New kinds of cooperation and conflict transformation from the Buen Vivir perspective

Henkjan Laats, Ph.D1

Buen Vivir is the Ecuadorian term for the way of life (practice, philosophy, spirituality, economy and
politics) of indigenous people from Abya Yala (indigenous term for the Americas). The Quechua
people call it Sumak Kawsay -the way of good living-. Buen Vivir originated in the Andes and Amazon
regions, and similar ways of life occur in other parts of Abya Yala, such as North America2, but it can
be applied anywhere. For example, in Europe local initiatives in various countries apply the Buen
Vivir concept.

This paper explores the possibilities that forms of cooperation according the Buen Vivir perspective
may play a role in a system change, which according to an increasing number of people3 is needed to
face the current crises of the world, and specifically the crises caused by and within the “occidental
culture”, such as climate change and the loss of biodiversity. In this context, special attention is given
to the possibility of a deep change in economy and politics in the required transitions.

Furthermore, we investigate whether the current Covid-19 crisis may function as a positive or
negative changemaker.

Buen Vivir

Buen Vivir refers to a concept whose origin refers to the indigenous peoples of South America. Most
analysts agree that the concept gains visibility in the beginning of the 21st century as a result of
alliances between an indigenous movement of transnational reach and other social and
governmental actors. In a period of a few years Buen Vivir expanded rapidly in and outside Latin
America, and the concept has been included as a leading principle in the Constitutions of Bolivia and
Ecuador. Today, several universities and think-tanks in Latin America, North America and Europe
discuss the aforementioned concept. Buen Vivir is also discussed in Asian countries such as China and
the Philippines. The meaning of good living, coming from The Quechua and Aymara indigenous
traditions, can be philosophically associated with concepts of Taoism and Buddhism. There are also
notions of Buen Vivir used by indigenous organizations in Central and North America, and it can be
associated with the African concept of Ubuntu: "life as mutual aid and care for Nature" (van Norren,
2017). Furthermore, Buen Vivir is linked to the formulation of the international human rights
framework -Ecuador is the first country in the world to recognize the Rights of Nature at the
constitutional level-, and the European debate on happiness, well-being and criticism of the model of
economic growth as in the case of "deep ecology", which rescues spiritualities and worldviews from
indigenous peoples. In its diversity and plurality, Buen Vivir can then be understood as both a critique
of "development" in its version of infinite economic growth, as well as a discursive shift that seeks to
transcend Modernity as a whole. The current debate on well-being, quality of life and the
"environment" acquires, according to the Uruguayan ecologist Eduardo Gudynas (2011a), a new
meaning or a "bio-central turn" or, as Bruno Latour (2018) argues, the need “to land on the Earth”.
Latour proposes in this sense new biocentric politics that go beyond the traditional left-rightwing
party democracy, and “strong male leaders” populism. In these sense, the approach to
"environmental issues" overcomes the duality between the "human" and the "natural" – between
the animated and non-animated, favoring dialogue with other forms (local knowledge) of thinking

1
Director Cross Cultural Bridges. Expert “Holistic Science” at the UN organization “Harmony with Nature”.
2
E.g. the Chief Seattle’s 1854 oration, that explained that the indigenous people in North America have a
different worldview, as compared with the occidental culture, e.g. its relationship with (Mother) Nature.
3
Including many scholars, in this article we cite Bruno Latour, Philipp Blom, Sacha Kagan and Paul Verhaeghe.
citizenship. This cooperation between human and non-human actors, focuses on collaboration, trust
and synergy, instead of competition and the construction of power, which are the leading form of
relationships in the current occidental economic, social and political system. In these logics, conflicts
are transformed in a way that one does not opt for the most powerful to win, but for an agreement
among all parties, that everybody “can live with” and that causes that relationships maintain strong.
Therefore, voting is no option, and everybody (100%) needs to agree, not a majority of 50%.

