| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
187533
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article offers an experiment in theorising within or across a ‘space’ of ontological disagreement – which, as numerous authors have contended, characterises much that is at stake in relations between states and Indigenous peoples in the Americas. Such ontological disagreements, I argue, contain radical potential for disrupting globally dominant and anthropocentric patterns of thinking and relating, and for generating alternatives. I substantiate this point with reference to the relational ontologies informing different Indigenous ways of analysing and practicing existence. Drawing on Amazonian Kichwa thinking and Anishinaabe accounts of treaties, I show how these relational ontologies recast the problem of how it is possible to relate with difference, in such a way as to fold an inter-human ‘international’ into a continuum of relations that include human-nonhuman ones. Distinct normative horizons emerge. I argue that non-Indigenous people can draw a range of provocations here concerning our constitution as selves and the political space in which we understand ourselves to possibly participate. I also claim, however, that this more transformative potential is predominantly squandered through processes of what I call ontological capture, which troublingly re-entrench dominant construals of reality and forestall a more radical questioning and re-patterning of accompanying lifeways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
144260
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Many South–South cooperation programmes have promoted development without fully discussing the implications of that concept. To evaluate this situation, recent heterodox development strategies are examined, particularly those under progressivist governments in South America. It is found that development strategies are certainly plural, but they all share a common pre-political background. To address this feature, the concept of ‘varieties of development’ is introduced. Then a new typology on the disputes over development is presented. Three types are recognised (controversies within a specific variety of development; disputes among different varieties; and disputes on alternatives to all varieties of development). The concept of Buen Vivir is presented as an alternative to development, and disputes of the third type, that involve this concept, are examined. Paradoxically, as the current focus of South–South cooperation is to reinforce conventional varieties of development, it is blocking alternatives, even the Southern option of Buen Vivir.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|