The modernisation approach of development in its old and new versions, as well as the different approaches that encompass the label of alternative development have been strongly criticised by post-development theory in the nineties. By rejecting the construction of ‘under-developed’ this movement rejects the whole category of development and proposes an alternative to ‘alternative development’ (Escobar, 1992; Esteva and Suri, 1998). Thus, it questions the foundational paradigm of progress, its pretension of universality, and the way in which colonialism was ignored in the analysis of the richness of the developers and the poverty of the underdeveloped (Charlton, 1997; Shanin, 2007). According to post-development scholars, the development project is a strategic discourse that was directed to re-structure the world order after the Second World War, subordinating peripheral countries to the necessities of the global political economy, such as access to natural resources and cheap labour (Charlton, 1997).
Although post-development scholars agree with dependency theory on the necessity to overcome international dependency, their unit of analysis is not the state but the new social movements, including indigenous peoples, from a postmodern theoretical perspective (Blaikie, 2000; Nederveen, 1998; Escobar, 1992; Robins, 2003).
The critices on the post-development perspective highlight how it promotes an idealisation of local communities, becoming in this way functional to neoliberalism (Kapoor, 2004). It is also criticised for denying the standardisation of living conditions, promoting a “Pontius Pilate politics” where the “rich wash their hands” or ignore the problems of the poor (Jakimow, 2008: p. 313). In addition, it is blamed for justifying the oppression inside groups of individuals by celebrating cultural relativism (Ziai, 2004), and occupying the place of the oppressed to speak for them without allowing them to express their concerns (Kapoor, 2004). Finally, Neverdeen (1998) argues that post- development scholars do not present concrete proposals but only theoretical critiques. Some argue that the post-development contribution to development theory has been the deconstruction of development and the creation of a space for constructing alternatives to development (Friedman, 2006). Others argue that they indeed presented proposals related to direct democracy, the protection of traditional knowledge, and communal solidarity, among others (Ziai, 2004; Santos and Rodriguez, 2005). However, in spite of its unarticulated proposals, this approach has been unable to offer an agenda for going beyond development.
86 In that context, in Latin America an indigenous perspective is emerging that could be understood as a real alternative to development. It is called Buen vivir (Good life), a concept elaborated from Andean cosmologies of indigenous peoples of Bolivia and Peru. Buen vivir is the Spanish translation of the Quechua concept Sumac kawsay and the Aymara concept Suma qamaña. This concept is a fundamental principle of many indigenous cosmologies and expresses a particular way to know (epistemology) and be (ontology) in the world. It projects the indigenous ancestral social organisation based on the idea of relationality among human beings and nature (instead of individuality), in a context of solidarity, communal economy and communal social organisation.
Buen vivir is starting to be expressed through modern mechanisms such as constitutions,
legislation and policies, but this does not mean that it can be absorbed by liberal frameworks or that it becomes a hybrid concept. On the contrary, Buen vivir reinforces indigenous identities and the possibilities to express indigeneity in the current institutionality and socio-political context.
In theoretical terms, Buen vivir founds an alternative project to Western modernity (Gudynas, 2011) and its particular ontology based on the myth of progress as a unidirectional linear path. The platform of Buen vivir critically assesses these assumptions (Blaser, 2010), presenting a radical critique of the cultural base of development, its legitimating discourses, its applications and institutional frameworks. Such radical challenges are possible within indigenous traditions because they culturally lack the conception of lineal process of development and progress (Gudynas, 2011; Acosta, 2011; Esteva, 2009), constituting a political subversion of the coloniality of power (Quijano, 2010). However, it is important to mention that Buen vivir is not a description of past or present indigenous practices, it is a space for political articulations among indigenous peoples and as such, it constitutes a powerful theoretical tool to construct and forge the aspirations of indigenous peoples for a better future.
Although most of the early formulations of the Buen vivir were produced independently of post-development, these perspectives share many similarities since both projects are radically critical of modernity and development. However, if Buen vivir entails the recognition of epistemologies and ontologies that have been obscured by the West, they seem better grasped by thinking derived from decolonial struggles rather than Foucaultian, Derridian or Deleuzean post-structuralism advanced by post-development theorists. The indigenous epistemologies and ontologies must be understood in another way, taking into account their context of knowledge production and the way they generate validity and certainty. Buen vivir expresses, thus, ontological conflicts (Gudynas, 2011) and epistemological conflicts, in pursuing its recognition as valid and respectful alternatives, which can be inspiring and be assumed by non-indigenous peoples in order to transform Western cosmologies (Gudynas, 2011).
For that reason, it is important to be alert to the tendency to ‘modernise’ Buen vivir, by transforming it in an acceptable form through its assimilation by conventional visions (Walsh, 2010; Gudynas, 2011). For example, unlike Buen vivir, the human development approach focuses more on ‘living’ and ‘growing well’ as individual than ‘live together well’ (convivir bien) in humanity and harmony with nature, which only can be achieved through a structural change in the whole system of coexistence (Albó, 2011). These issues are not discussed by most human development scholars and are not observed in policies inspired in human development. Similarly, it is not possible to celebrate Buen
87
vivir and at the same time, combine it with neo-developmentalism or neo-extractivism
(Santos, 2010).
In the same way, I suggest that there is a danger of ‘post-modernising’ Buen vivir if it is appropriated by progressive scholars solely to portray their political agendas from postmodern perspectives, without engaging seriously with the indigenous epistemology, ontology and social organisation.