Gebruiker:ElVer99/Nieuw artikel

'Pluriverse thinking' is a concept within post-development theory that is critical of the normative idea of 'development'. The idea originated within the Zapatista movement and the term was popularised by scholars like Arturo Escobar. In reaction to the universalist worldviews of Western modernity, the 'Pluriverse' acknowledges that a multiplicity of ontologies and worldview exist that can help make the world a better place for everyone. It is a radical decolonial alternative that promotes diversity, plurality, solidarity, environmental justice, the de-silencing of indigenous communities, ending the human-nature binary and pays attention to intersectionality.

The failure of development: post-development theory

‘Pluriverse thinking’ can be situated within the school of post-development thought. Between the 1980s and the 1990s, policymakers, activists, and academics from different fields of study became openly critical of development. It was seen as a linear path to modernity with a focus on technological innovation and economic progress. This normative interpretation of development materialized after the second world war and would dominate policies for decades. During these years, a ‘development apparatus’ had emerged that promoted ‘one-size-fits-all’ neo-liberal interventions in countries in the Global South to improve the lives of its inhabitants. One of the most prominent examples of these interventions is the Structural Adjustment Programs imposed by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which forced countries to implement austerity measures, deregulate their economy and privatize public services to help the countries pay off their debt. Post-development thinkers, such as Arturo Escobar, Gustavo Esteva, Wolfgang Sachs, Vandana Shiva and James Ferguson, pointed out the flawed logic of development and the negative consequences of its approach to ‘improve’ the world. It became clear to them that development was a failed project and that the programs and actions taken by development actors often worsened the living conditions of the people they were supposed to help.

The problems of development

Post-development theory points out some major flaws of normative development thinking. First, post-development thinkers are critical of the universalist and modernist approaches to ‘develop’ countries. The capitalist, Western-centric idea of development expects the Global South countries to ‘catch up’ and also reach modernity: a secular, individualist, capitalist society. The focus on economic growth and Gross Domestic Product as a measure of progress is too limited to evaluate the well-being of a population. It also obscures other aspects that contribute to a better life, such as putting an end to inequality, good health, education, combatting environmental degradation etc. It also does not take into consideration the fact that some societies might have other values and priorities than reaching the Western ideal of modernity.

Second, post-development thinkers point out that the historical power relations of oppression and control, that originated in colonialism, influence development to this day. There is a neo-colonial mindset embedded in the development discourse that insinuates a hierarchy. It maintains a binary worldview that juxtaposes on the one hand superior ‘developed’ Western countries and on the other hand inferior ‘underdeveloped’ countries in the Global South that need the help of ‘developed’ countries to grow. The ‘development apparatus’ controls the methods through which countries must be developed and alternative, often indigenous, voices are ignored in this process. The strategies to improve the ‘underdeveloped’ countries often create a cycle of dependency where Global South countries start to rely on the aid and investment of Global North countries. Because of this, the Global South can't reach the same level of growth as the West, since their economic and political independence is undermined by the control and exploitation of the ‘development apparatus’.

Finally, development is considered to be a form of technological determinism. Since the focus of development is economic growth, development actors seek to achieve this by applying technical solutions. According to post-development theorists, this approach depoliticizes development and ignores the need for social, political, and cultural factors for the improvement of life.

Although development actors have tried to grow out of the modernist vision of development, post-development thinkers still feel that their approach is lacking. A recent example of this is the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) introduced by the United Nations in 2015. These universal goals included a wide variety of targets to be achieved throughout the world for a more peaceful and prosperous world. There is a clear shift towards more inclusive development goals with attention to gender, education, nature, and equality. Still, there are many contradictions within these goals, there is no reflection on the origins of the problems that the SDGs want to counter, there is little attention to culture, religion and ethics as viable aspects of development, there is not enough attention to environmental justice and there is no real socio-cultural transformation, which is needed to achieve the sustainable development that is the goal of this project. In short, post-development theorists see sustainable development as another empty term.

