learning strategies that take into consideration Indigenous students’ ways of knowing, aiming to articulate them with the other methodological strategies that come from modern pedagogy and thought. (IE policy, 2016, guideline 9, p. 21) (author’s emphasis) [We seek for students] learn a foreign language that guarantees the access to and knowledge of other cultures, such as science and technology, and the relation with subjects and knowledges of the global level. (IE policy, 2016, guideline 13, p. 21)  The representation of Indigenous knowledges as having nothing to do with science is also suggested in this quotation:  It is fundamental to develop educational process that allows the students to learn according to their socio-environmental and cultural reality in order to   138  them [the students] depart from there and approach knowledges and values that come from other cultural horizons and from science. (IE policy, pedagogical rationale, p. 15) (author’s emphasis)  The insights of Indigenous scholar Battiste (2000) and the decolonial scholar Mignolo (2007b) on the way Indigenous knowledges are (mis)understood under a (colonial) Eurocentric framework is useful in understanding the meanings of the last three quotations. According to them, for as long as Europeans have sought to colonize Indigenous peoples, Indigenous knowledges have been strategically positioned as being in binary opposition to rationality, Western, scientific, or modern knowledge. Under Eurocentric lenses, Indigenous knowledges are dismissed in the same way Western thought dismisses any sociopolitical, cultural life that they do not understand. Thus, Indigenous peoples’ contribution to science, technology, and knowledge has been usually make invisible or denied.  At this point, I wish to put forward an argument for the Chirapaq’s representation of Indigenous knowledges and languages to be understood as an act of discursive contestation of the 2016 IE policy construction on the same themes. Where the Indigenous movement, once again, starts with and brings to the fore the subordination of their knowledges and languages in Peruvian society, the policy not only directs our attention away from this issue, but also keeps reproducing a colonial differentiation through its chosen language and discourse. Likewise, as delineated in chapter 5, I argue that by articulating different discourses on Indigenous knowledges and languages, grounded in both Indigenous and instrumental frameworks, the Chirapaq contests— “using the same tools and categories of the hegemonic systems” (2014, p. 7)—the way these Indigenous peoples’ dimensions are constructed by the ongoing IE policy discourse. In other words, the movement contests the   139  colonial myth that Indigenous knowledges are no-modern, non-scientific, and non-useful for this the contemporary world by referring to some Eurocentric categories as instead being complex, advantage, success, and future. Furthermore, the absence of any discussion or reference to Indigenous territory through the whole IE policy document is problematic; an absence that shows the government’s failure to recognize or understand the interconnectedness of this dimension with Indigenous knowledges and languages. While the holistic nature of Indigenous knowledge systems emerges as a central aspect within the Chirapaq’s discourse on Interculturalidad, the most recent Peruvian intercultural policy document fragments this system by omission of any discussion of Indigenous territory. This ‘omission’ happens in a context where Indigenous territory constitutes a highly conflictive dimension because of the opposite views on she that have been held by Indigenous peoples and Peruvian governments. While the former’s historical struggles have been over the respect, protection, and control over their territories—understood as the basis of Indigenous life—Peruvian governments have prioritized ‘the progress’ of the country through the commodification of these territories in the name of ‘the benefit of the whole Peruvian population’ (Walsh, 2005). Following Sumida-Huaman’s (2014) insights, it may be the conflictive terrain that Indigenous lands represent for the Peruvian government together with its Eurocentric, limited understanding of the holistic nature of Indigenous knowledges that explain the absence of this dimension in education policy texts and, therefore, its fragmentation. Although the Chirapaq Indigenous movement does make a direct reference to the 2016 IE policy, it challenges, in its written and spoken texts, the fragmentation of Indigenous peoples’ knowledges as follows:   140  Language, identity, culture, in the case of Indigenous peoples, is expressed through our territory... if we do not have control over our territory, if we do not respect or have rights over our territory, then we are mutilated. Then, all our system is weak because all our system is interrelated with each of its elements. (Interculturalidad and Indigenous rights, 2012, p. 6) By specifically using the word ‘mutilation’—which means to inflict serious damage upon something or someone—as a term that better emphasizes the brutality of the fragmentation that occurs, the Chirapaq Indigenous movement achieves its purpose of highlighting the serious consequences for Indigenous peoples’ lives that results from compartmentalizing their knowledge systems. That is, separating any action, decision, or discussion on their languages and knowledges from their territory. As Indigenous scholars clearly state, any attempt to separate the web of relationships that embodies Indigenous knowledge systems is an attempt to destroy or eradicate it (Battiste, 2000; Sumida-Huaman, 2014). In a few words, the omission of one element of Indigenous systems represents the weakening of the whole system.  6.3. Conclusion In this chapter I have discussed the how the 2016 Peruvian intercultural education policy constructs the same themes that emerged from the Chirapaq’s written and spoken texts. I focused my discussion, first, on the policy representation of cultural diversity, and, second, on its construction of Indigenous languages, Indigenous knowledges, and (the absence of) territory. In relation to cultural diversity, the policy text offers multiple, mixed, and sometimes overlapping discourses. They go from diversity-as-right discourse through diversity-to-overcome-exclusion to diversity-as-instrument-of-growth. Additionally, a vague or superficial representation of this theme, as a ‘positive thing’, permeates the policy   141  text. I therefore argue that the interdiscursivity of the IE policy text may be attempting to respond differently to and reflecting varying views of its different audiences within the same text. That is, it may reflect and respond to the various actors and views involved in the policy making process. Likewise, the IE policy articulation of these four types of discourses on cultural diversity, together with the way it normalizes the exclusionary relationships among Peruvians, and its silence on the dominant Peruvian elites obscure the central issue when it comes to cultural diversity. In other words, the policy language and discourse obscure the structural colonial dimension that constitute this Peruvian diversity: the societal structures that have organize sociocultural groups in vertical relationships since Spanish colonialization.  The policy discursively constructs Indigenous languages as particular (or local), less prestigious, and less useful than Spanish and English; while Indigenous knowledges are framed as traditional, non-scientific, or non-modern. In short, these dimensions of Indigenous life are represented in contraposition to the modern, the global, and the Eurocentric idea of science.  I argue then that the policy language reproduces what Mignolo (2007b) discusses as colonial difference. In the same vein, the policy text fails to recognize the holistic nature of Indigenous knowledge system by discursively separating it, through omission of discussion, from Indigenous territory.  Finally, I developed the argument, through this chapter, that the Chirapaq’s discursive construction on cultural diversity, Indigenous knowledges, languages, and territory resists or contests, in three central forms, the way these themes are represented within the IE policy text. First, where the policy discourse silences, reproduces, or obscures any conversation on the colonial structures that constitutes the Peruvian society; the movement brings this conversation to the fore and in each of the themes that inform its   142  intercultural discourse. Thus, The Chirapaq’s profound emphasis on this colonial dimension—on its process, actors, and objects— ‘fill those gaps’ left by the IE policy in a way that contest it.  