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-

materialismo, pos-economicismo, pos-historicismo, pos-antropocentrismo, 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.).

18 See: http://alainet.org/active/48054 [last retrieve 03.05.2014].

12

special issue of the international Journal of Environmental Policy and Decision Making, Buen Vivir

has been characterized in the following:

“buen vivir seems to avoid two opposing weaknesses often associated with ‘alternative’

approaches: one is that it is weak in proposing a viable ‘positive’ practical perspective

and the other, that it is based on ‘praxis without a theory’. The three elements (critique,

a comprehensive strategic approach to social change and praxis) are inextricably linked

in buen vivir, with the distinctive feature of being translated into real political and

institutional arrangements.” (cf. http://www.inderscience.com/info/ingeneral/cfp.php?

id=2519 [last retrieve: 28.04.2014]).

The latter points toward the constitutional implementation of Buen Vivir in Ecuador and Bolivia,

where it has been outlined as the paramount goal of these states, thus subordinating (economic)

development to the mere role of a means to bring about Buen Vivir. From a state point of view,

Buen Vivir has thus become adopted by governments as a political program; state-owned. At the

same time, these governments are explicitly and implicitly claiming the prerogative of interpretation

to specify the concrete content of Buen Vivir – this has been criticized as appropriating non-state

public practices, which, as we have seen, are rather to be claimed and reclaimed by local

communities. Again, some authors go so far as to describe 'Buen Vivir' as the postmodern state

politics of Ecuador (virtually depleted from any authentic Andean context) and 'Sumak Kawsay' for

an ancestral way of learning, belonging and relating to the world that goes much deeper than

political programming within a remaining (post-)colonial state (e.g, Oviedo 2012; 2014).

In particular, after the decades of structural adjustment, financial austerity and a general

political-economic agenda linked to what has been called the “Washington consensus” (see

Gudynas, 2013), starting around the year 2000, in several Latin American countries, first social

struggles, then debates, and later on institutional and governmental shifts have been triggered to

question national governments, development and the role of states. Many of these shifts aim at re-

empowering national governments and to direct their income from mainly exporting natural

resources toward public investment in infrastructure, health, education and security. In Ecuador, for

instance:

“voters approved by referendum in September 2008 a new constitution which commits

the Ecuadorian government to establish an economic, social and political system

oriented towards the realization of good living. This includes the guaranteeing of all

13

economic, social, political and civil rights as well as the right of Nature. The

Constitution is the result of long historical processes of indigenous mobilization to

demand the recognition of their specific cosmovision and the inseparability of humans

from nature […].” (Deneulin, 2012: 1).

The overall goal of such ' economic, political and social conduct toward good living' is

defined as Buen Vivir – however it's actual content, the way to bring it about, and also its often

portrayed 'indigenous origin', remain, as we have seen, debatable. Ideally, the state adoption of a

constitution oriented toward Buen Vivir has significant economic, social and political implications.

“Under a buen vivir regime, economic exchanges are submitted not to the logic of profits but to the

logic of human flourishing and respect of nature.” (ibid., 3). Not accumulation of material wealth

remains the basic value of the economic system, but solidarity, complementarity and reciprocity

(Acosta, 2010b: 23). Material goods are to be produced and exchanged in view of enabling people

to live in dignity and sustaining harmonious relations between people and their environment

(Deneulin 2012, 3). A “solidaristic economic system” (ibid.) supports a market economy, with a

plurality of markets at the local level, but not a market society submitted to one global market

(Acosta, 2010: 25). In order to change the national economy, Buen Vivir is spelled out in

quinquennial National Buen Vivir plans, which have replaced former national development plans.