A call for alternatives

Post-development theory wants to take a step away from development and call for alternatives that go against its assumed universalism. An important element of this school of thought is acknowledging the privilege of Western societies and paying attention to historical processes that shaped the world as it is today. Their goal is to achieve a socially and environmentally just world with respect for indigenous cosmologies and ontologies, diversity and attention to a plurality of possible strategies to improve people’s lives. ‘Pluriverse thinking’ is central to post-development theory’s approach to a better and more just world.

The Pluriverse

The ‘Pluriverse’ is an overarching term that promotes the acceptance of a multiplicity of worlds consisting of a broad variety of concepts, practices and visions that challenge the ontology of universal modernity. The book ‘Pluriverse: A Post-Development Dictionary’ bundles a range of different perspectives and notions that together form the basis of a multiplicity, a 'Pluriverse' of alternatives to development .  With the concept of the 'Pluriverse' a step is taken toward pluralism, meaning the acceptance of the existence of many worlds shaped by the social practices of different human groups. The notion of Pluriverse makes it possible to accept and place the existence of many kinds of ontologies in a broader perspective.  'Pluriverse thinking' emphasizes the relationality of different worlds and worldviews which shows that there are possible ideas that go beyond the normative single universe of modernity. The relational ontologies exposed by the pluriverse are those that "eschew the divisions between nature and culture, individual and community, and between 'us' and 'them', divisions that are central to the modern ontology.”  In other words, the Pluriverse is “a world where many worlds fit”.  The notion originated in the Zapatista imagination.  Here they believed that everyone should co-exist in dignity and peace. In a pluriversal world, patriarchal attitudes, racism, casteism, and other forms of discrimination have been overcome. The ambition is to stimulate a civilization “that is eco-centric, diverse, and multidimensional, and one that is able to find a balance between individual and communal needs.”  

Across the world, several new and ancient practices, visions and frameworks are gaining traction that present “alternatives for human and planetary well-being.”  'Pluriversal thinking' allows us to understand how there is a world based on Western-centric modernity and development aid but there are also various projects besides this fighting to preserve worlds and the human and non-human beings in them.  The notion of the 'Pluriverse' has become a cornerstone in recent decolonial thinking.  We find a key assertion in all pluriversal arguments: Western theory and practice depend on a “one world” Euromodern ontology that has particular ethical and political effects.  Different initiatives seek to move away from the one-world universalism of sustainable development to expand the multitude of possible worlds - a 'Pluriverse' of alternatives to sustainable development.  These arguments also insist that colonial and imperial politics cannot be detached from ontological assumptions, and therefore will persist as long as those ontological assumptions are in place. 

Boaventura De Sousa Santos calls development an ‘epistemicide’. Epistemicide refers to the destruction and silencing of knowledge produced by cultures and populations that occurs when societies are colonised. This involves their way of doing things, their experience of relating to others and nature, their memories and ancestral links.   People argue to decolonise development, which also means de-silencing and de-mythologising indigenous voices and knowledge. And above all, to listen to the alternative proposals coming from 'marginalised groups'.

Unlike Sustainable Development, alternative approaches proposed within 'Pluriverse thinking' shouldn’t be seen as “an overarching policy for administrations either by the UN or some other global governance regime or by regional or state regimes.”   It’s also a critique towards the current development hegemony, this Western model is a construct adopted by the rest of the world. It needs to be deconstructed and embrace the existence of alternatives to "development" which propose a radical change from the local to the global.  With growing concerns about climate change since the 2000s, these alternatives to Sustainable Development bring forth opportunities “to politicize debates around how to affect socio-ecological transformation.” More concretely this means that communities, networks and territorial initiatives are placed more prominently in the front in this era of capitalist modernity and create and run strategies for transformation toward equity, well-being, and ecological sustainability. Dialogue between these experiments in alternatives to Sustainable Development and policymakers, and researchers can provide benefits.

These alternatives to sustainable development are a recurrent theme in activist and progressive academic circles. The ideas are slowly becoming more visible and are sometimes acknowledged by states.  Nevertheless, it should be noted that in broad policy circles, these views are still marginal in comparison with the dominant narrative of development.