Second, where the IE policy discursively separates Indigenous knowledges and languages from territory, the Indigenous movement contests this fragmentation by using, for instance, the word ‘mutilation’ to strongly symbolize the serious impact of this fragmentation on Indigenous peoples’ culture and life. Third, where the IE policy discursively positions Indigenous knowledges and languages as non-modern, non-scientific, non-useful for contemporary world; the Indigenous movement combines an Indigenous approach with Eurocentric language and categories to resist the former representation. Thus, Indigenous knowledges and languages are constructed, by the Chirapaq, as ancestry and future, tradition and success, as central for Indigenous life and as an advantage for contemporary world.     143  Chapter Seven: Conclusions and Policy Recommendations This concluding chapter is divided in five sections. I start by summarizing and reviewing the central aim of the study and the decisions made in terms of my theoretical and methodological framework. In the second section, I summarize the main points regarding how the Chirapaq Indigenous movement and the IE policy discursively construct the notion of Interculturalidad, as well as how both views encounter with each other. I end this section by reflecting on what type of (intercultural) education each construction of Interculturalidad articulates and advocates. In the third section of the chapter, I propose some policy recommendations from a critical and decolonial viewpoint. In the fourth section I develop the limitations of this research. Finally, in the last section, I give some suggestions for further research. These suggestions are principally focus on broadening the investigation of the multiples bottom-up perspectives on Peruvian intercultural education as well as on analyzing the present and evolving arguments of the Peruvian government in the same matter (i.e. stakeholders). The aim of this final section is to suggest further research that continues to relate intercultural education policy and the demands of their (traditionally excluded) users. 7.1. Overview of the Study’s Theoretical and Methodological Decisions This study has explored an educational issue. It has been about how one Indigenous organization from Peru conceptualizes a specific education notion and policy, namely, Interculturalidad (notion embedded in intercultural education texts) and how their expectations compare to the Peruvian government’s official articulation of same (especially in the form of an evolving policy document). A review of the literature revealed two central   144  issues in relation to Indigenous education and intercultural education policies in Peru. First, the Peruvian government’s approach to Indigenous education and intercultural education has moved, over time, between three different positions: (i) it has assumed an assimilationist approach through bilingual education; (ii) it has showed lack of political will to prioritize intercultural education in its agenda, and; (iii) it has adopted, more recently, a technocratic discourse on and practice in intercultural education. Second, despite this scenario, Indigenous peoples in general, and Indigenous movements in particular, have both resisted the government’s approaches and maintained or developed their own conceptions and models of education (e.g. traditional and updated community-based education, and indigenous models of intercultural education). For instance, some Indigenous movements have demanded identity recognition or discussions on coloniality within the government IE policy discourse. Thus, the analysis of the literature reviewed shows the distance between the rhetoric and practice of intercultural education policies and the demands, expectations, and perspectives of Indigenous peoples of Peru. The Indigenous peoples’ voices still remain underrepresented in the decisions about their own education when it comes to the Peruvian state. It is precisely this underrepresentation and distance that I have addressed through this study, aiming to keep contributing to how this relates to IE policies and to the demands of their main targeted students, namely Indigenous students. In pursuit of this aim, and to contribute to the literature on this area of research, I investigated how an Indigenous organization from Peru constructs the notion of Interculturalidad—when they speak of intercultural education—and the contrast between their conception and that of the government. To begin to accomplish this aim, it was necessary to locate publicly accessible documents that demonstrate an Indigenous   145  movement’s position on Peruvian intercultural education, and to do the same to find the government’s position, which is also publicly accessible. Such materials regarding the former were found, for the most part, on the website and archives of the Chirapaq Indigenous organization, and in the official website of the DIGEIBIRA (the Peruvian Ministry of Education’s office in charge of intercultural education). The Chirapaq organization has developed a strong discursively-mediated space (website) that contends, in different formats (written, spoken texts), their own understanding of intercultural education. From studying the government’s textual representation, I sought the most important and representative Peruvian intercultural education policy, which by the time I was writing this thesis (June, 2016) was approved after its most recent 2002 version. While the texts of the Chirapaq organization helped me to develop an understanding of Interculturalidad from a bottom-up, Indigenous perspective, the policy text allowed me to include the most recent approach of Peruvian government with regards to this matter. For the theoretical framework of this study, I combined different theoretical lenses that allowed me to focus the analysis on two aspects: One, the Peruvian societal structures that have excluded, subordinated, and negated Indigenous peoples— structures against which Indigenous peoples have historically struggled; and two, the alternative Indigenous view and expectations on intercultural education held by the Chirapaq Indigenous movement. As a result, I combined a decolonial theoretical framework—which started the conversation on the colonial power dimensions that organize society— with the work of decolonial scholars with Andean Indigenous movements on Interculturalidad, and finally, the principle of interrelatedness from an Indigenous knowledge system. This hybrid decolonial framework was helpful not only in interpreting the movement’s decolonial   146  demands when it comes to (de)constructing Interculturalidad, but also reveals demands for improved IE policies that were grounded in their distinct, Indigenous paradigm. In this Other view, Indigenous knowledges, languages, and territory, and the interrelationships therein, were brought to the fore, and constituted a foundational part of the Chirapaq’s intercultural discourse. Using these same decolonial lenses, the current intercultural education policy rhetoric was also investigated and contrasted with the alternative Chirapaq perspective. The hybrid theoretical lenses were useful to critically ‘read’ the policy discourse from the viewpoint of the dominated, marginalized, and subordinated Indigenous peoples.   