For the 2023-2025 work period, the Political Philosophy Working Group has conceived a project that delves into the relationship between the cosmos, the body, and utopia to broadly understand ways of life and emancipatory actions from the interpretive frameworks provided by the Humanities in the region. We propose an approach to the cosmos-body-utopia connections that is attentive to the present time without losing sight of its historical formation and its global and regional connections.

This task will be developed during the next work period through collective reflection that extends beyond the academic sphere. The proposal incorporates the participation of members of the Working Group in spaces for collective construction with popular social mobilization groups from different countries. The project revolves around the transformations of recent decades in the Latin American context and their relationship to the actions, feelings, and thoughts that arise from the Humanities within the current regional and global landscape, which has been impacted by the development of digital capitalism.

To understand the feeling-thinking-acting of the Humanities and how this manifests in the practices and knowledge emerging from diverse Latin American imaginaries, we propose three main axes that articulate our proposal: utopias—as a global imaginary with the potential to create better worlds; bodies—as an indelible part of the biopolitics of power-knowledge; and the cosmos—as the articulating axis through which it is possible to situate the formation of utopias. Our project stems from the idea that bodies/cosmos/utopias are produced in diverse ways throughout history and that, based on them, human beings produce practices, imaginaries, and reflections from the horizon of the humanities, from the philosophy of praxis, as Gramsci would have envisioned, from other interpretive perspectives, such as deconstructionist critiques or other formulations of critique, and even from proposals marked by neoliberal ideology.

The importance of articulating these three axes within the regional and global discussion on the state/status of the Humanities in the world today is based on some observations identified by the members of the Working Group. In a process that gained political momentum with the neoliberal waves of the late 20th and early 21st centuries in our continent, it is observed that the act-thinking within the Humanities was continually dismantled by the incorporation of hegemonic normative principles of the market into spaces of knowledge production and reproduction (Chaui, 2001).

From the “rationalist” principles based on the ideas of effectiveness, efficiency, and productivity that marked the educational reforms of the late 1990s and early 2000s, we have arrived at a point where the dominant discourse is that of reforming national education systems, seeking their adaptation to “educate for the work of the future” (IDB, 2017). These changes have generated a new rhetorical-political landscape where the ideas of digitalization, flexibility, efficiency, and resource optimization dominate the educational processes of our time. Likewise, it is observed that multilateral organizations and global and regional development banks, such as the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), which finances actions directed toward education in the region, condition their investments on the adaptation of educational institutions' curricula to the parameters of what they call “the skills market” that the contemporary capitalist system supposedly requires (IDB, 2017, 2020).

For all the reasons stated above, the Humanities and their way of feeling-thinking-acting, based on an organic integration between the knowing subject and the space of knowledge, continue to steadily lose ground. Therefore, instead of discussing the importance of the Humanities for deeply considering the dilemmas of our time, educational and research institutions are witnessing the growing prominence of the field of Digital Humanities (DHH). Starting from philosophical and political questions, the Working Group proposes that before considering the "effectiveness" of DHH in the region, as Vinck (2013) does, we must reflect on the fundamental role of the Humanities in contemporary human thought and action within the processes of global transformation.

At this moment of historical uncertainty, marked by the deepening of extreme ideologies, we are compelled to urgently rethink the philosophical and political foundations of our society. The articulatory capacity and importance of this proposal lie in its examination, within the three proposed axes, of the scope of the Humanities, their challenges, and problems in the region and the global context.

With this, the Political Philosophy Working Group seeks to contribute to refining the creative and critical potential of the undisciplined Humanities, rooted in the idea that knowledge is transversal, shared, situated, and without borders. Based on this general objective, several issues challenge political-philosophical thought, which we present here merely in an illustrative and programmatic way, without aiming to be exhaustive:

i) What is the role of human thought and reflection in the formulation of critical projects for social change?

ii) In institutional and political terms, what are the main challenges that thinkers and articulators of the Humanities have to overcome to ensure that critical thinking prevails over the hegemonic regimes that are consolidating in the region's education system?

iii) How to demystify the fallacy of the factual incompatibility between "acting-present" and "thinking-future"? That is, the challenge of taking utopia not as a "fanciful mirage", but as a political-epistemic project based on social imaginaries that are real and that are realized through the articulation of the cosmos with the body.

iv) How can we delve deeper into the proposal to understand the material dimension of the cultural frameworks in which "a world" is produced where the political body and the biological body are undoubtedly articulated in thinking?

v) Starting from a feminist and non-anthropocentric conception of the configuration of knowledge, how do the counter-hegemonic proposals of the undisciplined Humanities reconfigure the regimes of utopia, bio-body and cosmos in the region?

vi) How to relocate the understanding of the spiritual and of transgressive experiences of "factual reality"? In this sense, we ask ourselves how to overcome the imposed boundaries to achieve a boundaryless understanding of the human, the animal and the natural, starting from and, at the same time, questioning the ways of thinking of the Humanities as we know them now.

To discuss these questions, we begin with the principle that dialogue with other CLACSO Working Groups is fundamental. For this project, we will organize joint activities with other Working Groups—such as the "Bodies, Territories, and Feminisms" group and the "Bodies, Territories, and Resistances" group—with whom we have already initiated contact to organize joint activities should the proposals we are presenting be successful. We believe that the critical and collective scrutiny of these issues will contribute to a better understanding of the emancipatory meanings of undisciplined thought, which is the very source and nature of the Humanities in Latin America.

