Good Living

From AltDic Alpha

Good Living, a concept rooted in the worldviews of the indigenous peoples of Abya-Yala, proposes a way of life based on harmony, balance, and relationality between people, communities, other living beings, and nature, prioritizing the reproduction of life over the accumulation of capital. It is not a single model, but a plurality of “good ways of living together” that integrate reciprocity, complementarity, and solidarity, inspired by diverse global community traditions (such as ubuntu, swaraj, or conviviality). Faced with the crisis of “progress” and “development,” it proposes post-developmentalist alternatives that decolonize knowledge, reject extractivism, and build supportive, diverse, and sustainable societies from within communities. It involves rethinking the economy, politics, and culture in community terms, with an ethic of sufficiency, recognizing that transitions must be brought about primarily from below in order to open up a civilizational horizon beyond capitalism.
As defined by
Alberto Acosta
"Good Living, in essence, has been known and practiced in different periods and places on Mother Earth under different names."

Concept-GenericBanner-01.jpg Concepts:Buen Vivir Concepts:Buen Vivir

Warning: Display title "Good Living" overrides earlier display title "Buen Vivir/Alberto Acosta".

Definition and origins of the concept

A principle that inspires Buen Vivir is harmony or, if you prefer, balance, understood not as the opposition of forces, but as the harmonious coexistence of human beings with themselves, in community, between peoples and nations, and with Nature. Good Living constitutes the backbone of community systems: a collective construction based on forms of coexistence that recognize the interdependence of all vital elements. From this perspective, life is possible only through relationships and interactions that link the human community with other beings and with the heart of Nature.

From this arises a central point: we are a human and natural community, a single community of life. More than a concept, Good Living is an everyday experience. Relationality is its essential principle: the world is conceived as a ceaseless flow of interactions where everything is linked to everything else. Giving and receiving, in reciprocity, complementarity, and solidarity, constitutes the basis of Good Living. Working and celebrating are expressions of everyday life that intensify life, insofar as they allow us to share the sacredness of Nature and redistribute well-being.

In this horizon, Good Living establishes an ethic of care for oneself and for all living beings, human and non-human, to guarantee balances that sustain life. In political terms, it prioritizes the reproduction of life over that of capital, through processes of permanent complementarity. Indigenous peoples, with their values, practices, and worldviews, maintained this horizon before and after European colonization, despite invisibility and repression. Today, their proposals fundamentally question “development,” both in practical and conceptual terms, offering other ways of seeing and transforming the world.

Associated philosophies and practices

The indigenous peoples of Abya Yala are not the only bearers of these visions. Good Living, in essence, has been known and practiced in different periods and places on Mother Earth under different names. It is part of a long search for alternatives to life, forged in human struggles for sustainability and social reciprocity. There are memories, experiences, and community practices around the world that do not respond to the paradigm of “progress.” It is urgent to recover them, especially from the multiple indigenous cultures, without romanticizing them.

These proposals are not identical, although they share common features. We can recognize Zapatista communitarianism in Mexico; African Ubuntu, which conceives of the person as a person only in relation to other beings; Indian Swaraj, as radical ecological democracy; or Japanese Kyosei, based on cooperation. There are also the “brand cooperatives”: Markgenossenschaften of the ancient Germans, which interested Marx, or the principle of self-sufficiency of Gandhian svadeshi. To these are added the conviviality of Ivan Illich and the “happy sobriety” of Pierre Rabhi. The task is to build bridges between these experiences to enrich the horizon of Good Living.

To rescue its true meaning, there is no way to mechanically associate it with “Western well-being.” It involves recovering the knowledge of indigenous peoples and articulating it with other contributions that enable its realization. It is not a single concept, but rather multiple experiences, so it is appropriate to speak of good lives or good coexistence: between people in community, between communities themselves, and between communities and Nature. Good Living synthesizes concrete realities and utopian visions of the future. It is a permanent process of construction and reconstruction, not a simple return to the past or indigenous mysticism.

Challenges and opportunities related to its implementation

Humanity as a whole is at a crossroads. The promise made more than five centuries ago in the name of “progress,” recycled more than seven decades ago as “development,” has not been fulfilled and will not be fulfilled. For this reason, criticism of development and its matrix, progress, was inevitable and has been transformed into vigorous post-developmentalist proposals.

The visions, values, and practices of Good Living offer tools for building other ways of life and building bridges of respect between different forms of knowledge. This path invites us to decolonize history and overcome common meanings and misleading images of modernity. Breaking free from its real and symbolic straitjackets is now an urgent task. It also involves recovering the past of historically marginalized cultures as a continuity with a future projection, linked to struggles of resistance and re-existence in the face of conquest and colonization. The essential thing is to rescue, without idealization, the collective projects of communities related to life, especially indigenous communities, whose validity shows a “futuristic past.”

This opens up discussions about the place of technology, science, and knowledge, which must be put at the service of life and not the accumulation of capital. It means dismantling development objectives, policies, and instruments that are incapable of delivering the promised well-being. The concepts and indices available are no longer useful: they are artifices that seek to naturalize the civilizational pattern of progress as unique and inevitable, which is a fallacy.

The desire for development has sacrificed the possibility of following our own paths, different from modernity and progress, which are responsible for serious violence against life. The well-being of countries considered “developed” is explained by the logic of externalization: the comfort of a few is sustained by the poverty of many and the destruction of the Earth. Hence the need to dismantle the very concept of development, which has become a pipe dream that governs the lives of a large part of humanity.