In relation to the methodological framework, I decided to articulate Fairclough’s and Foucault’s theories and methods for doing critical discourse analysis. This decision was made in consideration of the different aspects that characterized this research study. One aspect was that Fairclough’s and Foucault’s basic premises on discourse, power, and the subject were suitable in conjunction with my own critical paradigmatic stance and, therefore, with my goals as a researcher, in contrast with other discourse analysis approaches where this is not the case. A second, pivotal aspect was that both Foucauldian-inspired models utilize and understand discourse as central to the concept of Interculturalidad being investigated, and in a way that it can be also seen as a space wherein there is struggle. Therefore, both approaches permitted me, on one hand, to recognize and focus my attention on the discursive dimension embedded in the Chirapaq’s website and in the policy document, and, on the other hand, to see this discursively-mediated space as a political space of struggles over the meaning of Interculturalidad. In a few words, they were useful for doing a bottom-up discursive analysis. A third and related   147  aspect arose in response to my intention to investigate a top-down (IE policy) against a bottom-up (the Chirapaq’s texts) conceptions of Interculturalidad. While Fairclough’s and Foucault’s models on discourse, separately, are usually used to conduct top-down investigations, the combination of their analytical tools (linguistic and non-linguistic discursive tools) were needed for developing a broader understanding to include a bottom-up view on Interculturalidad and its encounter with the dominant government version. For instance, where the Foucauldian approach offered discursive tools for doing an abstract mapping of the way different themes informed the Chirapaq’s intercultural discourse (e.g. for identifying my themes as sub-themes), Fairclough’s approach was pivotal when used to read the representations of these themes that were principally activated linguistically (e.g. the use of symbolic words as ‘mutilation’ [connotation of words strategy] and the interplay between the past and present to elucidate coloniality [passive/active voice]). Also, the use of both analytical tools together allowed for a more consistent verification of my analysis and interpretations. It is important to remember that the assumptions on discourse coming from these approaches did not contradict or interfere with my decolonial framework. In fact, the former (critical discourse theory) supported the latter (decolonial framework) in the process of giving meaning to the discursive dimension of power embedded in the Indigenous movement’s texts and the IE policy documents. 7.2. Interculturalidad from Below: The Chirapaq’s Encounter with Peruvian Intercultural Education Policy – Main Conclusions I would like to start the main conclusions of the research findings by briefly answering the three research questions: what is the Chirapaq’s discursive construction of Interculturalidad? How is Interculturidad constructed by the ongoing Peruvian   148  intercultural education policy? How does the Chirapaq’s discursive construction of Interculturalidad resist or contest the policy discourse on the same matter? A simple answer to the first question is that the Chirapaq constructs Interculturalidad as intrinsically related to the problem of the colonial power structures that have subordinated all dimensions of Indigenous peoples’ lives. Furthermore, they utilize this reconceptualization of Interculturidad as an opportunity to bring to the center their own views on knowledges, languages, and territory. This construction of Interculturalidad corresponds with what Walsh (2007) and Aman (2014) found in their conversations with Andean Indigenous movements. While both of these scholars explain how Interculturalidad is used by some Andean movements as a conceptual tool to challenge and reflect on colonial structures, Aman also found that Indigenous leaders’ definitions of Interculturalidad privilege “another rationale in relation to territory, one inseparable from knowledge, cosmology and language” (p. 222). Therefore, we can conclude that Interculturalidad constitutes, for the Chirapaq, a highly political discourse that can be employed to resist and contest the official policy, and articulate their own vision of education and demand their rights. The second question is more difficult to answer, since the IE policy discourse on Interculturalidad is diverse and sometimes ambiguous. However, it is possible to assert, first, that the policy construction is principally dominated by a discussion on cultural diversity, which is positioned—combining multiple discourses—as a means (e.g. to overcome exclusion, to achieve growth) to and end (e.g. positive point of arrival). In all the policy text’s diverse discursive scenarios, cultural diversity seems to be principally dominated by an instrumental conception. Second, the policy conversation on diversity does not begin to deal with the root of “the real issue” (Chirapaq, 2014, p. 6), namely that discrimination, racism, exclusion, and social asymmetries in Peru take on significance and   149  meaning within the assertion of colonial power. Third, its intercultural construction keeps reproducing, through discourse, a colonial differentiation of Indigenous knowledges, and languages and fails to recognize (or perhaps even to understand) the holistic nature of Indigenous knowledge systems. Overall, the findings of this study suggest a discrepancy between the policy view on intercultural education and the demands and expectations on the same matter of the bottom-up Chirapaq Indigenous movement. In relation to the third research question, the Chirapaq’s construction of Interculturalidad is seen as a discursive act of resistance or contestation of the policy’s representation in three different ways: firstly, the Chirapaq resist by giving answers to various decolonial questions that remain open throughout the policy text (e.g. what are the historical patterns of Peruvian social asymmetries? Why is Spanish ‘the most’ extensive language in Peru, and why is it extensively/exclusively used for [global]) communication?); by giving a name and a face to some (colonial) actors and institutions that are also absent in the policy text (e.g. the Peruvian government and the education system); and, by showing its awareness of the process through which the Indigenous peoples have been excluded and subordinated (colonial difference). In a few words, the Chirapaq contests the policy text’s discourse by starting a conversation about Interculturalidad from the “logic hidden underneath keywords such as development, progress, or, to put differently, coloniality” (Mignolo, 2007b, p. 470), a conversation avoided and obscured by the IE policy itself. Secondly, the Chirapaq’s construction of Interculturalidad can be seen as a discursive act of resistance or contestation by combining the Chirapaq’s Indigenous perspective with those categories traditionally used to subordinate or negate the Indigenous peoples and their perspectives (some of them also found throughout the IE policy text), which speaks to their   150  own knowledges and languages. In other words, the Chirapaq contests the policy construction using different discourses to assert that indigenous knowledges and languages are, indeed, ancestry, tradition, and alternative ways of relating to all forms of existence. And, they are also asserting the legitimacy of their future, their complexities, their science, and their advantages. Thirdly, by discursively and linguistically emphasizing the unity and inseparability of Indigenous knowledges, languages, and territory—an inseparability unrecognized and misunderstood within the IE policy text. Using image-invoking language (e.g. ‘mutilation’) to strongly emphasize the terrible impact of fragmentation on Indigenous peoples’ existence achieves this aim. I would like to end this section by reflecting on the differences that these discourses on Interculturalidad speak to. First, these differences speak to the different frameworks in which each intercultural discourse is grounded. While the Chirapaq construction of Interculturalidad is principally grounded in an Indigenous perspective on language, knowledge, and territory and also in their colonial experience, the intercultural education policy is closer to an instrumental viewpoint on Peruvian cultural diversity as it is based on a Westernized (mis)understanding of Indigenous worldviews. These different discourses also speak to the different educational approaches to social asymmetries, exclusion, and discrimination. While the Chirapaq affirms that Interculturalidad is an issue of (colonial) asymmetrical power and, therefore, it is the issue that should be primarily addressed in formal education; the IE policy assumes a ‘soft’ approach to these issues not only by normalizing them but also by omitting any discussion of the government’s role and the privilege and power of Peruvian White/Whitened/Mestizo elites. Finally, I believe that the policy and the movement’s different constructions of Interculturalidad also speak to different understandings of formal education. Where the Chirapaq relates (intercultural)   151  education to life itself (i.e. education cannot happen without taking in consideration the essential dimensions of Indigenous life) and as a space to challenge the historical power patterns that permeate Peruvian society, the IE policy representation of Interculturalidad speaks of education as a neutral space where highly ‘controversial and political’ topics are omitted and the value-addition of ‘things’ (e.g. Peruvian cultural diversity, speaking ‘global languages’)  becomes essential.   