System change

Although many people urge the need for a system change that allows our Earth and humankind to
become more sustainable, within “occidental” thinking with a linear time concept it is almost
impossible to perceive a system change. Our current system is based on an ideology of permanent
growth and development, which possibly or probably leads to self-destruction. A system change in
modern times therefore would require, in philosophical terms, another (multidimensional) time
perception which shows and explains changes with elements of the past (repeating) and new
elements, such as cyclical time, loops and repeating time. In these logics we are interested in the
Mayan multiple concept of time that applies three calendars: the historic long-term calendar, the
civil Haab Calendar and the religious Tzolkin calendar. These calendars consisted of cycles. The
transition between the different cycles was accompanied by ceremonies and the changes were
probably met with a certain expectation, but above all fear. One of the most feared cycles is the
Baktun which lasts about four hundred years.

The past four hundred years -the Enlightenment era- is characterized by a strong belief in science,
progress and development. Many of us fear the next era to come. There are several future scenarios
and none of them guarantee the continuation of the peaceful luxurious life that many occidental
citizens in the past 75 years lived. Although both “enlightened”, from 1945 to 1989 socialist and
capitalist systems governed the world. After Fukuyama’s “End of the History” capitalism governs, but
in different democratic, autocratic, feudal and oligarchic forms. The character of an eventual new era
and its narrative is totally uncertain, we do not know whether it will be a uniform system, and if
there will be one or more systems dividing the world.

Scientifically we do not know what will happen in the next four hundred years, but we do influence
it. We are seven billion human co-designers4 and many thousand billions of non-human co-designers
-such as the Covid 19 virus and the atom bomb- that define our future. Our large number requires
modesty, but -although we cannot know the final impact of our actions or passivity- cynicism is not
an option, specifically when one’s footprint causes suffering to the earth and current and future
generations.

Will all the uncertainty, among the possible future scenarios we highlight three possibilities, which
already are appearing, but it’s not clear which of them (or another one) will be leading in the coming
centuries:

1. Continuation of liberal capitalism, with the hope that we develop sustainable technology and
other mechanisms that enable us to combat climate change and continue or even improve
our luxurious lifestyle. Most occidental political parties embrace this “ecomodernist”
paradigm, which is reflected in proposals such as the “New Green Deal”.

4
www.7billionpresidents.org
 2. Strengthening of feudal and oligarchic regimes in which autocratic (populist) political leaders
and rich people ensure their luxurious life at the cost of majority of the people. Many
countries such as China, Russia, Turkey, Hungary, Poland, United States, Great Britain, Brazil
and the Philippines show this tendency.
3. “Buen vivir” societies that emphasizes the need for building resilience, which can also be
applied to economic shocks. Resilience can be built amongst others through more ecological
and local food production, reviving people’s local culture and indigenous ways of dealing
with their natural environment. For this we need to change the development narrative, from
sustainable to cyclical, from development to harmony with nature, and from goals to process
and relational approaches (whilst enjoying the path -ñam- we walk on). Initiatives towards
this scenario can be observed especially at a grass roots level.

Navigating through the Anthropocene

If we consider ourselves as co-designers and if we choose to opt for the “Buen Vivir” scenario, we can
use the following scheme to locate our actions.

We -human beings- are part of the cosmos and the earth, we are part of Nature, and have a
reciprocal relation with all other human and non-human actors that form part of nature. The
Cosmos and the Earth have a great capacity of resilience, nevertheless, we -human beings- have
surpassed this resilience capacity, in such an extent that we live in the Anthropocene, an era in which
human beings disbalance ecosystems, and change the climate and cause a mass extinction of other
living beings. One reason is that -no matter in which system we live- our number is too high, we are
viral beings with the risk of outnumbering other living beings and -as parasites- killing the source
(Earth) that feeds us. This “fact” warns us to not perceive “our” group or system as better than the
other one. Rather, we negotiate, listen, and seduce “others”, and perceive that there are several
truths, and use this reflection to select the ever changing path that according to us is the best one at
each particular moment. Life is a (short) learning trajectory, full with uncertainties, recently with the
addition that there is high risk that we are destroying the planet, or that the planet destroys us and
regenerates itself.

