The presentation posits the hypothesis that a fundamental Bildung crisis is emerging with far-reaching consequences for European education, education policy as well as educational research. The world is currently undergoing a fundamental geopolitical shift from a Euro-American dominated world order towards a more multipolar world. What in Euro-American thinking and policy development has been seen as ‘universalist’ models, standards and norms that merited global coverage are being exposed as Euro- or Anglocentric, and increasingly appear as the particular Eurocentric regime of truth of a hegemon in decline (Baker 2012; Bhambra et al., 2018; Boidin et al., 2012; Fleras, 2021; Krejsler, 2019 & 2021).

Since we know that education, pedagogy and culture are strongly dependent on geopolitical balances between regions in the world – including global economic balances -, Europe can no longer disregard the fact that, within a decade, China, India, Japan and Indonesia will all be among the five largest economies in the world, and Africa will become the new continent with the highest growth rates. In knowledge of politics terms, this points to a Europe that needs to think beyond its Transatlantic Eurocentric frame. The European Commission points to the Draghi report ‘The Future of European Competitiveness’ in its warning that Europe risks becoming a museum if the continent does not succeed in catching up with the investment, innovation and growth levels of China, India and the United States (Draghi, 2024). How do we as educational researchers confront the consequences of this emerging challenge?

This presentation argues that a fundamental rethinking of what Bildung means in terms of understandings of the purpose of education and its content is urgently required. This will be a major challenge for European school and education systems, where national versions of Eurocentric curricula will become more difficult to maintain and justify. If you look at curricula in humanities and social science disciplines it becomes evident how Eurocentric these often are (Baker 2012; Boidin et al., 2012). As a conspicuous example, curricula in philosophy often appear particularly Eurocentric (Strickland & Wang, 2023; Park, 2013). E.g. in Danish philosophy departments philosophical thinking is typically presented as starting in ancient Greece and Rome, progresses through medieval (European) scholasticism and then up through classical and modern European continental and Anglo-American philosophy and so forth. In short, there is a marked lack of sensitivity to the traditions of thinking that the new geopolitical poles of the near future such as India, China but also Africa and the large diaspora populations represent (Gandhi, 2019).

Altogether, this poses an enormous educational challenge. It requires alternative ways of dealing with the othering of the Other than a dominant European continent developed through its centuries long global hegemony (Chakrabarty 2000; Morton 2003). Overt as well as covert ‘global imperial ambitions' have visibly been coming to a close for a while, although realization of this turn of events still needs to materialize in European mainstream culture, including education and curricula (e.g. Bhambra et al., 2018; Fleras, 2021; Krejsler, 2021). 

With inspiration from postcolonial theory and global intellectual history, the presentation proposes to develop a thinking or attitude that is appropriately sensitive in relation to a multipolar world and its many poles (Gandhi 2019; McLeod 2007; Moyn & Sartori, 2015). In order to avoid that rich European intellectual and educational traditions are provincialized, the presentation argues that European traditions can be re-vitalized by entering into dialogue with traditions and cosmologies from countries and regions in an emerging multipolar world (see Crossley, Lore & McNess, 2016; Chakrabarty, 2000; Draghi, 2024; Morrow, 2009).

In exploring the hypothesis of an emerging fundamental Bildung crisis in light of the massive changes in geopolitics and subsequent challenges to national education policies, the presentation discusses in what sense postcolonial thinking and global intellectual history can contribute to developing and qualifying a way of thinking that can more sensitively bring European understandings into dialogue/conversation with a multipolar world in a non-confrontational way (e.g. Crossley et al. 2016; Gandhi, 2019; Krejsler, 2021; Morrow, 2009; Pattton & Varghese, 2018). The presentation draws in particular on the theoretical tradition that has been labelled postcolonial thinking (e.g. Gandhi, 2019; McLeod, 2007). Postcolonial thinking has been central to the critique of a hegemonic Western world order, its accompanying monopolization of cultural norms, influence on previously colonized countries, cultures and mentalities, etc. Edward Said’s book ‘Orientalism’ (1978) is often cited as the starting point for postcolonial theory, which has since been followed by radical thinkers such as the diaspora Indians Gayatri C. Spivak and Homi K. Bhabha, as well as Kwame A. Appiah, Achille Mbembe (Cameroon) and others (e.g. Chakrabarty, 2000; Morton, 2003; Said, 1978). Here one could equally well draw on a number of related approaches of relevance, such as the current Critical Race Theory, intersectionality theory (Kimberlé Crenshaw and others), etc. In addition, this thinking has a rich legacy from the Negritude movement (Leopold Senghor, Aimé Césaire, etc.), Franz Fanon, the emancipation of slaves, the subsequent fight against Jim Crow laws in the USA and the thinking that brings attention to and documents the consequences of colonization and racial segregation, etc. (e.g. Rabaka, 2015; Adamson & Jeffers, 2018-2024). A rich legacy that now also makes it possible for Euro-American thinking to problematize the dark and repressed sides of ‘development’, ‘progress’ and ‘enlightenment’ (e.g. Park 2013). The second pillar that the presentation draws on is the development of what has been called the Global Intellectual History. This is an attempt to make the history of ideas relevant in a world where it is becoming increasingly difficult to understand the world solely from Euro-American interpretations and traditions of thought (Moyn & Sartori, 2015).

