BUEN VIVIR, SUMAK KAWSAY, 'GOOD LIVING': AN INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW by Johannes M. Waldmüller Geneva, 03.05.2014 (cite or print only with permission from the author) ‘‘We, ... Hereby decide to build a new form of public coexistence, in diversity and in harmony with nature, to achieve the good way of living, the sumak kawsay’’ (Preamble to 2008 Constitution of Ecuador) ‘‘[Sumak Kawsay represents the] definitive burying of the exclusionary neoliberal system.’’ (Indigenous leader Humberto Cholango, quoted in Becker, 2011: 60). 1 Right from the outset, ALTERNAUTAS is by no means intended to discuss only Buen Vivir, or how it is sometimes called, sometimes (wrongly) equated, Sumak Kawsay (Ecuador, derived from Kichwa language), neither Vivir Bien/Suma Qamaña (Bolivia, derived from Aymara language) as alternative 'Latin American' visions to mainstream utilitarian development approaches. Buen Vivir represents a plurality of more or less specific discursive and practice-related “platforms” (Gudynas, 2011) to ponder (and practice) alternative visions to and from development, based on lived experience from Latin America, or more specifically, the Andean region (i.e. in Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru – virtually nonexistent in Chile, Venezuela and Colombia so far, but debates are growing). The aim of this short overview is to contextualize this doubtlessly important contribution to development discourses and to point out that there is no simple, clearly definable or 'correct' use of this concept – on the contrary, it's perceived weakness is in fact a strength: by ultimately criticizing and opposing itself to Western ways of knowledge-making, it intentionally leaves space for re- interpretation, re-appropriation or, as it is frequently called, “enactment” and “reconstruction” (Hidalgo-Capitán et al., 2014: 29). Hence instead of discussing Buen Vivir/Sumak Kawsay's invention, discovery or exact origin in detail, I seek to add a condensed overview that should prevent overly enthusiastic, essentialist or unworldly contributions based on this concept and its surrounding political struggles (see Simbaña, 2011). For this purpose of 'reconstruction', I refer here to 'Buen Vivir' only – thus implying it's various other notions, social visions and political programs in use, such as Vivir Bien (Bolivia), sumaq kawsay/Sumak Kawsay/Sumakawsay (Ecuador- 1 Both quotes are reprinted in (Radcliffe, 2012: 241). 1
24
Embed
BUEN VIVIR, SUMAK KAWSAY, 'GOOD LIVING': AN INTRODUCTION ... · BUEN VIVIR, SUMAK KAWSAY, 'GOOD LIVING': AN INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW by Johannes M. Waldmüller Geneva, 03.05.2014
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
BUEN VIVIR, SUMAK KAWSAY, 'GOOD LIVING':
AN INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
by Johannes M. Waldmüller
Geneva, 03.05.2014
(cite or print only with permission from the author)
‘‘We, ... Hereby decide to build a new form of public coexistence, in diversity and in
harmony with nature, to achieve the good way of living, the sumak kawsay’’
(Preamble to 2008 Constitution of Ecuador)
‘‘[Sumak Kawsay represents the] definitive burying of the exclusionary neoliberal
system.’’ (Indigenous leader Humberto Cholango, quoted in Becker, 2011: 60).1
Right from the outset, ALTERNAUTAS is by no means intended to discuss only Buen Vivir, or how
it is sometimes called, sometimes (wrongly) equated, Sumak Kawsay (Ecuador, derived from
Kichwa language), neither Vivir Bien/Suma Qamaña (Bolivia, derived from Aymara language) as
alternative 'Latin American' visions to mainstream utilitarian development approaches. Buen Vivir
represents a plurality of more or less specific discursive and practice-related “platforms” (Gudynas,
2011) to ponder (and practice) alternative visions to and from development, based on lived
experience from Latin America, or more specifically, the Andean region (i.e. in Bolivia, Ecuador,
Peru – virtually nonexistent in Chile, Venezuela and Colombia so far, but debates are growing).
The aim of this short overview is to contextualize this doubtlessly important contribution to
development discourses and to point out that there is no simple, clearly definable or 'correct' use of
this concept – on the contrary, it's perceived weakness is in fact a strength: by ultimately criticizing
and opposing itself to Western ways of knowledge-making, it intentionally leaves space for re-
interpretation, re-appropriation or, as it is frequently called, “enactment” and “reconstruction”
(Hidalgo-Capitán et al., 2014: 29). Hence instead of discussing Buen Vivir/Sumak Kawsay's
invention, discovery or exact origin in detail, I seek to add a condensed overview that should
prevent overly enthusiastic, essentialist or unworldly contributions based on this concept and its
surrounding political struggles (see Simbaña, 2011). For this purpose of 'reconstruction', I refer here
to 'Buen Vivir' only – thus implying it's various other notions, social visions and political programs
in use, such as Vivir Bien (Bolivia), sumaq kawsay/Sumak Kawsay/Sumakawsay (Ecuador-
1 Both quotes are reprinted in (Radcliffe, 2012: 241).
1
Kichwa), suma kamana (Bolivia-Quechua), suma Qamaña (Bolivia-Aymara), ñande reko (Guaraní),
küme mongen, etc.2 (see e.g., Albó, 2009; Thomson, 2011; Altmann, 2013), without of course
negating different scopes, meanings and struggled attached to each of them. The reason for my
choice is that international discourses and publications on Buen Vivir seem to be stronger
represented at the international level than Vivir Bien of Bolivia, which became a bit discredited in
the context of disparaging critiques of 'pachamamismo' (and 'pachamamistas', respectively) toward
social and indigenous movements (e.g., Escobar, 2010a; Parga Sánchez, 2011; Rodríguez, 2011).
Thanks to its eager and vivid promotion by public figures, such as the former Ecuadorian energy
and mining minister and economist, Alberto Acosta, who also published and edited key conceptual
works on Buen Vivir, yet remaining rather programmatic and less analytical, Buen Vivir was soon
picked up by renowned scholars of the critical Left, post-development or even (the quite
mainstream) human development movement (see Escobar, 2010b; Gudynas, 2011; Mignolo, 2011;
Quijano, 2011; Deneulin, 2012; Radcliffe, 2012). In addition, Acosta served as chairing president of
the Asamblea Nacional Constituyente (National Constitutional Assembly, convened to elaborate the
Ecuadorian Constitution of 2008) in 2007, until breaking up with the previously elected President
Rafael Correa. According to various sources, Acosta himself is responsible for having reclaimed the
notion of Buen Vivir into the Constitution (e.g., Capitán-Hidalgo et al., 2014), after the CONAIE
had started a campaign in front of the assembling center, including claims such interculturalidad
(interculturalism) and plurinacionalidad (plurinationalism) – two main pillars of Buen Vivir and the
Ecuadorian state nowadays (see CONAIE, 2007).
