RefRaming Civilization(s): From Critique to transitions1 Through the influence of Jamaican philosopher Sylvia Wynter – and others –, Escobar delves into a profound discussion about an urgent transition to the pluriverse. It questions the human-centric Western humanism that produced the development mentality and argues for a radical thought transformation: a plural form of the human beyond and outside Western humanism. He offers six strategies for moving from critique to transition, all based on collective actions, reconnecting us to centuries-old cultures, the Earth, the sacred, and the spiritual. T he 500th anniversary of the so-called discovery of America in 1992 marked a watershed for the indigenous peoples of Abya Yala / Turtle Island (the American continent). A main result of the intense debates and counter-celebrations leading up to that year and in its immediate aftermath was the popularization of the notion, particularly among indigenous movements from Abya Yala (Latin America and the Caribbean), that the current planetary crisis is a crisis of a dominant modelo civilizatorio, or civilizational model: that of Western capitalist modernity. Ever since, and stemming from a diversity of sources, the ‘crisis of civilization’ has become a commonly invoked notion to refer to the multifaceted crisis of climate, energy, poverty, inequality, food, and meaning. A corollary followed: if the crisis has a civilizational dimension, we are in dire need of civilizational transitions. For Latin American indigenous, Afrodescendant, and decolonial activists and intellectuals, the prevailing system of “heteropatriarchal capitalist colonial modernity” should be seen as a cosmovision or civilizational model; we could also call it a dominant worldview, or just a particular mode of existence; more philosophically, it may be described as an onto-epistemic formation, meaning by this a constellation of fundamental premises about life, knowledge, and the world that indelibly shape practices and structures. Be that as it may, these concepts refer to a historically specific way of being, thinking, and doing (all at once) often associated, in civilizational time, with the Judeo-Christian tradition and, in the contemporary period, with the modern West, even if according to some arguments its source can be traced to the beginning of agriculture and patriarchy. The notion of civilizational transition(s) designates the complex movement from the dominance of a single, allegedly globalized, model of life to the peaceful, though tense, coexistence of a multiplicity of models, a world where many worlds fit, a pluriverse. Today, this thought finds echo in a variety of social spaces, from indigenous, Afrodescendant and peasant struggles in Latin America to alternative science and futures research, spiritual ecology, and anti-capitalist, ecological, and feminist writing and activism in both the Global North and the Global South. In its contemporary form, the crisis was anticipated by anti-colonial thinkers such as Aimé Césaire (1972 [1955]:9), whose dictum, “[a] civilization that proves incapable of solving the problems it creates is a decadent civilization. [...] A civilization that uses its principles for trickery and deceit is a dying civilization,” is today echoed in many quarters. Similarly, the revered Buddhist teacher Thich Nhat Hanh (2008:55) calls on us to contemplate actively the end on the civilization that is causing global warming and pervasive consumerism: “Breathing in, I know this civilization is going to die. Breathing out, this civilization cannot escape dying.” To be sure, civilizations have come and go and many of them have had their own share Keywords Relationality Community Terricide Essay Degrowth  |  · degrowth 25 of coercive and at times imperiling elements. That said, it is indubitable that the West has progressively acquired a high degree of civilizational dominance, based on a measure of economic and political unification and technocientific progress. However, the project of a single global civilization has not come to pass. Nations and civilizations refuse to assemble neatly into a single global order, even though the global experience is deeply shaped by a Eurocentric, trans-Atlantic model. After more than five centuries of imposition of the Western colonial project, many native peoples continue to be alive and even culturally vibrant, even if permanently under attack and, one could say, under ontological occupation. The irrationality and violence of the dominant model are increasingly difficult to hide. Some critics underline the spiritual and existential poverty of modern life, given the spread of the patriarchal and capitalist ontology of hierarchy, domination, appropriation, control, and war that has come to characterize it. Generally speaking, one can say that one vision of the world has increasingly occupied other visions, disabling their worldmaking practices and potential to a significant degree. Ontological occupation takes place when a historically specific way of worlding occupies the imaginative space of other peoples and places, rendering their world making ability ineffectual. This process is never complete, not even at the heart of the European societies from where such ontology stemmed as non-dominant Europes and alternative Wests continue to be harbored and cultivated in their midst. A diverse and pluralistic movement calling for the end of Eurocentric and anthropocentric dominance is arising because of its drawbacks, failures and even horrors, despite its huge technological achievements (increasingly questionable on ecological and cultural grounds). In the Global North, the call for civilizational change can be gleaned in ecofeminist perspectives, proposals for degrowth, the defense of the commons, inter-religious dialogue, strategies for the localization of food, energy, and transport, and multiple forms of ecologically-oriented design, among other areas. In the Global South, visions of transition are grounded in ontologies that emphasize the radical inter-dependence of all that exists; this view assumes that human existence takes place within a living cosmos; it finds clear expression in notions of Buen Vivir (collective wellbeing according to one’s cosmovision), the Rights of Nature, postdevelopment, and transitions to postextractivism (see Escobar 2018; 2020). It is too early to say whether these loosely assembled heterogeneous visions and movements will achieve a degree of selforganization capable of ushering in significant transformations and perhaps large-scale transitions. For most transition theorists, while the outcome is by no means guaranteed, the move to a different civilizational model – or set of models – is not foreclosed. For many it is already happening in the multiplicity of practices that embody, despite limitations and contradictions, the values of deeply ecological, noncapitalist, nonpatriarchal, nonracist, and pluriversal societies. The notion of civilizational transitions establishes a horizon for the creation of broad political visions beyond the imaginaries of development and progress, and the universals of Western modernity such as capitalism, science, the economy, and the individual. It does not call for a return to ‘authentic traditions’ nor for forms of hybridity to be arrived at through the rational synthesis of the best traits of each civilization, as if the seductive but harmless liberal language of ‘best practices’ could be applied to civilizations. Far from it, this call adumbrates a pluralistic co-existence of civilizational projects, including those originating from the West’s own rethinking, through inter-civilizational dialogues that encourage contributions from beyond the current Eurocentric world order. It envisions the reconstitution of global governance along plural civilizational foundations, not only to avoid their clash but to constructively foster the flourishing of the pluriverse.2 I will not discuss the dominant civilizational model beyond a very broad conceptual characterization. Neither will I deal with the important question of transitions ‘from what to what,’ which is the subject of much transition and futures literatures. These are beyond the scope of this paper. I have a more specific aim, which is to point at some very general axes or principles for transition strategies that can be gleaned primarily from a variety of struggles, and secondarily from critical academic trends (there is often a connection between both). These are: the re-communalization of social life; the re-localization of social, economic, and cultural activities; the strengthening of local autonomies; the de-patriarchalization and de-racialization of social relations; the reintegration with the