DECOLONIZATION OF KNOWLEDGE OR A NEW MONOPOLY OF LEGITIMACY? EPISTEMIC GOVERNANCE AND THE DEMODERNIZATION TRAJECTORIES OF POST-SOVIET SOCIETIES

Abstract

Background. The article offers a socio-philosophical reading of the decolonization of knowledge in post-Soviet societies and asks whether freeing knowledge from colonial tutelage does not turn into a new monopoly of legitimacy. The study is subordinated to the broader framework of analyzing demodernization processes and focuses on epistemic governance as the mechanism that sanctions legitimate knowledge. Methods. The work is theoretical and analytical, combining conceptual analysis, critical interpretation of sources, and a neo-institutional optics of epistemic governance with the normative toolkit of theories of epistemic injustice. Its key device is a heuristic gradient between "monopoly" and "anarchy" of legitimacy, along which particular epistemic orders can be located. Results. It is shown that the decolonization of knowledge should not be conceived as a change in who owns the right to legitimacy, since this leaves the monopolistic logic intact; rather, it appears as a reconstruction of the procedures of validation, accountability, and participation. Demodernization of knowledge is interpreted not as an instantaneous collapse but as a direction of movement along the gradient, whose character is determined by the state of epistemic procedures rather than by the loudness of proclaimed values. The post-Soviet case of double coloniality is revealed as the sharpest test of the proposed framework, where a justified demand for subjecthood borders on the risk of an "epistemic reversal." Conclusions. The main result is a shift of the question from "whose legitimacy" to "by what procedures legitimacy is established," which makes it possible to distinguish the restoration of epistemic subjecthood from the construction of a new monopoly. The resilience of post-Soviet societies to demodernization failures depends on the capacity of institutions to maintain transparent and contestable criteria of legitimacy; the prospect lies in operationalizing the framework into measurable indicators and comparative institutional studies.