Buen vivir: reimagining education and shifting paradigms

Full text

FORUM: Buen vivir - Reimagining education and
shifting paradigms
Eleanor Brown and Tristan McCowan
Published in Compare (2018), 48:2, 317-323
The new development order that emerged from the ashes of the Millennium
Development Goals has brought much needed attention to the natural environment
and to societal inequalities, two features which have made the framework relevant to
(and demanding for) high-income as well as low- and middle-income countries. Yet,
despite the emphasis on education as a goal in itself and a driver for development,
there is an alarming negligence and lack of imagination concerning the forms
education might take. The apparent compatibility between expansion of education
systems and both environmental destruction and worsening socio-economic
inequalities (given formal education’s complicity with current economic models) has
been little challenged by the development community. Ensuring fair, peaceful and
sustainable societies surely requires something other than just ‘more’ schooling. But
what kinds of resources and inspiration can we draw on to reinvent education?
This forum discusses a response to this question provided by buen vivir, a notion
emerging from indigenous cultures and political movements in Latin America. While
buen vivir has had incipient attention in the international development literature,
there is little written, particularly in English, about the contribution it could make to
education. We argue here that it needs to be introduced into our imaginary of
education, and that learning must push beyond the limitations of the paradigm of
modernity and the neoliberal ideology that commits us inescapably to economic
growth at the expense of the environment. If we are committed to the idea of
sustainability, which has not been well served by these ideologies and agendas, we
might want to consider what ‘sustainable development’ looks like from worldviews
with a quite different ontology from the European modernity upon which our
development discourse has been based.
Buen vivir as an alternative to development
There has been no shortage of critique of the concept of development and its
limitations in achieving peace and quality of life for all. We have seen variants of the
discourse distance themselves from the mainstream conceptualisation of development
as purely economic growth, and the introduction of adjectives to temper how we
understand the notion, from human and sustainable development to community-
based, ethno- and local development (Villalba 2013, 1427). The Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs), for example, problematize environmental degradation
and call for the protection of life under water and on land, clean energy and responsible
consumption and production. However, these goals remain wedded to the
underpinning assumption of development as ‘growth’ or ‘progress’ and the concept of
economic growth in particular (Gudynas 2016). A more fundamental critique, one
rarely invoked in the mainstream, has emerged over the last twenty years, with

extensive publications of postdevelopment and postcolonial alternatives to the
development project, which challenge the dominant frameworks of development as a
linear approach to growth. Postdevelopment demands a deconstruction of
development to expose the colonialism concealed within it and to propose
contextualised alternatives (Escobar 2011; Esteva 2009). There are a number of
associated critiques of developmentalism growing out of academic currents such as
degrowth, ecological economics, ecofeminism and environmental justice (Escobar
2015).
What we discuss here takes the form of a critique of the development discourse based
on worldviews that are ontologically different from the modernist assumptions that
underpin ‘development’. These perspectives are rooted in indigenous knowledges, and
rather than being another development alternative, present ‘an alternative to all these
positions’ (Gudynas and Acosta 2011). The concept of buen vivir has emerged from
indigenous cultures in Latin America, although bears some resemblance to African
concepts such as Ubuntu (Murove 2014), and has been identified in different forms in
many cultures around the world (Loomis 2000). Ubuntu, for example, emphasizes
interconnectedness and belonging to a greater whole (Tutu 1999), and valuing the
ecological health of the community as well as the individual (Wang 2013; van de Walt
2010). Other key aspects of buen vivir, such as non-dualism and non-violence, can be
found in Eastern philosophies, such as Buddhism, Taoism and Advaita Vedanta, and
other similar traditions that question the idea of indefinite economic growth and
encourage inward contemplation and living in the world but not of it
(Satprakashananda 1974; Wang 2013). These philosophies have influenced alternative
approaches to development that challenge the focus on economic measures of
progress. One example of this is the extensive work done in the Buddhist nation of
Bhutan on the index of Gross National Happiness, which emphasizes spiritual,
physical, social and environmental health of citizens and the natural environment, as
well as the promotion of culture (Kelly 2012). It is important to remember that the
doctrine of progress and accumulation of capital do not correspond to absolute
universal aspirations (Baranquero 2012).
The contemporary notion of buen vivir emerged in the late 1990s from the meeting of
ancient indigenous belief systems, the work of critical intellectuals and adoption in the
political sphere. Buen vivir is the Spanish translation of the concepts of sumak kawsay
in Quechua and suma qamaña in Aymara, as well as similar terms from indigenous
languages across the continent (Gudynas and Acosta 2011). The translation is
inadequate but serves as a starting point. Literally translated into English as ‘good
living’, this is considered a pale reflection of the original meanings of sumak kawsay.
Sumak means full of plenitude, sublime, excellent, magnificent, beautiful, while
kawsay is life; to exist in a dynamic, changing, active manner (Villalba 2013, 1429). So
it is about harmonious coexistence and living with nature in accordance with
principles of reciprocity, complementarity, solidarity and relationality (Villalba 2013).
The powerful meaning behind sumak kawsay comes from a cosmology so alien to
Western modernity that, from that perspective, it is difficult to conceive of it in the
full-density of its meaning. Nevertheless, buen vivir holds significant promise for the
organisation of collective life in modern societies (Vanhulst & Beling 2014).
The fundamental challenge that buen vivir presents to development discourses is in
the relationship between humanity and nature. In the modern ontology there is a
division between nature and society, while for these indigenous ontologies this is

