Intercultural Education and its role in decolonizing wider Mexican Education: An exploration of the perceptions of students and teachers at the 'Universidad Intercultural de Chiapas'

(1)

INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION AND ITS ROLE IN

DECOLONIZING WIDER MEXICAN EDUCATION: AN

EXPLORATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENTS AND

TEACHERS AT THE ‘UNIVERSIDAD INTERCULTURAL DE

CHIAPAS’

Name: Elias Elia

Email: elias.elia1994@gmail.com Date: 19th_{June 2020}

UvA ID: 12731749 Word Count: 24,874

Thesis Supervisor: Dr. Rosanne Elisabeth Tromp – Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Local Supervisor: Dr. Enrique Gomez-Llata – Universidad de las Américas Puebla

Second Reader: Dr. Yves van Leynseele – Universiteit van Amsterdam

A thesis presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MSc International Development Studies in the

University of Amsterdam

University of Amsterdam 2020

(2)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research is a product of collective work. For this reason, I would first like to thank my supervisor Dr. Rosanne Tromp for her support, feedback, guidance and knowledge input during the early stages of the development of the research topic until the end of this thesis. Dr. Tromp’s extensive knowledge regarding education in Mexico as well as her feedback and guidance helped me settle more easily to the whole context but it also helped me gain so much from the whole process of fieldwork/research which was something totally new for me and very challenging. I would like to thank my local supervisor Dr. Enrique Gomez-Llata for his constant support before and during the fieldwork as well as for bringing me in touch with a couple of people in Mexico, Chiapas which made my settlement in the field much easier and smoother. Many thanks to both for everything and for challenging me academically and intellectually to expand my knowledges. Also, I would like to thank everybody from the academic staff at the University of Amsterdam, colleagues and friends for being there for anything I needed and for their constant support during the outbreak of the corona virus pandemic. There are also the people who contributed to the fulfilment of this research in Mexico. My Spanish language knowledge is almost non-existent so I would like to thank Jimena Montaño and Maria Schneider for helping me navigate the field, for being with me during the interviews and for doing all the translation work after the research. Thank you for your kindness and help because without you nothing would have been possible since most of the research participants do not speak English.

Furthermore, I am incredibly grateful to all the students and teachers of UNICH consented to being interviewed and also helped me find other participants. I want to thank them for giving to me part of their free time and for sharing with me their knowledge, experiences and views on the topic.

Of course, this research wouldn’t have been possible without the support of my family and friends from Cyprus. Particularly I would like to thank my parents, Christos and Elena, and my partner, Antria, for supporting me in every step and for being there on the phone, whenever needed despite the eight-hour difference between Mexico and Cyprus. Finally, I would like to dedicate this research to the Zapatista movement and all the

indigenous groups and peoples in Mexico who continue their struggle for democracy, justice, liberty and culturally appropriate education.

(3)

LIST OF ACRONYMS

CNI – Congreso Nacional Indígena (National Indigenous Congress)

COCOPA – Comisión de Concordia y Pacificación (Commision for Peace and Pacification)

EZLN – Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (Zapatista Army of National Liberation)

GCIBE – Coordinación General de Educación Intercultural y Bilingüe (General Coordination for Intercultural and Bilingual Education)

ILO – International Labour Organization

INI – Instituto Nacional Indigenista (National Indigenous Institute)

PRI – Partido Revolucionario Institucional (Institutional Revolutionary Party) UNICH – Universidad Intercultural de Chiapas (Intercultural University of Chiapas)

(6)

ABSTRACT

Historically, the indigenous peoples of Mexico have suffered many forms of exploitation, discrimination and deprivation of their right to use and develop officially their languages, knowledge and worldview, resulting in threats of the survival of indigenous ways. One of the most powerful tools used against the indigenous peoples from the Spanish colonizers and later by the independent governments, is education. Even though changes to the Mexican constitution in 1991 recognized the country as pluri-cultural, the indigenous are still primarily educated according to the national curriculum. In 2005, the Intercultural University program was created in order to empower indigenous peoples and uplift their languages and knowledge. Even though scholarly research indicates that the implementation for the Intercultural university reflects educational progress for the indigenous, some critique has emerged regarding their failure to address the real problems created by coloniality of power within education, and the effect it has of further subalternization of indigenous peoples and knowledge in Mexico. Furthermore, the perceptions that students and teachers have regarding the issue of decoloniality and elimination of discrimination is absent from existing literature. Thus, this piece of research has been built around this discussion and aims to fill this research gap by analyzing the perceptions of students and teachers at the Universidad Intercultural de Chiapas, concerning the role of intercultural education as a tool for decoloniality and elimination of discrimination towards indigenous peoples inside Mexican Education. Research was conducted among 22 respondents with the use of semi-structured interviews and self-completion questionnaires.

The analysis of participants’ perceptions first shows that students and teachers perceive their current intercultural education to lack the ability to decolonize wider Mexican education and contribute to the elimination of discrimination, thus leading to the climax of the injustices towards indigenous peoples, knowledge and languages. For decoloniality and social justice to be achieved the incorporation of indigenous language teaching and learning in mainstream Mexican education was recommended. Students and teachers also recommend an approach to interculturality of ‘learning with’ the indigenous population

(7)

and not ‘learning about’. Finally, they believe that there is a need for bilateral intercultural approach which will be achieved by intercultural education being the norm in Mexico and not only to be found in places where there are high numbers of indigenous people.

(8)

INTRODUCTION

“Without a doubt, the right to an organized education is a legitimate and unquestionable right of all Mexicans. But what sort of education, with what content and for what? One cannot defend the school for its own sake, without taking into account the degree to which it responds to the aspirations and the real needs of the population that attends it. The effort has been to create a uniform school system, even though there have been some attempts at special education for certain groups and sectors of the population. A homogenous education has been the goal, following the constant premise that uniformity is required to strengthen the nation” (Batalla, 1996: 126).