These are elaborated by the supra-ministerial SENPLADES (Secretaría Nacional de la

Planificación y Desarrollo) and aim at changing power structures and the economic system on the

longer run (Ecuador will be running out of crude oil in approximately 25 years). “The National Plan

for Buen Vivir 2009-2013' (SENPLADES, 2009) includes twelve national strategies and twelve

national objectives with clear targets to achieve. Among these are: to reach 98% of school

enrolment in primary school and 66.5% of secondary school by 2013, to double the participation of

peasant family agriculture in agricultural exports by 2013, to achieve that 50% of all taxes are direct

taxes by 2013, to substitute import of corn, wheat and barley and reduce foreign participation in

domestic consumption to 40% by 2013, to reduce malnutrition by 45% by 2013 (see pp. 73-88 of

the National Plan).” (Deneulin 2012, 8). Such, partly certainly utopian, targets require to be

assessed continuously. For this reason, Buen Vivir plans contain up to 150 so-called 'Buen Vivir

indicators'. In addition, Ecuador has become the first country in the world to work on the

implementation of a national human rights indicators system (since 2009), which should be coupled

with Buen Vivir indicators one day. Taken together,

“a recurrent theme of the National Plan is the democratization of the means of

14

production. There are clear targets to change the productive structure so that wealth

creation is oriented towards enabling each person to live well in harmony with the

environment. Among these are targets related to reducing land concentration, making

taxation more progressive, reducing intermediation in the agro-sector, reducing

ecological footprints, increasing import-substitution, lowering concentration in the food

commercialization market, increasing the role of small and mediumsize companies in

the economy.” (Deneulin 2012, 8).

It should be added that the goal of Buen Vivir in the current Ecuadorian government's perspective is

to shift the resources-based economy toward one of high-tech production, knowledge and services.

The university project 'Yachay' ('wisdom' in Kichwa), to name just one example, aims at creating a

sort of 'Latin American Silicon Valley', the largest campus on the continent. Overall, 'Buen Vivir

politics', as they are pursued by the government, can be characterized as utterly centralized,

hierarchic and technocratic. They aim at maximum control, stability through social and public

management-type planning and accountability, while regarding every opposing force as threat.

Accordingly, Correa (and his administration) have been described as “technopopulist” (de la Torre,

2013). The use of modern means of communication and representation (TV shows, social media,

urban lifestyles, etc.) is widespread and intentionally employed by government members. This is

also reflected in the high number of rather young, (typically abroad) well-educated, publicly

employed persons, who have partly been attracted to return to their home country through

governmental programs after economic crisis-induced mass migration in the 1980s and 1990s. A

large part of the newly established urban Ecuadorian middle class is directly or indirectly employed

through government activities – and has been largely subsidized (fuel, domestic gas) in recent years

(Dávalos, 2013).

Rafael Correa has drastically changed his discourse in recent years and now openly supports

the extractive industry, including large-scale mining (formerly virtually not existent in the country).

In addition, “he is increasingly resorting to authoritarian practices and human rights violations to

curb mobilization against mining concessions for the sake of 'national interests' (ibid., 2, citing

(Bebbington and Bebbington-Humphreys, 2011). The downside of Buen Vivir politics in Ecuador

can also be seen in the new penal code, implemented in 2013 and 2014. In general, national penal

codes are in a sort of dialectical relationship to constitutions: in terms of consequences, they spell

out what constitutions envisage in a normative sense. This is particularly true for the Ecuadorian

constitution which adopted with intent a normative stance toward de-colonial and anti-imperialisim

in order to overcome inequality and historical injustice. While a reform of the penal code has been

15

demanded for long, it turns out to heavily criminalize every possible threat for the state, in

particular, governments, while little considering the more obvious threat of the state for individuals

(e.g., in cases of torture or genocide). Accordingly, and also because of criminalizing defenders of

human rights and environmentalists (CEDHU et al., 2011), the number of people in prisons

(themselves in very poor condition) have exploded in Ecuador in recent years (Dávalos, 2014;

Garces, 2014).

Conclusion

Buen Vivir remains a politically elusive term, charged with programmatic aspirations of various

social struggles and its proponents; one that is (almost) always re-framed and re-defined by various

justice struggles of likewise numerous social movements. As it is characteristic for the region, the

heterogeneous, competing branches of the government (ministries, supra-ministries, armed forces,

etc.) and overall rather weak democratic institutions require these movements to constantly gain

power and influence on the government itself (see Altmann, 2014a). In its more spiritual forms, It

entails traditionalist and anti-modern claims that reject colonialism-induced modernity entirely on

the basis of a different worldview, based on all-connected consciousness instead of rationality,

subjectivity and abstraction. Proponents of such a view tend to claim a fundamental rupture

between Buen Vivir, on the one side, and Sumak Kawsay (or 'Sumakawsay', to underline the

connectedness), on the other side (see Oviedo, 2014). For them, there is no need to seek justice, to

improve, to grow, to progress or to mitigate needs (at least not materially) – since everything

proceeds in all-connected couples of polarization between beings and energies (the famous 'pacha-'

meaning 'pa' – eng. 'two' – and 'cha' – eng. all-permeating energy, cf. Estermann 2013).