relational, and all forms of existence are expressed as complementary with other
beings (Villalba 2013). Nature itself is considered a subject, not external to humans, it
is interconnected and worthy of rights; this interdependence between society and
nature breaks with the two features of society-nature duality and Eurocentric
universalism (Vanhulst & Beling 2014). Buen vivir is more systemic, encompassing
the entire ecosphere and includes issues of inclusion and equity, biodiversity and
natural resources (Gudynas & Acosta 2011, 77). In this sense, communities are defined
in an expanded sense including non-human elements and the environment (Pacha
Mama [Mother Earth]).
Another key difference is the idea of progress; this does not exist within this
indigenous ontological perspective, rather, buen vivir is ‘a way of living the present in
harmony’ (Vanhulst & Beling 2014, 56). This means discarding the idea of
development as a linear process and reimagining how we conceptualise quality of life
and well-being away from ownership of property and levels of income alone, making
room for experiences and relationships (Villalba 2013). It involves reflecting on a
model that incorporates many facets of a good life – sociality, solidarity, diversity,
human rights, ecological justice etc. (Baranquero 2012). It also raises essential
questions about the nature of the economy and how we could recreate economic
systems ‘towards a new [socio-biocentric] civilization’ (Acosta 2013, 22), where quality
of life takes precedence over capitalistic consumption patterns.
In terms of its relationship with current debates about the SDGs, buen vivir is an open
proposal under construction. While in some ways it presents a strong criticism of the
discourse of sustainable development and of commodification (Salazar 2015), it also
provides an opportunity to engage with international agendas in novel ways. Now is a
good time to think about how it can be conceptualised and interpreted in a way that
remains faithful to these important dimensions of the worldviews that underpin it, but
also comprehensible to people for whom breaking out of the paradigm of the
European/Western ontology of modernity is not straightforward. This requires deep
exploration of the ideas and the proposals, and opportunities to learn and engage in
dialogue. Buen vivir can contribute to these debates about what it means to live well
and provide a constructive critique of the development discourse. However, the
legitimisation and deepened understanding of buen vivir rests upon the building of
‘real spaces for citizen participation and on the emergence of collective learning
processes’ (Vanhulst & Beling 2014, 60). Buen vivir shares with anti-austerity
movements the reaction against political institutions and mistrust of the financial
sector, but it is ‘more unified and proactive in developing a program for alternative
solidarity economies and practices’ (Salazar 2015).
Liberating other worldviews in the face of Western hegemony of development, to
explore how they can contribute to more genuinely sustainable approaches to
improving well-being speaks directly to the sustainable development agenda. It
provides a coherent critique of ‘development as economic growth’, which the SDGs are
keen to ‘decouple from environmental degradation’ (UNDP SDG 8.4). Far from being
a quaint philosophy from far away, education advocating sustainable development
needs to engage with such anti-hegemony worldviews in order to imagine different
possibilities for the future. However, it should also be considered that the emphasis on
measurement and progress, inherent within the SDGs, is in some ways incongruent
with the ontological underpinnings of buen vivir. So while it may be able to contribute
to these debates, and may bear some resemblance to attempts made to measure well-