1.1 Problem Statement

Going back to about 500 years, with the beginning of the colonial process by the Spaniards in Mexico, indigenous civilizations were at the receiving end of extermination (physical or ideological), sociopolitical and educational policies aiming their extinction either as ethnic groups, cultures, knowledges and languages simply because “Indians were considered a burdensome obstacle to nation building” (Stavenhagen: 2002: 26). This was materialized through policies directed towards indigenous peoples aiming for their assimilation and insertion into the broader national plan of mestizaje in Mexico. The concept of mestizaje refers to the Mexican national identity that combines pre-hispanic indigenous heritage of the Mesoamerican civilization with the Spanish legacy (Seider, 2002). Education was at the forefront of this plan either with no provision at all to indigenous communities, or even where it was provided it did not cater to the cultural and linguistic needs of those peoples. By contrast, as stated by Batalla (1996), it was a homogenous plan in order to move towards a mestizo nation state, modern and ‘developed’ by overcoming the ‘obstacle’ of the ‘Mesoamerican civilization’ and neglecting the multicultural character that makes up Mexico. For example, on average, indigenous peoples in Mexico fulfill fewer years of schooling in comparison to non-indigenous peoples and also have much lower test scores

(9)

especially in language because indigenous peoples’ mother tongue is not Spanish (Hernandez-Zavala et al., 2006).

Education has always been shaped by forces of coloniality that exist both within the country and the Mexican educational system; but also have as an impact on and result to the marginalization of indigenous peoples in the field of education and society, maximizing the discrimination and racism towards them by non-indigenous peoples and the broader socio-political structures in the country. As Restrepo (2014) stressed, coloniality is a “tool to enforce and strengthen a global project that excludes indigenous peoples and the knowledge they produce” (2014: 140). Decline and loss of their different knowledges, forms of organization and languages is a fact in Mexico due to the colonial matrix of power that promotes western and Eurocentric1_{forms of knowledge, organization and languages} in the country denying the right and the possibility to indigenous peoples to revitalize and develop what has been in the country for more than 500 years. As an outcome and after the political independence of the country, the idea that knowledge is also colonized came to the forefront and therefore needs to be decolonized.

In Mexico, towards the end of the 20th_{century indigenous peoples demanded greater} linguistic and educational representation and control within the country (May and Aikman, 2003). In fact, in the indigenous communities education has come to be seen by indigenous peoples as a tool and a way to reclaim what has been denied. As a result of indigenous increasing demands, and the appearance of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional, EZLN)2_{, in the sociopolitical scene of Mexico} from 1994, the intercultural university program was born in the country in order to meet claims for access to university education for indigenous peoples (Dietz and Cortés, 2011: 506). These higher institutions also aim at empowering the indigenous peoples, revitalizing their knowledge and language and what Schmelkes argued that “these

1_{The terms western, Eurocentric and North Antlantic are used interchangeably throughout this thesis to} denote the idea of focusing on European culture as the ideal to be followed by the rest of the world. In other words, regarding European culture as pre-eminent.

(10)

universities propose as their mission to educate intellectuals and professionals committed to the development of their peoples and regions” (Schmelkes, 2009: 7).

The focus of this research is on the Universidad Intercultural de Chiapas (UNICH), which is located in the southern Mexican state of Chiapas and is going to analyze the perceptions of the students and teachers within that institution towards the role of intercultural education as a tool for decolonizing wider Mexican education and eliminating discrimination towards indigenous peoples. Therefore, this research builds on conversations regarding intercultural education and universities in Mexico as well as with regard to coloniality and decoloniality.

1.2 Academic Relevance

While studies on intercultural universities have a strong focus on the characteristics of the institutions (Tellez, Carlos Sandoval and González, 20060), how they were created and developed in the arena of Mexican higher education (Dietz and Cortés, 2015) and their work on preserving indigenous knowledges and cultures (Schmelkes, 2009), their role in decolonizing the wider Mexican education system is not widely researched. Also, the perceptions of the actors that are at the receiving end of such educational models – students and teachers – within the university located in Chiapas do not have the academic attention of other intercultural universities in Mexico (regarding published articles and research).3 This section is going to review the literature related with intercultural universities and general higher education in Mexico and its relation to indigenous peoples in the broader sense.

As it was mentioned above and as will be argued further in chapter 3, in response to the growing demands of indigenous peoples for equal treatment, the General Directorate for Indigenous Education was created in 1978 recognized

3_{It is important to note that since the researcher does not read Spanish, only the English literature has been} accessed.

(11)

the need for bilingual and bicultural education for indigenous populations. Twenty years, later the need for intercultural education was recognized by Mexican government too (Schmelkes, 2009). Demands and voices that arose because throughout the years as Restrepo (2014) argued, the ‘indigenous movement’ had to face both the ‘corporate University of excellence’ as well as the ‘Kantian-Humboldtian university’ that had both ignored and contributed in a systematic way of drafting “epistemic, political, and economic disavowal of indigenous peoples” (Restrepo, 2014: 140).

As a result, at the start of the twenty first century a new educational figure appeared: “the so-called Intercultural University” (Dietz and Mateos Cortes, 2016: 127). Such institutions are not intended exclusively for indigenous people, but due to their location -in mostly indigenous areas- they are attended primarily by indigenous people. This incorporation of interculturality in Mexican higher education according to Tinajero and Englander (2011) must be considered as a consequence of the fight for political and linguistic rights by the indigenous people in Mexico.

The main feature and the reason why intercultural universities came into existence is not only to recognize the indigenous difference (existence and their difference in Mexican society) but also to valorize, strengthen, research and rediscover indigenous knowledges (Perez-Aguilera and Figueroa-Helland, 2011). Intercultural universities also aimed to provide a culturally sensitive academic formation for ethnically, linguistically and culturally diverse students (Dietz, 2012). Also, Tellez, Carlos Sandoval and Gonzalez (2006) in writing about the intercultural university in Veracruz, stated that it enables people who have traditionally been left out from higher education to “obtain relevant qualifications with an intercultural dimension according to the needs of their communities of origin” (2006: 499). Moreover, respecting the intercultural university in Veracruz, Mateos Cortes (2017) stated that it promotes activities that until recently they have been considered ‘non-indigenous’ or identified as being those of “mestizo intellectuals, city dwellers and urbanities” (2017: 166). The same study concluded that the intercultural university in Veracruz is creating what Boaventura de Sousa Santos (2007) called

(12)

‘pluriversity knowledge’. This refers to a “type of knowledge that goes beyond not only the disciplinary frontiers, but also the social frontiers that separate the academic world from their surrounding community” (Mateos Cortes, 2017: 166).