Examples of 'Pluriverse thinking'

‘Pluriverse thinking’ acknowledges and embraces different ontologies and epistemologies from all over the world. This means that the 'Pluriverse' consists of a variety of ideas that are seen as alternative ways of building sustainable and positive change in the world. These concepts draw on interconnectedness, fluidity and respect. Some of the most popular concepts that have a place among many others in the 'Pluriverse' are Buen Vivir, Ubuntu and Degrowth.

Buen Vivir

Buen Vivir is a paradigm or ontology that originated from and is promoted by Andean indigenous communities, especially by the indigenous people from Ecuador and Bolivia. It is a concept that pursues a way of life, ‘a good life’, that strives for the well-being of both humans and nature. Two main aspects define Buen Vivir: its radical criticism of the idea that ‘development’ and modernity are the only right way to improve people’s lives and its alternatives that focus on a decolonial approach that involves plurality, collective well-being and balance with nature.   

Buen Vivir is a plural framework that has different applications and meanings according to the social, historical, economic and geographical context it is applied. Out of the concept of Buen Vivir, other strategies are derived from the concept that can help advance its goals. Examples of this are alternative economic strategies such as a Communitarian Economy, Food Sovereignty and Rights of Nature. Still, some overarching key characteristics provide a sense of consistency. The concept is critical of the instrumentalist, reductionist and modernist approach to development and serves as a platform for alternatives, it acknowledges a plurality of ways to improve life including spiritual and environmental value, it consists of a decolonising component in the alternatives it provides, it sees nature and society as relational concepts and not as a binary and finally feelings, emotions and harmony play an important part in Buen Vivir.

The framework became very popular and was supported by a broad range of social, cultural and political movements and actors. In both the Ecuadorian as in the Bolivian constitution, Buen Vivir has been recognised as a valid framework to connect the political agendas of different interest groups, with an important focus on the recognition of indigenous communities and their rights. Both constitutions have a different approach to the concept. Bolivia gives it a more ethical interpretation, while Ecuador sees it as a broad range of different rights. Even though Buen Vivir has been included in political discourse, it is a worldview that goes beyond States and their interests. Rather, it is based on community and solidarity.

Buen Vivir faces several challenges and has received some criticism. Although constitutional acknowledgement is an important achievement, the framework exists side by side with policies and processes that still follow the traditional development discourse and actively harm indigenous communities. Besides this, the concept is accused of romanticising indigenous practices and not having a practical strategy. In some cases, these criticisms can be correct, but it also has been proven that Buen Vivir can provide strategies and ideas to apply the concept as seen in the case of Ecuador and Bolivia.

Ubuntu

Ubuntu is a Bantu term that refers to an idea that originated in South Africa. Because of colonisation, it eroded, but it is currently having a philosophical revival. It is a holistic concept that considers both the  physical and spiritual. There is a consensus among researchers that there is no word in the English language that fully encompasses the meaning of Ubuntu but it is often translated as ‘humanness’. It is related to the ontological idea of what humans are and the ethical idea of what they should be. A saying in Zulu explains the core of the concept: ‘Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu’ or ‘We are, therefore I am, and since I am, therefore we are’. Contrary to the individualist nature of modernity and development, Ubuntu sees humanity as something that is expressed in relation to others. Others, being, both humans and nature. People are formed by their community and in turn help form the community. All elements that are attributed to the individual in a ‘modern’ society such as uniqueness, individuality and humanness are born out of this social interconnectedness.  

Ubuntu is not only an ontological paradigm, but it is also an ethical framework. Since everything and everyone is interconnected, we have the moral responsibility to care for each other and nature. Ubuntu considers harmony, friendliness, relationality, reconciliation, community and emotions such as empathy and concern for others as key indicators for moral evaluations. When the actions you want to take harm the people around you or have a negative impact on your community, they are wrong.  

Practically, the concept can be used as a base to build solidarity for social movements that work to achieve environmental and social justice. But it can also be used in a negative way, for example, big companies could profit off of it, use it for their own gain or assimilate the concept. The concept also received some criticism, for example, the dichotomy between the individualist West and the communitarian Africans in some Ubuntu philosophers' ideas. There is no reason that individual freedom and interdependent freedom should exclude each other.