being, social progress and happiness, there is also a tension between the need for
measurement and the move away from such quantification. This critique can also be
found in postdevelopment and postcolonial literatures (Escobar 2011).
Buen vivir and education
The role of education in this milieu is complex. Globally, there is a problematic
association of education and Western-style schooling, and an obsessive focus in many
international campaigns on getting all children to enrol in primary education,
regardless of the multifaceted complexities that arise in different contexts. That is not
to say that we should not support the empowering potential of education, and even
promote its role in achieving other goals, but we require a far broader conception of
what this might look like than the one current international agendas promote.
Education should offer more than training for ‘employability’, which is so deeply
embedded in human capital approaches to development. Occidental notions of
education are difficult to extricate from the drive for salary, consumption and status
or neoliberal assumptions about its form and purpose, and decolonising these logics
in the context of a global market is not easy. Buen vivir could offer possibilities to
construct visions of education which challenge these fundamental assumptions about
its role. While there are indigenous communities in Latin America which have
embodied these principles in their educational practices (see for example Olivera
Rodríguez 2014; 2017) - and indeed many would argue that they have to be
contextually embedded - there are few formal accounts that educators elsewhere in the
world can draw on.
Through extrapolation from the main tenets of the idea, we will draw out some of the
key principles for education here. We will not attempt to flesh out the specifics of
educational settings, curriculum and pedagogy, as this would require a more extensive
treatment than is possible in this forum. More importantly, any such attempt would
necessarily be contextual, by definition, this approach would resist any universalising
stipulation of how education should occur; any abstraction can only provide an
approximation to its real embodiment in education, which would necessarily find its
form only in the lived experience of educators and learners. We can, nevertheless,
identify the following broad principles:
 Epistemological pluralism: acknowledging and transiting between different
forms of knowing
 Porosity of boundaries: non-rigid classification of the educational space,
education professionals and disciplines
 Holism of learning: bringing together of the manual, practical, technical,
abstract, aesthetic and spiritual
 Cooperativism: avoidance of competition-based education and the consequent
progressive filtering out of students from level to level
 Compassion and nonviolence: recognition of the importance of peace in all
aspects of life, including nonviolent communication
 Collectivism: learning collectively within a web of relationships between people
and with the non-human world
 Meaningful livelihoods: a link with enriching forms of work (rather than
alienating employability)
 Living the present: education as a state of being, not aimed at the exchange
value of qualifications

These are not of course ideas unique to buen vivir, and can be found in different forms
a number of progressive, holistic approaches to education associated with
postcolonialism, environmentalism, feminism, mindfulness, nonviolence and others.
Yet buen vivir provides a coherent principle on which to ground education for
development, one rooted in a comprehensive and contextualised philosophy of living.
There would also be implications of a buen vivir approach for governance of education.
Given its opposition to instrumentalisation and commodification generally speaking,
there would be a necessary rooting of control of education in the community, with
strong democratic and participative engagement.
Importantly, buen vivir is not only a goal to be obtained as a result of education, with
learning oriented to help achieve a harmonious and sustainable society at some point
in the future. It also has a process function, it is a way of being, a mode of operating,
particularly as regards the forms of human relations that pertain within the
educational space. It is a question, therefore, of education through buen vivir as well
as for buen vivir. In this way it links in with prefigurative forms of education that aim
to embody the ideal society in the here and now, rather than preparing students for a
distant future (McCowan 2009).
Clearly, we need to avoid the naive romanticisation of indigenous peoples that is so
tempting for inhabitants of materialistic urban cultures who feel their connection to
nature, the spiritual world and each other slipping away. All communities face a range
of critical challenges, particularly in the contemporary context of globalisation. We
must also resist the exotic fetishism of ideas from afar, viewing them as somehow more
noble, interesting and worthy than those familiar to us. At the same time, neither
should we dismiss them on the basis that they are only viable and meaningful for those
living traditional subsistence lifestyles or as a ‘nostalgic echo of a remote past
disconnected from contemporary debates’ (Vanhulst & Beling 2014, 61). Indeed, the
very act of valuing anti-hegemonic worldviews and knowledges is an important part of
decolonising education. Building a new world - even in the limited form of the
compromise with capitalism that is the SDGs - requires a new vision, and for that we
must be open to the plurality of modes of knowing and living that the world offers.
Of course, education cannot bring this transformation alone. It could be argued that it
is the economic system that perpetuates the environmental degradation and
inequalities in society, so it is there that our primary attention should lie. Yet education
is fundamental to the global capitalist system – as an industry in itself, as well as a
means of preparing compliant workers – and equally it has the potential to transform
our understandings of what counts as ‘good living’ and how it is practiced. In this
sense, we should consider the inclusion of the ideas of buen vivir in our education
systems, particularly in higher education, which needs to reclaim its ability to
challenge the status quo: understanding the challenges buen vivir poses for
development discourse is an opportunity to question taken-for-granted assumptions
and suggest alternatives.
This forum represents a call to the academic community to engage with ideas of buen
vivir – and other conceptualisations and practices of ‘good living’ emerging from
worldviews outside the modernist European paradigm – within scholarship and
research on international education and development, and also in teaching and
preparation of university students. While there is some existing research that explores