Other scholars though were more critical about these institutions and identified weaknesses and challenges. Firstly, for the indigenous people or as Perez-Aguilera and Figueroa-Helland (2011) termed the ‘indigenous question’, this change it is not as profound as it was claimed to be and is not contributing fully to the causes it has been born to. For example, a study by Tinajero and Englander (2011) examining the tensions that exist between the political discourses that emanate from within indigenous communities and from the national government and the actual implementation of education policies argued that “despite the shift to discourses that newly respected indigenous languages and cultures, institutional factors have not been altered sufficiently to improve the conditions of indigenous education or people’s well-being in Mexico” (Tinajero and Englander, 2011: 164). A critique was also offered by a study conducted by Perez-Aguilera and Figueroa-Helland (2011). They argue that this change regardless of valuable efforts, has reinforced indigenous subalternization by fostering educational segregation and “epistemic ghettoization of Indigenous knowledges” (Perez-Aguilera and Figueroa-Helland, 2011: 268). According to the same scholars this is the result of the existence of a ‘unilateral interculturality’ instead of a ‘bilateral’ one. This means that, even though historically subordinated groups can teach their own languages, cultures and knowledges, they are obliged to learn the dominant groups’ languages and knowledges whereas the reverse is not the case. The hegemonic, political and educational system can keep its status without being influenced by the hitherto subalternized groups’ knowledges, languages and cultures (Perez-Aguilera and Figueroa-Helland, 2011).

Thus, this research delves into this discussion and provides an analysis of the perceptions of students and teachers of the Universidad Intercultural de la Chiapas-UNICH (Intercultural University of Chiapas) in doing that. In how intercultural education can spread out indigenous knowledges, cultures, worldviews and alternative approaches to education and reach and influence the hegemonic educational system as well the hitherto

(13)

‘dominant’ groups in Mexican society and in decolonizing the wider Mexican education system.

Building on the already existing studies about intercultural universities and decoloniality this research is delving into the academic and societal gap and conversations regarding discrimination and decoloniality in relation to intercultural education by analyzing the perceptions of students and teachers of how this education can be used as a mobilizing tool to decolonize the education system in Mexico and eliminate discrimination avoiding further subalternization of indigenous peoples. Also understanding the potentials of intercultural education on the broader educational system and society is beneficial for future Mexican education policy. The study approached the presumed ‘objects of study’ not as a source of information but as a source of knowledge. This means the participants of this study and the data given to the researcher were not seen as information that would then be analysed and create knowledge but rather were treated as they were given directly as knowledge.

1.3 Research Questions

Taking into account the academic, social, educational and historic relevance, the following research questions were formed which also guide the analysis contained below in this thesis:

How is the role of intercultural education perceived by teachers and students at the Universidad Intercultural de Chiapas (UNICH) as a tool for decolonizing wider Mexican education and eliminating discrimination by non-indigenous peoples towards indigenous peoples?

1. What are the limitations, challenges and what progress has been made in the current intercultural program of higher education in Mexico?

2. How can the incorporation of indigenous languages in mainstream Mexican education provide viable solutions to the challenges and limitations faced by the current intercultural program?

(14)

3. How can an intercultural approach for all (bilateral interculturality) in Mexico provide positive solutions to the current limitations faced by the current intercultural education?

1.4 Thesis Structure

Following this introductory chapter, chapter 2 will elaborate on the theoretical framework that fortifies this research. In chapter 3, the researcher will provide an outline of the methodology, ethical considerations and the research design. Chapter 4 provides an overview of the historical context of the research topic. The first empirical chapter of this research is chapter 5, where the researcher discusses the perceptions of the students and teachers to their current intercultural education and its failure in fully addressing discrimination and coloniality of power. Moving on to the second and third empirical chapters, chapters 6 and 7, the researcher discusses the possible ‘solutions’ as provided by the respondents. This leads to the conclusion where the researcher includes a final discussion of the main research question and the findings, a theoretical reflection and contributions as well as some recommendations.

(15)

CHAPTER 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 Conceptual Scheme

The theoretical framework is to a great part based on decolonial theory as well as on interculturality and intercultural education with a decolonial aspect as well. If the effects of coloniality or colonialism are to be studied, or conducting research without equally valuing indigenous knowledges but rather classifying them as inferior to western/Eurocentric ones, it means that coloniality of power is reproduced maintaining epistemic colonial differences. Thus, this research is specifically going to employ a

Critical Interculturality

Bilateral Interculturality INTERCULTURAL UNIVERSITIES

MEXICAN EDUCATION SYSTEM

Decolonial

Interculturality

Decoloniality Intercultural

(16)

decolonial approach as advocated by Walter Mignolo (2002; 2007; 2009; 2013; Mignolo and Walsh, 2018; Tlostanova and Mignolo, 2009) which rather than just simply offering a critique of the modern-colonial system, he also tries to understand the many ways in which indigenous communities in Latin America have managed to face and respond to this system imposed upon them.

2.2 Coloniality of power and Decoloniality

Coloniality of power as a concept introduced by Anibal Quijano (1990) refers not just to the colonial period -which in the Americas ended in the first quarter of the nineteenth century (Mignolo, 2002)-, but to a strategy of domination and control that has several features. In the article where this idea of coloniality was first proposed, it was described as situated into four interrelated areas. Control of economy (exploitation of labor, control of natural resources); control of sexuality and gender (education, family); control of subjectivity and knowledge (epistemology, education and formation of subjectivity) and last but not least control of authority (institution, army) (Mignolo and Escobar, 2013: 3). All these four domains, for Quijano, constituted what he termed the ‘colonial matrix of power’. Thus, there is a close linkage between the coloniality of knowledge and the coloniality of power in the political and economic spheres. To better understand coloniality of power and its linkages with knowledge, the following quote of Quijano is illustrative:

“Coloniality of power means that all dominated populations and all the newly created identities were subjected to the hegemony of Eurocentrism understood as a way of conceiving of and organizing knowledge, above all, when some sectors of the dominated population had the opportunity and the chance to learn the writing system (la letra) of the colonizer” (cited in Mignolo, 2002: 84).

Decoloniality then was born as a response to coloniality as introduced by Anibal Quijano and to the promises of modernity (Mignolo and Walsh, 2018: 4). It came into existence by the 1990s and after the realization of the failure of ‘true’ decolonization. Nation states were in the hands of minority elites and the patterns of colonial power continued both internally within nation states and with their relation to global structures (Mignolo and

(17)

Walsh, 2018). With this realization the target shifted from being just to gain political independence (decolonization) to the confrontation with internal structures that were also colonized (decoloniality). According to Tlostanova and Mignolo (2009) the problems that concern decoloniality are the ones that have been set up by the colonial matrix of power and the way they are addressed is through a shift in the geopolitics of knowledge that occurs with de-colonial thinking and knowing. According to Walsh (2007), geopolitics universalizes European thought as scientific truth and subalternates and invisiblizes other epistemes. When referring to geopolitics of knowledge, we need to recognize the persistence of a western hegemony universalizing Eurocentric thought while at the same time “localizing other forms of thought as at best folkloric” (Walsh, 2007: 225).

