Philosophy of education as pluriversal : opening the dialogues

Abstract

Despite the historical origins of philosophy from a richly diverse tapestry of thinkers, which cuts across geopolitical, cultural and religious traditions, and despite internationalising trends to develop both a more inclusive and authentic account of philosophical thinking, it remains largely unquestioned to equate philosophy of education with its western canon. These concerning biases are succinctly laid bare in Jackson and Kwak’s (2025) editorial, ‘Is philosophy of education western?’ They are correct in their assertion that the persistent perspective of philosophy of education as western suggests that the world beyond Western Europe and North America appears insignificant, holding negative implications for the development of curricula, research, scholarly discourse, and educational practice and outcomes in the field globally. Jackson and Kwak (2025, p. 2) are also correct that the unfolding epistemic framing is not only a continuing marginalisation of ‘non-western’ thinkers and philosophies, but also expectations of the latter to be ‘western facing in outlook’, and a preparedness to ‘sacrifice’ ‘internally oriented explorations and articulations of thought from other positions’. In this collective article, we seek to take Jackson (2025) thesis a step further – by acknowledging the colonial logic that has ensured the systemic subjugation, assimilation, or erasure of Indigenous and other ‘non-western’ philosophies, while also affirming philosophy of education as inclusively pluriversal. Our aim is not only to foreground marginalised voices and traditions, but also to restore the epistemic dignity of all philosophies. By bringing together the contributions in this article, we do not simply gesture toward ‘alternative’ knowledge systems as supplements to the dominant canon; rather, we affirm them as philosophies, constitutive of a genuinely pluriversal field of philosophy of education. The contributions offered here represent only fragments of what a pluriversal philosophy of education might become. They are offered as an opening of dialogues, which question the dominance of any single epistemic tradition, and as calls for recognising the pluriversality of philosophy of education as co-constitutive rather than derivative. Importantly, to affirm philosophy of education as pluriversal is not only to expand the margins of the western canon. It also involves disrupting its centre, and to insist that multiple traditions of thought stand in dialogue as equals not only in the discipline of philosophy of education, but in the day-to-day living in this world. It is, of course, impossible to capture within a single article the full range of philosophies that have shaped the world’s civilisations. Yet this impossibility is itself revealing. It confirms how little is known or even acknowledged beyond the confines of the western canon. At this point, it might be worth asking why it matters so much to de-normalise the westernisation of philosophy of education, and why it is important to recognise the offering of multiple philosophies. On the one hand, the response resides in ridding philosophy of education from self-impoverishment – philosophy of education is diminished by a denial of a plurality of insights and traditions. On the other hand, when we write and talk about philosophy of education, we are not only referring to educational programmes, principles, goals and outcomes. We are also referring to intellectual, spiritual and traditional heritages, which have shaped communities and societies, It matters, therefore, because restoring philosophy of education to its pluriversal roots is not simply a matter of inclusion or representation; it is also a liberatory act of epistemic reparation. We see epistemic reparation as crucial because in addition to restoring and recentering historically marginalised ways of thinking and being, it also diversifies knowledge by opening spaces for multiple ways of knowing and understanding the world. Without disruption, contestation, and dialogue, philosophy of education will persist in its trappings of narrow perspectives and exclusions. There are consequences not only for what, who and how we teach, but also for the kind of world that we ought to be co-creating.