Earth; and the construction of meshworks among transformative initiatives and alternatives. But before I discuss these principles, I would like to highlight two overarching principles for thinking about transitions: the need to challenge and undermine the dominant view of the human, on the one hand; on the other, the notion of relationality or radical interdependence as a way of understanding life that sharply differs from the dominant dualistic ontology of the modern West. From the Terricide and the Dominance of ‘Man’ to Relationality as Life’s Foundation The Terricide as an Emergent Concept An axiom of the notion of civilizational transitions is that the current problems cannot be solved with the categories and historical experiences that created them. This point was recently brought home forcefully by a seemingly straightforward statement by the brilliant Mapuche activist Moira Millán (2016): “Necesitamos una revolución del pensamiento” (we need a revolution in our thought). It is revealing that this sentence was uttered not by a famous academic or philosopher but by an activist deeply committed to the struggle for the wellbeing of the Earth and her people. The conclusion she arrives at is no less instructive: that our current pensamiento is at the basis of what she and the South American Movement of Indigenous Women for Buen Vivir, which she co-founded, have come to name terricidio, or terricide: We define Terracide as the killing of tangible ecosystems, the spiritual ecosystem, and that of the pueblos (peoples) and of all forms of life. Confronted with the terricide, we declare ourselves to be in permanent struggle, The notion of civilizational transitions establishes a horizon for the creation of broad political visions beyond the imaginaries of development and progress, and the universals of Western modernity such as capitalism, science, the economy, and the individual. It does not call for a return to ‘authentic traditions’ nor for forms of hybridity to be arrived at through the rational synthesis of the best traits of each civilization, as if the seductive but harmless liberal language of ‘best practices’ could be applied to civilizations. Far from it, this call adumbrates a pluralistic co-existence of civilizational projects.  |  · degrowth 27 resistance, and re-existence against this system. [...] [W]e summon all peoples to build a new civilizational matrix that embraces Buen Vivir [good living, collective wellbeing] as a Right. Buen Vivir implies the retrieval of harmony and reciprocity among peoples and with nature. Summoned by the memory of our ancestors and the memory of the lands and landscapes that inhabit us, we have agreed on the creation of the Movement of Pueblos against Terricide.3 One could say that the terricide emerges as a parallel concept to the Anthropocene; however, it doesn’t lend itself so readily to managerial and technoscientific approaches. It decenters the “Anthropos” and, hence, its thinking, more effectively, thus posing the question: is it possible to free contemporary thought – whether in daily life or in the academy – from the constraints under which it currently thinks, to enable it to think otherwise? For the women struggling against terricide this can only be achieved by re-embedding ourselves in the land and seeing ourselves deeply as belonging to the Earth and to the stream of life, as many indigenous and territorialized peoples have done for thousands of years. This starting point diverges from most academic theorizing, it provides us with a direct route into the space where relationality abides. The concept of terricide brings forth the need for a mode of accessing the current planetary predicament capable of taking us beyond the categories with which we currently think, make, and purport to amend the world. Is it happening? Is modern thought, in whatever guise (from mainstream liberal notions to contemporary Marxist, deconstructive, and postdualist approaches), capacious enough to help us see, and hopefully escape from, the great edifice it has built for itself and which provides the sturdy conceptual architecture of contemporary global designs? Or are we rather confronted with the fact that the contemporary crisis puts in evidence once and for all the insufficiency, when not lethality, of modern modes of thought and existence to deal with the crisis? Confronted with the globalization of “a hegemonic mode of civilizational ‘(mal-)development’,” the only conclusion possible, as Hosseini and Gills (2020:1350) argue, is that our modes of thinking have to be “radically transformed” in order to become radically transformative. This much is clear: that we can no longer solve modern problems solely or perhaps even primarily with the same categories that created them – growth, competition, progress, rationality, individuality, economy, even science and critique. Transitioning into new modes of existence requires different categories and modes of understanding, which takes us into the territory of relationality. Modernity’s default setting: the secular liberal mono-humanist notion of the human At stake here is a novel calling into question of any universal idea of ‘Man’, on the one hand, and the reemergence of “relationality” as a foundation of all life. To start with Man: there have been many problematizations of modern notions of the human, most famously perhaps Michel Foucault’s (1970) argument about the figure of Man as the foundation of all knowledge, as both subject and object of his own discourses, that crystallized with the modern episteme or knowledge configuration at the end of the eighteenth century. The entire field of post-humanism is devoted to discussing the possibility of exiting the ontoepistemic regime of Man. It is not my intention to discuss these trends here. I will rather highlight a particularly revealing framing of the question of Man, by Jamaican philosopher Sylvia Wynter, whose concept of a domineering mono-humanist model of the human (originating in Europe during the second half of the eighteenth century) I find particularly powerful for understanding both the current civilization malaise produced by monohumanism (including climate change) and the possibility of constructing an ecumenical horizon for humanity. Wynter posits a two-step process for the emergence of Man, the first of which accounts for the end of Christian theocentrism with the Renaissance, yielding a rational view of Man, the subject of the budding civic humanism of homo politicus, which she calls Man1. This shift from Christian cosmology to rational worldview was catalyzed by the conquest of America; it was indispensable for the emergence of Man2, a fully biocentric and economized view of the human.4 Man2 was grounded on a particular rendering of biological evolution in terms of natural selection, Malthus’s theory of resource scarcity, and the figure of homo oeconomicus ushered in by the then nascent science of political economy. Man2 implies a mono-humanist view of the human that is Western, bourgeois, secular, and liberal. Its dominant Darwinian/ Malthusian and economic macronarrative was pivoted on the principle of race and imbricated with capitalism; ever since, the experience of all humans became increasingly subjected to the imperatives of accumulation. Wynter appeals to Fanon to propose a move beyond the bio-economic genre of the human – which she magnificently deconstructs as “Man2’s biocosmogonical and Darwinianchartered ethno-class descriptive statement,” (Wynter 2015: 42). Wynter finds inspiration in Fanon’s notable conception of the human as simultaneously and inextricably biological and social – summarized in the formula, “Beside ontogeny and phylogeny stands sociogeny” (Fanon 1967:110), which he uses to explain the dialectic of black skins/white masks confronting all Black people –, and in W.E.B Dubois’ (1903) notion that the key problem of the twentieth century is “the problem of the color line.” In these and others works, Wynter finds a referentwe or genre of the human markedly different from the cosmogony of secular liberal Man. Her expansion of Fanon leads her to emphasize that the human is not only biology but is also shaped by cultural codes, origin narratives, and storytelling and that these become wired in the brain and behavior – in short, that the human is also always homo narrans; this principle applies even to the allegedly rational narrative of Western Man as naturally bioeconomic, which accounts for how difficult it is to change it as the dominant default setting for the human. Sociogenetically, for Fanon and Dubois, the black person is compelled to experience herself or himself as both normally and abnormally human, being and nonbeing, as the “dysselected” par excellence, leading to Wynter’s (2015:16) conclusion of the human as inevitably hybrid: “phylogeny, ontogeny and sociogeny, together, define what it is to be human [...] With this hypothesis, should it prove to be true, our system of knowledge as we have it now, goes.” For Wynter, then, it is high time that we, so-called modern humans, bring the laws of the dominant genre of the human fuller into conscious awareness, with a view at loosening its hold, which in turn requires reinterpreting modern modes of consciousness and ways of organizing societies and economies as fully historically constituted and, hence, amenable to change. Not easy, as these genres are powerfully implanted by multiple narratives in collective culture as a sort of ‘second set of instructions.’ The following question summarizes the argument up to this point: How to envision a system, then, that would no longer follow a biocentric naturally selected/ dysselected bioevolutionary teleological logic and [that] necessitates accumulation, but rather engenders a worldview and outlook, reconceptualized, in new meta-Darwinian terms, from the ecumenically human hybrid perspective of our Third Event origin as a species as homo narrans? (Wynter 2015:44). The philosophical and political implications of Wynter’s intervention are enormous, since they articulate the need to search for figures of the human outside Western humanism. Essential to this search is Wynter’s placing of Man within modernity/coloniality, meaning how it is marked by the confluence of racism, capitalism, and discourses of the survival of the fittest. The response must come in the form of the creation of a new horizon of humanity that enables an ecumenically open view of the human. Short of this, any proposal for dealing with the great problems of the day, including climate change,  |  · degrowth 29 “are going to be devastating” (Wynter 2015:25) first of all for Earth and the global poor (see Akomolafe 2020; Fry and Tlostanova 2021 for a similar point). One might posit the question as follows: How to move towards a humanism that embraces co-eval and pluriversal genres of being human, while preventing reabsorption into the regime of Man? Wynter thus opens a path for a significant “refiguring of humanness” (Ferreira da Silva 2015) that is essential for working through the onto-epistemic predicaments of modern social theory and ontology. As South African feminist Zimitri Eramus (2020:62) concludes in her excellent exposition of Wynter’s thought, in the last instance we arrive at the realization that “Living beings bring forth their worlds by what they do. Life is universal. Its modes are pluriversal”. Relationality as a Reemerging Understanding of the Fundament of Life Pluriversality is a key for transitions. It means, on the one hand, the transition from an allegedly globalized world made up of a single world, that of capitalist modernity, to a world where many worlds fit (see, e.g., Kothari, Salleh, Escobar, Demaria & Acosta, 2019). But it also refers to life’s ceaselessly unfolding character, its continued co-emergence out of the dynamics of matter and energy. At the crux of it, for biologist Lynn Margulis, is the notion that Life both produces (i.e., autopoietically selfmaintains) and reproduces itself. Life is, above all, a “sentient symphony,” “matter gone wild, capable of choosing its own direction in order to indefinitely forestall the inevitable moment of thermodynamic equilibrium – death. [...] It is consciousness and even self-consciousness” (Margulis and Sagan 1995:213). Life is history and process through and through, from the get-go. Life is relation, flow, impermanence, contact, and endless transformation – in short, pluriverse. Humans (Man2) have forgotten this fundamental dynamic of life. The notion of relationality is emerging as a cogent alternative foundation for Life and the human to that established by the modern ontology of separation. Ontological dualism has brought about a profound disconnection between humans and the nonhuman world, bestowing all rights on humans. Such disconnection is at the root of the contemporary crisis. Thus, the key to constructing livable worlds must lie in the cultivation of ways of knowing and acting based on a profound awareness of the fundamental interdependence of everything that exists. This shift in vision is necessary for healing our bodies, ecosystems, cities, and the planet at large – in short, for civilizational transitions (Escobar, 2021a). The ontological perspective is this essential to make the case that what is at stake is the very notion of the real. That said, it is essential to be aware that ontological premises are embedded in narratives and enacted through multiple practices in all kinds of social domains. One may say that ontologies – whether of Man2 or interdependence – are performed in practice, enabling and indelibly shaping who we are and the worlds we construct; they emerge historically and become designing events in the present (Escobar 2018, for a thorough explanation of this ontological perspective). The modern scientific and economistic worldview instills in us a cosmovision that divides the world into subjects and objects, a world we can understand and manipulate at will. This objectivizing operation is a main pillar of modern Western civilization and all the ‘-isms’ that have accompanied it; it is at the basis of the separation between subject and object, reason and emotion, us and them, human and nonhuman, and many other dualisms. The very world that we collectively design under the premise of separation in turn (re)creates us as beings who experience ourselves as intrinsically separate individuals. This model may be so commonsense that it may not even occur to us to be a kind of worldview, or cosmovision, or ontology. Nevertheless, there exist many other cosmos, reals, and possibles that do not abide by the presupposition of separation; nonseparation, or interdependence, is the condition of all living things, including, paradoxically, under the condition of the artificial. This is to say that things, including ourselves, do not exist quite so independently of one another as we suppose (Sharma 2015). The objectivizing stance prevents us from coexisting with the full range of human and other living beings in a collaborative manner that is wiser in its relationship with the Earth. It creates a single reality from which all other senses of the real are excluded, profoundly limiting the scope of the political. Questioning this belief in a single reality means developing an entirely different understanding of change and transformation. It is precisely because other possibles have been turned into ‘impossibles’ – a crucial aspect of defuturing – that we find it so difficult to imagine other realities. Speaking of other possibles forces us to rethink many of our everyday practices and politics (Escobar 2020). Recent decades have seen the rise of struggles by social groups located on the downgraded side of colonial binaries: black and indigenous peoples, women, peasants, sexual minorities, marginalized urban dwellers. From these subaltern realities we now get a wide variety of proposals for worlding life on different or new premises. Many of these proposals are based on the awareness that everything unfolds within meshworks of interrelations. Understanding these struggles as instances of the political activation of relationality is the beginning of a long journey towards relational living. Tools for relational existence are also found in a whole range of sources, from quantum physics and biological complexity to the most recent postdualist and posthumanist social theories, and from longstanding spiritual practices, such as animism, Daoism and Buddhism to contemporary interest in sacred plants, plant consciousness, shamanic experience, and Earth spiritualties. The key point here is to develop an acute understanding that all entities are the result of manifold sets of relations, as in the ancestral notion of ubuntu in Southern Africa, inter-being in Buddhism, and multiple other notions. One of the most naturalized binaries of the modern age is that between secularism and spirituality. Based on the split between humanity and nature and the matter/spirit and reason/faith divides, modernity’s compulsory secularization simply banished the sacred from social life, reducing it to a matter of individual choice. The academy, and the entire technoscientific world, easily followed suit, to the extent that even today it is still almost impossible to speak about spirituality in the academy. This is changing, however, and a return to the sacred, in multiple guises, is becoming a noticeable trend among many women, indigenous, Black, and environmental movements and collectives. Arguments for the re-sacralization of life are being made even in economics (e.g., Eisenstein 2013; NorbergHodge 2019). These calls are a reflection of the painful devastation of the Earth; a growing number of transition intellectual-activists are loudly making the case that the sacred is the very essence of life, something that indigenous traditions, of course, have known all along. Life is relation, flow, impermanence, contact, and endless transformation – in short, pluriverse. [...] Thus, the key to constructing livable worlds must lie in the cultivation of ways of knowing and acting based on a profound awareness of the fundamental interdependence of everything that exists. This shift in vision is necessary for healing our bodies, ecosystems, cities, and the planet at large – in short, for civilizational transitions.  |  · degrowth 31 Given that secular power, scientific rationality, and modern technology have been three of the main instruments by which the West has been able to impose its will on many other cultures and faiths, the obstacles to resacralizing modern social life seem unsurmountable; this is a key challenge for the politics of relationality.5 The shift in cosmovision toward relationality has the potential to deeply affect the ways in which we live, think, and act. It is because we have failed to understand that the currently dominant non-relational worldview–ontological dualism–is at the heart of many of the most insidious problems of our day that we have not been able to adequately address them. Many of the dominant practices, institutions, and designs actively work to make this constitutive relationality invisible. Moving towards healing our bodies, ecosystems, cities, and the planet demands an authentic remaking of our customary modes of being, acting, and thinking in tune with the interdependent basis of existence. A main aspect of the reemergence of relationality is illuminating the passage from toxic modes of existence to the kinds of relational, collaborative, and healing worlds which we might be able to co-design with multiple human and nonhuman others. There are momentous implications for transition strategies based on the insight of relationality. Working against the grain of the prevailing logic of separation and unsustainability would involve a significant reorientation of established practices; only slowly will we discover the considerable potential of acting and designing from interdependence, care, and repair. At stake is the crafting of a language that articulates a robust notion of change, transformation, and designing as a mindful and effective praxis for the healing of the web of life. Such language may ground an ethics and politics capable of giving us a different sense of being at home in a world of aliveness (Weber 2020). The thought of relationality encourages us to disabuse ourselves from the naïve realism instilled in us by heteropatriarchal capitalism, modern technoscience, and the media; this process implies recommunalizing, reconnecting, relocalizing, de-individualizing, in short, re-realizing ourselves otherwise. Axes and principles of strategies for transitions I would like to share my own sense of principles and strategies for transitions, in the context of the CoVid-19 pandemic and beyond. Transitions and transition design have been an active focus of research and practice for some time (Escobar 2018). What follows is a schematic rendition of the tentative argument to which I have arrived (Escobar 2021b). It takes the form of suggesting six axes for thinking about strategies for transitions, whether through design or through many other forms of collective action. I should mention that they are inextricably related to each other; one may start working along any of the axis and will inevitably run into other ones; in this way, there is not a key or pivotal strategy, all are at the same level of importance. I should also emphasize that this is one possible framing for transition strategies, one drawn primarily from Latin American experiences; as I mentioned in the introduction, however, is one that I see as emerging from collective process from below, so to speak. It resonates with transition visions being offered from other sites and perspectives. responded to this critique elsewhere (Escobar 2020). Suffice it say here that at the heart of this question is the criteria for assessing the effectivity of diverse forms of politics. Thinking in terms of articulations, alliances, convergences, and rhizomic or meshwork processes of connection among place-based transformative alternatives provides a partial answer. This kind of thinking is crucial so that they are not dismissed as unviable, ineffective, small, unrealistic, or non-credible alternatives to what exist. Geographers J. K. Gibson-Graham (2002: 34, 35) have revealed the globalocentric nature of a great deal of these critiques. Most of these critics, they suggest, The re-communalization of social life Globalization has entailed an uncompromising war against everything that is communal and collective, in its always intensifying effort at creating consumers who see themselves as individuals making decisions solely in market terms. Yet history teaches us that human experience has largely been placed-based and communal. We must actively resist modern capitalism’s ever more efficient ways of making us feel as if we are individuals isolated from family, kin, and society. A locally-oriented life is one lived in relationship with the humans and other forms of life around us, including, for many peoples, the spiritual world. The symbiotic co-emergence of living beings and their worlds results in what Gutiérrez Aguilar (2017) calls “communitarian entanglements” that make us kin to everything that is alive. Oaxacan activists refer to this dynamic as the condición nosótrica de ser, the we-condition of being. If we see ourselves nosótricamente, we cannot but adopt the principles of love, care, and compassion as ethics of living, starting with our home, place, and community (Esteva and Guerrero 2018; Guerrero 2019). Recommunalization does not entail isolation but is rather a condition for a greater sharing and interconnectedness that is rooted on a re-woven fabric of life that is more collective and integrated with the entire span of the non-human. We can bring this orientation of compartencia (“sharingness”) to our thoughts and actions when we want to deepen our understanding of what makes a resilient community, or when we imagine creating entirely new communities. A common counterclaim is that communities are often the site of forms of domination and oppression, particularly in gender and generational terms. This is indeed the case in nearly all really existing communities, and strategies of recommunalization must take existing power relations into account. Another common counter-claim is that recommunalization strategies are too localistic or ‘romantic’. I have Do not see themselves as powerfully constituted by globalization. The realists see the world as taken over by global capitalism, the new Empire. The deconstructionists see a dominant discourse of globalization that is setting the political and policy agenda. In different ways, they both stand outside globalization, and see it ‘as it is’–yet the power of globalization seems to have colonized their political imaginations. The very question of the political effectiveness of a given strategy is laden with discursive operations and emotional attachments that need to be made explicit as part of the process of making up our minds about it. Moving towards the realization of multiple reals and possibles is an antidote against globalocentric thinking. Each social group and locality will have to come up with its unique set of recommunalizing strategies, attuned to place, landscape, and diversity. But I do not believe any social group today can escape this predicament; we (especially those of us in modern secular liberal social orders) have lived far too long as allegedly autonomous individual; this fiction must go, once and for all. Whether in the Global South or the Global North, in rural areas or urban territories, we are bound to reweave our relations to others based on care and respect; this reweaving needs to be genuinely relational. It is a fact that communities today are ineluctably open, connected, and traversed by de-communalizing economic and digital pressures; this makes the process difficulty but also enlivening (Manzini 2019). Two salient and interrelated challenges to recommunalization that deserve further attention, and which I can only name here, are the delocalizing and individualizing effects of digitalization, exacerbated by the hypertrophy of virtuality fostered by the pandemic; and the de-communalizing, consumerist, and antiecological effects of the middle-class model of urban living, naturalized through spatial designs as the most desirable manner of modern living. Both problems would require lengthy treatment beyond the scope of this paper.  |  · degrowth 33 The Re-Localization of Social, Economic, and Cultural Activities Human communities have historically experienced movement and regroupings. Delocalizing pressures, or the unchosen movement of people from their local lands (often imposed through force, from the transatlantic slave trade to today’s refugee crises and economic and politically motivated massive displacement and migration in many regions of the South), however, has increased exponentially with global capitalism and development. We see this in the forced and dramatic dispossession of people and their communities by large-scale extractivist projects, such as logging in rain forests, large-scale mining, or the rapid expansion of agrofuel plantations, such as oil palm and sugar cane. We need to oppose these delocalizing pressures given their high social and ecological costs. The CoVid pandemic is fostering a new awareness that capitalist globalization is not inevitable when our survival as individuals and a species seems threatened. As Gustavo Esteva (2020) states, CoVid reestablishes the importance of the local. Regaining our rootedness in the local means re-locating life-essential activities back in the places where we live to the extent possible. Food is one of the most crucial arenas, and it is also where a lot of communalitarian innovation is occurring in many world regions. Food sovereignty, agroecology, seed saving, commons, slow food, and urban gardens are instances of this renewed turn back to the local; at their best, these innovations also break with patriarchal, racist, and capitalist ways of living. Though taking place at the local and regional levels, these and similar initiatives might foster transformations of national and international food production systems. They could lead to a renewed understanding of the value of commonly held land, and to re-weaving ties that once flourished between cities and the surrounding countryside. Returning to the local means recovering the capacity for making life across a range of active verbs-strategies: to eat, to learn, to heal, to dwell, to build, rather than in terms of passive services provided by institutions and their experts (food, health, education, housing). Not everything, of course, can be relocalized, but many activities can, as recent approaches to degrowth and the commons argue. A recent inspiring, hands-on volume ably demonstrates why commons and commoning involve manners of rearranging the social from an explicitly relational perspective, one that transcends the individualist ontology of modern life. In it, the expansion of the “Commonsverse” relies on “the deeper wisdom of the commons, which accepts the idea of distributed, local, and diverse acts of commoning whose very aliveness produces the creativity and commitment to develop solutions adapted to every context” (Bollier & Helfrich 2019:205). Encouraging examples are found in many domains, including farmers’ movements, collaborative digital platforms, organizing of housing and buildings as commons, seed sharing, energy localism, collective rights, novel types of financing, commons-public partnerships, and community charters. New information technologies – particularly distributed ledgers and blockchain and holochain technologies – are central to many of these efforts; by fostering digital commons, they provide infrastructures to commoning economies, languages, and cultures. The Strengthening of Autonomy Local autonomy is the political correlate of recommunalization and re-localization. Without autonomy, movement toward reweaving the communal would only go half-way or might be re-absorbed by newer forms of delocalized re-globalization. There has been a vibrant debate on autonomía in Latin America since the 1994 Zapatista uprising (Esteva 2005, 2015, 2019; Leyva-Solano 2019; Dinnerstein 2015). Autonomy is thought at times as the radicalization of direct democracy, but also as a new manner of conceiving and enacting politics. Autonomy involves reimagining politics as the inescapable process that emerges from the entanglement of humans among themselves and with the Earth, but oriented to reconfiguring power in less hierarchical ways, based on principles such as sufficiency, mutual aid, and the self-determination of the norms of living. All of this requires thinking about a strategic overturning of relations with the heteronomous orders of capitalism and the state. In many parts of the world, autonomy is at the crux of a great deal of political mobilization but also of less openly political practices. At its best, autonomy is a theory and practice of inter-existence and of designing for and with the pluriverse (Escobar 2018). These first three action-thinking orientations aim to create dignified livelihood conditions by revisioning space and place in terms of territories of life binding together human and more-than-human entities. The re-sacralization of life could be an important process in this regard. There are many clues for this project among those groups who, even during the CoVid-19 pandemic, have continued to be dedicated to the production of their own lives, constructing instead of destroying, reuniting instead of separating. These are tangible and actionable principles of re-designing required for a selective but substantial de-globalization. We can intuit the end of globalization as we know it, or the beginning of a globalization in different terms, such as the paradigm of cuidado, or care (Swampa 2020), in which case it might not even be called globalization, or at the very least (as this journal purports) to pluralize it: globalizations. Autonomy requires re-thinking the economy in terms of everyday solidarity, reciprocity, and conviviality. In the modern era, economics has at once made the economy central to our lives but also separated it from the homes, communities, and places that we are and inhabit. Can we re-design local, regional, national, and even trans-national economies to favor relationships, the commons, and placebased living? Can we decenter the capitalist economy from the place of pride it has been accorded in social life and remove its profitmotives out of our labor and markets? The Simultaneous Decolonization, De-Patriarchalization, and De-Racialization of Social Relations Patriarchy is so entrenched in our personal thoughts and desires, that it can seem impossible to transform it, much less dismantle it. This is so because patriarchy, while being a social, economic, cultural, and political system, is also, and primarily, an ontology that privileges separation, hierarchy, appropriation, denial of others, control, and not infrequently, violence and war (e.g., Maturana & Verden-Zöller 2008; Segato 2016, 2018). If we are to inhabit new ways of living, we must identify, question, and challenge the patriarchal assumptions that are such a natural part of our lives. We are reminded of the stakes at hand by the Latin American feminist dictum that there is no decolonization without de-patriarchalization and de-racialization of social relations. To depatriarchalize and de-racialize requires repairing the damage caused by the heteropatriachal white capitalist ontology, practicing a “politics in the feminine” centered on the reappropiation [...] we (especially those of us in modern secular liberal social orders) have lived far too long as allegedly autonomous individual; this fiction must go, once and for all. Whether in the Global South or the Global North, in rural areas or urban territories, we are bound to reweave our relations to others based on care and respect; this reweaving needs to be genuinely relational.  |  · degrowth 35 of collectively produced goods and the reproduction of life (Segato 2016; Gutiérrez Aguilar 2017). In places inhabited by racialized and ethnicized women, such politics involves following the peaceful reconstitution of their territories, as the Afro-Colombian philosopher Elba Palacios (2019:143) suggests in her work with poor Afro-descendant Black women in Cali, Colombia: “In their territories, women give birth to life and to modes of re-existence”; the women teach us that [...] to re-exist means much more than resist; it involves the creation and transformation of autonomy in defense of life, through a sort of contemporary urban marronage that enables them to reconstitute their negated humanity, reweaving communities in the historical diaspora. (Palacios 2019:150) This feminist and antiracist optic is essential to understand and strengthen the processes of recommunalization and relocalization in many places; it can be seen at play in Black Lives Matter movements in various world regions (Lozano 2018; Hartman 2019 for the historical experience of young black women in the US). This emphasis is particularly well articulated by the diverse movement of communitarian feminisms led by Mayan and Aymara activistintellectuals, such as Gladys Tzul Tzul (2018), Julieta Paredes (2012), and Lorena Cabnal. Tzul Tzul highlights the potential of the communal as horizon for the struggle and as a space for the continuous reconstitution of life. Her perspective is absolutely historical and antiessentialist; it stems from reflection on the entramados comunitarios (communitarian entanglements), with all the forms of power that traverse them.6 From this perspective, the reconstitution of life’s web of relations in a communitarian manner is one of the most fundamental challenges faced by any transition strategy. As stated by Argentinean anthropologist Rita Segato (2016:106) [W]e need to advance this politics day by day, outside the State: to re–weave the communal fabric as to restore the political character of domesticity proper of the communal [...] To choose the relational path is to opt for the historical project of being community. [...] It means to endow relationality and the communal forms of happiness with a grammar of value and resistance capable of counteracting the powerful developmentalist, exploitative, and productivist rhetoric of things with its alleged meritocracy. The strategy, from now on, is feminine. This feminist relational politics needs to be incorporated into many, or all, transition practices. It should be emphasized that feminine in this context is intended to revalue women’s historical links to body, place, and community and women’s ethics of care, but within a thoroughly depatriarchalized and deracialized care perspective. In other words, it unsettles the patriarchal imposition on women to be relational care takers while denying them autonomy over their bodies and economies. As feminist social and solidarity economist Natalia Quiroga (2020) puts it, if capitalism cannot exist without patriarchy, the corollary is that the entire economy (and economics) needs to be depatriarchalized and reconstituted under the principle of the care of life for all (see also Acosta, García and Munck, eds. 2021). The Re-Integration with the Earth We arrive, necessarily, to the Earth – Gaia, Pachamama, co-emergence, self-organization, symbiosis –, drawing on indigenous cosmovisions as much as on contemporary scientific theory. There exists a core, indubitable fact: we live on a planet of profound interdependence. Nothing exists apart from the geological eras and biological evolution that preceded it. New forms of life are always in the process of co-arising. For Lynn Margulis (1998:126), “Gaia, as the interweaving network of all life, is alive, aware, and conscious to various degrees in all its cells, bodies, and societies.” We need to hold this notion of an ever-changing Earth in sight when attempting to put theory into practice. The concept of terricide is an expression of how far modern humans have strayed from this realization. Another instantiation of the need for an Earth-focused existence comes from the Nasa indigenous people of Northern Cauca in Colombia’s southwest. For nearly two decades, their Social and Communitarian Minga has articulated the concept-movement of the Liberation of Mother Earth, as part of their strategy of ‘weaving life in liberty’. As they say, Earth has been enslaved, and as long as she is enslaved, all living beings on the planet are also enslaved. “This struggle,” they say, “comes out of Northern Cauca, but it is not Northern Cauca’s struggle. It comes from the Nasa people, but it doesn’t belong to the Nasa people. Because life itself is at risk when the earth is exploited in the capitalist way, which throws the climate, the ecosystems, everything out of balance.” As they hasten to clarify, it is a project for everybody, since we are all Earth and pluriverse. “Every liberated farm, here or in any corner of the world, is a territory that adds to reestablishing the balance of Uma Kiwe [Mother Earth]. This is our common house, our only one. Yes, indeed: come on in, the door is open.”7 What does it mean to accept this invitation, whether in the countryside or in the city, in the Global South or the Global North? The Liberation of Mother Earth, conceived from the cosmocentrism and cosmoaction of peoples-territory such as the Nasa, invites us to disoñar (‘dreamagine’) different worldings, propitious to the reconstitution of the web of life, the sustainment of the territories, and communalized forms of economy, wherever we are. The liberation of Mother Earth, as an imaginary for peoples and collectives, is not a utopian project. World-wide, Earth-centered struggles and knowledges are giving form to an emergent onto-epistemic and political space. This convergence has become more noticeable in the wake of the multiplicity of struggles triggered by resistance to the brutal extractivism of the past few decades, in the conviction that the devastation of the planet is not an inevitable destiny (Toro 2020). In the multiple expressions of environmental discourse, as in indigenous, Black, peasant, feminist and ecological struggles, there exist an entire archive of categories and practices to think paths to concrete transitions and the reearthing of cities, economies, and social life. While discussing this trend is beyond the scope of this paper, it is important to mention that new paradigms of relation between humans and the Earth find unexpected inspiration in nonhuman living beings, including, notably, fungi, forests, plants, and sacred plants (e.g., Simard 2021; Gagliano 2018; Ryan, Vieira and Gagliano, eds. 2021; Vargas 2020, 2021) and in cultures and ontologies that have lived with the strong awareness that the Earth is alive, such as animistic and other indigenous peoples’ ontologies (e.g., Weber 2020; Kohn 2013; Ingold 2011; Hardin 2009, in Weber). An entire field of plant cognition and communication is flourishing at the interface of several biological and communications sciences, and the whole question of ‘the mind of plants’ is reverberating with insights and narratives of life that intuitively and analytically make important inroads into relationality, enticing humans into new modes of sensingthinking and being that transcend modern humans’ enduring separation from plants. The Construction of Meshworks Among Transformative Initiatives and Alternatives This last axis points to the need to encourage the convergence and articulation of genuinely transformative alternatives, particularly from below. Although transitions will necessarily involve many kinds of articulatory initiatives, there is a growing recognition about the need to build bridges among ‘radical alternatives’, meaning by this those based on relational and pluralistic worldviews. The project of fostering the creation of self-organizing meshworks, or networks of networks, such alternatives have been tackled by a growing number of collective undertakings. The Global Tapestry of Alternatives, a project centered on bringing together local and regional networks of radical alternatives, is a case in point. For the gta, radical alternatives are defined  |  · degrowth 37 as initiatives that are attempting to break with the dominant system and take paths towards direct and radical forms of political and economic democracy, localized selfreliance, social justice and equity, cultural and knowledge diversity, and ecological resilience. Their locus is neither the state nor the capitalist economy. They are advancing in the process of dismantling most forms of hierarchies, assuming the principles of sufficiency, autonomy, nonviolence, justice and equality, solidarity, and the caring of life and the Earth. They do this in an integral way, not limited to a single aspect of life. Although such initiatives may have links with capitalist markets and the State, they prioritize their autonomy to avoid significant dependency on them and tend to reduce, as much as possible, any relationship with them. This last axis reflects the fact that there is no longer a clear understanding of what constitutes significant social transformation (‘systemic change’), whether in activist or social theory spaces. This is an open question, originating in the recognition that neither liberal not established Marxists perspectives on this question are sufficient or up to the task. The issues are complex, including attempts to rethink scale, global/local binaries, criteria of change, and the nature of politics itself (e.g., pro-autonomy, grassrootsoriented pluriversal politics versus established counter-hegemonic politics at the level of capital and the State). Una revolución del pensamiento – rethinking thought itself – also implies, after all, a re-imagining of politics. Fostering meshworks among transformative alternatives from below only provides a standpoint from which to tackle the key question of ‘systemic change’ in the face of unbounded crises. The larger question – on the character of crises and how to deal with them effectively – is so complex that it demands other epistemologies and politics. This point has been cogently made by Akomolafe (2020), for whom climate change is not a problem that organizations can draw lines around and manage; this is because it is “ontologically unframable, unthinkable and incalculable.” Tony Fry and Madina Tlostanova (2021) similarly argue that existing academic practices and epistemologies are incapable of comprehending the complexity of the compounded crises. New ways of understanding this unprecedented complexity are necessary to inform effective policy and politics. Short of this, institutions and policy will only perpetuate the defuturing pressures, perpetually increasing the risk for the planet (the sixth extinction, exponential growth of social and political unrest), unable to deliver viable futures. The political imaginaries these authors call for go beyond Euro-modern perspectives (those of Wynter’s Man2), transhumanism and techno-utopianism, and even beyond most critical theory at present. Constructing the conditions for such innovative imaginaries becomes one of the most important intellectual-political tasks of our time. At stake here is a novel calling into question of any universal idea of ‘Man’. I believe that in the work being undertaken at the onto-epistemic and social margins and peripheries of the worlds where Man still reigns (and this includes the academy) we might find auspicious points of departure. Concluding Thoughts “When we think with the audacity of world builders,” the practitioner-theorists from the Boston-based Design Studio for Social Intervention tell us, “We begin to see not just new ways of fighting for a more just and vibrant society, but whole new ideas about what that world might be like” (Design Studio 2020:11). This is an eloquent statement of the transition design imagination. What does it mean to imagine ourselves as designers of everyday life, as people capable of envisioning other possibles and bringing them within practical reach? What profound rearrangements are we yearning for? What could our families, our communities, our daily lives be like? It could be argued that the onto-epistemic supremacy of Man has become more engulfing with globalized capitalism than at any point in history. The conjunction of economic rationality and an enduring competitive, controlling, and often violent patriarchal ethos, backed by technoscience and endorsed by the techno gurus of the moment, seems to be as naturalized and dominant today as ever. Almost anywhere one looks, one sees instances of life being damaged, capitalist patriarchs busy at work bent on controlling, extracting, and dispossessing peoples from their territories of life. As the artificial becomes a new horizon for being, shaping ever more indelibly our very relatedness to human and nonhuman worlds, a significant rethinking of technoscience from relational perspectives becomes imperative. Modern social theory faces significant limits in dealing with many of these issues, including providing a compelling account of relationality in other than very abstract terms. These limits have four dimensions. First, because of its abstract character modern social theory leaves out the realm of embodiment, practice, and experience, which is essential to understand the relational making of the world. Second, it forgets that the question of the human takes different forms for differently located and embodied humans, especially for those exposed to the symbolic and bodily violence associated with ‘Universal Man’, such as those subjected to colonialism. Consequently, third, modern thought evinces a certain blindness to its own historical locus of enunciation within the regime of Man, most poignantly brought into view by the question of whose idea of the human are we talking about? Fourth, the separation between theory and practice causes theorists and critics by and large to stay in the safe academic abode, from which they/we imagine other kinds of worlds and politics, but without engaging with the active life- and worldmaking practices on the ground where politics is actively negotiated and lived. Each of these factors have marred modern social theory’s ability to arrive at a fully relational conception of Life. Moving along transition paths poses clear challenges to thought, so that thinking-doingbeing otherwise becomes a must (see Hosseini & Gills 2020). This is an essential aspect of the exploration of civilizational transitions, for, as Akomolafe (2019) states referring to the implications of the Anthropocene, [W]e are all fugitives. Or at least those of us gestating in modern worlds who have been touched by the material yearnings for stability and progress. We are being chased. The relentless curdling of the edges, the splashing of threatening ocean waves, the dimming of the sun by the dust in the air, and the disappearance of bees, all conspire to remove the post-Ice Age refuge we have long known as home. The ground has withdrawn her endorsement: we are no longer at ease. Where do we go, then, in this groundless age of loss and wonder (Ogden 2021), which, paradoxically, takes us closer to Earth, to the sacred, to the spirit, to other forms of the human, that is, to those domains from which modern social theory had largely withdrawn? What does it mean to imagine ourselves as designers of everyday life, as people capable of envisioning other possibles and bringing them within practical reach? What profound rearrangements are we yearning for? What could our families, our communities, our daily lives be like?  |  · degrowth 39 Arturo Escobar <aescobar@email.unc.edu> Emeritus Professor of Anthropology University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and Adjunct Professor, PhD Program in Design and Creation, Manizales, Colombia and PhD Program in Environmental Sciences, Cali, Colombia. He is an activist-researcher from Cali, Colombia, working on territorial struggles against extractivism, postdevelopmentalist and post-capitalist transitions, and ontological design. His most well-known book is Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World (1995, 2nd Ed. 2011). His most recent books are Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical Interdependence, Autonomy, and the Making of Worlds (2018), and Pluriversal Politics: The Real and the Possible (2020). In April 2021 he was selected as a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. 40 111 | santiago, chile notes 1. This article was previously published in the magazine Globalizations on November 30, 2021. There, the author indicated the following acknowledgments: my special thanks to Antti Tarvainen and Barry Gills for encouraging me to prepare this submission, and to the three anonymous reviewers for their substantial and constructive comments; to Michal Osterweil and Kriti Sharma for our collaborative writing project on relationality, which is a main inspiration for this article; and to those in the collective activist projects in which I am participating at present: The Global Tapestry of Alternatives (globaltapestryofalternives.org), the Latin American Ecosocial Pact of the South (pactoecosocialdelsur.com); and the Cali-based transition design project, bringing together activists and academics to imagine a regional transition for the Cauca river valley region in Colombia. Design Studio for Social Intervention. Ideas, Arrangements, Effects. Systems Design and Social Justice. Colchester, NY: Minor Compositions/Autonomedia, 2020. DuBOIS, W. E. B. The Souls of Black Folk. Chicago, IL: A. C. McClurg & Co., 1903. eISeNSTeIN, Charles. Sacred Economics. Money, Gift & Society in the Age of Transition. Berkeley: Evolver Editions, 2013. eSCOBAR, Arturo. “Designing as a Futural Praxis for the Healing of the Web of Life”. En T. Fry; A. Nocek, (eds.). Design in Crisis. New Worlds, Philosophies and Practices. London: Routledge, 2021a, 25-42. KOHN, Eduardo. How Forests Think. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013. KOTHARI, Ashish; SALLeH, Ariel; eSCOBAR, Arturo; DeMARIA, Federico; ACOSTA , Alberto, (eds.). Pluriverse. A Post-development Dictionary. Delhi: Tulika/AuthorsUpfront, 2019. LeYVA-SOLANO, Xochitl. “Zapatista Autonomy.” En A. Kothari; A. Salleh; A. Escobar; F. Demaria; A. Acosta (eds.). Pluriverse. A Post-development Dictionary. Delhi: Tulika/ AuthorsUpfront, 2019, 335-338. LOZANO, Betty Ruth. Aportes a un feminismo negro decolonial. Quito: Editorial Abya-Yala, 2018. eSCOBAR, Arturo. “Now That We Know the Critique of Global Capitalism Was Correct”. En P. Clayton; K. Archie; J. Sachs; E. Steiner, (eds.). The New Possible. Visions of Our World Beyond Crisis. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2021b, 247-258. MANZINI, Ezio. Politics of the Everyday. London: Bloomsbury, 2019. One of the most elaborate transition visions is the Great Transition Initiative (https://greattransition.org/). See Raskin (2016) for a succinct and compelling summary of the argument. 3. See <http://www.planbnoticias.com.ar/index.php/2020/02/15/participo-wuta-trawn-conformaron-movimiento-contra-el-terricidio/>. eSCOBAR, Arturo. Pluriversal Politics: The Real and the Possible. Durham: Duke University Press, 2020. MARGuLIS, Lynn; SAGAN, Dorion. What Is Life? Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995. 4. What she means by ‘biocentric’ is the fact that most Darwinian and new-Darwinian narratives posit genetics and biology as the sole origin of biological life; it is thus different from ecological notions of biocentrism. eSCOBAR, Arturo. Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical Interdependence, Autonomy, and the Making of Worlds. Durham: Duke University Press, 2018. MATuRANA, Humberto; VeRDeN-ZÖLLeR, Gerda. The Origin of Humanness in the Biology of Love. Charlottesville, VA: Imprint Academic, 2008. eSTeVA, Gustavo. “El día después”. En O. Quijano; C. Corredor (eds.). Pandemia al Sur. Buenos Aires: Prometeo Libros, 2020, 55-68. MILLÁN, Moira. “Moira Millán y el Buen Vivir originario”, Pensamiento Ambiental, 22 de mayo de 2016. Video, 17min4s. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOiRYUW8R08>. eSTeVA , Gustavo. “Autonomy”. En A. Kothari; A. Salleh; A. Escobar; F. Demaria; A. Acosta (eds.). Pluriverse. A Postdevelopment Dictionary. Delhi: Tulika/AuthorsUpfront, 2019, 99-101. NHAT HANH, Thich. The World We Have. Berkeley: Parallax Press, 2008. 2. 5. 6. 7. There is a movement of revisiting traditional religions (including monotheistic religions) from perspectives that could be called relational. Pope Francis’ inspiring Laudato Si’ encyclical is a reflection of this ongoing reinterpretation and repositioning. In this regard, see the short entries on Christian eco-theology, Chinese religions, Hinduism and social transformation, Ibadism, Islamic ethics, Jain ecology, Judaic tikkun olam, liberation theology, and Tao worldview in Kothari, Salleh, Escobar, Demaria and Acosta, eds. (2019). eSTeVA, Gustavo. “The Hour of Autonomy”. Latin American and Caribbean Ethnic Studies, vol. 10, no. 1 (2015): 134-145. MARGuLIS, Lynn. Symbiotic Planet: A New Look at Evolution. New York: Basic Books, 1998. NORBeRG-HODGe, Helena. Local is Our Future: Steps to an Economics of Happiness. East Hardwick, VT: Local Futures, 2019. OGDeN, Laura. Loss and Wonder at the World’s End. Durham: Duke University Press, 2021. Contrary to common thinking, indigenous communitarian formations are not homogeneous but plural, and neither do they suppress personal expression: “The communal does no place limits on the personal, it rather potentiates it. The communitarian entanglements provide the grounds on which personal and intimate lives are sustained” (Tzul Tzul 2018:57), even if the organization of life, politics and the economy is realized collectively. eSTeVA, Gustavo. “Celebration of Zapatismo”. Humboldt Journal of Social relations, vol. 29, no. 1 (2005): 127-167 eSTeVA, Gustavo; GueRReRO, Arturo. “Usos, ideas y perspectivas de la comunalidad”. En Raquel Gutiérrez Aguilar (ed.). Comunalidad, tramas comunitarias y producción de lo común. Oaxaca: Pez en el árbol, 2018, 33-50. PAReDeS, Julieta. Hilando fino desde el feminismo comunitario. La Paz: DeD, 2012. There is an extensive Nasa archive on the Liberation of Mother Earth. See:  , “Libertad para la Madre Tierra,” May 28, 2010, <http:// www.nasaacin.org/libertar-para-la-madre-tierra/50-libertadpara-la-madre-tierra>; “El desafío que nos convoca”, May 28, 2010, <http://www.nasaacin.org/el-desafio-no-da-espera>; “Lo que vamos aprendiendo con la liberación de Uma Kiwe,” January 19, 2016, <http:// pueblosencamino.org/?p=2176>; Vilma Almendra, “La paz de la Mama Kiwe en libertad, de la mujer sin amarras ni silencios,” August 2, 2012, <http://pueblosencamino.org/?p=150>. See also: “Libertad y alegría con Uma Kiwe: Palabra del proceso de Liberación de la Madre Tierra”, <http://liberemoslatierra.blogspot.es/1481948996/libertad-y-alegriacon-uma-kiwe-palabra-del-proceso-de-liberacion-de-la-madretierra/>. The movement for the liberation of Mother Earth is currently divided and, at the same time, heavily repressed by landowners and government forces. For a full account of the movement and the situation, see Escobar (2020), chapter 3. FANON, Frantz. Black Skin, White Masks. New York: Grove Press, 1967. QuIROGA, Natalia. Economía pospatriarcal. Neoliberalismo y después. Buenos Aires: Cooperativa La Vaca, 2020. FeRReIRA DA SILVA, Denise. “Before Man: Sylvia Wynter’s Rewriting of the Modern Episteme”. En K. McKittrick (ed.). Sylvia Wynter. On Being Human as Praxis. Durham: Duke University Press, 2015, 90-105. RASKIN, Paul. Journey to Earthland. The Great Transition to Planetary Civilization. Boston: Tellos Institute, 2016. bibliografía | bibliogRaphy ACOSTA, Alberto; GARCÍA, Pascual; MuNCK, Rolando (eds.). Posdesarrollo. Contexto, contradicciones y futuros. Quito: Editorial Abya-Yala, 2021. AKOMOLAFe, Bayo. “Coming Down to Earth: Sanctuary as Spiritual Companionship in a Time of Hopelessness and Climate Chaos”. Bayoakomolafe.net, 2020. <https:// bayoakomolafe.net/project/coming-down-to-earthsanctuary-as-spiritual-companionship-in-a-time-ofhopelessness-and-climate-chaos/>. BOLLIeR, David; HeLFRICH, Silke. Free, Fair and Alive. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers, 2019. CÉSAIRe, Aimé. Discourse on Colonialism. New York: Monthly Review, 1972 [1955]. FOuCAuLT, Michel. The Order of Things. New York: Vintage Books, 1970. FRY, Tony; TLOSTANOVA, Madina. A New Political Imagination. Making the Case. London: Routledge, 2021. GAGLIANO, Monica. Thus Spoke the Plant. Berkeley: North Atlantic Books, 2018. GIBSON-GRAHAM, J. K. “Beyond Global vs. Local: Economic Politics Outside the Binary Frame”. En A. Herod; M. Wright (eds.). Geographies of Power: Placing Scale. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002, 25-60. GueRReRO, Arturo. “Comunalidad”. En A. Kothari; A. Salleh; A. Escobar; F. Demaria; A. Acosta (eds.). Pluriverse. A Post-development Dictionary. Delhi: Tulika/AuthorsUpfront, 2019, 130-133. GuTIÉRReZ AGuILAR, Raquel. Horizontes comunitariospopulares. Madrid: Traficantes de Sueños, 2017. HARTMAN, Saidiya. Wayward Lives, Beautiful Experiments. Intimate Histories of Social Upheaval. New York: W. W. Norton, 2019. HOSSeINI, Hamed; GILLS, Barry. “Beyond the Critical: Reinventing the Radical Imagination in Transformative Development and Global(ization) Studies.” Globalizations, vol. 17, no. 8 (2020): 1350-1366. INGOLD, Tim. Being Alive. Essays on Movement, Knowledge, and Description. New York: Routledge, 2011. PALACIOS CÓRDOBA, Elba M. “Sentipensar la paz en Colombia: las reexistentes voces pacíficas de mujeres Negras afrodescendientes”. Memorias 38 (2019): 131-161. RYAN, John; VIeRIA, Patricia; GAGLIANO, Monida (eds.). The Mind of Plants. Reimagining the Nature of Plant Cognition. Santa Fe, NM: Synergetic Press, 2021. SeGATO, Rita. La guerra contra las mujeres. Madrid: Traficantes de Sueños, 2016. SHARMA, Kriti. Interdependence. Biology and Beyond. New York: Fordham University Press. 2015. TORO, Catalina. “Aprendiendo de saberes y haceres: los Nadies en tiempo de pandemia”. En O. Quijano; C. Corredor (eds.). Pandemia al Sur. Buenos Aires: Prometeo Libros, 2020, 99-116. TZuL TZuL, Gladys. Sistemas de gobierno comunal indígena. México, DF: Instituto Amaq’, 2018. VARGAS, Iván. The Legal Lives of Forests: Law and the Other-thanHuman in the Andes-Amazon, Colombia. PhD Dissertation, Natural Resource Science, McGill University, 2021. VARGAS, Iván. “Forests on Trial. Toward a Relational Theory of Legal Agency for Transitions into the Ecozoic”. En Christopher Orr; Kaitlin Kish; Bruce Jennings (eds.). Liberty and the Ecological Crisis. London; Routledge, 2020, 139-155. WeBeR, Andreas. Sharing Life. The Ecopolitics of Reciprocity. Delhi: Heinrich Böll Stiftung, 2020. WYNTeR, Sylvia. “Unparalleled Catastrophe for Our Species?”. En K. McKittrick (ed.). Sylvia Wynter. On Being Human as Praxis. Durham: Duke University Press, 2015, 9-89.  |  · degrowth 41