Therefore, according to Mignolo (2007), decolonization of the knowledge must be understood as a double movement. First, by “unveiling the geo-political location of theology, secular philosophy and scientific reason and simultaneously affirming the modes and principles of knowledge that have been denied by the rhetoric of Christianization, civilization, progress, development, market democracy” (Mignolo, 2007: 463). In order for the illusion that all knowledges have to be originated from the imperial form of consciousness to be destroyed, there is the need for the revitalization of geo-politics of knowledge that endured all the effects and consequences of western, capitalist and imperial expansion and emerging from different historical locations in the world (Mignolo, 2007). Furthermore, it is very important to mention and understand the relationship between modernity and coloniality and that modernity without coloniality cannot exist. Modernity is about moving forward from tradition and overcoming barbarism (Tlostanova and Mignolo, 2009). Previously, the way geopolitics of knowledge classify other knowledges rather than Eurocentric as at its best folkloric and local was mentioned. In order for this to be done effectively and eliminate barbarism and move ‘forward’, coloniality is employed. As Tlostanova and Mignolo (2009) argued, “coloniality is, like the unconscious, the hidden weapon of both the civilizing and developmental mission of modernity” (2009: 133). Modernity/coloniality is a process or a system that through various societal mechanisms (media, economy, education, etc.), manages to silence all other forms of knowing or being by ignoring them and classifying its own as the only legit ones. Rolando Vasquez argued,

(18)

“modernity appears as a system that holds monopoly of speaking, of broadcasting, the monopoly of non-listening. Modernity appears as a system that silences the other, or better that produces the other as silent, nonexistent or as pure representation” (Vaquez, 2012: 7). The focus of decoloniality is on how “modernity/coloniality has worked and continues to work to negate, disavow, distort and deny knowledges, subjectivities, world senses, and life visions” (Mignolo and Walsh, 2018: 4). Additionally, decoloniality in order to be considered ‘legitimate’ must not come from the West. Considering the above relationship of coloniality with modernity, even if the ‘thinking’ is critical of modernity, it is no longer possible or at least it is not unproblematic if it comes from the canon of Western philosophy (Mignolo, 2002). An example to that is Karl Marx in the nineteenth century. Marx provided a Eurocentric critique for Eurocentrism and was accepted in former colonies as their own critiques to Eurocentrism. Mignolo (2002) argued that, “socialist alternatives were taken, in the colonies, as a path of liberation without making the distinction between emancipation in Europe and liberation in the colonial world” (2002: 64). Thus, decolonial approach and thinking as advocated by Mignolo is concerned with critiques to Eurocentrism from a decolonial perspective, which means not accepting the West and North Atlantic versions as the only way.

2.2.1 Desprenderse

Decoloniality is also about a process of de-linking. This is an idea by Anibal Quijano (2000) and is known as ‘desprenderse’. It refers to a delinking that leads to decolonial epistemic shift that will bring to the foreground other epistemologies, other economy, other politics and other principles of knowledge and understanding (Mignolo, 2007). According to Rolando Vasquez (2012) it is the moment of recognition to the alternatives and hope that are outside the scope of modernity, delinking from the logic of modernity. Considering the decolonial option as what described above and as a set of projects that share the same experiences of all the inhabitants that once were and are at the receiving end of global designs in order to colonize the economy, authority, knowledges and beings, then ‘delinking’ is “necessary because there is no way out of the coloniality of power from within Western (Greek and Latin) categories of thought” (Mignolo, 2011: 45). As a

(19)

decolonial epistemic shift delinking can still be understood as a universal project, but one that will lead to an ‘other’ universality, one of pluri-versality or as the Zapatistas put it a ‘world of many worlds’ (Khasnabish, 2013: 164). Referring to the Zapatistas, they are a clear example of decoloniality and how delinking looks like in practice in terms of thinking, knowing and being. As Subcomandante Marcos, spokesperson of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation, put it when referring to theories of calendars and geographies in 2007:

“there was a moment in which lines were drawn from a geographic centre and from there extended toward the periphery, like a stone cast into the centre of a pond. The conceptual stone touched the surface of theory and a series of waves was made that affected and modified the various adjacent scientific and technical tasks. The consistency of analytical and reflexive thought made, and makes, these waves remain definite… until a new conceptual stone falls and a new series of waves changes theoretical production” (Marcos, 2007; in Henk and Gales, 2018: 43). The peasant practice, knowledges, cultures and languages of indigenous peoples and what is being produced in the intercultural universities in Mexico are not incorporated into canonical-scientific knowledge within the wider Mexican education system (Tipa, 2018). That is, as explained above, due to coloniality of power that classifies all other forms of knowledge and being as inferior to the hegemony of Eurocentrism. The role of intercultural universities as institutions and the broader idea of intercultural education is to value and respect indigenous knowledges, languages and cultures and classify them as another form of knowledge equal to other western/Eurocentric ones. Therefore, to better understand what is done and move a step further and understand their role and strategies in transforming/decolonizing the wider mainstream Mexican education system requires to delink from this notion of the totality of Western epistemology and decolonize ways of being and the mind. Another example to this logic is the concept of Buen vivir (Good Living/Well Living). A concept that is rooted in the traditions and worldviews of indigenous peoples of Abya Yala (Latin America). This concept of buen vivir is an idea that gives voice to those silenced by the discourse of development and modernity, an example also of the argument above with reference to the geo-politics of knowledge. Mignolo (2002), by the term geo-politics of knowledge, means conceiving coloniality as loci of enunciation and not only by perceiving the modern world-system as a sociohistorical

(20)

structure coincident with the expansion of capitalism, comprehending made possible by Quijano and Dussel (Mignolo, 2002: 61) “It [Buen Vivir] opens itself up as a question, an interpellation from the exteriority of western thought. Buen vivir shows us the beyond modern critical thought and the need to open a critique towards an intercultural dialogue” (Vasquez, 2012: 1).

2.3 Intercultural Education

Intercultural approach to education has a couple of angles examine and is fairly contested. According to Sheila Aikman, in Mexico it was developed to respond to indigenous peoples trying to maintain their languages and ways of life as well as to tackle exploitation, oppression and discrimination towards them (Aikman, 1997). Also, to provide a culturally sensitive academic formation for students defined and differentiated as ethnically, linguistically and culturally diverse (Dietz, 2012). Throughout this section the general characteristics of what constitutes interculturality and intercultural education will be highlighted according to different theories.

The development of this approach to education came after a long process of monocultural and monolingual education systems having as an effect a decline and erosion in indigenous cultures and languages. Therefore, that is why according to Aikman (1997), it does not only deal with the incorporation of another (indigenous) language alongside Spanish but also includes the recognition and respect of the different cultural traditions of indigenous peoples in relation to those of the national culture (Aikman, 1997). Aside from the main characteristics of this model which are cultural and linguistic diversity, respect and interaction within the field of education, this model was considered a means to lobby for social justice, equity and respect within the society. For example Boaventura Santos in 2007 at his opening speech at the International Conference ‘The Intercultural Dimension of Citizenship Education: The North and the South in a Postcolonial Europe’, stated that “intercultural education marked a significant response to the most serious issues we face as humans: inequality and exclusion” (cited in Aguado-Odina’s et al., 2017: 409). This

(21)

feature of having the ‘ability’ to be transformative as well in line with other spectra of the society was identified by other scholars too. For example, Cushner (1998) stated that:

“[intercultural education] recognizes that a genuine understanding of cultural differences and similarities is necessary in order to build a foundation for working collaboratively with others. It also recognizes that a pluralistic society can be an opportunity for majority and minority groups to learn from and with one another, not a problem as it might be viewed by some” (Cushner, 1998: 4).

In Latin America different indigenous peoples, organisations as well as government bodies recognised intercultural education as an appropriate educational form in order to facilitate the participation of indigenous peoples in mainstream society apart from strengthening indigenous cultures and linguistic practices (Aikman, 1997).

However, as the recognition of cultural and linguistic diversity is a step towards a more just and equal education and society, a number of critiques stating that for this model of education to achieve its full potential and make a true change in the society a different focus needs to be taken. This focus will be developed in the next section and is about undertaking a shift and challenging the socio-political order and power relations within the society where it functions. As Paul C. Gorski stated, focusing on cross-cultural relations, conflict resolution, learning about the identities of different groups and respecting their differences is not enough unless it also starts to demand a world free of injustice (Gorski, 2008).

2.3.1 Critical Interculturality

In Colombia, 1990, the Ministry of Education in collaboration with indigenous representatives held several seminars where the term of interculturality was processed under a lot of scrutiny and from these seminars reports and reflections were published by the Colombian Ministry of Education (Aikman, 1997). Arising from these reports, two main forms of interculturality were highlighted:

“1) A status quo or unequal interculturality, which presupposes relations of dependency between national (dominant) society and the indigenous society; and

(22)

2) an interculturality with equality, which implies a transformation of power and control” (Aikman, 1997: 468).

This sub-section is going to elaborate on theories and critiques of intercultural education regarding its role as a critical and challenging socio-political order. An argument was also developed by Gorski explaining that there is the need for a step towards raising questions regarding control and power, a shift in consciousness acknowledging socio-political context and “inform, rather than deferring to, shifts in practice” (Gorski, 2008: 522). These theories and further elaborations on intercultural education arise from the fact that even though intercultural educational contexts exist within different countries no significant differences were witnessed related to equality and social justice. For example, as in Mexico it has been argued that even though “Intercultural Universities take a step into the recognition of Indigenous difference and a smaller one into the valorization of Indigenous knowledges but fail to (re)valorize them beyond Indigenous circles” (Perez-Aguilera and Figueroa-Helland, 2011: 289). According to Gorski (2006) it happens because intercultural educators or intercultural educational programs utilize most of its energy instead of fighting the conditions themselves, fighting the symptoms of oppressive conditions (Gorski, 2006). This approach again was perfectly highlighted by Gorski (2009) in a very clear way according to which this approach to interculturality is also the epitome of privilege.

“Resolving the conflict rather than eliminating injustice (…) constructing a supposedly progressive movement in a way that requires disenfranchised people to build relationships and resolve conflict with people by whom they are oppressed while ignoring their oppression” (Groski, 2009: 88).

As with all the educational models, models with an intercultural approach are as well very politicized and as such have to be approached and deconstructed if they are truly to be intercultural and aim for achieving their promises. In the end, and in the case of Latin America and Mexico more specifically, these models are defined by unequal exercise of power and are developed under specific social circumstances with specific economic social and political relations (Dietz, 2003). Relations and contexts that intercultural education

(23)

has to deconstruct, question and challenge in order to attempt transformations within the educational systems and society they are introduced. Ansión (1995) and Prado (1993) also mentioned that intercultural models of education could work for setting the foundations for a participative democracy, although they are not only educational challenges but political as well (in Aikman, 1997). Therefore, these approaches bring to the fore and question whether apolitical interculturality can truly meet the demands of indigenous peoples, their needs as well as their daily oppressive and unequal intercultural relations (Aikman, 1997). Can we have a neutral political approach to intercultural education? Is there such a thing as being politically neutral? Isn’t being politically neutral actually supporting the hitherto current political situation? As Gorski (2008) said, “can we practice intercultural education that does not insist first and foremost on social reconstruction for equity and justice without rendering ourselves complicity to existing inequity and injustice?” (Gorski, 2008: 516). In particular, the definition and approach given to interculturality by a seminar called ‘Intercultural Education in Latin America’ which took place in Cusco, Peru in 1995 is very important to be considered for the argument constructed here:

“Interculturality is a process of social negotiation which aims to construct dialogical and more just relations between social actors belonging to different cultural universes on the basis of recognition of diversity (..) It is a notion which encompasses the global society and helps to overcome dichotomies, particularly that of indigenous/non-indigenous (..) There cannot be interculturality without democracy” (Cusco Seminar 1995).

This definition was deconstructed and analysed precisely by Aikman (1997) commenting that the above definition provides a challenge to the status quo and is concerned as well with establishing more just relations with people from different cultural backgrounds by first of all overcoming stereotypes towards indigenous people that discriminate them but also going a step further and for those to be achieved stressing the need for a more democratic framework with more just relations and at the same time not excluding and engaging with the power relations inherent in Peruvian society (Aikman, 1997). Therefore, intercultural education, must be political and not only describe and explain the world in an intercultural manner by being culturally and linguistically diverse (which are equally

(24)

important) but it also need to try to change it. As it was very accurately portrayed by Gorski (2009), “intercultural practice begins with – indeed cannot exist without – the deconstruction of power, privilege, oppression, and the consciousness, or lack of consciousness, that these conditions engender in the oppressor and the oppressed” (Gorski, 2009: 89).