Degrowth

Degrowth is a concept that originated in the Global North as a reaction against the hegemonic idea that economic growth is the solution to all problems and that it will improve everyone's lives. Although it is an idea that  was specifically designed for the context of the West, the Global South might also benefit from questioning normative economic standards. The degrowth project calls for radical change and wants to completely step away from growth as the driving force of society. It does not want less growth, but a complete restructuring of society that includes new forms and uses of energy, a different view on relations between people and nature, a change in gender roles, etc.

Intrinsic to the concept of degrowth is the idea that we do not need constant growth and that this worldview is not durable. Instead, there should be a “democratic redistributive downscaling”  of the economies of industrialised countries through a reduction of both production and consumption. The degrowth hypothesis states that this new political-economic system might be able to improve well-being and reduce social and environmental issues. These ideas of degrowth fit into the 'Pluriverse' paradigm because it focuses on the decolonisation of our ideas around development and proposes a totally different world than the current reality. Key factors of this concept are redistribution of wealth, solidarity, commons, democracy and sharing.   

The problem with degrowth is first of all that it seems impossible to change the world and completely abandon the notion of growth. The idea of degrowth seems rather utopian and there are no real places where the framework is practically applied. It is important to realise that Degrowth is an activist program that strives for change and transition into ‘new’ and ‘better’. If economic growth becomes a threat or if it falters, there is always a possibility that society will voluntarily transition into a system that resembles the ideas presented by the degrowth paradigm.

Criticism

Pluriverse thinking and some of their projects were met with criticism. It should be stressed that the oversimplification of ‘development’ as a single, monolithic ‘Western’ discourse sometimes takes place within post-development thinking. The division between the West as consumerist, utilitarian and inauthentic, and the Non-West as authentic, rural, productive and substantive is too neat and partial. Stuart Corbridge states that proponents of post-development too often make binary divisions. It is not because development project A or B fails that therefore all development projects fail. Post-development thinkers often do not recognise the accomplishments that have taken place, think, for example, of the immense increase in life expectancies around the world. False deductions also take place: the problems of poor countries are always and everywhere the result of a surfeit of capitalism or development and not their relative absence. Cobridge problematises the monolithic 'Western' discourse. Finally, he mentions that certain projects and pluriversal thinkers rarely acknowledge that for example debt and famine may be the result of an absence of development (not least in war-ravaged societies), or of a mal-development that should provoke political actions for a more empowering and sustainable development.

There has also been criticism that many of the alternatives put forward little or no political strategy and more concrete solutions. Others have also pointed to the scale of certain problems, global challenges may need universal approaches instead of localised small-scale initiatives. An observation that can also be linked to this is the following: how will thinkers and projects deal with the dilemma of “the lack of common ideological structure and effective global coordination to challenge and change the world capitalist system.”  Akbulut Kaul and Gerber Demaria additionally mention the following: “How do people with differentiated power relations and intersectional interests work together to enact “alternatives to sustainable development”? How can radical projects avoid reproducing patriarchal and colonial continuities? What do these cases across the global North and South have in common, and what remains uncommon?”

The book 'Pluriverse: a Post-Development Dictionary' has been fairly positively received but has also received criticism. Leslie Sklair finds the essays in the book 'Pluriverse: A postdevelopment Diciionairy 'very interesting but poses some questions. For instance, she notes that in general religion and indigenous culture have not been subjected to the same degree of critical analysis as most of the other essays in the book. She acknowledges that this is a very sensitive issue in the history of colonialism and contemporary transnational capitalism, but "if we are to take the idea of the pluriverse seriously, it has to be faced." Another shortcoming of the book according to her is the tendency to gloss over problems of different scales of social, economic, and cultural organisation in the pluriverse. The lack of specificity in terms of the ever-growing critical literature on the Anthropocene is also a working point for her.

