[P2P-F] Fwd: Vivr Bien: Old Cosmologies and New Paradigms (GTN Discussion)

Michel Bauwens michelsub2004 at gmail.com
Tue Jan 23 08:05:48 CET 2018


good overview of the evolution of the buen vivir debates

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Great Transition Network <gtnetwork at greattransition.org>
Date: Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 8:01 PM
Subject: Vivr Bien: Old Cosmologies and New Paradigms (GTN Discussion)
To: michelsub2004 at gmail.com



>From Eduardo Gudynas <egudynas at gmail.com>

-------------------------------------------------------
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 <praskin at tellus.org>

-----
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 jcohn at tellus.org





-- 
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20180123/b5914a4f/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the P2P-Foundation mailing list