these alternative conceptualisations of education that challenge the dominant
frameworks of development (see for example Skinner et al. 2016), more extensive work
is needed. This forum represents only an initial foray into the topic, and further studies
are needed to theorise the notion fully in relation to education, in addition to empirical
studies on its incorporation in practice.
Education has an essential role to play in grappling with reconstructing assumptions
and learning from these worldviews that offer ways of conceiving a genuinely
sustainable relationship with the planet, but without co-opting or diluting the ideas
within and behind buen vivir. This means opening spaces for collective learning,
through formal and non-formal education, through social movements and non-
governmental organisations, as well as schools and universities, where we can imagine
education through and for buen vivir.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Inés Olivera Rodríguez and Melissa Nuñez Brown for their
helpful comments on drafts of this piece.
References
Acosta, A. 2013. “Otra economía para otra civilización. [Another economy for another
civilization.]” Temas 75:21–27.
Baranquero, A. 2012. “De la comunicación para el desarrollo a la justicia ecosocial y el
buen vivir. [From communication for development to ecosocial justice and buen
vivir.]” Cuadernos de Información y Comunicación 17: 63-78.
Escobar, A. 2011. “Una minga para el postdesarrollo. [A ‘minga’ for
postdevelopment].” Signo y Pensamiento 30(58): 306-312.
Escobar, A. 2015. “Degrowth, postdevelopment, and transitions: a preliminary
conversation.” Sustain Sci 10: 451-462.
Esteva, G. 2009. “Más allá del desarrollo: la buena vida. [Beyond development: the
good life.]” ALAI: América Latina en Movimiento 445: 1–5
Gudynas, E. 2016. “Beyond varieties of development: disputes and alternatives.” Third
World Quarterly 37(4): 721-732.
Gudynas, E. and Acosta, A. 2011. “La renovación de la crítica al desarrollo y el buen
vivir como alternativa. [The renovation of the critique of development and buen
vivir as an alternative.]” Utopía y Praxis Latinoamericana 16(53): 71-83
Hongyu Wang (2013) “A Nonviolent Approach to Social Justice Education”
Educational Studies, 49:6, 485-503, DOI: 10.1080/00131946.2013.844147

Kelly, A (2012, December 1) Gross national happiness in Bhutan: the big idea from a
tiny state that could change the world. The Guardian. Retrieved December 11
from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/01/bhutan-wealth-
happiness-counts
Loomis, T.M. 2000. “Indigenous populations and sustainable development: Building
on Indigenous approaches to holistic, self-determined development.” World
Development 28(5): 893-910
McCowan, T. 2009. Rethinking Citizenship Education: a Curriculum for
Participatory Democracy. London: Continuum.
Murove, M.F. 2014. “Ubuntu” Diogenes. 59(3–4): 36–47.
Olivera Rodríguez I. 2017. “Las potencialidades del proyecto educativo de la
Universidad Veracruzana Intercultural: una crítica al desarrollo desde la noción
del Buen vivir. [The potential of the Universidad Veracruzana Intercultural
educational project: A critical analysis of development viewed through the
concept of the good life (Buen vivir)]”. Revista de la Educación Superior 46(181):
19-35.
Olivera Rodríguez I. 2014. ¿Desarrollo o bien vivir? Repensando la función social de
la Universidad Intercultural desde el cuestionamiento al efecto educativo.
[Development or buen vivir? Rethinking the social function of the Intercultural
University through questioning the educational effect.] Revista Anthropologica
33: 179-207
Salazar, Juan Francisco (2015) Buen Vivir: South America’s rethinking of the future
we want The Conversation. Retrieved December 11, from
https://theconversation.com/buen-vivir-south-americas-rethinking-of-the-
future-we-want-44507
Satprakashananda, Swami. (1974) Methods of Knowledge According to Advaita
Vedānta. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama
Skinner, A., Baillie Smith, M., Brown, E.J. and Troll, T. eds. 2016. Education, Learning
and the Transformation of Development. Oxford: Routledge.
Tutu, Desmond M. 1999. No Future without Forgiveness. New York: Doubleday.
Van der Walt, Johanne L. 2010. “Ubuntugogy for the 21st Century.” Journal of Third
World Studies 27: 249–266.
Vanhulst, J. and Beling, A.E. 2014. “Buen vivir: Emergent discourse within or beyond
sustainable development?” Ecological Economics 101: 54-63.
Villalba, U. 2013. “Buen vivir vs development: a paradigm shift in the Andes?” Third
World Quarterly 34(8): 1427-1442.