What is Buen Vivir?
In very basic terms, Buen Vivir has been approached in the following:
“In its most general sense, buen vivir denotes, organizes, and constructs a system of
knowledge and living based on the communion of humans and nature and on the
spatial-temporal-harmonious totality of existence. That is, on the necessary interrelation
of beings, knowledges, logics, and rationalities of though, action, existence, and living.
This notion is part and parcel of the cosmovision, cosmology, or philosophy of the
indigenous peoples of Abya Yala.” (Walsh, 2010: 18).
Accordingly, it has also been characterized as “ética cosmica”(Claros-Arispe, 1996), as viable
2 Exact spelling of indigenous languages and Buen Vivir/buen vivir as well as of the use of upper and lower case vary from author to author, from regional dialect to political purpose. I will stick to upper case and Sumak Kawsay here.
2
3rd way alternative – termed “vitalismo” – between developmentalism and socialism based on
indigenous values which can equally found in other regions and cultures (Oviedo, 2012), and as
full-fledged Andean philosophy, 'Pachasophy' (Estermann, 1999 [Spanish original 1989], 2012b,
2013). (Hidalgo-Capitán, 2012) has proposed to generally distinguish between three forms of
discourses and practices of Buen Vivir: (1) Buen Vivir as a political (state-led) socialism of the 21st
century (see Ramírez G., 2010), a blending between neo-Aristotelean, Christian and Andean values
(mainly protection of the environment), linked to all sorts of 'do-gooders' claims', into a political
program. It remains, however, largely within the framework of development, especially human
development; (2) as a “utopia to be constructed” (cf. Acosta, 2010a), in form of a post-modern
collage combining viewpoints of various international movements of peasants, feminist, socialists,
ecologists, pacifists, theologists of liberation, unionists, etc (cf. Hidalgo-Capitán et al., 2014: 35-
36). Both should be differentiated from (3) an 'indigenist' form of living and thinking (as opposed to
indigenous) that adds important spiritual, ontological, or 'internal-external', dimensions, based on
individually and collectively acquiring a practice (more than a knowledge) of all-connected
consciousness, being in constant exchange and reflection with the social and natural environment
(see Oviedo 2014). This third account is commonly differentiated from Buen Vivir and called
Sumak Kawsay (sometimes translated as “to live altogether in harmony3 and balance”, cf. ibid.:
271):
“El Buen Vivir en la Constitución Política del Ecuador y el Vivir Bien en la
Constitución Política de Bolivia son una mezcla o un 'champús' como la que gusta
actualmente a la posmodernidad para hacer un 'menjunje' de todo un poco. Es una
combinación del Buen Vivir platónico, con ciertos postulados cristianos y humanistas,
ciertos conceptos de los paradigmas ecologistas, socialistas, y finalmente añadiendo
ciertos principios generales del Sumakawsay, a todo lo cual le llaman el 'Buen Vivir
Andino', consumando su irrespeto y desvalorización a la sabia y milenaria tradición
andina.”4 (ibid.: 276).
Sumak Kawsay is regarded as explicitly entailing no aspirations to governance, to rule, to
3 Note here that the Western understanding of 'harmony' is entirely different to the 'Andean' one (which refers to animacy of all things and beings who are connected through energies by default); every translation seems to run necessarily into trans-cultural difficulties.
4 “The Buen Vivir in the political Constitution of Ecuador and Vivir Bien in the Constitution of Bolivia are merely a mixture or 'hodgepodge' as currently postmodernism likes to make a 'concoction' a bit of everything. It is a combination of the platonic Good Living, certain Christian and Humanist principles, certain concepts from environmentalist, socialist paradigms, and finally adding certain general principles of Sumakawsay. Altogether it is called the 'Buen Vivir Andino", consummating its disrespect and impairment of the wise and ancient Andean tradition.” (ibid.).
3
domination, to hierarchies, to competition. Instead it is the quintessential expression of a number of
ontological values, such as connectedness, commonality, and balancing between eternal energies
and poles, existent in every living being (which is everything). In addition, there is no notion of
“freedom-autonomy-sovereignty”, simply because all of these values are ontologically presupposed
and exist only in “relation to...” (cf. Oviedo 2014: 277). Thus being is always an active and passive
act of sacred interconnectedness. Everything is alive and sacred. Any seemingly 'subjective'
abstraction of the 'I', as well as of categorizations such as 'good', 'bad', 'higher', lower', more 'just' or
'unjust' etc., remain merely illusions of temporarily misled consciousness, but without real
importance. “Sumakawsay es el Cosmocimiento (conocimiento del pensamiento-sentimiento) de la
Vida o más precisamente es la Vida Consciente o Convivir Consciente o Conciencia de la Vida o
Cultura de la Vida (amor y sabiduría).” (Oviedo, 2014: 291 – who, for obvious reasons, has troubles
to come to a definition).
In order to avoid essentialist accounts of indigenous being and living – a discourse well-
known as “lo andino” from anthropological studies on the ayllu in the Andean region5 – a
distinction is frequently drawn between 'pensamiento (thinking) indigenista' and 'pensamiento
indígena'. The assumption here is that the first supports 'indigenismo' (or 'indianismo'), a “political
ideology that defends indigenous claims within the framework of nation-states” (Hidalgo-Capitán et
al., 2014: 30, Footnote), based on century-long endured suppression and attempts to extinction. One
has not necessarily to be indigenous to support it as indigenista, and in turn not all indigenous
people are indigenistas.
Buen Vivir/Sumak Kawsay (now equated here for the purpose of a general introduction) is
“una filosofía de vida de los indigenas basada en la búsqueda y el mantenimiento de la amonía con
la comunidad y con los demás seres de la naturaleza”6 (Hidalgo-Capitán et al., 2014: 29). Based on
the basic idea of everyone having one's vegetable patch, home, access to clean potable water, forests
and adequate self-sufficiency, the runa (self-identification for indigenous persons) needs to acquire
and maintain inner strength (sámai), wisdom (sabiduria), well-balanced conduct (sasi), capacity for
comprehension (ricsima), the ability to envision the future (muskui), perseverance (ushai) and
5 By 'lo andino' I refer to a “construct that assumes Andean peoples (writ large across space and time) possess a distinctive (even unique) and coherent set of interrelated cultural proclivities: a common fund of perceptions, understandings, values, symbols, and social, spatial, and material practices. This 'congealed Andean essence' is ascribed to Andean peoples whole cloth and, at the same time, deployed to explain Andean societies past and present.” Included in such a view are elements such as the “organization of Andean political economies according to the socio-environmental logic of the vertical archipelago, competitive/complementary dual organization, the function and value of communal labor shaped by principles of reciprocity, personal relationships between the human and animate physical world that are expressed in kinship terms, and, not trivially, a presumption that the indigenous peoples of the Andes possess an almost preternatural capacity for resilience in the face of social and environmental trauma” (Chase and Kosiba, 2007: 1).
