Acceso usuarios
El presente artículo analiza el Vivir Bien y la diplomacia de los pueblos como respuestas posantropocéntricas frente a los desafíos del Antropoceno, destacando sus aportes conceptuales, sus límites operativos y su potencial para articular transformaciones en políticas públicas e internacionales. El estudio se sitúa en el marco de las críticas al Antropoceno —capitaloceno, occidentaloceno y plantationoceno— y examina en qué medida las cosmovisiones andinas y amazónicas de Bolivia constituyen horizontes civilizatorios alternativos frente a los modelos de desarrollo dominantes.
Metodológicamente, se adopta un enfoque cualitativo basado en análisis documental y crítico de fuentes académicas, filosóficas, normativas y discursivas. Se revisan textos fundacionales del debate sobre el Antropoceno, aportes de la ecología política y de las Relaciones Internacionales críticas, así como marcos normativos relevantes, entre ellos la Constitución Política del Estado boliviano y la Declaración Universal de los Derechos de la Madre Tierra. Se integran también referencias empíricas seleccionadas por su relevancia conceptual —como conflictos socioambientales y tensiones extractivistas en Bolivia— para contrastar el potencial transformador del Vivir Bien con su limitada implementación práctica.
El artículo se organiza en seis secciones. La primera delimita el marco conceptual del Antropoceno y sus principales debates críticos. La segunda desarrolla el Vivir Bien como paradigma posantropocéntrico, destacando sus bases filosófico-cosmológicas y su crítica al modelo de modernidad. La tercera examina su incorporación normativa y discursiva en Bolivia y Ecuador. La cuarta sección introduce la diplomacia de los pueblos como propuesta descolonial y ecológica en las relaciones internacionales. La quinta discute la tensión entre potencia simbólica e impotencia operativa del Vivir Bien, mientras que la sexta propone lineamientos para una operativización posantropocéntrica orientada a la institucionalidad ambiental, la participación comunitaria y la articulación de saberes.
En conjunto, el artículo sostiene que el Vivir Bien y la diplomacia de los pueblos aportan marcos conceptuales indispensables para repensar el Antropoceno desde el Sur Global y ampliar el campo de las Relaciones Internacionales críticas. No obstante, se evidencia que su densidad simbólica contrasta con limitaciones operativas derivadas de la persistencia del extractivismo y las tensiones estatales. Se concluye que el desafío central consiste en repolitizar estas propuestas y dotarlas de coherencia práctica para consolidarlas como estrategias críticas y situadas de transición civilizatoria frente a la crisis ecosocial contemporánea.
This article analyzes the paradigm of Living Well (Vivir Bien) and the notion of the diplomacy of the peo-ples as post-Anthropocenic responses to the socio-ecological challenges of the Anthropocene. It seeks to demonstrate both their symbolic power and their operational limitations, while identifying pathways through which they may be transformed into coherent strategies of civilizational transition. The central objective is to examine how these proposals contribute to the construction of post-Anthropocenic hori-zons capable of transcending the contradictions of modernity, the extractivist model of development, and the state-centric logic of international relations. The argument advanced here is that, despite their fragility in practice, Living Well and the diplomacy of the peoples constitute indispensable contributions to global debates on the Anthropocene, offering conceptual and ethical tools for imagining forms of co-existence that move beyond anthropocentrism and emerge from the Global South.Methodologically, the article relies on documentary and critical analysis of multiple sources, including theoretical literature on the Anthropocene and its critiques; philosophical writings on Andean notions of relationality, complementarity, and reciprocity; constitutional texts from Bolivia and Ecuador; and political speeches, international declarations, and reports on socio-environmental conflicts. This meth-odological approach enables the integration of theoretical reflection with empirically grounded examples and supports dialogue across political ecology, critical international relations, and Andean thought. Such interdisciplinarity is essential, given that the Anthropocene is not only a geological term but also a polit-ical and cultural narrative shaped by diverse epistemologies and contested historical processes.The theoretical framework is organized around three main axes. The first concerns debates on the An-thropocene, originally formulated by Crutzen and Stoermer (2000) to describe the human species as a geological force capable of altering planetary systems. The article reviews how this concept has been contested through alternative formulations such as the Capitalocene, which foregrounds capitalism as the true driver of ecological devastation; the Occidentalocene, which attributes the crisis to the West-ern worldview that commodified and dominated the more-than-human world; and the Plantationocene, which highlights the foundational role of plantation regimes in shaping the modern industrial system and its ecological impacts. These critiques reveal that the Anthropocene is not a neutral scientific category, but a contested field reflecting power asymmetries and historical inequalities.The second axis is the philosophical and political elaboration of Living Well, articulated as Suma Qamaña in Aymara and Sumak Kawsay in Quechua. In contrast to “living better,” associated with consumption and accumulation, Living Well constitutes a civilizational horizon centered on communal life among hu-mans, the natural world, and spiritual beings. Built upon principles of reciprocity, relationality, and com-plementarity, it recognizes Pachamama not as an exploitable resource but as a living subject endowed with rights. This paradigm represents a radical critique of