good overview of the evolution of the buen vivir debates ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Great Transition Network <[email protected]> Date: Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 8:01 PM Subject: Vivr Bien: Old Cosmologies and New Paradigms (GTN Discussion) To: [email protected]

From Eduardo Gudynas <[email protected]>

------------------------------------------------------- This is a brief commentary regarding Pablo Solon’s paper on Buen Vivir. First, I would like to start by acknowledging that as this is an idea in the making, a collective endeavor, different political actors present their own views on Buen Vivir. Solon’s paper could be considered as part of those efforts, particularly in the context of some present-day debates in Bolivia. Second, on the other hand, it could be useful to depict something like a landscape of different approaches to Buen Vivir and examples of key ideas under consideration. The original or early understandings of Buen Vivir were a product of what one could call a mixing or plural exercise. The core components of the idea started in Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador in the late 1990s; due to political conditions, that path was blocked in Peru, but continued in Ecuador and Bolivia at the time of the arrival of the new left governments. In the case of Bolivia, it is quite clear that few individuals promote the idea, while in Ecuador, it was more a collective effort. In all these cases, Buen Vivir endorses a rejection of Western ideas of development or progress, and explores alternatives to development in any of its varieties. In short, Buen Vivir was / is an effort to decouple from development and other core concepts of Modernity. It is true that Buen Vivir could be described as a harmonious relationship between “society” and “nature,” but each of these categories are understood in different ways than their traditional definitions. It is also true that Buen Vivir recovers some traditional or old components of some indigenous peoples—but not all of them. In that original effort, Buen Vivir was not presented as an attempt to return to an old past, to return to the Inca state or any idea of that sort. Buen Vivir, rather, is an exploration on alternative futures. While some indigenous components are part of Buen Vivir, others are not. Non-indigenous actors / ideas were also very important in the Buen Vivir ideas (a clear example is former president of the Ecuadorian Constitutional Assembly, Alberto Acosta, who is not indigenous, and in fact is an economist trained in Germany). This explains the relevance of “mixing” in the original Buen Vivir. Some Western ideas, particularly those related to critical stands against Modernity, were included in the Buen Vivir. The concept of Nature’s rights, in the sense of a recognition of intrinsic values in non-human beings, stemmed from Western environmental discourses, which were then “mixed” (articulated, fussed, etc.) with the idea of Pachamama, an Andean indigenous traditional concept of human-nature assemblages. This resulted in the recognition of Nature’s rights in the new Ecuadorian Constitution (but not in the Bolivian one). Furthermore, the resulting legal framework was different in each country. In the new Constitution of Ecuador, Buen Vivir is complex: it gets a complete section with several articles, and is presented like a counterweight for development policies. In Bolivia, it is only an ethical guidance principle. A similar situation faced feminist / gender approaches, as they are part of the critique within Modernity or at its borders, which was a recent input into the core concepts of Buen Vivir. This means that many different indigenous groups must also change / revise their gender standings. Buen Vivir in its original understanding thus requires changes both in indigenous and non-indigenous groups. There are not strict or direct links between Buen Vivir and indigenous individuals, groups, organizations, etc. Some of them endorse the idea; others reject it, considering it alien to their traditional thinking; still others endorse development itself. Buen Vivir is also plural. That means that Buen Vivir is more like an umbrella concept, and within it there are more specific categories, as mentioned by Solon. But my point is the following: Bolivian Aymaras’ suma qamaña is different from Ecuadorian Kichwas’ sumaq kawsay, and these are, in turn, different from the deep ecology of some non-indigenous environmentalists. These three, plus some others in that region, all fall under the Buen Vivir umbrella. Differences and similarities require some further explanation and references to anthropological and ethnographic studies, which is not possible here. Such differences make sense because each position is always rooted in its own specific ecological landscapes, with their histories, and rejects essentialisms. The Aymara version is adapted to its specific setting, and has, for example, a different understanding of community than the Amazonian version in Ecuador. A clear problem arises: if Buen Vivir is plural, many different ideas and practices could use that label, and the concept became so vague that it ended up encompassing any version of welfare or a happy life in the outdoors. Nevertheless, there are clear boundaries between the Buen Vivir set in its original perspective, and the non-Buen Vivir ideas. I will only mention a couple as examples (as I will return to them below). (1) Buen Vivir does not endorse the modern idea of progress and of an universal history; a result of this is that it rejects Western development. (2) Buen Vivir expresses an ethical shift, as it recognize in different ways intrinsic values in the non-human; humans are no longer the only subjects that can produce value. These and other stances resulted in heated debates over development, especially with regard to the role of natural resource exports, and extractivisms in the Andean countries. These debates were and are intensive, with strong effects in public opinion, involving the participation of presidents, vice-presidents and ministers. I would like to highlight this feature: Buen Vivir debates are not an academic exercise or an indigenous ritual, but are in the 8 o’clock TV news. This resulted in governments, many academic institutions, and even indigenous groups rejecting Buen Vivir in that original versions and producing new ones that could be placed once again inside development and modernity (Solon addresses some of these problems). If those governments were to follow Buen Vivir, it would be impossible to continue with oil drilling in the Amazonia in Ecuador or the intensive mining in Bolivia. So, as they continue with those development strategies, they introduce new definitions Buen Vivir to make it compatible with or conducive to development. A first wave of these battles was around the idea of Pachamama / Mother Earth rights, and explains the relevance of the ethical shift. The Evo Morales government around 2010 introduced the idea of the rights of Mother Earth / Pachamama for the whole planet in the debates on climate change. This was done with a number of references to Buen Vivir, and along a radical discourse against capitalism. But according to the original Buen Vivir perspective, that idea of planetary environmental rights makes no sense, because Pachamama is always local, and not planetary. Pachamama is rooted in communities / natures in specific locations. While the Bolivian government claimed for Pachamama global rights, it continues its intensive natural resource exploitation with a number of social and environmental impacts. On one side a strong anti-capitalist discourse, and on the other side, extractivism deeply connected to economic and financial globalization. All this is linked with the debates of possible revolution or ruptures with capitalism at the local / national level, or by means of a planetary revolution or change—an issue that communists have been discussing for about a century, and which penetrates the development debates in the Andean countries. After the original Buen Vivir perspective, those changes are always local / regional, because the perspective is always rooted in specific landscapes / histories. And because it is non-essentialist, so you cannot produce a Buen Vivir blueprint to be used, let say, in Asia. Furthermore, instead of one great transition, there will be a large number of regional / local ones. So, I presume for the Great Transition Initiative, this issue of “scale” is quite relevant, and Buen Vivir offers quite an experience. A second wave to redefine Buen Vivir sought to place that idea again “inside” development (as progress, as economic growth). But the governments, scholars, social activists, etc., recognized that traditional ideas of development were not suitable, so they produced new varieties, such as a “socialist” Buen Vivir in Ecuador, or “integral development” in Bolivia. So, these new Buen Vivir reformulations are fitted inside progress or development, and defend consumption and welfare as indicators of the good life. I would like to stress that a number of non-South American scholars in countries in Ecuador and Bolivia, with key backing of these governments, played a major role in this second wave. Stating that the original Buen Vivir was coopted by governments is not good enough; it is not that simple. It involves deep cultural beliefs and pre-political attachments to progress in a variety of actors. These debates include specific disputes with different theoretical settings. Perhaps one of the most visible is with Marxists, as Buen Vivir-original version shares their critique of capitalism. But, that original Buen Vivir is also an alternative to socialisms. Again: Buen Vivir in the original sense expresses alternatives that are at the same time post-capitalist and post-socialist. This is also relevant for GTI debates: is it possible a transition without an ethical shift? And the meaning of ethics here refers to which / what have value, who / what recognize those values, etc. (and should not be confused with moral standings on right / wrong as example). The socialist approach, even traditional eco-socialist, is restricted to the realm of human-subjects, and does not endorse the idea of non-human intrinsic values or subjects. A heated debate is underway on these issues in South America. Within GTI, this opens the question of whether a transition is only to move from capitalism to some sort of non-capitalist and good socialist option, or whether the alternative must operate on a deeper level to move beyond Modernity itself. The multiple transformations, transitions, or revolutions promoted by Buen Vivir-original version, included other subjects that are non-human, reclaiming new definitions of modern core concepts such as justice or citizenship. A number of analyses of these issues are underway in South America, with intensity and passion. Eduardo Gudynas *********************************************************************** ********************** Tuesday, January 2, 2018