6 “Buen Vivir/Sumak Kawsay is a philosophy of life based on the quest and perpetuation of harmony with the
4
compassion (llakina). All these abilities are ideally acquired through connecting with nature and
communal learning, called yachachina (Viteri, 2003: 53–65; quoted in Hidalgo-Capitán et al, 2014:
36). The ethical dimension of Sumak Kawsay – I am intentionally using only the Kichwa notion
here to emphasize the 'indigenista' connotation – stresses a series of values, without which 'the good
living in plenitude' is neither achieve- nor maintainable. These values manifest themselves in what
is called 'to eat, drink and make love': “comer, beber y hacer el amor (mikuna, upina y huarmita
yukuna)” (ibid.). Viteri (2003: 66-71) lists as such interconnected values: 'support' (yanapana),
generosity (kuna), the obligation to receive (japina), reciprocity (kunakuna), advice (kamachi) and
'listening' (uyana). One could add the well-known slogan of the indigenous movements in Ecuador,
Peru and Bolivia (with regional differences): ama killa, ama llulla, ama shua ('no seas prerezoso, no
seas mentiroso, no seas ladrón' – don't be lazy, don't lie, don't steal). The four principles embodied
in the Andean cross – chakana – reciprocity (ranti-ranti), holistic (pura), complementarity
(yananti) and connectedness (tinkuy) (see Macas, 2010: 29–31 ; quoted in Hidalgo-Capitán et al.
2014: 37).5
Buen Vivir/Sumak Kawsay, as social concept and normative order, draws on a fundamental
distinction-correlation to 'Mal Vivir'/Llaki Kawsay (translateable as 'ill living'), which refers to an
overly individualized, materialized, disenchanted and de-spiritualized way of living; of someone
who has lost the connection to the right values and has replaced them by those of the mammon (cf.
Viteri, 2003: 78-93). In this sense, Buen Vivir/Sumak Kawsay embodies a conservative or even
traditionalist core – which only uneasily fits to the progressive depiction of the concept by non-
Andean authors at the international level. However, the goal of Buen Vivir is not to 'overcome' 'ill
living', since there is no aspiration to 'live better' – but rather to balance both always existent sides
in a refined way. The key to do so, is practicing consciousness, i.e. listening, responding and
correlating with mind, heart and body.
In opposition to Western concepts of exclusivity, competition, subjectification, etc., Buen
Vivir puts emphasis on key values such as solidarity, generosity, reciprocity and complementarity.
These stem from a primordial understanding of oneness, connectedness and animacy, i.e. plants,
animals, water, stones, humans, soil, mountains, etc. are regarded as living beings. There are,
however, diverging levels of such spiritual positions. But while in general, self-sufficiency,
economies of solidarity, equality and sustainability (together with and within communities and
nature), a balance between man and women (understood as values or qualities beyond human
gender) is promoted, orthodox forms of mono-economy, based on the exploitation of natural
resources are rejected. According knowledge is transmitted mainly orally by yachaks and amawtas
community and all other forms of being in nature” (own translation).
5
(shamans, etc.) within communities – it is required to have chaka ('bridges') to Western forms of
knowledge-making (e.g., scientific one) in order to gain political influence (cf. Hidalgo-Capitán et
al., 2014: 32).
Buen Vivir: Building a Utopia
The emergence of this life philosophy as indigenista political struggle is linked to discrediting the
national state in the 1980s and 1990s and of mainstream development altogether, the uprising of the
well-connected indigenous movement in Ecuador (Becker, 2011, 2012), the redaction of a new
constitution, synchronized overlaps between political-economic processes in Bolivia and Ecuador
and, eventually, the access of indigenous intellectuals to universities and higher positions within
governments and the state. It is important to mention that all public intellectual figures in Ecuador,
who are usually attributed to the indigenous movement, indeed have studied and gained diploma or
doctorates from state or foreign universities. All have been active within indigenous representative
institutions (with the exception of Attawalpa Oviedo), have published and been teaching, and some
have (or had) been working within governments, parliaments or international as well as regional
forms of politics. Main figures in Ecuador inter alia are: Luis Macas (former president of the
CONAIE), Nina Pacari (former assessor at ECUARUNARI, CONAIE and CONPLADEIN,
nowadays judge at the Constitutional Court of Ecuador, Ariruma Kowii, Carlos Viteri (published the
first account on Buen Vivir in Ecuador in 2001) Lourdes Tibán (MP of Pachakutik), Silvia Tutillo,
Blanca Chancosa (former Secretary General of ECUARUNARI and leader of the CONAIE),
Humberto Cholango (former president of ECUARUNARI), Mónica Chuji (former Vice-president of
the CONFENIAE), Pablo Dávalos (economist without indigenous background, but became
'initiated'), (cf. Hidalgo-Capitán et al., 2014: 41). All of them belong to the Kichwa nation, mainly
from the highlands (sierra), and several have ties to the Intercultural University Amawtay Wasi in
Quito, which was forced to close down in late 2013 after a dubious assessment of quality by the
Correa administration and international educational 'experts' from Spain.7 Amawtay Wasi has been
committed to teach Buen Vivir and to bridge gaps between world views of Western/Occidental or
colonial origin and has also published on Sumak Kawsay/Buen Vivir (see UNESCO and Ospina,
2004; Universidad Intercultural Amawtay Wasi, 2004).
The first appearance of Buen Vivir/Sumak Kawsay is linked to the anthropological work of
7 Personal communication with the head of the Ecuadorianists' section of the US-Society for Latin American studies, Carmen Martinez Novo (November 2013).
6
Carlos Viteri Gualinga who wrote an unpublished account of his stay in the Amazon, which
circulated first within indigenous institutions and was later published (Viteri, 2002, 2003. He started
by using the term Alli Kawsay (which means Buen Vivir, cf. Oviedo, 2014: 271), but from 2003
onward Sumak Kawsay only to develop an “alternative to development”, a phrase often used by
Alberto Acosta until present (Acosta and Martínez, 2009; Acosta, 2012). Alli Kawsay has been
identified as in fact meaning 'Buen Vivir', while Sumak Kawsay would mean 'Vida en Plenitud' (or
'living in plenitude'). Since Kichwa makes little use of nouns but of active constructions through
verbs, it is perhaps more adequate to speak of 'good living in plenitude' or 'good living in
commonness', instead of, for instance, the “Good Life” (cf. Altmann, 2013) which bears
problematic connotations of the Aristotelian concept of eudaimonia8 (see e.g., Detel, 2005, Oviedo,
2014: 275).
