АУТОР / AUTHOR(S): Valentin Mihaylov 
DOI: 10.46793/CSGE5.72VM
САЖЕТАК / ABSTRACT:
In the global exchange of knowledge, there is a growing favoring of academic practices created in specific countries from the global North, which serve the interests of this informal, but symbolically powerful community. Subsequently, these local views are spreading worldwide as universal and unavoidable patterns for those who aim to participate in the global academic communication. Those who fail to comply with the practices of prioritizing specific topics, methods, and ways of thinking are destined for gradual marginalization.
The concept of epistemic justice is commonly restricted to tracking and interpreting imbalances in publications listed in some of the top global indexing databases. This paper goes beyond the quantity approach and focuses on specific discursive practices that create, maintain, or challenge the established global order of knowledge. These practices are mostly from post-socialist countries, Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
Two interrelated issues are examined in this paper. First, the production and dissemination of knowledge. Second, the question of who has the right (and who authorizes it) to evaluate, hierarchize, and control academic knowledge, as well as segregate, through symbolic recognition or stigmatization, those who participate in the creation of this knowledge? The critical geopolitical reading of a world order of knowledge is a suitable analytical tool for answering this question because of the inextricable connection of the considered phenomenon with some traditional patterns of socio-cultural division of the world. The field of critical geopolitics has a strong interest in marginal phenomena and powerless subjects, which are usually omitted when drawing the world’s political and cultural map of knowledge.
This paper contains a critical analysis of the experience and positioning of those perceived with epithets such as “backwards”, peripheral subjects, or representatives of the “second” and “third” worlds. The question was asked about how those stigmatized as academic “periphery” contribute to epistemic injustice. To reflect such practices, the author employs the term self-peripheralization. The paper also emphasizes that epistemic justice is one of the important aspects in the struggle for a new, more inclusive model of coexistence of different cognitive paradigms and ways of doing science, developing in a broader social and cultural framework.
КЉУЧНЕ РЕЧИ / KEYWORDS:
globalization; order of knowledge; epistemic justice; epistemic hegemony; self-peripheralization