Therefore, in concrete terms, in addition to the philosophical and political thinking and action that marks the group's trajectory, we will connect in an even more systematic way with other collectives that act outside the spaces of university knowledge – popular education entities from different countries.

To begin the theoretical debate, the first thing that stands out in this reflection is the observation that in the general discourse on the "Humanities" in the contemporary global academic landscape, they are defined from the outside by what they are not. A careful look at academic guidelines reveals that the Humanities can be understood as everything that is not technical professional training, mathematics, and the natural and social sciences. The Humanities incorporate philosophical, historical, artistic, literary, and religious thought and action, and everything that cannot be achieved through technology. The Humanities are supposed to employ the critical and speculative method, while other forms of thinking are based on hypothetical-deductive empirical knowledge (Bod, 2014; Levi, 1970). Thus, the Humanities are presented as a field that is basically defined by its opposition to the technical-scientific method and modus operandi. At the same time, what Latour (2013) has called "scientific humanity" has developed throughout history, where scientific methods have come to determine human knowledge. Thus, the idea of ​​"utility," which once separated the humanities from the sciences and other practical domains of knowledge, has become intertwined in the instrumental world of capitalism.

However, it can be said that the great inventions and projects that enabled humanity's political and technical emancipation were at some point based on knowledge processes that transcend the application of technical-scientific methods (Walling, 1997). The process of the loss of space for scholarly, or polymath, knowledge (Burke, 2019) has been very concretely accompanied by the decline in the importance of the Humanities throughout the 20th century. The vast majority of works on this topic focus on the process of the loss of scholarly spaces in the West, neglecting the more specific processes in the other fields of knowledge that comprise the geopolitics of global knowledge.

What we observe in this examination of the topic from a perspective rooted in the Global South is that the process of the instrumentalization of knowledge has been driven by far more complex and diverse causes in Latin American and African countries (Chaui, 2001; Sone, 2018). In these spaces of exploitation and denial of the native human, contemporary challenges for the Humanities share the problem of the creation of bubbles of practical application of knowledge (Derrida, 2010). Beyond this, they also encompass problems related to the formation of processes of knowledge/power concentration within the world system (Quijano, 2014; Wallerstein, 2006).

If our aim is to understand and critically question this process of "naturalization" that has accompanied the imposition of technical and scientific knowledge, it is urgent to add other variables. Because, in addition to understanding from a historical and philosophical perspective how the humanities have lost ground, we seek to find tools of knowledge that can be put into practice to strengthen critical humanities emerging from the Global South through a form of work that transcends academic spaces.

We are concerned about the determinism of the idea of ​​innovation and individual creativity that, within the hegemonic hermeneutics, underpins the digitization of life, which arrives as if it were part of a natural process in human history. As Chaui (2001) aptly demonstrates, the Humanities play a crucial role in critiquing the disciplined humanism that has become entrenched in contemporary societies.

Thus, in order to think and act systematically with and on the subject, the main axes of the proposal in this project are articulated as follows:

1. Utopias Axis: rescuing the utopian imaginary as a political tool that moves away from the fantastical in the sense of something unattainable. Utopias must be reclaimed globally as an emancipatory tool (Martínez, 2020). In this axis, we seek to understand how thinking-acting beings in the world process spatiotemporal displacements to problematize the fatalistic naturalization that hegemonic capitalist thought attempts to impose on the current scenario (Malm, 2020). Undisciplined Humanities would be a means/form of utopian displacement that transcends the disciplinary and institutional boundaries between "academic knowledge" and "popular knowledge."

2. Bodies Axis: On the one hand, we proceed to reclaim the biopolitical potential as a constant source of knowledge; on the other, we seek, through historical philosophy, to critique the representations and hierarchization of bodies in sociopolitical spheres (Martínez Barrera, 2018). This axis stems from the principle that everything in the world has a body (human, natural, spiritual, animal, technological, etc.—since we understand that these experiences and mutations must be designated from contemporary theory), which is simultaneously the source and the product of how this element of corporeality positions itself and understands the world (Anzaldúa, 2016). Subjects' perceptions of different bodies and the biopolitical elements of the world impact the very way we represent, understand, and create reality. The Humanities, precisely by dispensing with hierarchies, would be a way to achieve a destigmatization of the corporeal, open to multiple determinations (Cruz Hernández and Bayón, 2020).

3. Cosmos Axis: This axis enables the social placement of the relationship between utopias and bodies within the Humanities and how it is understood in each context. The cosmos is understood as being formed by collective imaginaries that structure the positions created regarding what is cultural, political, and natural within each system of representation. Thus, cosmopolitics, as developed by Stengers (2010), is transformed within this proposal as that which makes it possible to articulate the diverse worldviews existing within the discussion on transdisciplinarity and transpolitics in the Humanities (Gago and Mezadra, 2015).

The Humanities, paradoxically, fulfill the fundamental role of education through a form of understanding the cosmos in which humankind is not at the center. More than ever, it is time to practice the *cogitamus* (Latour, 2013) as a form of collective knowledge that can replace the Cartesian *ego cogitum*. Therefore, revisiting this theme of the Humanities within the framework of a critical political philosophy project is part of a struggle to denaturalize hegemonic discourses and an attempt to contribute to a debate that is gaining increasing momentum globally.

Those of us who practice political philosophy within this group embrace "indisciplinarity" as a way to broaden knowledge and move toward solving problems that affect contemporary societies. Therefore, the Working Group proposes to enter into this debate on the Humanities and their possible understandings within the three proposed frameworks, reflecting from a Latin American and Caribbean philosophical perspective and in connection with other CLACSO Working Groups that share the same concerns on this key issue.