7.3. Intercultural Education Policy Recommendations These policy recommendations are written with the goal to suggest possibilities for improving Peruvian intercultural education policy departing from a critical and decolonial frame and looking toward the construction of a more just Peruvian society. The central recommendations are: 7.3.1. Affirm Indigenous Knowledge, Language, and Territory Within the IE Policy Text The findings of this research and the literature reviewed on Indigenous knowledges and education strongly emphasize that, under an Indigenous framework, Indigenous languages, knowledges, and territory (or land) are inseparable. They are a cohesive formation. It is not possible to have a respectful and just education for Indigenous students (and all school students) if it is focused only on one dimension of Indigenous life (e.g. language), while it fails to understand and fully integrate some elements (e.g. knowledge) and ignores their other essential dimensions (e.g. territory). Besides, the fragmentation of these dimensions reduces the possibilities for Indigenous students’ school learning since they are not grounded in their distinctive frameworks. Therefore, Peruvian IE policy should affirm in its text that Indigenous knowledges, language, and territory are not only part of an   152  integral Indigenous system and essential for Indigenous life, but also that these three inseparable dimensions should be promoted and respected within any education model that concerns Indigenous peoples. I recommend a progressive reform of the intercultural education policy framework and ground it in Indigenous knowledges, pedagogies, and notions of identity, which include belonging to the land or territory. 7.3.2.   Develop an IE Policy Grounded in a Decolonial Framework The policy discourse demonstrates its concern for addressing marginalization and discrimination in various forms in Peruvian society and attempts to do so via a policy discourse of inclusion, anti-racism, and anti-discrimination. However, this concern will not be fully addressed if decoloniality and structural societal change are not the central focus of the policy approach. Therefore, I suggest that the IE policy starts by answering sociopolitical and historical questions throughout its text, such as: How is the policy approach fighting exclusion, inequality, discrimination, and racism against Indigenous peoples of Peru (and against different Peruvian ethnic groups)? What are the roots of the sociocultural tensions in Peruvian society? Who are the people with more and less power in Peru? Likewise, I also suggest that the policy explicitly discuss three issues. First, the issue of the obvious predominance of the hegemonic Spanish-language in Peruvian society. Second, the privileged position of White/Whitened/Mestizo groups within Peruvian society and their role in achieving a real Peruvian intercultural education. Third, the role of Peruvian government and educational institutions in the reproduction of Indigenous peoples’ exclusion, discrimination, and marginalization. Otherwise, there is a risk to inequality, discrimination, exclusion, and racism become natural events or default characteristics of Peruvian society and, therefore, continue to reproduce them.    153  7.3.3.   Promote Spaces of Dialogue on Indigenous Frameworks to Education  This research has demonstrated the IE policy’s lack of understanding of Indigenous knowledges and languages as well as their consideration as less-than and subordinated to Eurocentric language and though. I recommend to foster and develop seminars, webinars, and talking circles wherein Peruvian Westernized approach to education is discussed from a critical and decolonial perspective (e.g. their impact and negative consequences for Indigenous peoples). I also suggest to promote conversation on the encounter and misencounter between the former and Indigenous frameworks on education. 7.3.4.   Promote Participation of Indigenous Peoples in the Education Policy-Making Process The findings of this thesis demonstrate the discrepancies between the 2016 policy rhetoric on Interculturalidad and one Indigenous movement’s discourse on the same. This distance has also been found in previous research on contemporary Peruvian education policies and, in particular, intercultural education policies (see Chapter 2). Therefore, my recommendation is to incorporate and foster Indigenous peoples’ participation in the whole policy-making process and not only at final stages of the intercultural education policy design (i.e. consultation process). In the short term, I recommend that the DIGEIBIRA promotes and develop more strategies to foster a systematic dialogue between policymakers, intermediate policy implementers, different Indigenous movements, and intercultural education teachers, particularly during the first years of its implementation. These years may be pivotal to understand to what extent the new IE policy is responding to the demands, needs, and reality of these different actors.   154  In the same vein, I recommend to foster mechanism to incorporate Indigenous leaders, Indigenous scholars, Indigenous activists, and Indigenous experts on intercultural education within the Peruvian public service, such as the cases of the DIGEIBIRA office of the Peruvian Ministry of Education, the Office of Curriculum development of the Ministry of Education, the Deputy Ministry of Interculturalidad of the Peruvian Ministry of Culture, among others. As Chirapaq states (2014), the incorporation of Indigenous peoples in administrative, management, and political positions within the government is essential to gain representation and to have the power for incorporating their distinctive demands and perspectives. It also continues:  The Ministry of Education has fostered roundtables for consultations. But we do not have participation in the management or the design of the policies that concerns us… Education is not only about preparing competent people, it is also the most important political project of the state and we want to have a decisive role within it (Chirapaq, 2014, p. 10)  7.3.5.  Fostering Collaborative Research and Incorporating Intercultural Educational Experience of Indigenous Movement and Communities The study of the Chirapaq’s understanding of Interculturalidad demonstrates the existence of a perspective already developed in relation to this matter. It has been also demonstrated by the literature reviewed, which discuss different intercultural education models developed by Indigenous movements and communities in Peru (e.g. traditional and up-dated community based education, PEBIAN and AIDESEP program on intercultural education), models that have departed, in various ways, from Indigenous worldviews and from Indigenous peoples’ expectations of education (see Chapter 2). I recommend the incorporation of these different experiences in the improvement of the 2016 IE policy   155  implementation and in the design of future intercultural education guidelines. This incorporation can take two interrelated pathways: (i) the analysis and investigation of the educational programs already developed (and in some cases researched) in relation to curricula, pedagogy, materials, teacher training, implementation, context-based infrastructure, and budget; and (ii) the development of collaborative research with Peruvian Indigenous scholars on further research related to intercultural education policy and practice. 7.4. Limitations of the Study One important limitation of the study is that it has only addressed one Indigenous movement or organization. It therefore does not deal with the extent to which the Chirapaq’s articulation on intercultural education mirrors of differs from other different Indigenous organizations in Peru or elsewhere in Latin America. Another limitation is that this research has not considered differences within Indigeneity (e.g. views of Indigenous women and their organizations) or even within the specific Chirapaq Indigenous organization (e.g. possible different views or other specific points within the organization) Likewise, the study has not addressed other minority groups in Peru when it comes to understand their position on intercultural education, that is, it has not explored how Peruvian education system treats other ethnic minorities (e.g. Afroperuvian or Asian descendants) and actors (e.g. parents) as well as what their responses are. A third limitation is that the study has been focused on Peruvian intercultural education (and how Interculturalidad is represented within it), while an analysis of Peruvian education system as a whole was not addressed.    