2.3.2 Decolonial Interculturality

The next characteristic/aspect of intercultural education, which is a product of the above described feature and related to the first part of the theoretical framework for this research, is decolonial interculturality. The ‘neutral intercultural education’ referred in the previous section and claiming neutrality in intercultural education models in the case of Latin American countries and Mexico, reproduces coloniality of power. According to Aikman (1997) this kind of intercultural education (apolitical and neutral), “maintains the distribution of power and forms of control which perpetuate existing vertical hierarchical relations…Thus, this interculturality remains embedded in relations of internal colonialism” (Aikman, 1997: 469).

Decolonial interculturality will be a result of critical interculturality. An educational space where an intercultural dialogue will be taking place recognising cultural, linguistic and ethnic diversity of the country and at the same time a space challenging the hegemonic knowledge existing and creating the space for decolonisation and deconstruction of internal and external domination within the country and education institutions. As Aikman (1997) commented, “if we are to understand interculturality as a process of dialogue and negotiation towards more just relations, then it needs to be open-ended, with no privileged epistemological or cultural positions” (Aikman, 1997: 476). About decolonial intercultural education and how to effectively practice such a model, Gorski (2008) commented that the requirement is speaking truth to power and questioning and challenging hegemony and hierarchy. If this is not happening and the model of intercultural education that there is its only focus is on cultural awareness and interpersonal intercultural relations with the power relations and hierarchy still in place ‘untouched’ according to Gorski (2008) “is exactly the

(25)

kind of diversion that serves the colonizing and neoliberal interests of the powerful” (Gorski, 2008: 521).

Earlier the seminars that took place in Colombia where mentioned in regard to intercultural education. Within this seminar in Bogota there were he first critiques to be heard on interculturality and colonialism. More precisely it was criticised that it lead to assimilation since it did not recognise the capacity of indigenous peoples to act on their own behalf and maintained the forms of control and distribution of power which according to Aikman (1997), this form of interculturality was trapped and remained embedded in relations of internal colonialism (Aikman, 1997). Therefore, the third aspect that completes the puzzle of ‘authentic intercultural education’ is of it being decolonial. Intercultural education cannot exist if practices, educators, curriculums and everything else constituting the program are colonized and do the act on behalf of the powerful with the sign of being ‘neutral’. Very effectively described by Gorski (2008) and with reference on how to move beyond that is the statement that:

“any framework for intercultural education that does not have as its central and overriding premise a commitment to the establishment and maintenance of an equitable and just world can be seen as a tool, however well-intentioned, of an educational colonization in which inequity and injustice are reproduced under the guise of interculturalism. Secondly, transcending a colonizing intercultural education requires in educators’ deep shifts in consciousness rather than the simple pragmatic or programmatic shifts that too often are described as intercultural education” (Gorski, 2008: 517).

2.4 Conclusion

Throughout this chapter the main theoretical concepts for this research were argued. These are first of all decoloniality, mainly as advocated by Mignolo, and secondly theories concerning intercultural education. This study combines these theories for a couple of reasons. First of all because the main aim is to study the possibilities of decolonizing education through the tool of intercultural education, but also because the researcher approached the participants and listened to them as sources of knowledge and not

(26)

information. ‘Listening’ which is a crucial aspect of decolonial thinking and practice. As Vasquez (2012) argued, how to listen to the voices of the communities that present alternatives to modernity and the broader ‘question of listening’ poses a great challenge to “the epistemic enclosure of modernity” (Vaquez, 2012: 6). Finally, this chapter analysed theories regarding intercultural education. Interculturality that “advances the adoption of a new way of looking that enables us to acknowledge and understand diversity” (Aguado-Odina et al., 2017: 411). However, the two aspects of interculturality concerned for this research is critical interculturality and decolonial. Because as argued above throughout this chapter, an intercultural education that does not provide a challenge to the status quo, it continues to be a tool that supports the powerful at the expense of the oppressed continuing to maintain marginalization within the field (Gorski, 2008).

(27)

CHAPTER 3. CONTEXT AND HISTORY

3.1 Mexico and Indigenous Peoples

Mexico is one of the countries with the highest and most diverse indigenous population in Latin America. According to the World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples, they constitute 13 per cent of the total national population and in absolute numbers they amount to 12.7 million people in total (Minority Rights Group International, 2020). Cultural and ethnic diversity can be reflected in the aspect of language too with the total survived languages in Mexico today being 62 (Minority Rights Group International, 2020) even though the national percentage of speakers of an indigenous language has declined. For instance, from 16% in 1930 it has dropped to 7.2% in 2000 but in absolute numbers there was an increase (INEGI, 2000). While indigenous peoples constitute a huge part of Mexico, it is the forgotten sector in Mexican society, the most exploited as well as people that had to ‘get out of the way’ for the country to ‘develop’ and ‘progress’ (Stavenhagen, 2002), or even as will be seen below in section 3.4, the development was also built upon them. Whenever it proved to be impossible to eliminate them physically, “they were either relegated to the hinterlands to remain as inexhaustible supply of cheap labor or wither away, or else, were forced or encouraged to shed their ‘backward’ cultural traits and become ‘nationalized’” (Stavenhagen, 2002: 26). The Indians, as the writer will show below, have posed a big threat to the hegemonic cultural model of the country.

Mexico’s ruling classes realized from an early stage that they were unable to ‘eliminate’ the Indians physically, due to their collective nature that generated different kinds of resistance throughout the years. Therefore, have they not been eliminated, but also their very way of existence is challenging the hegemonic model of the Mexican state.

After the end of the colonization, with the independence of Mexico, indigenous cultures, forms of organization, languages and anything Indian in general were considered as something buried in the past and had no space in the national model (Stavenhagen, 2002). This can be confirmed from the fact that the power holders of the country, even though it

(28)

achieved its independence, were the direct descendants of Spanish colonial ruling class, the criollo4_{elites (Stavenhagen, 2002).}