Around the same time, the Amazonian Kichwa community of Sarayuku published a
manifesto, including a similar concept (Sarayaku, 2003); the community became internationally
known for its eager with for reparations and redress linked to environmental and health-related
catastrophes due to crude oil extraction on its territories. This is in contrast to positions who, mainly
based on accounts from Bolivia, maintain that Buen Vivir/Sumak Kawsay would not be an
indigenous concept at all, but an invention of Leftist intellectuals and indigenous intellectuals,
collaborating with the privatized German development cooperation GIZ; it has been invented
around the years 2000/2001 in Bolivia at the occasion of a serious of workshops (Altmann, 2013).
In fact, asking local indigenous people in Ecuadorian communities for “showing or explaining
sumak kawsay” will most likely result in answers, such as: “You have to go to the cities and search
there; they know what it means. We have lost and forgotten its meaning and need someone to teach
it to us.”
However, authors and witty indigenistas have developed a quick answer by, as we have seen,
pointing to the fact of 'enacting' Buen Vivir and requirements to 're-invoking' it at the level of
communities – instead of amply discussing its exact origin. In addition, Buen Vivir/Sumak Kawsay
has been framed as a much bigger idea, one expressing a fundamental rupture with the world as we
know it (and commonly refer to):
“El Sumakawsay no es una vía alternativa para el desarrollo, ni una nueva forma de
desarrollo, ni un movimiento al socialismo y al comunismo, ni un nuevo modelo social.
8 In total opposition to Andean ontological connectedness eschewing any forms of hierarchy, Aristotelian eudaimonia regards felicity as the highest good to be acquired, after long a debate about the hierarchy of meanings of life. Eudaimonia is seen as acquirable through cultivating 'virtue' (a word containing the Latin root 'vir' – virility, and pointing to the gender-related lopsidedness of this account, cf. Oviedo, 2014: 276).
7
El Sumakawsay es un camino alter-nativo y alter-mundial, para la armonía y el
equilibrio entre todos los seres que hacen y reproducen la vida en su conjunto.”9
(Oviedo, 2012: 255)
Habría que abandonar la idea de 'desarrollo' porque (…) implica violencia, imposición,
subordinación. No se puede 'desarrollar' a nadie, porque cada sociedad tiene su propia
cosmovisión que hay que respetar, y si en esa cosmovisión no existe el desarrollo ni el
tiempo lineal, entonces no se la puede desarrollar, pensando en que se le está haciendo
un bien a esa sociedad, cuando en realidad se la está violentando de manera radical.”10
(Dávalos, 2011; quoted in Hidalgo-Capitán et al. 2014: 50).
Such a view is widely, but not commonly shared: Cholango (2010: 78) for example expresses that
“Sumak Kawsay represents a new way toward development”. However, Buen Vivir/Sumak Kawsay
has been linked to shifting fundamental epistemological and ontological positions since Descartes,
being at the basis of any 'modern' scientific understanding of the world.
“El Sumak Kawsay propone varios marcos epistemológicos que implican otras formas
de concebir y actuar; en esos nuevos formatos epistémicos se considera la existencia de
tiempos circulares que pueden coexistir con el tiempo lineal de la modernidad; se
considera la existencia de un ser-comunitario, o si se prefiere, no-moderno, como un
sujeto ontológicamente validado para la relación entre seres humanos y naturaleza; se
considera una reunión entre la esfera de la política con aquella de la economía, una
posición relativa de los mercados en los que la lógica de los valores de uso predomine
sobre aquella de los valores de cambio, entre otros.”11 (Dávalos, 2008b; quoted in
Hidalgo-Capitán et al. 2014: 50).
“No se trata de integrarnos al progreso científico (…) para equipararnos y continuar con
9 All further translations are mine: “Sumakawsay is not an alternative path of development, or a new form of development or movement toward socialism and communism, or a new social model. Sumakawsay is an alter-native and alter-worldly way toward harmony and balance between all beings that make and reproduce life in its togetherness.” (ibid.).
10 “We should abandon the idea of 'development' because (…) it involves violence, imposition, subordination. You can not 'develop' anyone, because every society has its own worldview to be respected, and if there is no development or linear time in that worldview, then it can be developed, while thinking of doing well for that society, when in fact violating it radically.” (ibid.).
11 “Sumak Kawsay proposes several epistemological frameworks implying other forms of thinking and acting; in these new epistemic formats, the existence of circular time is considered in a way that can coexist with the linear time of modernity; the existence of a being-community or, if you prefer, non-modern, as an ontologically validated
8
el proceso civilizatorio (…), sino (…) de salir de esos presupuestos y de establecer otra
'visión y misión' de los seres humanos sobre la vida. El problema no es solamente el
pos-desarrollo, el pos-capitalismo[,] sino la pos-civilización (pos-patriarcalismo, pos-
racionalismo, pos-politicismo, pos-cientificismo, pos-cosificación, pos-secularización, y
todos los reduccionismos y separatismos creados y sub-creados por el paradigma
civilizatorio)”12 (Oviedo, 2012: 240; quoted in Hidalgo-Capitán et al. 2014: 50).
While such claims certainly seem appealing, they however remain shallow in making conrecte
proposals. Throughout key texts and accounts, Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay are more employed
as a reference to a different 'other' in order to criticize the status quo. Typically, in this sense, such
texts generally speak of 'our grandfathers and grandmothers', 'natural peoples', 'ancient
communities', etc. without further indication of location and scope. Indigenous representatives,
when asked about their communities and use of Buen Vivir/Sumak Kawsay tend to make similarly
evasive indications, without further concrete details (e.g., which parts of a family would teach such
values). However, to (re)make Buen Vivir a powerful vision to be (re)integrated at the local level,
for indigenous leaders, such as Luis Macas (former president of CONAIE), the detour via the state
seems inevitable. Evidently, the state would first be required to be tremendously altered, to be
'recreated entirely':
“No es posible la convivencia del Sumak Kawsay y el sistema actual, no puede ser un
sistema de este Estado, hay que pensar fundamentalmente en el cambio de estructuras
de este Estado y construir uno nuevo (…). El objetivo es recuperar y desarrollar
nuestros sistemas de vida, instituciones y derechos históricos, anteriores al Estado, para
descolonizar la historia y el pensamiento”13 (L. Macas, 2010: 16)
In order to promote the revolutionary character of such shifts, the concept has been largely
subject through he relationship between humans and nature; considering a reunion between the sphere of politics and that of the economy, a relative position of markets in which the logic of usage values predominates over that of exchange values, among others.” (ibid.).
12 “This is not about integrating us into scientific progress (...) in order to equip us to continue the process of civilization (...) but instead (...) to get out of those claims and establish another 'vision and mission' of human beings about life. The problem is not only the post-development, post-capitalism [,] but the post-civilization (post-patriarchal, post-materialism, post-economism, post-historicism, post-anthropocentrism, post-rationalism, post-politicism , pos-scientism, pos-objectificationism, post-secularization, and all reductionisms and separatisms created and sub-created by the civilizing paradigm).” (ibid.).
13 “A coexistence of Sumak Kawsay and the current system it is not possible; it can not be a system of the State. We have to think of fundamentally changing the structures of this State and build a new one (...). The objective is to
9
discussed: some key publications for discussing and reflecting on Buen Vivir/Sumak Kawsay are
the Boletín ICCI – ARY Rimay (Dávalos, 2008a, 2008b; Simbaña, 2011; Tibán, 2000) the journal
Yackaykuna (Saberes) (Luis Macas, 2010; Tutillo, 2002). In addition, and without being able to
indicate more than the fact that his books are currently used in Ecuadorian university curricula of
philosophy and Andean culture, the influence of the early Spanish works of Josef Estermann are
probably not to underestimate for the emergence of this value-based discourse (here in German:
Estermann, 1999 [Spanish original 1998], 2012a, 2012b). Based on his sixteen years-long research
in Peru and Bolivia, the Swiss philosopher and theologists Estermann was one of the first to
systematize and contextualize (in a Western way) Quechua and Aymara worldviews based on values
such as reciprocity and complementarity.
In Ecuador, the journals América Latina en Movimiento (Chancosa, 2010; L. Macas, 2010)
and Aportes Andinos (Kowii, 2011) have published on the topic. Revista Polis, edited in Chile,
published the pathbreaking work by Viteri (2002). Examples of two important contributions in
collective works (particulary: Acosta and Martínez, 2009 -El Buen Vivir. Una vía para el
desarrollo), Salud, interculturalidad y derechos. Claves para la reconstrucción del Sumak Kawsay
– Buen Vivir (Maldonado, 2010b) and Más allá del desarrollo (Simbaña, 2011) The only two
individually authored books on Buen Vivir/Sumak Kawsay are Qué es el sumakawsay (Oviedo,
2012), published in Bolivia and Ecuador, and Acosta's second work (2012). There have been major
contributions at international conferences (e.g., Chuji, 2010) as well as TV (Maldonado, 2010a),
numerous blog (e.g., Boff, 2009; Dávalos, 2008b) and international documentary works (e.g.,
Sarasin, 2011). Finally, there is also the thesis by Viteri from 2003, based on his field research:
Súmak Káusai. Una respuesta viable al desarrollo (Viteri, 2003).
Taking them together, Buen Vivir becomes graspable as a holistic, all-encompassing life
vision, practical philosophy or cosmovision,14 beyond divides of rationality-emotionality, subject-
object and human nature, but well within struggles around modernity and tradition. The concept and
its' proponents runs constantly danger of essentializing indigenous life forms – something which is
also strategically used by political indigenous movements (see Altmann, 2014b). Here are a few
examples of such oscillation, written by indigenous leaders who all enjoyed 'Carthesian-based'
education:
recuperate and develop our systems of life, institutions, historical rights, and prior to the State, in order to decolonize history and thought.” (ibid.).
14 Note at this point that the notion “cosmovision” has its roots in German philosophy (Wilhelm Dilthey) of the 19th century and has been transported to Latin America/Abya Yala in colonial times (Oviedo 2014: 270). Although occasionally used by indigenous scholars ('cosmovisión'), the colonial connotation of this term – for long time neglecting the existence of non-European philosophy, knowledge or scientificalness with important implications until present (e.g., make the constitution of Ecuador of 2008 a distinction between 'scientific knowledge', on the one side, and 'ancestral wisdom', on the other side) – should not be disregarded.
10
“El Sumak Kawsay contradice a la teoría económica y al paradigma cartesiano del
hombre como 'amo y señor de la naturaleza' (…). Existimos millones de seres humanos,
alejados de las figuras del consumidor, de los mercados libres, competitivos y de la
mercancía; seres humanos cuyas coordenadas de vida las establecemos desde la ética;
seres humanos que pertenecemos a pueblos diversos con una memoria de
relacionamiento atávica, ancestral, diferente a la razón liberal.”15 (Chuji, 2010; quoted
in Hidalgo-Capitán et al., 2014: 46).
“El Sumak Kawsay (…) involucra varias dimensiones: social, cultural, económica,
ambiental, epistemológica y política; como un todo interrelacionado e interdependiente,
donde cada uno de sus elementos dependen de los otros.”16 (Simbaña, 2011: 222; quoted
in Hidalgo-Capitán et al., 2014: 46).
“[…] la visión de los indígenas (…) respecto del desarrollo (…) está impregnada por la
cosmovisión indígena que considera a la naturaleza como un todo, que abarca lo
material, lo espiritual y humano (…). Esta cosmovisión tiene una serie de principios que
parten de la idea de que se debe: cuidar y respetar al conjunto de seres vivientes que
coexisten en el ecosistema; conservar y fomentar la tierra; proteger los productos de
consumo humano, para mejorar el nivel de vida de la familia y de la comunidad;
proteger los recursos no renovables; incentivar a la comunidad para que cuide su propio
ambiente; socializar a nivel de la organización y las comunidades acerca de la
conservación del entorno como garantía de una vida digna tanto para las actuales
generaciones como para las futuras.”17 (Tibán, 2000; quoted in Hidalgo-Capitán et al.,
2014: 49).
15 “Sumak Kawsay contradicts economic theory and the Cartesian paradigm of man as 'master of nature' (...). We exist as millions of human beings, far from the role as consumers, from free and competitive, merchandising markets; [we are] human beings whose coordinates of life are derived from ethics; humans who belong to various peoples with atavistic memory, ancestral, different from liberal reasoning.” (ibid.).
16 “Sumak Kawsay (...) involves multiple dimensions: social, cultural, economic, environmental, political and epistemological; as an interrelated and interdependent, where each of its elements depend on others.” (ibid.).
17 “The vision of indigenous people (...) with regard to development (...) is impregnated by indigenous worldview that considers nature as a whole, covering the material, spiritual and human (...). This worldview consists of a set of principles based on the idea that one should [have]: care and respect to all living beings that exist in the ecosystem; conserve and enhance the earth; protect products for human consumption, to improve the standard of living of the family and community; protect non-renewable resources; encourage the community to look after their own
11
Buen Vivir as Multiple Discourses: From Local to National and International
US-based scholar Thomson (2011, 449) cites Gudynas18 when referring in his article to the principal
openness of Buen Vivir, and its linkage to other post-development, de-growth or altermundial-
movements in the Global West (e.g. Sachs, 1992, 1999; Latouche, 1993; Rist, 1996; Houtart, 2009;
Martínez-Alier, 2012):
“‘Buen vivir’ is a pluralistic concept with indigenous roots, still in construction, with
many sources. While clearly wanting to break with the modern European ‘project’, it
shares a questioning of development and a search for substantial change with some
criollo and western critiques. It is not however, a hybridization or multi- or pluri-
culturalism. Indigenous cultures are diverse, with each having their own conceptions or
cosmovisions.
In the wide field of Western knowledge, critical positions on development exist as well.
They have often been marginalized or excluded, but a close examination shows that
they too are searchers of Good Living. In these critiques, which originated from within
those same Western positions, for example, critical studies of development, biocentric
environmentalism, radical feminism, or the decolonization of knowledge, just to name
some of the more recent [...]. These and other examples serve to show that even within
western thought, there are critical currents, which seek alternatives to development, and
in almost all cases have been marginalized or subordinate, and therefore remain under
the same cover of the concept of Good Living. Not only this, but these kinds of
positions are very necessary to strengthen the current stage of construction of Good
Living, as complements to other positions, and each brings specifics which in some
cases are missing or are weaker in other streams.”
In recent years, Buen Vivir has entered and spurred lively debate at the theoretical and more activist
level as a viable, reconciling alternative to mainstream economic approaches to development: it has
been linked to biocentric approaches (see Gudynas, 2009), issues of sustainability (Tutillo, 2002)
and even the human development approach (Deneulin, 2012), as promoted by the UNDP. In
general, the discussion has gained momentum with the severe economic, environmental and
political crises the world is confronted since, at least, 10-15 years. In a recent call for papers to a
environment; socialize at the level of the organization and of communities aroung environmental conservation to guarantee a decent life for both current and for future generations.” (ibid.).
considerable hurdles to dealing effectively with the postcolonial geographies that
compound racial and regional inequality. First, the state remains in practice a colonial
state, unwilling to cede autonomy and territorial rights to collective citizens. Second, the
government continues to interpret and prioritize certain constitutional principles over
others in ways that serve to reproduce postcolonial hierarchies of poverty, difference
and exclusion. Longstanding postcolonial patterns of resource distribution,
(mis)recognition, and violence (epistemic and physical inform) work to reproduce social
marginalization in urban and rural areas, as well as racial hierarchies. In one sense, the
language of sumak kawsay has been used to cloak postcolonial development as usual;
[...].”
Facing this ongoing and, under the pressure of global crises, intensifying struggle and joining
it under the flag of Buen Vivir or Sumak Kawsay remains however thorny if one does not know and
live according to Andean 'cosmoconsciousness'. 'How many of those who write today about Sumak
Kawsay or Buen Vivir do actually live in such cosmoconsciousness?', asks Attawalpa Oviedo (cf.
ibid., 2014: 294) And will such practice of conscious being be possible at all, if one has not lived
with those who do it? As Estermann once put it: “Uno no puede conocer realmente el pensamiento
filosófico de un pueblo si nunca se ha sentado a su mesa, si no ha bailado sus danzas, si no ha
sufrido con él.”20 (2008); quoted in Oviedo, 2014: 294).
20 “One can not really understand the philosophical thinking of a peoples if one has not been sitting at their table, has not danced their dances, and has not suffered with them.” (ibid.).
18
Bibliography
Acosta A (2010a) “El Buen (con)Vivir, una utopía por (re)construir: Alcances de la Constitución de Montecristi. PYDLOS, Seminario Internacional: ‘Retos del Buen Vivir. Democracia, movilidad humana y territorio’, University of Cuenca, Available from: http://pydlos.ucuenca.edu.ec/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=57&func=startdown&id=51.
Acosta A (2010b) El Buen Vivir en el camino del post-desarrollo. Una lectura desde la Constitución de Montecristi. Policy Paper, Quito: FES-ILDIS.
Acosta A (2012) Buen Vivir Sumak Kawsay. Una oportunidad para imaginar otros mundos. Quito: Abya Yala.
Acosta A and Martínez E (eds) (2009) El Buen Vivir. Una vía para el desarrollo. Quito: Abya Yala.
Agencia Lationamericana de Información (ALAI) (ed.) (2008) Territorios y recursos naturales: el saqueo versus el buen vivir. Brussels/Quito: Broederlijk Delen-ALAI.
Albó X (2009) Suma qamaña = convivir bien. ¿Como medirlo? In: Draft Paper, Instituto de Estudios Internacionales de la Universidad de Alicante (OBETS).
Altmann P (2013) Good Life as a Social Movement Proposal for Natural Resource Use: The Indigenous Movement in Ecuador. Consilience: The Journal of Sustainable Development, 10(1), 59–71.
Altmann P (2014a) Die Indigenenbewegung in Ecuador Diskurs und Dekolonialität. Bielefeld: transcript.
Altmann P (2014b) Strategischer Essentialismus als Wiederaneignung von Geschichte. Die Ethnisierung der Indigenenbewegung in Ecuador als Prozess der Subjektwerdung. Nebulosa, 04(05), 89–104.
Ávila Santamaría R (2011a) El derecho de la naturaleza: fundamentos. In: Acosta A and Martínez E (eds), La Naturaleza con Derechos, Quito: Abya Yala, pp. 173–239.
Ávila Santamaría R (2011b) El neoconstitucionalismo transformador. El estado y el derecho en la Constitutión de 2008. Quito: Abya Yala.
Bebbington A and Bebbington-Humphreys D (2011) An Andean Avatar: post-neoliberal and neoliberal strategies for securing the unobtainable. New Political Economy, 15(4), 131–145.
Becker M (2011) Correa, indigenous movements, and the writing of a new constitution in Ecuador. Latin American Perspectives, 38(1), 47–62.
Becker M (2012) The Limits of Indigenismo in Ecuador. Latin American Perspectives, 39/5(186), 45–62.
Boff L (2009) ¿Vivir mejor o el Buen Vivir? ALAI, Available from: http://alainet.org/active/29839&lang=es.
Capitán-Hidalgo AL, Guillén García A and Guasha Deleg N (eds) (2014) Antología del Pensamiento Indigenista Ecuatoriano sobre Sumak Kawsay. Huelva & Cuenca: FIUCUHU.
19
CEDHU, Acción Ecológica and INREDH (2011) Informe sobre criminalización a defensores de derechos humanos y de la naturaleza. In: Programa Andino de Derechos Humanos (ed.), Informe sobre derechos humanos: Ecuador 2011, Quito: R. F. Ediciones, pp. 141–142.