modern development, rejecting anthropocen-trism, infinite economic growth, and cultural homogenization, while resonating with contemporary more-than-human ontologies in anthropology and philosophy.The third axis draws from critical international relations, which question the state-centric, Eurocentric, and anthropocentric assumptions of the discipline. Building on authors such as Cox, Tickner, Walker, and Inayatullah and Blaney, the article shows how the diplomacy of the peoples—an approach inspired by Living Well—offers a decolonial and ecological alternative to conventional understandings of internation-al relations. This perspective expands diplomacy beyond the actions of states to include communities, Indigenous nations, and, in some cases, ecosystems themselves as relevant actors in global politics.Structurally, the article develops its argument in six sections. The first introduces the Anthropocene and the conceptual debates that have generated post-Anthropocenic proposals. The second examines Living Well as a paradigm that challenges the core premises of modernity and development. The third analyzes the constitutionalization of Living Well in Bolivia and Ecuador and its international projection through initiatives such as the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth. The fourth elaborates the diplomacy of the peoples as a novel form of international engagement centered on life, reciprocity, and ecological justice rather than power and competition. The fifth section critically assesses the tensions between the symbolic discourse of these paradigms and their practical implementation, emphasizing the persistence of extractivism, weak environmental governance, and institutional constraints. The sixth section proposes guidelines for a post-Anthropocenic operationalization of Living Well and the diplomacy of the peoples, suggesting innovations in institutional design, community participation, and the articu-lation of diverse knowledges.The empirical discussion focuses primarily on Bolivia, where the contrast between symbolic power and operational weakness is particularly evident. The 2009 Constitution incorporated Indigenous moral prin-ciples and established Living Well as an ethical horizon, while Bolivia promoted the Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth at the United Nations and convened the Cochabamba People’s Summit on Climate Change. However, domestic policies simultaneously facilitated expanded agricultural frontiers, enabled large-scale extractive projects, and weakened environmental institutions. The TIPNIS highway conflict (2011), recurring Amazonian forest fires, and mercury contamination in rivers exemplify the gap be-tween international discourse and national practice. These contradictions demonstrate how alternative paradigms may be co-opted or emptied of content when not accompanied by strong institutions and genuine political commitment.Nevertheless, the article does not dismiss these paradigms. Instead, it argues that their contradictions underscore the need to repoliticize them. Living Well and the diplomacy of the peoples must be un-derstood not as utopian slogans but as critical and situated strategies of civilizational transition. This requires consolidating autonomous environmental institutions with meaningful Indigenous participation, establishing binding mechanisms for community engagement in international negotiations, and articu-lating Indigenous knowledges with political ecology and critical academic research. Comparative exam-ples—such as the recognition of rivers as legal subjects in Colombia or community-based environmental governance in Costa Rica—demonstrate that operationalization is possible when legal innovation and community participation converge.The study’s findings can be summarized in three points. First, Living Well and the diplomacy of the peoples enrich global debates on the Anthropocene by offering perspectives from the Global South that challenge universalist and Eurocentric assumptions. Second, their incorporation into constitutions and international forums represents an epistemic rupture that validates Indigenous ontologies as legitimate frameworks for political and legal organization. Third, despite these advances, the gap between rhetoric and practice remains deep, revealing the structural constraints posed by extractivism, dependency, and weak institutional capacity.The implications are both theoretical and practical. Theoretically, the article contributes to political ecol-ogy and critical international relations by demonstrating how Indigenous worldviews can inform global governance. Practically, it offers concrete proposals for institutional design and participatory mecha-nisms capable of enhancing ecological justice and sovereignty in the Global South. This dual contribution highlights the importance of treating non-Western paradigms not merely as symbolic alternatives but as sources of practical innovation in environmental governance and international politics.In conclusion, the article argues that Living Well and the diplomacy of the peoples represent indis-pensable contributions to rethinking the Anthropocene and imagining post-Anthropocenic futures. Their symbolic richness provides ethical guidance and cultural legitimacy, while their contradictions reveal the challenges of implementing civilizational alternatives in contexts dominated by extractivism and global dependency. Far from being romantic ideals, these paradigms embody the possibility of constructing plural, just, and sustainable worlds from the South, grounded in reciprocity, relationality, and the recog-nition of the intrinsic value of life. Bridging the gap between rhetoric and practice will require institutional strengthening, community participation, and the articulation of diverse knowledges. Only then can Living Well and the diplomacy of the peoples evolve from rhetorical resources into effective strategies for civi-lizational transition amid the socio-ecological crisis of our time.