The new nation was not Indian, not Spanish but the new nation was mestizo which is described as the racial mixture between Spanish and indigenous peoples. “A projected national identity which combined the Spanish legacy with Mexico’s pre-Hispanic indigenous heritage” (Sieder, 2002: 190). This ideology of mestizaje, according to Batalla (1996) it was a process of de-Indianization which also denied the pureness of Indian existence within the country. As Hale (1968) argued, “in the nineteenth century, the answer of Liberal politicians had been that the Indians qua Indians did not exist anymore; they had become citizens equal before the law” (Hale, 1968; cited in De La Peña, 2006: 282). On the other hand, this new created identity/ideology, had as a result the socio-political annihilation of the mestizo population from becoming members of the political and professional elites due to the new educational and economic opportunities given to them (De La Peña, 2006) causing the gradual exclusion of the criollos from positions of power. A crucial period in Mexican history which also influenced policies and treatment directed to the indigenous was the Mexican Revolution of 1910-1920. The political party that emerged from the Mexican revolution was the PR1 - Partido Revolucionario Institucional which had governed the country from 1921 onwards by a system of one-party hegemony (Oikonomakis, 2019), and the policies implemented were characterized as populist and corporatist as they were directed towards established groups (De La Peña, 2002). The revolution brought about some significant progress in peasant rights and Mexican society but not to indigenous peoples as such. Rather, the ‘mission’ of the revolution was to ‘Mexicanize’ and ‘assimilate’ Indians into the national mestizo plan: a modern, homogenous mestizo society denying the existence of Indians. As De La Peña (2006) put it, “after the Revolution the existence of the Indians was officially recognized, but only as a social sector to ‘full nationality’, i.e. cultural mestizaje” (De La Peña, 2006: 282). This ambition can be reflected in the official ideology of ‘indigenismo’ which was also characterized as a movement in defense of Indian cultures but the reality of it was “a period

(29)

of cultural and ethnic homogenization” (Despagne, 2013: 118). Manuel Gamio (1960), Mexican anthropologist and the ‘father of indigenismo’ stated:

“In order to incorporate the Indian, let us not try to Europanize him all at once. To the contrary, let us Indianize ourselves a little, to present to him our civilization, diluted in his. In this way he will not find our civilization exotic, cruel, bitter, and incomprehensible. Of course, one should not carry closeness with the Indian to ridiculous extremes” (1960: 96)

It is clear what has been the aim of the Mexican indigenista policies since the post-revolutionary governments. Policies that on the surface offered to secure collective welfare for indigenous peoples and communities, but in the deep were a process of assimilation of the indigenous peoples into the mestizo culture. Soon, attacks and critiques on indigenismo were to be made visible directed not only against the conception of a homogenous nation against alternative cultural identities, but also critiques concerned with economic and administrative failures (De La Peña, 2006). Likewise, apart from mere ideology, indigenismo got an institutional form too. For instance, the National Indigenista Institute (Intstituto Nacional Indigenista – INI) was put in place Under Lazaro Cárdenas in Mexico. It was set-up in 1948 with the aim of focusing on indigenous activities and needs such as education, health, land reforms and agriculture aiming at their incorporation into the domestic market (Sieder, 2002; De La Peña, 2002). The first regional development program that would promote the integrationist approach was through mechanisms like bilingual education and through the inclusion of indigenous promoters in health programs, came in 1951 and was held in San Cristobal de Las Casas, Chiapas (Sieder, 2002).

With the ideology of indigenismo being criticized, the same happened with the INI as well. Criticisms that were related to approaches to ‘multicultural’ discourses and in particular institutional multicultural discourses. For example, Margarito Ruiz Hernandez, a Tojolabal ethnic group leader, pointed out that the assumptions by official indigenismo did not result at all to the recognition of indigenous peoples as political subjects (De la Peña, 2006). In other words, the government approach was not the one that would result in the recognition of indigenous peoples and their forms of organization but to an acceptance of existence that needed to be overcome and become part of ‘their own world’. As Barry stated, “a

(30)

situation in which groups live in parallel universes is not one well calculated to advance mutual understanding or encourage the cultivation of habits of cooperation and sentiments of trust” (Barry, 2001: 88). In the 1970s the INI was faced with the harshest criticism since its existence. After more than 20 years in existence, the indigenous regions continued to be the poorest in the country, the most illiterate and most exploited therefore it was accused of inefficiency, authoritarianism and corruption. The same held for many other PRI dominated organisms of the time (De la Peña, 2006). These failures of institutional programs to address discrimination, respect and improve the lives of indigenous peoples reinforce Bithu Parekh’s argument that “while acceptance of differences calls for changes in the legal arrangements of society, respect for them requires changes in its attitudes and ways of thought” (2000: 2).

A highpoint for indigenous peoples in Mexico and Chiapas specifically, was the 1990s. The legitimacy that sustained the PRI government in power begun to fade and its means to maintain its power was with the use of authoritative and coercive means with the effect of increasing the demands of indigenous peoples for political, legal and administrative autonomy (Sieder, 2002). On top of that and in 1992 a reformation of the Article 4 of the Mexican constitution took place (De la Peña, 2002; Sieder, 2002), which effectively managed to make indigenous peoples more vulnerable than ever before to neoliberal policies and foreign trade. Within this context on January 1st_{of 1994 the Zapatista Army} of National Liberation (Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional – EZLN) uprising took place fighting for indigenous rights with one of them being culturally and linguistically appropriate education. A movement that played a significant role in the foundation of the Intercultural model of higher education in Mexico which is the focus of this research. The EZLN also known as Zapatistas with their presence in the Mexican political scene ‘pushed’ with various actions throughout the years for more rights, respect and justice for indigenous peoples. In January 1996, in their territories with 500 representatives from 35 indigenous communities in total, the first National Indigenous Forum was held (National Indigenous Congress, 2019). The second took place in June of the same year and it was decided to create a congress that would be the home for indigenous communities and peoples. In October 12, 1996 the National Indigenous Congress (Congreso Nacional

(31)

Indigena – CNI) was founded (National Indigenous Congress, 2019). Except for the CNI

that was founded due to the presence of Zapatistas in the Mexican political scene, 1996 was a vital year for indigenous peoples. The EZLN sat at the same table with the government for the first time in order to discuss indigenous issues. The government created the Commission for Peace and Pacification (Comisión de Concordia y Pacificación – COCOPA) for the purpose of negotiating with the EZLN (La Botz, 2016). After a process that consisted of weeks of negotiations, the two sides came to an agreement and signed the

Acuerdos de Paz de San Andres Larrainzar (known as San Andres Accords/Agreements)

which was later approved by the CNI (De La Peña, 2006). These accords that were signed on February 16, 1996 recognized the indigenous peoples and their rights and granted to them their considerable autonomy (La Botz, 2016). Also, these agreements played an important role regarding the topic of this paper, since they also included the right to intercultural education as a way to respect the diversity of knowledges and cultures, that exist within the country (De La Peña, 2006). Even though these agreements brought progress in the recognition of indigenous peoples and their rights to education, health, land and autonomy, one of the two sides involved in the negotiations did not ‘keep its word’. This side was the side of the government since it decided to weaken the rights and autonomy granted in the accords by weakening the language, an action that led the Zapatistas to break-off with the accords (La Botz, 2016; Stavenhagen, 2002).