Maintaining, stabilizing, balancing, etc. are values put forward in Sumak Kawsay. Naively

collapsing Buen Vivir (a post-modern form of 'biosocialism') with Sumak Kawsay, the ancestral

way of being, would eventually equal to perpetuating the 500 years-long exploitation of the

indigenous on epistemological grounds (ibid.).

It is thus particularly important to read all publications on and about Buen Vivir accordingly

with much caution; Buen Vivir discourses have become a tricky minefield to engage with, also

because actors and authors themselves shift between pro- and contra-governmental positions (as in

the cases of the well-known Ecuadorian economists Pablo Dávalos and Alberto Acosta). Some are

personally more aligned with the indigenous movement, others less, or have been particularly active

in supporting the movement of Afro-Ecuadorians (as in the case of the US-scholar Catherine Walsh

16

- who contributed much to the emergence of Buen Vivir as well, see Walsh, 2010). CONAE, the

main representing Afro-Ecuadorian institution is nowadays largely subsidized by the government,

which raises questions about dependency, but certainly helps their concerns (in socio-economic

terms, Afro-Ecuadorians are generally much worse off than indigenous peoples in the country).

Leading questions for any reading of Buen Vivir/Sumak Kawsay should therefore be: who are the

authors? What are their goals and political as well as academic roles? What is the purpose of their

publications, what is their targeted audience? Despite manifold daily struggles in real life, the idea

and discourse of Buen Vivir has gained popularity in academic and activist circles around the globe.

It has been examined in the context of UNDP's human development approach (e.g., Deneulin 2012),

it has been linked to political ecology and debates around sustainability (e.g.,Thomson, 2011;

Vanhulst and Beling, 2013); it has been discussed in the contexts of novel forms of state-building

and legal systems (Ávila Santamaría 2011a, 2011b). There have taken place more practical

workshops on Buen Vivir, for example in Halle, Germany, in autumn 201319 and it has been broadly

politicized as an alternative vision to development, to extracting natural resources, for defending

indigenous rights (in particular their primordial rights to auto-determination, cf. Schulte-Tenckhoff,

2012)) and supporting the essential pillars of the state doctrine of Buen Vivir, 'plurinational' rights,

such as multilingual education (Acosta and Martínez, 2009; Acosta, 2012; Agencia Lationamericana

de Información (ALAI), 2008; Gerardo, 2010; Houtart, 2009; Yumbay et al., 2010).

However, every analysis that takes only the 'offical', state-focused discourse into account is

radically doomed to remain short-sighted with important (and sometimes intended) implications;

and likewise would it be the case for an essentialist portrayal of the stereotyped Andean indigenous

people(s) (it is said, for example, that the Shuar and Achuar, the second largest indigenous nation on

Ecuadorian territory, would not have an equivalent concept to the Kichwa-related Sumak Kawsay,

cf. (Descola, 1996). The aim of this short overview was to contribute to a fuller picture of what

Buen Vivir means or can be, and to explain why it would perhaps be more adequate to speak of

numerous (and contested) 'Buen Vivir politics' when reflecting about this idea.

To conclude, two central considerations should be added, for which I am drawing on Radcliffe

(2012: 248) who verbalized the current struggles most accurately:

“Contests between diverse actors over the nature, extent and speed of reform can be

understood in postcolonial terms as a discursive and material struggle between a

decolonising move to overcome the enduring aftermath of colonialism (McEwan, 2009),

and a hegemonic conception of state, citizen and society. In social movement

19 See: http://www.buenvivir-in-halle.de/ [last retrieve: 28.04.2014].

17

formulations, sumak kawsay represents border thinking that challenges development’s

colonising discourses and practices (Mignolo, 2005 ; [...]). Yet [Sumak Kawsay] faced

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.

24