156  7.5. Suggestions for Further Research Taking in consideration the limitations of this study, further avenues of exploration are revealed. First, it is important to continue to extend the understanding of both the different and similar positions that diverse ethnic groups of Peru occupy in relation to intercultural education. For instance, there is a need to incorporate a voice completely absent in the research area: women’s Indigenous movements. This is particularly relevant since Peru is characterized by having a high gender disparity when it comes to political participation and decision-making power (and in other dimensions, such as access to education, labor force participation, etc.)—a disparity that becomes dramatic when it comes to minoritized and ethnicized women (e.g. Indigenous or Afroperuvian women). As one Peruvian Indigenous leader has stated: “Indigenous women from Peru have achieved some goals. We have more presence, but we do not participate. Participation means to speak, it means to say what we think and feel. We still do not have participation in decision making or in the Peruvian political arena. We have more voice but still no vote” (Canales Poma, 2010, June 10).    Second, the process of exploring the Chirapaq’s official website and my visit to their main office in Peru showed me that there are also other, relevant forms that are a part of the discourse from an Indigenous perspective, through which the Indigenous movement’s position, expectations, and demands on Interculturalidad can be better understood. Thus, I call for further studies that also explore Indigenous organizations’ public actions, developed programs, developed materials, and other matters with which Indigenous movements and organizations engage. Third, the investigation of the perspective of other ethnicized movements is also relevant for further exploration, as in the   157  cases of Afroperuvian movements and Asian descendants’ perspectives. While both groups are mentioned within the 2016 IE policy document, there is limited research in their perspectives on intercultural education.  Similarly, including interviews with Indigenous students, parents, and teachers about their relationship with their culture, what they think of Interculturidad, and what their views are on an ideal educational framework is also suggested. Thus, researchers need to continue to broaden the investigation of bottom-up perspectives on intercultural education by incorporating the diversity of these voices: women, parents, ethnic minorities, and the organizations and movements that represent them. Some questions that may guide this further research are: what expectations do groups like Afroperuvian organizations and intragroup organizations such as Indigenous women’s and Afroperuvian women’s organizations have of intercultural education? Are there differences in perspectives and expectations between Amazonian Indigenous movements and Quechua Indigenous movements? What are Indigenous parents’ views on ideal educational frameworks? Fourth, a new intercultural education policy has been approved in Peru—after 10 years since its last version, it a policy that included a process of consultation with seven Indigenous movements from Peru for the first time. I call for the investigation of this new dynamic or process, particularly the characteristics of the policy’s process of consultation (e.g. what actors were involved and absent in the process of consultation, what changes were made or not made during the process of consultation, to what extend was this consultation an ambiguous show that reinforces rather than deconstructs coloniality) as well as the differences and similarities among the 2016 IE policy and previous Peruvian intercultural education policies. In the same vein, an empirical study that interviews stake   158  holders is also suggested since their perspectives and argument are decisive in the IE policy design and making process.     159  References  Aikman, S. (1997). Interculturality and intercultural education : A challenge for democracy. International Review of Education, 43(5), 463–479. --. (1999a). The emergence of indigenous education in Peru. In Aikman S. (Ed.). Intercultural Education and Literacy : An Ethnographic Study of Indigenous Knowledge and Learning in the Peruvian Amazons. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. --. (1999b). Intercultural Education and Literacy : An ethnographic study of Indigenous knowledge and learning in the Peruvian Amazons. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. --. (1999c). Arakmbut informal knowledge. In Aikman S. (Ed.). Intercultural Education and Literacy : An Ethnographic Study of Indigenous Knowledge and Learning in the Peruvian Amazons. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. --. (2012). Interrogating discourses of intercultural education: From Indigenous Amazon community to global policy forum. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 42(2), 235–257. Aman, R. (2014a). Why Interculturalidad is not Interculturality: Colonial remains and paradoxes in translation between indigenous social movements and supranational bodies. Cultural Studies, 29(2), 1–24. --. (2014b). Why Interculturalidad is not interculturality. Cultural Studies, 29(2), 1–24.  Arribas-Ayllon, M. & Walkerdine, V. (2012) Foucauldian Discourse Analysis. In Willig, C., & Stainton Rogers, W. (Eds.). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology. Los Angeles, Calif: SAGE Publications  Baskin, C. (2006). Aboriginal world views as challenges and possibilities in social work education. Critical Social Work, 7(2).   Battiste, M. & Youngblood Henderson, J. (2000). What is Indigenous knowledge? In M. Battiste & J. Youngblood Henderson (Eds.) Protecting Indigenous knowledge and heritage: A global challenge. Saskatoon, SK: Purich.  Battiste, M. (2002). Indigenous Knowledge and Pedagogy in First Nations Education: A literature review with recommendations. Ottawa: Apamuwek Institute. Battiste, M. (2008). Research Ethics for Protecting Indigenous knowledge and heritage. In Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S., Smith, L. T., & SAGE Research Methods Online (eds.). Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies. Los Angeles: Sage.  Bergvall, V. L. and Remlinger, K. A. Kegan Paul. (1996). Reproduction, resistance and gender in educational discourse: the role of critical discourse analysis. Discourse and Society 7(4), 453-79.   160    Bethan Benwell & Elizabeth Stokoe (2010). Analysing identity in interaction: Contrasting discourse, genealogical, narrative and conversation analysis. In  Wetherell, M. &  Mohanty, C. T. (Eds.). The SAGE handbook of Identity. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.  Brant Castellano, M. (2000). Updating Aboriginal traditions of knowledge. In G. J. Dei, B. L. Hall & D. Goldin Rosenberg (Eds.), Indigenous knowledges in global contexts: Multiple readings of our world. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.  Bukhari, N. & Xiaoyang, W. (2013). Critical discourse analysis and educational research. ISOR Journal of Research and Method in Education, 3 (1), 9-17. Marapi, R. (interviewer), Canales Poma, M. (2010). La Discriminación también es una forma de violencia [Radio program]. Centro Peruano de Estudios Peruanos. Amazonas: Servindi Carabine, J. (2001). Unmarried motherhood 1830–1990: A genealogical analysis. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & S.J. Yates (Eds.), Discourse as data: A guide for analysis. London: Sage. Chirapaq (2012). Interculturalidad y derechos de los pueblos Indígenas. Retrieved on May 11, 2016, from  --. (2014) Juventud, educación superior, y movimiento indígena. Lima: Chirapaq. --. (2010) Education, Interculturalidad, cultura y salud en Peru. Retrieved on May 11, 2016, from  --. (2013).  