A POSTCAPITALIST PARADIGM: THE COMMON GOOD OF ...

2. The functions of the concept in the present context
It is possible to single out two functions in the collection of contemporary
literature on sumak kawsay and suma qamaña. One is a criticism
of the current socio-economic situation and the other, proposals for cultural,
social and political reconstruction. We shall close this part of the
paper with some thoughts on the relationship between the Common
Good of Humanity and the possible deviations from the meaning of the
concept of buen vivir, in function of prevailing ideologies.
i) The criticism of modernity
Criticism of modernity is ambivalent. It all depends on what aspects of
modernity are being criticized. Is it the economic model of production
and consumption and its purely instrumental rationality in function of a
‘mercantilist scientific/technological logic’ (Dominique Jacques, 2011)?
Is the idea of progress without any limits? Or is it the emancipation of
the human being, scientific achievements, analytical reasoning? In fact
there is a fundamentalist criticism of modernity that means restoring a
pre-analytical culture, without historical vision. We are also aware of the
criticism of post-modern philosophy, that refuses what its protagonists
call ‘the great narratives’ – that is, social and political theories. These
critics consider great narratives as totalitarian and instead favour ‘small
stories’ – that is, personal stories by individual actors, denying the existence
of structures and systems. Such criticisms are not really useful
for the social and cultural reconstruction appropriate for our time.
Criticism from the viewpoint of buen vivir or buen convivir is selective.
It is a question, as José María Tortosa says, of refusing “the bad development
that leads to living badly” (J.M.Tortosa, 2010, 41). In fact we
are experiencing a crisis of the dominant development model that is destroying
ecosystems and societies. The fundamental reason for this lies
in the ‘ontology’ of the West and its linear scientific and technological
vision of history that considers nature as a series of separate elements
(natural resources) and imposes an anthropocentric (utilitarian) vision of
development.
214