From Paul Raskin <[email protected]>

----- Dear GTN, Our November exchange on “the problem of action” considered the overarching challenge of animating a systemic movement capable of propelling a Great Transition.* Although the ultimate shape of such a “global citizens movement” (GCM) cannot be predetermined, we can broadly envision it as a multifaceted upsurge aligned by core values, principles, and visions. That discussion sets the backdrop for forthcoming forums on major oppositional streams. The January discussion will spotlight one such stream: movements rooted in traditional and indigenous cultures. Our point of departure is an incisive and eloquent essay prepared by Pablo Solón, “Vivir Bien: Old Cosmovisions and New Paradigms.” Pablo introduces Vivir Bien (also known as Buen Vivir), critiques governments that act in its name, and explains why the fruition of Vivir Bien needs – and can contribute to – an intertwined global movement. Please read the essay at www.greattransition.org/ publication/vivir-bien. I look forward to your comments. Does Pablo get it right? What would you add or challenge? What other peoples movements around the world might play a consequential role in a GT? What needs to be done to foster linkages among them, and with other anti-systemic forces challenging conventional development? The discussion will go through Friday, February 2nd. Over to you with warm wishes for 2018, Paul * See my framing note at www.greattransition.org/publication/How-do-we-get- there and a Roundtable that samples the GTN discussion (with my response) at www.greattransition.org/publication/roundtable-problem-action. ------------------------------------------------------- Hit reply to post a comment on the GT Network Read all comments (or reply) at http://www.greattransition.org/forum/gti-discussions/202- vivr-bien-old-cosmologies-and-new-paradigms/2613 Note: Expect a delay between posting and receiving your comment Need help? Email [email protected] -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens