Buen Vivir: an Andean indigenous challenge to modern development
By: Nazreen Shivlani
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the KCL Latin American Society or El Cortao
Latin American politics today is generally centred around how to reach economic development. We hear about inflation, corruption, and economic growth over and over again. From either side of the political spectrum, the dominant voices debate each other over how to increase production to presumably yield a higher standard of living (with dissenting views over the importance of how these benefits are distributed across society). But these disputes conceal a greater, unchallenged assumption about human fulfilment being best realised within the structures of modern society. More practically, political discourse hides questions about society’s ends: what is development and why do we so stubbornly strive towards it? Buen Vivir is an Andean indigenous cosmology which offers unwavering dissent within the mainstream conversation.
Buen Vivir questions social goals from an integrated philosophical point of view and aligns theory with practice. The term is a rough translation of Sumak Kawsay in Quechua, or Suma Qamaña in Aymara, and translates to ‘good living’ in English. Originating from some communities in the Andes’ altiplanos, Buen Vivir’s different manifestations can be found across much of Latin America’s native cultures.
This worldview interprets well-being as the equilibrium between humans and nature. Contrary to an anthropocentric view, which, like the western one, imagines a dualism between society and environment, Buen Vivir believes both are interconnected. In its core lies the idea of living in harmony with nature and with other people in order to live a fulfilling life. The objective of society is thus to foster spiritual growth and a connection with the community and nature; it puts society in the service of people without assuming any previous modern structures like state bureaucracy or markets for consumption. In today’s context, Buen Vivir advocates for decommodifying nature and social relations by disembedding them from the structures of modern society.
Perhaps the most popularized aspect of Buen Vivir is its view of nature. Respect to the earth and harmonious coexistence are based on common sense and the belief that people and nature are part of a greater whole. Buen Vivir clearly challenges today’s post-Darwinian era, where we act as if we were so distinct from other animals and nature, and forget that we created all the modern structures that we now take for granted. The practice values nature independently of its utility to humans, opposing the view that nature is a “factor of production”. For example, we would protect a river not because it has extractable fresh water, but because, like a person, it has a life of its own. By decommodifying nature, we transcend its relegation to a means without denying its importance as one. Simultaneously, defending nature because of its intrinsic worth no longer depends on its defence as a productive life-support system for humans. This directly conflicts with the current system of production, as the latter relies on the exploitation of natural resources and must only necessarily consider sustainability when natural depletion threatens the economic system (be it due to scarcity or public pressure).
If nature is no longer a resource to be tamed and we are instead a part of it, consumption becomes about sufficiency instead of exploitation and accumulation for their own sakes. Thus, Buen Vivir allows for needs to be satisfied sustainably, undermining the ideals the market is based upon, such as the exponential growth of output and consumerism. What’s more, it recognizes material and marketable needs as part of a larger set of needs. Fulfilment and community, for example, don’tneed to be commodified and sold because human relations are prioritised over the market system that now hands them out. This defies the sanctity of markets, encouraging a vida plena (simple and full life) through collective life and conscience. It is easy to see how Buen Vivir might deem us unable to continue with the current scheme of consumption and production.
What about development? Buen Vivir negates the notion of linear evolution in which a country passes from underdeveloped to a superior, modernized state. Instead, through its notion of wellbeing, it proposes that society is under permanent construction and changes the parameters that we aspire to. Granted, living harmoniously with the community and environment requires raising the living standards of many Latin Americans – Buen Vivir does not oppose this. However, it recalibrates our way of thinking because it places raising living standards and other material outcomes strictly in the service of ‘good living’. Thus, it also changes the acceptable means of achieving them: growth cannot come at the cost of environmental destruction nor should it encourage mass economic inequality, as this would harm nature and the community. Buen Vivir thus conflicts not only with capitalist expansion but also with the European welfare state, green capitalism, and other movements which don’t demand the fundamental revaluation of capital.
Most significantly, Buen Vivir cannot be substantially rearranged to fit within the modern system. For example, we cannot dissociate its environmental principles and adapt them to the capitalist society while keeping everything else the same. This is because the philosophy is built so that each principle needs the other – it is holistic. Buen Vivir is also incompatible with the contemporary state because it violates the human rights of indigenous communities. For example, when the state supports the building of infrastructure or grants companies ownership of ancestral land, it denies indigenous people their right to Buen Vivir. The contradiction is more explicit in the lack of representation and self-determination of indigenous groups, and even more so in events of state violence in many contemporary Latin American states. Buen Vivir humanizes the question of indigenous rights, showing it as the basic necessity for the survival of fellow people, and so delivers it from the abstraction of courtrooms. Simultaneously, the clashes show its possible incompatibility with the status quo.
Chilean rappers Portavoz and Subverso put all this much more eloquently in their song ‘Lo que no voy a decir’, which talks about the Mapuche in Chile. The Mapuche’s ancestral wisdom (kimün in Mapudungun) is akin to Buen Vivir (KümeMongen), which the lyricists explain in the following lines:
“El Estado de Chile me reprime, me sigue la pista
Y está a la vista ya que su propia naturaleza es racista
Yo no soy terrorista
Me tienen odio solo porque yo me opongo a vivir de un modo capitalista
Porque no creo que los ríos son nuestros “recursos”
Sino que seres vivos que deben seguir su curso
Porque no saco de la tierra sin pedir
Y siempre trato de retribuirle todo lo que uso
Por eso es que yo asusto al empresariado
Porque mi Dios no es el dinero y no obedezco a su mercado
Me ofenden cuando dejo descansar la tierra
No ven que en este gesto muestro respeto y no flojera (...)
Lo mismo pasa con el trato entre personas
La comunidad se apoya y to’a la zona es una sola voz
Lo que le afecta a uno, afecta a los demás del lof [tipo de comunidad Mapuche]
Por eso los defiendo aunque los pacos digan “mátenlos” (…)
Y esto es parte de un kimün profundo
Donde ayudar a los demás es siempre lo más natural del mundo”
Full song and video from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Lm00GF5Faw&ab_channel=SubVersoRap
Translated to English:
The Chilean State represses me, it follows me around
And it can be seen that its very nature is racist
I am not a terrorist
They only hate me because I oppose living in a capitalist way
Because I don’t think that the rivers are our “resources”
But living beings which should continue their course
Because I don’t take from the land without asking
And I always try to give it back everything that I use
That’s why I scare the businesspeople
Because my God isn’t money and I don’t obey its market
They offend me when I let the earth rest
Don’t they see that this gesture shows respect and not laziness? (…)
The same occurs in the relations between people
The community supports itself and the whole region is one single voice
What affects one, affects the others in the lof [type of Mapuche community]
Which is why I defend them even though the cops say “kill them” (…)
And this is part of a deep kimün
Where helping others is always the most natural thing in the world
As a whole, Buen Vivir is much simpler than all this theory. It is a lived practice whose beliefs about fulfilment through a connection with nature and society may seem intuitive if not for path dependency. In this context, the cosmology transcends the trends of Eurocentric thought which take modernity and capitalism as the only possible way. Buen Vivir makes us challenge modern society because of its impersonality; we can recognise that the seemingly impenetrable structures of modern society are self-imposed and then ask ourselves if we too want to maximise what they propose. The philosophy condemns the global injustices of the modern system as absurd because it allows for struggle where there need be none. For those of us who are privileged enough that our paths appear set our and the costs of reconsidering our purpose outside of modern ideals seems high, Buen Vivir also poses a personal challenge. But more importantly, it perpetuates ancient knowledge that the current model deems backwards in the few opportunities it is heard. In this context, we see Andean indigenous people who were previously the objects of development, as agents of Buen Vivir.
Nazreen is a KCL student interested in development, philosophy, and literature, focused on Latin America.
Bibliography
Ancalao Gavilán, Diego. “EL PUEBLO MAPUCHE Y LA SOCIEDAD DEL BUEN VIVIR.” Mensaje . Padre Hurtado, October 4, 2019. https://www.mensaje.cl/edicion-impresa/mensaje-683/el-pueblo-mapuche-y-la-sociedad-del-buen-vivir/.
Catrillanca, Marcelo. “El Buen Vivir Mapuche Demanda Desmilitarización, Verdad, Justicia y
Libredeterminación.” Mapuexpress , December 19, 2018. https://www.mapuexpress.org/2018/12/20/el-buen-vivir-mapuche-demanda-desmilitarizacion-verdad-justicia-y-libredeterminacion/.
De La Cuadra, Fernando. “Buen Vivir: ¿Una Auténtica Alternativa Post-Capitalista?” Polis 14, no. 40 (March 2015): 7–19. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-65682015000100001.
Gudynas, Eduardo. “Buen Vivir: Germinando Alternativas Al Desarrollo.” América Latina En Movimiento , no. 462 (February 2011): 1–20.
https://flacsoandes.edu.ec/web/imagesFTP/1317332248.RFLACSO_2011_Gudynas.pdf .
Gudynas, Eduardo. “Estado Compensador y Nuevos Extractivismos. Las Ambivalencias Del Progresismo Sudamericano.” Nueva Sociedad , no. 237 (2012), ISSN: 0251-3552. https://nuso.org/articulo/estado-compensador-y-nuevos-extractivismos-las-ambivalencias-del-progresismo-sudamericano/ .
León Irene. Sumak Kawsay / Buen Vivir y Cambios Civilizatorios. 2nd ed. Quito: FEDAEPS, 2010. http://www.dhls.hegoa.ehu.eus/uploads/resources/5501/resource_files/Ecu_Sumak_Kawsay_cambios_civilizatorios.pdf.
Montalva, Felipe. “El Buen Vivir De La Cultura Mapuche.” Rebelión , June 18, 2015. https://rebelion.org/el-buen-vivir-de-la-cultura-mapuche/ .
Quijano, Aníbal. “‘Bien Vivir’: Entre El ‘Desarrollo’ y La Des/Colonialidad Del Poder.” Debate Ecuador 84 (September2011): 77–87. http://200.41.82.22/bitstream/10469/3529/1/RFLACSO-ED84-05-Quijano.pdf .
Rojas Pedemonte, Nicolás, and David Soto Gómez. “KümeMongen: El Buen Con-Vivir Mapuche Como Alternativa De Desarrollo Humano y Sustentable.” Academia.edu .Dissertation, Ponencia III Congreso social: Ecología humana para un desarrollo sostenible e integral, 2016. https://www.academia.edu/31776593/Ponencia_K%C3%BCme_Mongen_El_Buen_Con_Vivir_mapuche_como_alternativa_de_desarrollo_humano_y_sustentable_.
Subverso y Portavoz. “Lo que no voy a decir.”