Buen Vivir and Buenos Convivires

Definition

Buen Vivir is living in equilibrium with the diverse beings and natural cycles that constitute life itself. Such modes of living have long been pursued through social institutions and values that foreground community and ecological well-being; in some Andean and Amazonian communities, they are known by the Quichua term sumak kawsay or the Aymara term suma qamaña. In recent decades, these and kindred traditions have been interconnected around the Spanish term buen vivir and mobilized in dialogue with environmentalist and decolonial movements (Acosta, 2019; Gudynas, 2021).

Buenos convivires (multiple ways of living well together) celebrates the coexistence of plural manifestations of a life mode based on principles of relationality, reciprocity, and interspecies care. Practices of buen vivir interact to nourish and mobilize alternative pathways to those promoted by Western development. Buen vivir societies strive to care for and regenerate socio-ecological systems – not to expand economies. They apply knowledge, technology, and organization for the flourishing of life – not the accumulation of capital or material wealth. Individual fulfillment is enjoyed in interdependence with human neighbors and non-human nature – not in exploiting or getting ahead of others. Communities create buenos convivires by (re)generating shared abundance – not by competing over scarce resources.

History

Historians and archaeologists show that populations around the world have developed diverse ways of sustaining community and ecological well-being across generations. In recent centuries, many of these lifeways have been assimilated into and hybridized with different institutions and practices disseminated with (neo-)colonial capitalism and Western development.

During the 19th and 20th centuries, the ascendency of one path (rooted in Western civilization, advancing via industrial transformation of ever more resources) was hailed as “progress”. Now it is clear that globalization of that path leads to ecosocial degradation and upheaval on the scale of civilizational crisis.

At the turn of the 21st century, surging Indigenous movements, in dialogue with decolonial, environmental, feminist, and post-development thinking and organization, opened horizons to different futures. In Latin America, that confluence brought perspectives and practices from communities on the peripheries (though never outside) of modern development to the fore. Many come from Indigenous territories where steep mountains and vast rainforests have limited the implementation of colonial-capitalist infrastructures and institutions; others come from communities that have been marginalized by exploitation and adverse conditions at the heart of modernizing processes. In different ways, and to varying degrees, these communities have sustained and adapted ancestral values, experiences, and practices oriented toward ecosocial well-being. Buen vivir draws on these, not as a route back to romanticized pre-modern worlds, but to forge futures that are pleasurable and sustainable for more people and places.

Different Perspectives

Here we identify some of the perspectives at play in grassroots, academic, and political debates around buen vivir and highlight vital lessons from dialogues among them (see Grassroots Innovation, Social Movements, Ecosocial Contract).

Indigenous perspectives advocate modes of living and relating that are aligned with cultural heritages and utopic future visions of Abya-Yala, the territories of Indigenous peoples now called The Americas. They respect culture-specific knowledge, foster dialogue among different ways of knowing and being, and consider the complex dynamics of ancestral traditions in changing worlds. Against common misconceptions that indigenous ways are pre-modern, proponents show they constitute living worlds that continually evolve in tension with colonial modernity, and contribute to debates about global futures.

Environmentalists engage buen vivir in struggles against extractivist political economies and high-consumption lifestyles that degrade ecosystems and earth systems. The challenging co-participation among professional, academic, activist, and local groups can bring Western sciences and technologies (mostly applied to control nature) into a tense dialogue with knowledge and spiritualities (oriented to sustain reciprocity among humans and other nature). In nascent paradigm shifts, ideas of the rights of nature and inter-species kinship are being integrated with conventional scientific management of natural resources.

Anti-colonial, anti-capitalist, anti-racist, and anti-patriarchal perspectives ally with subversive capacities of buen vivir to jointly transform hierarchical institutions and relationships that facilitate and justify unequal access to and control over human and other life. Responses constructed with Indigenous and afro-descendant traditions include moves to re-center care and regeneration of life in ways that subvert hierarchies that prioritize masculine-associated production and subordinate feminine-associated reproduction (see Gender).