Although we cannot change our “being human” and we have deep ecological footprints, the kind of
system in which we take part of does matter. Without forgetting its blessings, the enlightenment era
with its blunt capitalism, technological revolution, individuality and dual nature-culture distinction
caused the dramatic population increase and the extremely deep footprints of most occidental
citizens, and many other societal, environmental and economic problems.

Human co-designers can influence a system both bottom-up and top-down. For this we distinguish
five categories which may act on a macrolevel (global, continental, national), meso level
(municipality, neighborhood) or microlevel (working atmosphere, family, friends).

1. Spirituality/Art/Science/Education/Media
2. Politics/rules
3. Production
4. Trade
5. Consumption

Within these categories we distinguish the ones who are free to act and the ones who are bonded:
you cannot expect from a person who lives in extreme poverty or in a strict dictatorship, to produce
or consume in a sustainable and fair manner.
 Cosmos

Earth

Humans

System (circularity of about 400 years: Baktun)

Spirituality/Art/Science

Politics/rules

Production bonded/free

Trade

Consumption

The complexity of micro, meso and macro actions and relations, imply that with our actions we
influence the (actor) network we take part in and the network influences our actions. We cannot
pretend to have major influences on the network or system, also because most systems have (like
human bodies) autoimmune mechanisms (Sloterdijk, 1998 and Kagan, 2011), that avoid that they
easily can be changed. These logics change however when a system approaches the end of its “life
cycle”. So, if our thesis that we approach the end of the current –“Enlightenment”- era is correct,
then actions may have another impact compared with previous decades or centuries, because the
autoimmune mechanisms of the system have ceased to function. Therefore -without being too
hopeful-, for the first time in four hundred years, our actions may have an impact on the current and
future system.

Indeed, this is a very blunt and speculative way of thinking. But -unfortunately- there are no
empirical tools to prove that we indeed are in the process of a system change, and to predict how
the system will change. It is a rational, emotional and intuitive process in which we in our role of co-
designers should participate for the sake of the future generations, taking into account the wisdom
of the previous generations5. Philipp Blom (2020) argues: “The battle for the future will also be a
battle in front of all our eyes for a new big story, on the stage of the world theatre".

The period in which a system is transformed to another system is an era of transitions. This can be a
fluid or a shock process. This implies strong political, energy, spiritual, educative and economic
changes. In relation to the economic transition Jack Cox proposes a “Butterfly Economy”(2019), in
which he states that the current economy functions like a caterpillar that never stops eating, and
never will be satisfied, therefore he suggests that our economy should become a butterfly economy,
in which well-being of humans as part of nature prevails and not never-ending growth. To become a
butterfly a caterpillar converts in a cocoon, in this stage one cannot see changes from the outside,
however within the cocoon a total metamorphosis takes place.

5
Buen Vivir, Ubuntu, and Buddhism apply this principle
In relation with the previous scheme, this means that the relationship between producers, traders
(middlemen, distributers, retailers) and consumers needs to change drastically. Instead of non-
transparent and non-traceable economic relations that focus on maximal profit, we need direct
transparent and traceable product chains, in which other values, such as sustainability, fair incomes,
justice, labor quality, health, taste and spirituality play a key role. The next section shows that there
is an increasing number of examples of such another interpretation of economy.