3.2 Education and Indigenous Peoples

Education in Mexico, as well, has historically excluded indigenous as people but more importantly in regard to their culture, languages and knowledges. Therefore, it is not a matter of chance that out of the speakers of an indigenous language, about a third of them are illiterate which in national standards it is three times more than the national average (Minority Rights Group International, 2018). Also, back in 1994 a study carried out by two World Bank economists, George Psacharopoulos and Harry Patrinos, argued that there is a correlation between lack of schooling, being poor and being indigenous (Psacharopoulos and Patrinos, 1994).

(32)

In Mexico, according to the Mexican secretary for Public Education the educational system comprises of five different stages. Pre-school, primary school, secondary school, preparatory school and university level. Given the above historical context, all levels of education were seen by governments as the key arena of assimilation and integration of the indigenous peoples into the national mestizo identity and culture (May and Aikman, 2003). Schooling has been “explicitly and implicitly a site of rejection of indigenous knowledge and language” (May and Aikman, 2003: 143). As mentioned above, with the ideology of indigenismo implemented by post-revolutionary governments, the same occurred in the sector of education. So, everything need to be traced back to 1910 and according to Reinke (2004) apart from the peasants and farmers demanding rights over their lands, there were also demands by peasants, farmers and indigenous peoples for the creation of a universal national education (Reinke, 2004). The tool of education was on the front line of indigenismo and the plan of assimilating the indigenous peoples into the culture of

mestizaje. The irrelevant curriculum on the culture and social context of the indigenous

peoples, the fact that the teaching was introduced only in the Spanish language with the task of Hispanicization as the desired objective, had as a result the drop-out of indigenous peoples from schools in the twentieth century (Stavenhagen, 2002).

In 1946 and under the Ministry of Education and the Independent Department of Native Affairs began a program of teaching Spanish to indigenous children with the aiming and resulting to the devaluation of local autonomy, languages and cultures leading to assimilation (Minority Rights Group, 2018). While education was not at all culturally or linguistically relevant to indigenous people, instead of not having education at all, those who followed official schooling and attended schools (because a high number of indigenous were out of school) preferred to at least follow and have no control over educational matters. As a result, Indians in Mexico, who constitute a significant percentage of the total population and speak more than 50 different languages, were denied and national leaders saw in official formal schooling the incorporation of these minorities into the national life (Reinke, 2004).

In this process, indigenous peoples did not remain inactive. By contrast, their desire for a culturally and linguistically appropriate schooling and education had always been present.

(33)

Their demands were for bilingual and intercultural education especially after the amendment in 1992 of Article 4 of the 1917 constitution. The Amendment recognized officially the existence of indigenous peoples and therefore ‘guaranteed’ respect for their customs and from that point on indigenous peoples in Mexico could be seen not as subjects in transition but as indigenous population (Hindley, 1995). The national shift though began to take place a bit earlier in Mexico. This was after the adaptation of the International Labor’s Organization (ILO) Convention 169 which later led to the aforementioned constitutional reform. The Convention 169, published in 1989, was a rejection of the previous one (Convention 107) that passed on in 1957, with their main difference being the abandonment of the assimilation discourse of the former one in favor now of indigenous peoples and a recognition of their rights (De La Peña, 2006). The fundamental points of the Convention 169 by ILO that are worth mentioning and according to Sieder (2002) they are:

“Indigenous people are defined according to the criteria of self-identification and signatory governments commit to ensure equality of social, economic and cultural rights of all indigenous peoples within their jurisdiction. Indigenous peoples are to be guaranteed full participation in the formulation of all policies that affect them. Governments are to ensure respect for indigenous norms, practices, customary law and institutions. They are also bound to guarantee indigenous peoples’ traditional lands and territories, and to ensure their right to be consulted about and participate in the formulation of development policies affecting their territories and subsoil resources. Lastly, governments must provide indigenous peoples with labor rights guarantees and adequate education and health provision” (Sieder, 2002: 3-4).

Even though Mexico had already an official bilingual educational policy ‘on paper’, including curriculum, schoolbooks and teachers, this was only limited to the first years of schooling and according to Stavenhagen (2002) results were less than entirely satisfactory. As a result, Mexico shifted towards a better approach to bilingual intercultural educational programs after the ILO Convention 169 but also due to Zapatistas presence and the San Andres Accords of 1996. As Guillermo de la Peña (2006) states, “the Acuerdos stated that cultural diversity, as manifested for instance in different languages, customs, religions and medical practices, should be fully respected and guaranteed through ‘intercultural

(34)

education’ (meaning that school programs and texts should not present the indigenous world as backward or inferior to ‘the West’)” (De La Peña, 2006: 289). As a response to the Convention 169, the Zapatistas and the San Andres Accords, the government in 2001 created the General Coordination for Intercultural and Bilingual Education (GCIBE). It is worth mentioning that this was created after the conservative government of Vincente Fox won the presidential elections and took office on 1 December 2000 breaking a 70 years rule of the country by the PRI party (De La Peña, 2006; Hamel, 2008). Therefore, after the creation of GCIBE in 2001, in 2005 this body developed the intercultural university program which according to Fierro and Rojo Pons (2012) defined intercultural approach to education as a recognition and appreciation to diversity regarding languages, cultures, knowledges, as a valuable way to foster understanding between cultures (Fierro and Rojo Pons, 2012).

3.3 Intercultural Universities and UNICH

As mentioned above, in an attempt by the government to meet the educational demands of indigenous peoples, the pressures coming from the Zapatista movement and the San Andres Accords as well as increasing demands from global actors, the intercultural university program was developed in 2005 by the GCIBE. These intercultural institutions are in areas with high proportions of indigenous peoples and therefore are attended mostly by indigenous peoples, even though they are not officially intended exclusively for them. Their main characteristic and the reason they came into existence is not only to recognize the indigenous difference (existence and their difference in Mexican society) but also to valorize, strengthen, research and rediscover indigenous knowledges, worldviews and languages (Perez-Aguilera and Figueroa-Helland, 2011). Intercultural universities that also aim to provide culturally sensitive academic formation for ethnically, linguistically and culturally diverse students (Dietz, 2012). Apart from that, Tellez, Carlos Sandoval and Gonzalez (2006), stated that the university enables people traditionally excluded from higher education to “obtain relevant qualifications with an intercultural dimension according to the needs of their communities of origin” (2006: 499).

Intercultural Education and its role in decolonizing wider Mexican Education: An exploration of the perceptions of students and teachers at the 'Universidad Intercultural de Chiapas'