Bibliography

• Buckingham, Will. “Desmond Tutu, Ubuntu and the Possibility of Hope.” Looking for Wisdom, January 13, 2022. https://www.lookingforwisdom.com/ubuntu/.
• Chuji, Monica, Grimaldo Rengifo, and Eduardo Gudynas. “Buen Vivir.” In Pluriverse: A Postdevelopment Dictionary, edited by Ashish Kothari, Alberto Acosta, Frederico Demaria, Arturo Escobar, and Ariel Salleh, 111–14. New Delhi: Tulika books, 2019.
• Demaria, Federico, and Ashish Kothari. “The Post-Development Dictionary Agenda: Paths to the Pluriverse.” Third World Quarterly 38, no. 12 (2017): 2588–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2017.1350821.
• Demaria, Federic and Serge Latouche. “Degrowth.” In Pluriverse: A Postdevelopment Dictionary, edited by Ashish Kothari, Alberto Acosta, Frederico Demaria, Arturo Escobar, and Ariel Salleh, 148–150. New Delhi: Tulika books, 2019.
• Escobar, Arturo. Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical Interdependence, Autonomy, and the Making of Worlds. Durham: Duke University Press, 2018.
• Escobar, Arturo. Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995.
• Escobar, Arturo, Carlos Tornel and Aapo Lunden. “On design, development and the axes of pluriversal politics: An interview with Arturo Escobar.” Nordia Geographical Publications 51, nr. 2 (2022): 103-22.
• Esteva, Gustavo, and Madhu Suri Prakash. “Beyond Development, What?” Development in Practice 8, no. 3 (1998): 280–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614529853585.
• Esteva, Gustavo. “Development.”. In The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power, edited by Wolfgang Sachs, 1–24. London: ZED Books Ltd, 2019.
• Ewuoso, Cornelius, and Sue Hall. “Core Aspects of Ubuntu: A Systematic Review.” South African Journal of Bioethics and Law 12, no. 2 (2019): 93-103. https://doi.org/10.7196/sajbl.2019.v12i2.00679.
• Gills, Barry K. and S. A. Hamed Hosseini. “Pluriversality and beyond: consolidating radical alternatives to (mal-)development as a Commonist project.” Sustainability Science 17 (2022): 1183-1194.
• Gudynas, Eduardo. “Buen Vivir: Today's Tomorrow.” Development 54, no. 4 (2011): 441–47. https://doi.org/10.1057/dev.2011.86.
• Hickel, Jason. “Chapter 5: Debt and the Economics of Planned Misery.” Essay. In The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and Its Solutions. London: Windmill Books, 2018.
• Jimenez, Andrea, Deborah Delgado, Roger Merino, and Alejandro Argumedo. “A Decolonial Approach to Innovation? Building Paths towards Buen Vivir.” The Journal of Development Studies 58, no. 9 (2022): 1633–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2022.2043281.
• Kallis, Giorgos , Vasilis Kostakis, Steffen Lange, Barbara Muraca, Susan Paulson and Matthias Schmelzer. “Research on Degrowth”. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 43, no.1 (2018): 291-316.
• Kaul, Shivani, Bengi Akbulut, Federico Demaria en Julien‑François Gerber. “Alternatives to sustainable development: what can we learn from the pluriverse in practice?” Sustainable Science 17 (2022): 1149-1158.
• Kothari, Ashish, Alberto Acosta, Frederico Demaria, Arturo Escobar, and Ariel Salleh. Pluriverse: A Postdevelopment Dictionary. New Delhi: Tulika books, 2019.
• Le Grange, Lesley. “Ubuntu.” In Pluriverse: A Postdevelopment Dictionary, edited by Ashish Kothari, Alberto Acosta, Frederico Demaria, Arturo Escobar, and Ariel Salleh, 323-326. New Delhi: Tulika books, 2019.
• Reiter, Bernd. Constructing the Pluriverse: The Geopolitics of Knowledge. Durham: Duke University Press, 2018.
• Rodney, Walter. How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Washington, DC: Howard Univ. Press, 1982.
• Sachs, Wolfgang. “Introduction.”  In The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power, edited by Wolfgang Sachs, xxviii-xxxiii. London: ZED Books Ltd, 2019.
• Sartorius, Raphael. “The Notion of ‘Development’ in Ubuntu.” Religion and Development 1, no. 1 (2022): 96–117. https://doi.org/10.30965/27507955-20220006.
• Schöneberg, Julia. “Development: A Failed Project.” openDemocracy, November 29, 2019. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/development-failed-project/.
• Sklair, Leslie. “‘Development, post-development, and the pluriverse’,” Globalizations (2021): 1-10.