As mentioned before, for the political transition we refer to Bruno Latour (2018). He states that
populist authoritarian politics are like a “bottomless well”, that leads to collective self-destruction,
and that current leftwing/rightwing politics need a re-orientation towards politics of the Earth.
Similarly, Paul Verhaeghe (2020) argues that we should change our current logics of a democracy
with a main role for political parties, in which political parties distance themselves from citizens, the
earth, and long term solutions. In this sense we may opt for a biocracy, this term is the title of a book
by Caldwell (1985), I define it is as politics that orients itself to the quality (and continuity) of life (of
all beings). This implies a direct democracy, in which also non-human actors are involved. It also
implies the “return of the commons”. Hans Achterhuis (2016) explains how 500 years ago (when
Thomas More wrote Utopia) the commons start to disappear as a dominant factor in property and
economy. With the disappearance of the commons, decision making was transferred to the public
and private spheres, and collective property and cooperative economy got less important.

Current appearances of Buen Vivir

Referring to Jack Cox’s metaphor of the butterfly economy we suppose that most changes occur in
cocoons: subtle changes in our mind and in our feelings, but also the different role that the earth
starts to play in influencing life in general, and human life in particular.

However there are also many interesting visible processes that can be observed and that possibly are
indicators of a system change according to the Buen Vivir concept.

Politically, probably the most notorious incorporation of the Buen Vivir concept occurred when
Bolivia and Ecuador included it as a leading principle in their Constitutions in the first decade of this
millennium. It reverted, albeit in part or temporarily, the expansion of the modernist anthropocentric
narrative of unlimited growth. At a national level, both in Bolivia and Ecuador Buen Vivir is hardly
applied. At an international level, however, the two countries have caused major paradigm shifts.
Ecuador introduced the concept of the Right of Nature, and launched the ITT Yasuni proposal which
was meant to avoid exploiting the fossil energy sources of the Yasuni region. Bolivia achieved within
the UN that water became a human right, it voted as only country against the REDD6 proposal, and
achieved that several countries applied a non-economic system to reduce CO27, and it proposed a
new organization within the UN called “Harmony with Nature”.

This UN organization publishes each year a report on examples in the world of the application of
“Harmony with Nature” principles such as the “Right of Nature”. For example, recently in countries
such as New Zealand several rivers are obtaining rights (being an important natural actor).

The examples of applying buen vivir principles in practice from all over the world are endless and give
the impression that grassroots initiatives and ways of life (including production, trade, consumption)
are way ahead as compared with political changes and new rulemaking. Many of these examples

6
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation
7
In August 2012, the Bolivian government presented a proposal to the UNFCCC titled “Proposal for the
Development of the Joint Mitigation and Adaptation Mechanism for the Integral and Sustainable Management
of Forests”.
include the logics of the “commons”. For example in Amsterdam there are several examples that
function according to the design principles for commons by Elinor Ostrom, and furthermore show
several “buen vivir” characteristics (Laats, 2017). Likewise, initiatives such www.colibris-
lemouvement.org show thousands of buen vivir related practical examples. The metaphor of the
butterfly would apply to those cases. Also arts, spirituality and science appears to be much more
innovative (or recycling) than politics and rule-making.

Covid-19, a changemaker?

Without doubt, Covid-19 has a major impact on many transition processes in our society. From a
“buen vivir” perspective, one can see many examples of people who adopt a more sustainable living
style, such as agroecology and sustainable food consumption such as veganism and being vegetarian.
All over the world transport with bicycles became more popular. And air transport decreased
dramatically. On the other hand authoritarian (and non-authoritarian) regimes took profit form the
Covid-19 crises by getting more virtual control on people’s life and decreasing privacy. Most
governments (as in the Netherlands) prioritized financial emergency support to unsustainable sectors
such as aircraft companies.

Possibly Covid-19 speeds up change processes, including system change, however it is not clear at all,
which future system will “benefit” most. More probably the main reason for a system change is the
exhaustion, and the end of a lifespan by the system itself, and a non-ethic actor as the Covid-19 virus,
at the end, only will have a minor influence. Although I think that we should shift from a
anthropocentric system to a biocentric one, I hope that humans, being empathic actors (Bregman,
2019), and being co-designers, will be able to -being part of nature and together with other non-
human actors- construct a better system. This is a desperate hope.