At the same time, Good Living cannot be assumed to be a universal recipe or applied mechanically in any context. There are no fixed formulas: these are multiple processes, situated in diverse realities. In this sense, the debate on appropriate indicators arises. But such an exercise would be useless and even harmful if the foundations of Good Living are not first clarified. The risk is to fall into new technicalities or voluntarism. Indicators must emerge from these good coexistences, reflecting the plurality of each experience and avoiding reproducing the conceptual traps of modernity.

It is equally important not to confuse Good Living with “living better.” The latter refers to unlimited and competitive material progress, which encourages permanent accumulation. In order for some to live better, millions have had to live poorly, while nature is devastated. Good Living does not imply repeating this process; rather, it seeks harmony and shared sufficiency. It is not about accumulating more, but about sustaining life balances.

Building Good Living is not easy. Socially and ecologically unsustainable ways of life cannot be repeated. It is about building supportive and sustainable societies within institutions that guarantee a dignified life. Good Living is oriented towards an ethic of sufficiency for the community and not for isolated individuals. This requires structural changes in all dimensions of life: the economy, politics, and culture must be reoriented toward community-based, pluralistic, and diverse practices, away from one-dimensional or monocultural visions.

The state, as it currently exists, does not have the capacity to address fundamental transformations, such as rethinking the world of work and redistributing it toward a society where creative leisure is a right. On the horizon of Buen Vivir, the division between work and leisure dissolves into new forms of dignified, even festive, coexistence. Therefore, transitions must arise from below, in neighborhoods and communities, which are the spaces of effective transformation. From there, not only must pressure be exerted on states, but they must also be structurally transformed. In short, Buen Vivir is a civilizational proposal that offers a way out of the civilization of capital.

Resources and References

‘’‘Key Readings’‘’

  • Chancosa, Blanca [2014], “Sumak Kawsay from a woman's perspective,” in Hidalgo–Capitán, Antonio Luis; Alejandro Guillén García; Nancy Deleg Guazha [Eds.], Anthology of Ecuadorian Indigenous Thought on Sumak Kawsay, University of Cuenca and University of Huelva.
  • Acosta, Alberto [2025], El Buen Vivir Sumak Kawsay, una oportunidad para imaginar otros mundos (Good Living Sumak Kawsay, an opportunity to imagine other worlds), Abya-Yala, Ecuador. Also in Portuguese O bem viver – Uma oportunidade para imaginar otros mundos (Good Living – An opportunity to imagine other worlds), Elefante Editora, Brazil.

‘’‘Additional Reading’‘’

  • Acosta, Alberto [2021], “Leisure and Work, in Terms of Good Living: Reflections for Building Another Future” in Alberto Acosta, Pascual García, Ronaldo Munck (Eds.), Post-Development – Context, Contradictions, and Futures, Quito, UTPL – Abya-Yala.
  • Acosta, Alberto [2020], “El Buen Vivir o una salida del laberinto unidimensional del desarrollo” (Good Living or a Way Out of the One-Dimensional Labyrinth of Development), in Anthropos. Cuadernos de Cultura Crítica y Conocimiento 257, Mexico, Editorial Siglo XXI, BIEN-ESTAR HUMANO/Segunda Parte, October-December. Issue coordinated by: Julio Boltvinik, El Colegio de México.
  • Giraldo, Omar Felipe (2014); Utopias in the Age of Survival – An Interpretation of Good Living, Editorial ITACA, Mexico.
  • Gudynas, Eduardo and Alberto Acosta [2011], “The Renewal of Criticism of Development and Good Living as an Alternative,” in the journal Utopía y Praxis Latinoamericana, International Journal of Ibero-American Philosophy and Social Theory, Center for Sociological and Anthropological Studies (CESA), Faculty of Economic and Social Sciences, University of Zulia–Venezuela, Year 16. No. 53. April–June.
  • Gudynas, Eduardo and Alberto Acosta [2011], “El buen vivir o la disolución de la idea del progreso” (Good living or the dissolution of the idea of progress) in Mariano Rojas (Ed.) La medición del progreso y del bienestar – Propuestas desde América Latina (Measuring progress and well-being – Proposals from Latin America), Mexico, Scientific and Technological Advisory Forum of Mexico.
  • Gudynas, Eduardo [2014], “Buen Vivir: sobre secuestros, domesticaciones, rescates y alternativas” (Good Living: on kidnappings, domestications, rescues, and alternatives), in Bifurcación del Buen Vivir y el sumak kawsay (The Fork in the Road: Good Living and Sumak Kawsay), Quito, Ediciones SUMAK.
  • Illich, Ivan [1973], La convivencialidad (Conviviality), Barcelona, Barral Editores.
  • Huanacuni Mamani, Fernando [2010], Living Well / Good Living Philosophy, policies, strategies, and regional experiences, La Paz, Andrés Bello Agreement, International Research Institute, and CAOI.
  • Oviedo Freire, Atawallpa (2011); What is sumakawsay – Beyond socialism and capitalism, Quito.
  • Pacari, Nina [2014], “Sumak Kawsay so that we may have life,” in Hidalgo–Capitán, Antonio Luis, Alejandro Guillén García, Nancy Deleg Guazha (Eds.) Anthology of Ecuadorian Indigenous Thought on Sumak Kawsay, Spain, University of Cuenca and University of Huelva.
  • Rahbi, Pierre [2013], Hacia la sobriedad feliz (Towards Happy Sobriety), Madrid, Errata Natrae.

‘’‘Other Online Resources’‘’

About the Author

Alberto Acosta is an economist and activist, former President of the Constituent Assembly of Ecuador.

Retrieved from "https://altdic.online/index.php?title=Concepts:Buen_Vivir/Alberto_Acosta/English&oldid=811"