Statist perspectives, sometimes interpreted as Andean versions of socialism, have led to some high-profile and contentious applications. New constitutions in Bolivia (2009) and Ecuador (2008) garnered global attention with buen vivir frameworks, and these and other governments advanced buen vivir-oriented narratives, policies, and programs.

Pluriversal perspectives do not seek one correct way to define and apply buen vivir but instead support synergy and spiritual alliance among differently positioned, context-dependent paths (see Values and Consumption). That calls for dialogue and mutual learning among co-existing traditions in Latin America, identified as sumak kawsay, suma qamaña, lekil kuxlejal, teko pora, ñandareko, küme moegen, opatssi, and others. It also calls for constructive dialogue with civic and state expressions, and with resonant pathways elsewhere, such as eco-swaraj, ubuntu, and kyosei.

Application

Experimentation has sparked passionate debates about how to apply, translate, or institutionalize buenos convivires in today’s world. Here we mention a few applications operating with different dynamics and scales:

• The Amazonian community of Sarayaku, Ecuador, successfully defended their territory from petroleum exploitation and also rejected models of conservation that exclude humans, by articulating their worldview kawsak sacha (living forest) grounded in symbiotic material practices, and spiritual relationships among human inhabitants, forests, rivers, territory. Bringing together indigenous people from neighboring countries, Sarayaku communities have worked to mobilize alternative responses to the climate crisis, rooted in traditional practices that have long regenerated ecosystems and biodiversity.
• Networks bring together diversely positioned people, organizations, and initiatives. The Argentina-based Red de Alimentos para el Buen Vivir Sumak Kawsay works to make food systems healthier for humans and environments by supporting small-scale organic production and facilitating connections among local producers and consumers. The Chile-based Red Ciudadana Del Buen Vivir supports collaboration among individuals and community organizations in educational workshops, musical and cultural events, and other initiatives to joyfully co-construct healthy environments.
• National policy can be seen in Ecuador’s Constitution, Secretariat of Buen Vivir, and National Plans for Buen Vivir between 2007 and 2015, and in neighboring countries’ public commitments to enshrine rights of nature and/or transform relationships with diverse citizens and cultural-linguistic traditions. All have faced challenges implementing visions coincident with buen vivir in current global political and economic environments. Some state strategies to implement these proposals characterized as “neo-extractivist” have been critiqued for pursuing one goal of buen vivir – equitable well-being for all citizens – with funds generated by undermining another goal – living sustainably with nature.

The richness of perspectives and applications outlined here has been obscured by high-profile attention to government efforts to scale up buenos convivires and by critiques of bureaucratization and cooptation of buen vivir to advance political interests. The emerging consensus is that buen vivir cannot be constructed by state-level actors alone; it must be co-constructed in context via interaction among variously positioned actors and processes, interactions through which the state itself is rethought and reshaped (see Box 54.1).

Taken together, these tangible initiatives and experiences reveal the potential for communities, regions, and governments to collaborate in transforming systems of production and consumption toward worldviews and institutions oriented toward sustaining life itself.

Further Reading

Acosta, A. (2019). Buen Vivir – A proposal with global potential. In H. Rosa & C. Henning (Eds.), The good life beyond growth. Routledge Studies in Ecological Economics.

Cortez, D. (2021). Sumak kawsay y buen vivir, ¿dispositivos del desarrollo? Ética ambiental y gobierno global. Quito: Editorial FLACSO-Ecuador.

Gudynas, E. (2021). Post-development and other critiques of development. In H. Veltmeyer & P. Bowles (Eds.), The essential guide to critical development studies, pp. 49–56. London: Routledge.

Kothari, A., Salleh, A., Escobar, A., Demaria, F., & Acosta, A. (Eds.). (2019). Pluriverse – A post-development dictionary. Tulika Books, India.

Lang, M. (2022). Buen Vivir as a territorial practice. Building a more just and sustainable life through interculturality. Sustain Science, 17, 1287–1299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01130-1.