La desaparición de las lenguas indígenas en el sistema educativo peruano. Retrieved on May 11, 2016, from  --. (2012). Discriminación en el aula [podcast audio file]. Retrieved on May 11, 2016, from  --. (2012). El derecho a la educación de los niños y las niñas indígenas. [Informative poster]. Retrieved on May 11, 2016, from    --. (2014). Por nuestros pueblos y culturas. Andar, memoria y propuesta de Chirapaq 1986-2013. Lima: Chirapaq. --. (2015). Juventud, educación superior, y movimiento indígena en el Perú. Lima: Chirapaq    161  Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas del Ecuador (CONAIE) (1994). Proyecto Político. Retrieved on May 2, 2016, from   Cueto, S., Guerrero, G., León, J., Seguin, E., & Muñoz, I. (2010). Explaining and Overcoming Marginalization in Education: Ethnic and Language Minorities in Peru. Paper commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2010. Daza, S. L. (2013). Storytelling as Methodology: Colombia’s social studies textbooks after La constitución de 1991. Qualitative Research in Education, 2(3), 242-276 Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (1998). The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues. Thousand Oaks: Sage.  Devine, T. L. (1999). Indigenous identity and identification in Peru: Indigenismo, education and contradictions in state discourses. Journal of Latin American Cultural Studies, 8(1), 63–74. Dibos, A. (2006). Between being and nothigness? Interculturality in Peruvian  public policy: An analysis on the concept and the constitutional and executiv practice. Institute of Social Studies. The Netherlands.  Peruvian Ministry of Education (DIGEIBIRA) (2016). Intercultural Education for all and Intercultural Bilingual Education. Retrieved on June 1, 2016, from Dussel, E. (1993) Eurocentrism and Modernity (Introduction to the Frankfurt Lectures), boundary 2, 20(3), pp. 65-76  Escobar, A. (2007) World and knowledges otherwise: the Latin American modernity/coloniality research program, Cultural Studies, 21(2-3), pp. 179-210.  --. (2010) Latin America at a Crossroads, Cultural Studies, 24(1), pp. 1-65.  Fairclough, N. (2001) ‘The discourse of New Labour: critical discourse analysis. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor and S. Yates (eds). Discourse as Data: A Guide for Analysis. London: Sage Publications. Fitznor, L. (1998). The circle of life: Affirming Aboriginal philosophies in everyday living. In D. McCane (Ed.), Life ethics in world religions. Winnipeg, MN: University of Manitoba.  Freeland, J. (1996). The Global, the National and the Local: forces in the development of education for Indigenous peoples: the case of Peru. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 26(2), 167–195. Garcia, M. (2003). The Politics of Community: Education, Indigenous rights, and ethnic mobilization in Peru. Latin American Perspectives, 30(1), 70–95.   162  --. (2004). Rethinking Bilingual Education in Peru: Intercultural Politics, State Policy and Indigenous Rights. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7(5), 348–367.  Gee, J.P. (1999) An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge. Glesne, C. (2014). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Toronto: Allyn & Bacon. Grey Postero, N. (2006). Now we are citizens. Indigenous politics in postmulticultural Bolivia, Standford University Press, California, 2006. Godenzzi, J. (2006). The Discourses of Diversity: Language, Ethnicity, and Interculturality in Latin America. In D. Sommer (Ed.), Cultural Agency in the Americas (pp. 146–166). Durham: Duke University Press.  Gonzales, T. (2015) An Indigenous autonomous community-based model for knowledge production in the Peruvian Andes. Latin American and Caribbean Ethnic Studies, 10(1), 107-133 HispanTV (2015, May 20). Face to Face – Tarcila Rivera [video file]. Retrieved on May 21, 2016, from Hornberger, N. (2000). Bilingual education policy and practice in the Andes: Ideological paradox and intercultural possibility. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 31(2), 173–201. Hyatt, D. (2013). The critical policy discourse analysis frame: helping doctoral students engage with the educational policy analysis. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(8), 833–845. Janks, H. (1997) Critical Discourse Analysis as a Research Tool. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education, 18(3): 329- 42. Jorgensen, M. & Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. London:   Sage.  Kim, J. (2014) The Politics of Inclusion/Exclusion: Critical Discourse Analysis on Multicultural Education Policy Documents in South Korea. Multicultural Education Review, 6(2), 1-24.  Kudo, Ines (2004). La educación indígena en el Perú. Cuando la oportunidad habla una sola lengua. In Winker, D. and Cueto, S (Eds.), Etnicidad, raza, género, y educación en América Latina. PREAL Kvietok, F. (2015). Negotiating ideological and implementational spaces for Indigenous languages in Peru. Educational Linguistics, 30(1), 21–41. La Cadena, M. (1998). Silent racism and intellectual superiority in Peru. Bulletin of Latin American Research. 17(2).   163  Lawrence, B. (2010). Legislating Identity: Colonialism, Land and Indigenous Legacies. In Wetherell, M. (2010). The sage handbook of identities: Legislating identity: Colonialism, land and indigenous legacies Sage Publications.  Guba, E.G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.K.  Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research(pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.  López, L. E. (2001a). La cuestión de la interculturalidad y la educación Latinoamericana. In La Cuestión de la Interculturalidad y la Educacion Latinoamericana (pp. 1–20). UNESCO. Retrieved on March 24, 2016, from --. (2001b). La cuestión de la interculturalidad y la educación latinoamericana. In La cuestión de la Interculturalidad y la Educacion Latinoamericana (pp. 1–20). --. (2009). Reaching the unreached : indigenous intercultural bilingual education in Latin America. Agenda. Meyer, M. (2009). Between theory, methods and politics: Positioning of the approaches to CDA. In, Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (Eds). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage Publications. Mick, C. (2011). Discourses of ‘border-crossers’: Peruvian domestic workers in Lima as social actors. Discourse Studies, 13(2), 189-209. Mignolo, W. (2003). Historias locales, diseños globales: Colonialidad, conocimientos subalternos y pensamiento fronterizo. Madrid: Akal.  --. (2005) The idea of Latin America. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.  --. (2007a). El pensamiento Decolonial: desprendimiento y apertura. Un manifiesto. In Castro-Gómez, S., & Grosfoguel, R. (eds.). El giro decolonial: reflexiones para una diversidad epistémica más allá del capitalismo global. Siglo del Hombre Editores.  --. (2007b). Delinking. Cultural Studies, 21(2), 449–514.   --. (2011). The darker side of Western modernity : global futures, decolonial options. Ombudsman’s Office of Peru. (2011). Aportes para una Política Nacional de Educación Intercultural Bilingue a favor de los pueblos indígenas del Perú (Vol. 53). Lima: Tarea Asociación Gráfica Educativa.  --. (2013). Avances y desafíos en la implementación de la Política de Educación Intercultural Bilingüe 2012-2013. Peace, P. (2003).  Balancing power: The discursive  maintenance  of gender inequality by wo/men at university. Feminism and Psychology, 13(2), 159-180.    164  Peschiera, R. (2010). Un Análisis sobre la Interpretación de los Diferentes Actores en torno a la Educación Intercultural y Bilingüe y sus Políticas. Revista Peruana de Investigacion Educativa, 1(2), 27–58. Phillips, N. & Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse Analysis: Investigating processes of   social construction. SAGE. Qual Research Methods Series vol. 50 Quijano, A. (2000). Colonialidad del poder, eurocentrismo y América Latina. La Colonialidad Del Saber: Eurocentrismo Y Ciencias Sociales. Perspectivas Latinoamericanas., 13(29), 246. --. (2006). Estado-nación y movimientos indígenas en la región Andina : cuestiones abiertas. Observatorio Social de América Latina, 7(19), 15–24. Rogers, R., Malancharuvil-Berkes, E., Mosley, M., & Hui, D. (2005). Critical discourse analysis in education: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 365-416. doi:10.3102/0034654307500336 Rosales, E., & Cussianovich, A. (2012). ¿Educación intercultural para todos? La experiencia escolar de niños indígenas en tres contextos educativos en Ancash, 1–32. Sawyer, S. (2004). Crude Chronicles. Indigenous politics, multinacional oil, and neoliberlism in Ecuador, Duke University Press, Durham Solano-Campos, A. (2013). Bringing Latin America’s “Interculturalidad” into the Conversation. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 34(5), 620–630. Sumida Huaman, E. (2014). Tuki Ayllpanchik (our beautiful land): Indigenous ecology and farming in the Peruvian highlands. Cultural Studies of Science Education. --. (2013). Conversations on Indigenous Education , Progress , and Social Justice in Peru. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 15(3), 10–25. Sumida-Huaman, E., & Valdiviezo, L. A. (2014). Indigenous knowledge and education from the Quechua community to school: beyond the formal/non-formal dichotomy. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27(1), 65–87. --. (2014b). Indigenous knowledge and education from the Quechua community to school: beyond the formal/non-formal dichotomy. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27(1), 65–87. Taylor, S. (2004). Researching educational policy and change in “new times”: using critical discourse analysis. Journal of Education Policy, 19(4), 433–451. Trapnell, L., & Zavala, V. (2013). Dilemas Educativos ante la diversidad, siglo XX--‐XXI.     165  Tubino, F. (2001). Inteculturalizando el Multiculturalismo. Balance y perspectivas. In Encuentro Internacional sobre Interculturalidad. Retrieved on February 16, 2016, from --. (2004). “En el Perú hay interculturalidad a nivel de discurso.” Revista Cultural Electrónica Construyendo Nuestra Interculturalidad, 1, 1–4. --. (2005). La Interculturalidad Crítica como proyecto ético-político. In Enuentro continental de educadores agustinos. (pp. 24–28). Lima: Encuentro continental de educadores agustinos. Retrieved on May 13, 2016, from Http://, 2005. Disponible en: Lima-ponen-02.html. Valdivia, N., Bevanvides, M. & Torero, M. (2007). Exclusión, identidad étnica y políticas de inclusión social en el Perú: el caso de la poblacion indígena y la población afrodescendiente. Investigacion, políticas y desarrollo en el Peru, 1, 603-667 Valdiviezo, L. A. (2006a). Interculturality for Afro-Peruvians: Towards a racially inclusive education in Peru. International Education Journal, 7(1), 26–35. --. (2006b). The construction of Interculturality: An ethnography of teachers’ beliefs and practicesin Peruvin Quechua schools. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly. Columbia University. Retrieved from --. (2010). Indigenous worldviews in intercultural education: teachers’ construction of interculturalism in a bilingual Quechua–Spanish program. Intercultural Education, 21(1), 27–39. Valdiviezo, L. A., & Valdiviezo, L. M. (2008, January). Política y práctica de la interculturalidad en la educación peruana : análisis y propuesta. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 45(1), 1–12. Valdiviezo, L. M. (2012). Afro-peruvian perspectives and critiques of Intercultural Education policy. University of Massachusetts Amherst. Van Dijk, T.A. (1998). Critical Discourse Analysis. Retrieved on June 20, 2016, from Viaña, J., Walsh, C., & Tapia, L. (2010). Construyendo Interculturalidad Crítica. Retrieved on May 15, 2016, from  Walsh, C. (2004). Geopolítica del conocimiento, interculturalidad, y educacion. Retrieved on February 1, 2016, from --. (2005). Interculturalidad, conocimiento y decolonialidad. Signo y Pensamiento, 24(46), 39–50.    166  --. (2007). Interculturalidad y colonialidad del poder. Un pensamiento y posicionamiento otro desde la diferencia colonial. In R. Castro-Gómez, S.; Grofoguel (Ed.), El giro decolonial: Reflexiones para una diversidad epistémica más allá del capitalismo global. Bogotá: Siglo de Hombres Editores --. (2008). Interculturalidad, plurinacionalidad y decolonialidad: Las insurgencias político-epistémicas de refundar el Estado. Tabula Rasa Revista de Humanidades, 9, 131–152.  --. (2009a). Interculturalidad crítica, pedagogía de-colonial: Apuestas desde el in-surgir, re-existir y re-vivir. --. (2009b). Interculturalidad, estado, sociedad. Quito: Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar --. (2010). Interculturalidad crítica y educación intercultural. En: Viaña, J., Walsh, C.; & Tapia, L. Construyendo Interculturalidad Crítica. La Paz: Instituto Internacional de Integración, Convenio Andrés Bello  --. (2012b). “Other” Knowledges, “Other” Critiques: Reflections on the Politics and Practices of Philosophy and Decoloniality in the “Other” America. Transmodernity: Journal of Peripheral Cultural Production of the Luso-Hispanic World, 1(3), 11-27 Williamsom, G. (2004). ¿Educacion multicultural, Educación Intercultural Bilingue, Educación Indígena, o Educacion Interculcultural? Cuadernos Interculturales, 2(3), 16–24. Wodak, R. (2009). Critical Discourse Analysis: History, Agenda, Theory and Methodology. In, Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (Eds). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage Publications. Wood,R.(1986).Teach them good customs: Colonial Indian education and acculturation in the Andes. California: Labyrinthos. Yashar, D. (2005). Contesting citizenship in Latin America: The rise of indigenous movements and the postliberal challenge.n. New York: Cambridge University Press. Zavala, V. (2007). Avances y desafíos de la educación intercultural bilingüe en Bolivia , Ecuador y Perú: Estudio de casos. Lima: CARE Perú. Zavala, V., & Córdova, G. (2003). Volver al desafío: Hacia una definición crítica de la educación bilingue intercultural en Perú. Zúñiga, M., & Gálvez, M. (2002). Repensando la educación bilingüe intercultural en el Perú: bases para una propuesta de política. Interculturalidad Y Política. Desafíos Y Posibilidades, 309–329.        167  Appendix 1 - Description of National, Education, and Intercultural Education Policies Discussed in Chapter Two 1. Peruvian National Policies where Interculturalidad is Discussed 1.1.  National Constitution The National Constitution, enacted in 1993, represents the supreme law in Peru. The issue of Interculturalidad is explicitly mentioned only in its Chapter Two ‘Social and Economics Right’. Interculturalidad here is described as (i) confined to education and the preservation of culture and language in Peru, (ii) a resource to reach the objective of national integration (without a deep discussion of how), and (iii) linked to the recognition of Peruvian diversity. Likewise, in Chapter One of the Constitution, two other issues related to Interculturalidad are mentioned. First, the multicultural character of the nation is declared. Second, Spanish is recognized as the (more) official language in Peru, while (some) Indigenous languages are official only in the areas where they predominate. 1.2.  The National Agreement121 In July 2002, representatives of political organizations, civil society organizations, and the government came together to establish a set of state policies that would constitute a National Agreement after a ten-year period of Fujimori’s authoritarian regime. It expresses a commitment of different sectors of society to the transition and consolidation of democracy in Peru. This Agreement constitutes an important reference point guiding public policy in the country. This policy document established 31 state policies, which are organized throughout its four general objectives: (i) Democracy and Rule of Law, (ii)                                                           121 See    168  Equity and Social Justice, (iii) Capacity to Compete, and (iv) Efficient, Transparent, and Decentralized State. In terms of Interculturalidad (as a broader concept) and intercultural education (as its application in the educational arena), both notions are discussed in four of the 31 state policies. These four state policies are situated in the objective ‘Equity and Social Justice’. Only the state policy 12, denominated ‘Universal Access to Quality Public Education’, mentions the issue of intercultural education re-stating the Peruvian government’s commitment to promote and strengthen (only) bilingual education in intercultural contexts (without a clear explanation of what intercultural contexts mean). The other three state policies address the issues of fighting against Peruvian discrimination (policy 11) and affirming national identity (policy 3 and 30). While, policy 11 recognizes that cultural and ethnic differences are factors of discrimination in Peru (at the same level as gender, age, and socioeconomic differences); policies 3 and 30 exclusively focus on recognizing Peruvian sociocultural diversity as a valuable element for the development of national identity. 