Questions no answers

This paper does not pretend to give answers. It parts from the thesis that if we continue with
“business as usual” practice and theory, we’ll commit a collective suicide. Therefore we finish this
paper with some urgent questions that need future investigation:

What happens if systems, as supposed by the Baktun thesis, really have an average life of four
hundred years?

Will such a new system be regional or global, and is it possible that a harmony-oriented system will
not be overruled by an aggressive system?

What if Latour’s proposal of politics for the earth is a feasible one, with the re-surgency of commons,
and a direct democracy (of human and non-human actors)?

What if Jack Cox’s metaphor of the butterfly economy is a valid one?

Are we seven billion co-designers?

Are the endless examples of “buen vivir” all over the world a marginal phenomenon, or has it the
potential to become mainstream and a leading principle for future systems?

The answers of these questions relate with the issue on how we deal with our genetic legacy: we are
emphatic beings (Bregman, 2019), however with an incredible capacity to hate and mistreat “the
other”: human and non-human beings, and Nature as a whole (Achterhuis, 2008). Both mechanisms
caused our survival and our “success”. Currently it appears that our biological characteristics to
distinct us from other types of persons, and the culture-nature distinction of the enlightenment era
(in a globalized world that suffers from climate change) possibly leads to a collective self-destruction.
Our capacity for empathy is more needed than ever, however our natural defense system to protect
us from the other has become our principal danger. Ways of life such as Buen Vivir show us that
cooperation, collaboration and conflict transformation can prevail, and that there are alternatives to
competence, inequity and nature exploitation driven economical and political systems.

References:

Achterhuis, Hans (2008). Met alle geweld. Lemniscaat. Rotterdam

Achterhuis, Hans (2016). Koning van Utopia, Nieuw licht op het utopisch denken, Rotterdam:
Lemniscaat

Blom, Phillip (2020). Het Grote Wereldtoneel. Bezige Bij, the Netherlands.

Bregman, Rutger (2019). De meeste mensen deugen - Een nieuwe geschiedenis van de mens. De
Correspondent. The Netherlands

Cox, Jack (2019). Vlindereconomie. Econsenso, the Netherlands.

Gudynas, Eduardo (2011a). Buen Vivir: Germinando alternativas al desarrollo. ALAI No. 462, Feb
2011. Disponible en https://www.alainet.org/es/active/48052

Gudynas, Eduardo y Alberto Acosta (2011b). El Buen Vivir o la Disolución de la Idea del Progreso. En:
La medición del Progreso y el Bienestar. Propuestas desde America Latina. Mariano Rojas,
coordinador. Foro Consultivo Cientifico y Tecnologico, AC, Mexico, DF. Disponible en
http://www.gudynas.com/publicaciones/capitulos/GudynasAcostaDisolucionProgresoMx11r.pdf

Kagan, Sacha (2011). "Art and Sustainability: Connecting Patterns for a Culture of Complexity".
Bielefeld: transcript Verlag

Laats, Henkjan (2017). Direct food chains: examples of new commons in an era of transitions?
https://www.iasc2017.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/11J_Henkjan-Laats.pdf

Latour, Bruno (2018). Waar kunnen we landen? Politieke oriëntatie in het Nieuwe Klimaatregime.
Octavo publicaties, Amsterdam.

Sloterdijk, Peter (1998). Sferen. Uitgeverij Boom, Amsterdam

Ten Bos, René (2017). Dwalen in het antropoceen. Boom, Amsterdam

Van Norren, Dorine (2017). Development as service: A happiness, ubuntu and buen vivir
interdisciplinary view of the sustainable development goals. Tilburg: Prisma Print.

Verhaeghe, Paul (2020). Houd afstand, raak me aan. De Bezige Bij, the Netherlands