Chancosa B (2010) El Sumak Kawsay desde la visión de la mujer. América Latina en Movimiento, 453, 6–9.
Chase Z and Kosiba S (2007) Lo Andino. Chicago, Available from: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/vanchivard/2007/UChicago_lo%20andino.doc.
Cholango H (2010) Sumak Kawsay y mundo indígena. In: Tamayo JJ and Arrobo N (eds), Pueblos indígenas, derechos y desafíos: homenaje a Monseñor Leónidas Proaño, Valencia: ADG-N.
Chuji M (2010) Sumak Kawsay versus desarrollo. Paper presented: VI Encuentro de la Coordinadora Asutiana de ONGDs, University of Oviedo, Available from: http://www.miradoriu.org/spip.php?article168 (accessed 3 May 2014).
Claros-Arispe E (1996) Mensch und Natur in den Anden. Beitrag zu einem ökologischen Ethis aus der Sicht der Aymara und Quechua. In: Kessler H (ed.), Oekologisches Weltethos im dialog der Kulturen und Religionen, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, pp. 200–215.
CONAIE (2007) Propuesta de la CONAIE frente a la Asamblea Constituyente. Principios y lineamientos para la nueva constitución del Ecuador. Por un Estado Plurinacional, Unitario, Soberano, Incluyente, Equitativo y Laico. Quito: CONAIE, Available from: http://www.iee.org.ec/publicaciones/INDIGENA/ConaieAsamblea.pdf.
Dávalos P (2008a) El Sumak Kawsay (Buen Vivir) y las censuras del desarrollo. Boletín ICCI – ARY Rimay, 110 and 111, Available from: http://icci.nativeweb.org/boletin/110/davalos.html; http://icci.nativeweb.org/boletin/111/davalos.html (accessed 3 May 2014).
Dávalos P (2008b) Reflexiones sobre el sumak kawsay (buen vivir) y las teorías del desarrollo. ALAI (Agencia Latino Americana Informaciones), Available from: http://alainet.org/active/25617 (accessed 5 January 2013).
Dávalos P (2011) La necesidad de un nuevo paradigma en la economía: ¿Puede la noción de Sumak Kawsay ser alternativa? Revista Polémika, 6, 32–46.
Dávalos P (2013) ‘No podemos ser mentigos sentados en un saco de oro’: Las falacias del discurso extractivista. In: Quito: INREDH, Available from: http://inredh.org/archivos/pdf/las_falacias_del_extractivismo.pdf.
Dávalos P (2014) Crimen y castigo: el Código Penal de Alianza País. Informes INREDH, Quito, Available from: http://inredh.org/archivos/pdf/codigo_penal_pablo_davalos.pdf (accessed 2 May 2014).
De la Torre C (2013) El Tecnopopulismo de Rafael Correa ¿Es compatible el carisma con la tecnocracia? Latin American Research Review, 48(1), 24–43.
Deneulin S (2012) Justice and deliberation about the good life: the contribution of Latin American buen vivir social movements to the idea of justice. Bath Papers in International Development and Wellbeing, Working Paper 17, University of Bath.
20
Descola P (1996) In the Society of Nature. A Native Ecology in Amazonia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Detel W (2005) Aristoteles. Leipzig: Reclam.
Escobar A (2010a) ¿‘Pachamámicos’ contra ‘modérnicos’? Comentarios breves a los textos de Pablo Stefanoni sobre el ‘pachamamismo’, o más allá de estos. Política y Economía. Miradas Latinoamericana Heterodoxas, Available from: http://www.politicayeconomia.com/2010/05/%C2%BFpachamamicos-versus-modernicos/ (accessed 3 May 2014).
Escobar A (2010b) Latin America at a Crossroads. Cultural Studies, 24(1), 1–65.
Estermann J (1999) Andine Philosophie. Eine interkulturelle Studie zur autochthonen andinen Weisheit. Denktraditionen im Dialog: Studien zur Befreiung und Interkulturalität, Frankfurt am Main: IKO.
Estermann J (2008) Si el Sur Fuera el Norte: Chakanas Interculturales Entre Andes y Occidente. Quito: Abya Yala.
Estermann J (2012a) Apu Taytayku. Religion und Theologie im andinen Kontext Lateinamerikas. Ostfildern: Matthias Grünewald Verlag.
Estermann J (2012b) Diatopische Hermeneutik am Beispiel der Andinen Philosophie. Ansätze zur Methodologie interkulturellen Philosophierens. polylog. Zeitschrift für interkulturelles Philosophieren, 27, 21–41.
Estermann J (2013) ‘Gut Leben’ als politische Utopie. Die andine Konzeption des ‘Guten Lebens’ (suma qamaña/allin kawsay) und dessen Umsetzung im demokratischen Sozialismus Boliviens. Public Presentation, Vienna.
Garces C (2014) Ecuador’s ‘black site’: On prison securitization and its zones of legal silence. Focaal, 68, 18–34.
Gerardo F-J (2010) Sumak Kawsay: retos y paradojas de la Salud Intercultural. In: Salud, Interculturalidad y Derechos. Claves para la reconstrucción del Sumak Kawsay-Buen Vivir, Quito: Ministerio de Salud Pública, pp. 17–51.
Gudynas E (2009) La dimensión ecológica del Buen Vivir: entre el fantasma de la modernidad y el desafío biocéntrico. Revista Obets, 4, 49–53.
Gudynas E (2011) Buen Vivir: Today’s Tomorrow. Development, 54(4), 441–447.
Gudynas E (2013) Debates on development and its alternatives in Latin America: a brief heterodox guide. In: Land M and Mokrani D (eds), Beyond Development. Alternative visions from Latin America, Amsterdam: TNI, pp. 15–39.
Hidalgo-Capitán A-L, Arias A and Ávila J (2014) El pensamiento indigenista ecuatoriano sobre el Sumak Kawsay. In: Hidalgo-Capitán A-L et al. (ed.), Antología del Pensamiento Indigenista Ecuatoriano sobre Sumak Kawsay, Huelva & Cuenca: FIUCUHU, pp. 25–75.
Hidalgo-Capitán AL et al. (2012) El Buen Vivir. La (re)creación del pensamiento del PYDLOS.
21
Cuenca: PYDLOS Ediciones, Available from: http://pydlos.ucuenca.edu.ec/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=57&func=startdown&id=59 (accessed 3 May 2014).
Houtart F (2009) Socialismo del siglo XXI. Superar la lógica capitalista. In: Acosta A and Martínez E (eds), El Buen Vivir. Una vía para el desarrollo, Quito: Abya Yala, pp. 149–169.