1.3. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (CVR) 122 Between 1980 and 2000, Peru underwent an unprecedented political violent situation that left a painful balance of assassinations, forced disappearances, tortures, serious crimes, and violations to human rights. In 2001, the provisional government created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.  The mandate of the commission was to clarify the process and events undertaken during this time of violence, as well as the corresponding                                                           122 See    169  responsibilities of the war, and to propose initiatives to strengthen the peace and reconciliation among Peruvians. There is a general opinion by those who support the commission’s work that very little attention has been paid to it and that there is no serious commitment by the state (Dibos, 2005). The issue of Interculturalidad appears as a central theme in different parts of the CVR document. It is addressed in the sections of ‘Final conclusions’ (conclusions 1,4, 6, and 9) and in the section of ‘Recommendations to the Peruvian government’ (Chapter 2). In relation to the former, the conclusions brought to the fore two results that contradict the declarative denomination of Peru as an intercultural country. First, violence fell differently upon Peruvian ethnic groups, that is, 75% were peasant/Indigenous people. Thus, the process of violence highlighted the ethno-cultural inequalities that still prevail in the country. Second, the veiled racism and scornful attitudes against Indigenous people persist in Peru “almost two centuries after its birth as a Republic” (CVR, p. 118). In relation to the recommendations, Interculturalidad is principally connected to services for Indigenous people. Thus, (i) all Indigenous languages should become official and all public officers working where these languages are spoken should speak the language; (ii) bilingual intercultural education should be promoted, teachers training improved, and curricula and educational materials developed; (iii) intercultural health should be promoted; (iv) traditional mechanisms of alternative justice should be supported by the state; and (v) an institution should be designed to implement policy regarding indigenous issues.     170  2. Peruvian Education Policies where Intercultural Education is Discussed 2.1.  General Law of Education 123 The General Law of Education (2003) is the most important legal framework for Peruvian education. It establishes the general guidelines of the whole education system, the responsibilities and attributions of the state, and the rights and responsibilities of Peruvian citizens in terms of their educational functions. Two out of the ninety two articles of this document address some aspects related to intercultural education. Article 8 defines and affirms Interculturalidad as one of the central principles of Peruvian education. Article 20 declares that intercultural education should be offered in all levels and contexts of Peru. In other words, intercultural education should be provided to all Peruvians. 3. Peruvian Intercultural Education Policies 3.1.   1989 and 1991 Bilingual Intercultural Education Law  The 1989 Bilingual Intercultural education policy was the first to include the term Interculturalidad in a Peruvian policy. Its main goals were (i) to construct a country unified in diversity, (ii) to promote equal opportunities for Indigenous people through education, and (iii) to foster Indigenous people’s active participation in Peruvian society. Four aspects characterized this policy. First, intercultural education should be addressed only to Indigenous students. Second, it did not mention other minoritized Peruvian ethnic groups or the Peruvian dominant elite. Third, it prevented any discussion on the unequal relationships among different ethnic groups in Peru. Fourth, it recognized the particularity of Indigenous culture and worldviews (Peruvian Ministry of Education, 1989).                                                           123 See    171  Otherwise, the 1991 Intercultural Bilingual Education policy introduced some changes in relation to the 1989 policy. The most important declarative changes and additions were: (i) intercultural education must not be addressed only to Indigenous students but to all Peruvian students, (ii) it was recognized that Indigenous students have more than one mother tongue (e.g. indigenous languages and Spanish), (iii) it declared that bilingual education should be developed only during the six first years of schooling (i.e. elementary school), while the other five years of formal schooling are to be only in Spanish (i.e. high school) (Peruvian Ministry of Education, 1991). 3.2. National Politics of Language and Cultures in Education policy (NPLCE)124 The NPLCE document was published by the National Office of Intercultural and Bilingual Education of Peru. The document contains the main objectives and guidelines of Peruvian intercultural bilingual education for the 2002-2007 period. The policy’s objectives revolve around three main issues: first, to improve Peruvian education through the positive acceptance of cultural and linguistic Peruvian diversity; second, to foster the development and learning of Indigenous languages, Spanish language, and foreign languages, and; third, to foster the knowledge, use, and development of Indigenous knowledge, values, and practices.  The most interesting discussions within this policy can be found in its section ‘General Guidelines’. In this section, the government states that: (i) learning in our own culture and language is a right; (ii) intercultural and bilingual education will not be addressed only to Indigenous students who speak an Indigenous language, but also to                                                           124 See    172  Indigenous students who speak Spanish; (iii) it is necessary to foster the learning of Indigenous languages within Spanish-speaking students, and; (iv) it is necessary to foster the learning of Indigenous languages among Spanish-speaking public officials who work with Indigenous students. 1.3.  National Plan for Bilingual Intercultural Education  This 2005 policy document contends the operationalization of the NPLCE policy. It is organized in four main objectives: Language and communication, Pedagogy, Interculturalidad, and Management and social participation. Each objective contains the expected results of each objective and the priority actions to achieve them.  The document re-states, as in the case of NPLCE policy, that the positive acceptance and value of cultural diversity are the central aims of Peruvian bilingual intercultural education (Ombudsman’s Office of Peru, 2011).  1.4.  2016 Law of Intercultural Education for All and Intercultural Bilingual Education This policy was approved in July 2016 and it was the first intercultural bilingual education policy to be consulted with Indigenous movements from Peru. This is a 25-pages document organized, principally, in four sections. The first introductory section contains a description of previous Peruvian intercultural education policies, the definition of what Peruvian intercultural education means for the government, and its target population. Thus, the policy document articulates that intercultural education should be addressed to all Peruvians; that is, Afroperuvian population, Asian and European descendant population, and Indigenous people. The second section discusses the pedagogical and political rationale in which the policy is grounded. The pedagogical rationale discusses the relevance of   173  learning in our own culture and language. The political rationale discusses how intercultural education is linked to citizenship and democracy in Peru. The third section of the policy contains its objectives and purpose. Both policy objectives and purpose discuss Interculturalidad principally in terms of cultural diversity as a positive value of Peruvian society. The fourth section describes the policy’s guidelines; that is, the way the policy will be implemented. These guidelines are organized around four topics: (i) indigenous students access to intercultural education, (ii) culturally relevant curriculum, (iii) teachers training, and (iv) decentralized management of the intercultural education system (Ministry of Education, 2016). 


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items