The exploration of the hypothesis at stake troubling questions about whether concepts of 'universalism', 'individual rights', 'democracy' and so forth were really that universal after all (Chakrabarty, 2000; Morrow, 2009). Maybe they should - more modestly - be reconsidered as ideas from a particular cultural sphere that need sincere engagement with other traditions in a more truly cosmopolitan ambition. This - on the other hand - is not in any way an argument for saying that all ideas in all cultures are equally good and worthwhile pursuing here... or maybe not even there! This poses the challenge to education of contributing to making the world less fragile by facilitating an activist – difference-affirming - dialogue with the Other, respecting the otherness of the Other, without undermining key values that characterize progressive struggles in Europe – across time and the diversity that this continent also represents (Baker, 2012; Krejsler, 2021; Morton, 2003; Morrow, 2009). In conclusion, the presentation thus arrives at pushing for more constructively activist engagement with the Other in a fragile world. This is seen as a precondition, sine qua non, to avoid provincializing a Europe that is rapidly shrinking in geopolitical influence. This requires serious and systematic engagement with strong traditions (cosmologies, ontologies and epistemologies) in other parts of the world that have often been neglected (Baker, 2012). This includes e.g. India, China and the emerging tradition of Africana philosophy and thinking and well as a host of other traditions (E.g. Adamson & Jeffers 2018-2024; Bilimoria 2018; Carr & Mahalingam 1997; Mou 2009). The rewards of such an approach, it is argued, could potentially contribute to rethink and reframe rich traditions in European education/Bildung and philosophy, making them more fit for engagement with the plurality of traditions in a multi-polar world (Bhambra et al., 2018; Krejsler 2021; Morrow 2009).

*Adamson,P. & Ganeri,J. (2020). Classical Indian Philosophy. Oxford University Press. *Adamson,P. & Jeffers,C.(2018-2024). Africana Philosophy (podcast-series 142 episodes: https://hopwag2.podbean.com/) https://historyofphilosophy.net/series/africana-philosophy. *Baker,M.(2012). Modernity/Coloniality and Eurocentric Education: Towards a Post-Occidental Self-Understanding of the Present. Policy Futures in Education, 10(1), 4-22. *Bhambra,K.G. et al.(Eds.)(2018). Decolonising the University. London: Pluto Press. *Bilimoria,P.(Ed.)(2018). History of Indian Philosophy. New York: Routledge (612 p.). *Boidin,C. et al.(2012). Introduction: From university to pluriversity: A decolonial approach to the present crisis of Western universities. Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of SelfKnowledge, 10(1). *Chakrabarty,D.(2000) Provincializing Europe. Princeton University Press. *Carr,B. & Mahalingam,I. (Eds.)(1997). Companion Encyclopedia of Asian Philosophy. New York: Routledge(1136 p). *Crossley,M.; Lore,A. & McNess,E. (Eds.). (2016). Revisiting Insider–Outsider Research in Comparative and International Education. Oxford (UK): Symposium Books. *Draghi,M.(2024). The Future of European Competitiveness: Part A. Brussels: European Commission. *Fleras,A.(2021). Rethinking the Academy: Beyond Eurocentrism in Higher Education. New York: Peter Lang Group. *Gandhi,L.(2019). Postcolonial Theory: A critical introduction. 2nd ed. New York: Columbia University Press. *Gordon,L.R. (2008). An Introduction to Africana Philosophy. Cambridge University Press. *Krejsler,J.B.(2019). How a European ‘Fear of Falling Behing’ Discourse Co-Produces Global Standards: Exploring the Inbound and Outbound Performativity of the Transnational Turn in European Education Policy. In: The OECD’s Historical Rise in Education. Ed. C.Ydesen. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. (245-267). *Krejsler,J.B. (2021). Multitude, weaponize ye theories of globalization! Deleuzian strategies to affirm diversity vs predatory capitalism and nationalisms. Discourse. 42(5), 796-811. Special Issue: Reassessing Globalization). *McLeod,J.(2007). The Routledge Companion to Postcolonial Studies. New York: Routledge. *Mou,B.(Ed.)(2009). History of Chinese Philosophy. New York & London: Routledge(631 p.) *Morrow,R.A.(2009). Habermas, Eurocentrism and Education: The Indigneous Knowledge Debate. In: Habermas, Critical Theory, and Education; Ed. Mark Murphy & Ted Fleming, 63-77. London: Routledge. *Morton,S. (2003). Spivak. Routledge Critical Thinkers. London & New York: Routledge. Moyn,S. & Sartori,A.(Eds.)(2013). Global Intellectual History. New York: Columbia University Press. *Patton,P. & Varghese,G.K.(Eds.)(2018). Theme issue: Deleuze in India. Deleuze & Guattari Studies. 12(1) 2018. Edinburgh University Press (https://www.jstor.org/stable/e48506839 ) *Park,P.(2013). Africa, Asia, and the History of Philosophy: Racism in the formation of the philosophical canon, 1780-1830. Albany (N.Y.): State University of New York Press. *Rabaka,R.(Ed.) (2015). The Negritude Movement. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. *Said, Edward W. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books. *Strickland,L. & Wang,J.(2023) Racism and Eurocentrism in Histories of Philosophy. Open Journal of Philosophy, 13, 76-96.