Kowii AM (2011) El Sumak Kawsay. Aportes Andinos, 28, Available from: http://www.uasb.edu.ec/UserFiles/369/File/PDF/CentrodeReferencia/Temasdeanalisis2/buenvivirysumakkawsay/articulos/Kowii.pdf (accessed 3 May 2014).
Latouche S (1993) In the Wake of the Affluent Society: An Exploration of Post-Development. London: Zed Books.
Macas Luis (2010) Sumak Kawsay. Revista Yachaykuna.
Macas L. (2010) Sumak kawsay: la vida en penitud. América Latina en Movimiento, 452, 14–16.
Maldonado L (2010a) El Sumak Kawsay / Buen Vivir / Vivir Bien. La experiencia de la República del Ecuador. Lección del módulo ‘El paradigma del Buen Vivir’ del Programa de Tele-educación ‘Construyendo un nuevo Estado’ de la Escuela de Gestión Pública Plurinacional del Ministerio de Educación de Bolivia, Available from: http://www.egpp.gob.bo/files/materiales/Mod4Curso3TranscripMaldonado.pdf (accessed 3 May 2014).
Maldonado L (2010b) Interculturalidad y políticas públicas en el marco del Buen Vivir. In: Fernández-Juárez G (ed.), Salud, interculturalidad y derechos. Claves para la reconstrucción del Sumak Kawsay - Buen Vivir, Quito: Ministerio de Salud Pública, Available from: http://es.scribd.com/doc/53200935/SALUD-INTERCULTURALIDAD-2010 (accessed 3 May 2014).
Martínez-Alier J (2012) Environmental Justice and Economic Degrowth: An Alliance between Two Movements. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 23, 51–73.
McEwan C (2009) Postcolonialism and Development. London: Routledge.
Mignolo WD (2005) The Idea of Latin America. Oxford: Blackwell.
Mignolo WD (2011) The Darker Side of Modernity. Global Futures, Decolonial Options. Durham & London: Duke University Press.
Oviedo A (2012) Qué es el Sumakawsay? 3era Vía: Vitalismo, alternativa al capitalismo y el socialismo. 2nd ed. La Paz: Sumak Editores.
Oviedo A (2014) El Buen Vivir posmoderno y el Sumakawsay ancestral. In: Hidalgo-Capitán A-L, Guillén García A, and Deleg Guazha N (eds), Antología del Pensamiento Indigenista Ecuatoriano sobre Sumak Kawsay, Huelva & Cuenca: FIUCUHU, pp. 267–297.
Parga Sánchez J (2011) Discursos retrovolucionarios: sumak kawsay, derechos de la naturaleza y otros pachamamismos. Ecuador Debate, 84, 31–50.
Quijano A (2011) ‘Bien Vivir’: Entre el ‘desarrollo’ y la des/colonialidad del poder. Ecuador Debate, 84, 77–88.
22
Radcliffe SA (2012) Development for a postneoliberal era? Sumak kawsay, living well and the limits to decolonisation in Ecuador. Geoforum, 43, 240–249.
Ramírez G. R (2010) Socialismo del sumak kawsay o biosocialismo republicano. In: Los nuevos retos de América Latina. Socialismo y sumak kawsay, Quito: SENPLADES, pp. 55–76.
Rist G (1996) Le Développement: Histoire d’une croyance occidentale. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.
Rodríguez H (2011) Bolivia: entre el desarrollismo y la demagogia pachamamista. Kaosenlared.net, Available from: http://old.kaosenlared.net/noticia/bolivia-entre-desarrollismo-demagogia-pachamamista (accessed 3 May 2014).
Sachs W (1992) The Development Dictionary. London: Zed.
Sachs W (1999) Planet Dialectics: Explorations in Environment and Development. London: Zed Books.
Sarasin J (2011) Ecuador (with Rafael Correa). Crescendo Films.
Sarayaku (2003) Sarayaku Sumak Kawsayta Ñawpakma Katina Killka / El libro de la vida de Sarayaku para defender nuestro futuro. Territorio Autónomo de la Nación Originaria del Pueblo Kichwa de Sarayaku, Ecuador: Sarayaku.
Schulte-Tenckhoff I (2012) Treaties, Peoplehood and Self-Determination: understanding the language of indigenous rights. In: Pulitano E (ed.), Indigenous Rights in the Age of the UN Declaration, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 64–86.
SENPLADES SN de P y D (2009) Plan Nacional de Desarrollo. Plan Nacional para el Buen Vivir 2009-2013. Construyendo un Estado plurinacional e intercultural (Version resumida). Quito: SENPLADES.
Simbaña F (2011) “El Sumak Kawsay como proyecto político. In: Lang M and Mokrani D (eds), Más allá del desarrollo, Quito: Abya Yala, pp. 219–226, Available from: http://alainet.org/images/Mas%20alla%20del%20desarrollo.pdf (accessed 3 May 2014).
Thomson B (2011) Pachakuti: Indigenous Perspectives, Buen Vivir, Sumaq Kawsay and Degrowth. Development, 54(4), 448.
Tibán L (2000) El concepto de desarrollo sustentable y los pueblos indígenas. Boletín ICCI - ARY Rimay, Available from: http://www.icci.nativeweb.org/boletín/18/tiban.html (accessed 3 May 2014).
Tutillo S (2002) La perspectiva de desarrollo sustentable desde las agencias de desarrollo y la forma de entender el desarrollo de los pueblos indígenas. Revista Yachaykuna.
UNESCO and Ospina GL (eds) (2004) Amawtay Wasi Cross-Cultural University. Amauta Runacunapa Yachay, ARY, Quito.
Universidad Intercultural Amawtay Wasi (2004) Aprender en la Sabiduría y el Buen Vivir. Quito: UNESCO/Nina Comunicaciones.
Vanhulst J and Beling AE (2013) Buen vivir: la irrupción de América Latina en el campo
23
gravitacional del desarrollo sostenible. Revista Iberoamericana de Economía Ecológica, 21, 1–14.
Viteri C (2002) Visión indígena del desarrollo en la Amazonía. Polis, Revista de la Universidad Bolivariana, 1(3), 1–6.
Viteri C (2003) Súmak Káusai. Una respuesta viable al desarrollo. Quito: Universidad Politécnica Salesiana.
Walsh C (2010) Development as Buen Vivir: Institutional arrangements and (de) colonial entanglements. Development, 53(1), 15–21.
Yumbay M, Bolaños G, Pancho A, et al. (2010) Educación intercultural bilingüe en el Ecuador: logros y limitaciones. In: Hacia el buen vivir: Experiencisas de gestión indígena en Centro América, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador y Guatemala, La Paz: Fondo Indígena.