850
S. M. Weber and M. A. Tascón
1 Global Critiques—Global Search for Alternatives
in Paradigm Development
Present debates on alternative universities emerge from different developmental models. Western approaches criticize acceleration (Rosa 2013) and from there formulate
alternatives of resonance and wellbeing (Rosa et al. 2014), Far Eastern alternative
developmental models center around spirituality and collective wellbeing, such as
the ‘Gross National Happiness’ model of Bhutan. The Bhutanese government has
declared happiness as the leading vision of their national development initiatives and
political approaches (Weber 2015).
All those debates can be used together to challenge the given paradigms of development. These voices claim a shift towards inclusion, in the sense of social, ecological
and economical, as well as cultural sustainability as a new paradigmatic shift in our
present age. Organizing inclusion and sustainability in the given context becomes
increasingly relevant for universities, too. In order to lead into sustainability and
social innovation strategies, these approaches tend to involve interorganizational
cooperation, multi-stakeholder processes and multi-layered governance of educational and regional or global actors.
While western concepts of inclusion and diversity relate to deceleration, wellbeing and social security, Latin American cosmology includes spiritual dimensions,
which become relevant as a topic and as a practice for organizing and realizing Higher
Education. In different approaches, we find models connected to the movement of
the “Commons” (Helfrich et al. 2012), which practices inclusiveness and collective responsibility (Ostrom 1990). Debates on “lived sufficiency” in its elements of
deceleration, societal and collective use of goods, of less and conscious consumption
come into view, when adopting the concept of ‘Buen Vivir’ as a paradigm and as an
orienting vision for alternative universities.
2 ‘BUEN VIVIR’—The Latin American Alternative
Paradigm Questioning ‘Development’
Sumak kawsay (kechwa from Peru or kichwa in Ecuador), Suma qamaña (aymara
from Bolivia), ñande reko (guaraní from Paraguay) are the most well-known indigenous concepts of ‘Wellbeing’, or ‘Buen Vivir’ today. This concept was developed by
CAOI (Coordinación Andina de Organización Indígenas), the roof organization of
indigenous organizations of the Andes. In the beginning of the 20th century it was formulated in order to define a collective indigenous concept of Wellbeing (Huanacuni
2010).
This paradigm of life refers to ancient traditions and styles of life, which
are observed in all indigenous communities within Latin America. The Mapuche
(Chile and Argentine), the Kolla (Argentina) and different nations of the Amazons
joined, to form a consortium indigenous organizations of the Amazonian COICA
S. M. Weber and M. A. Tascón
1 Global Critiques—Global Search for Alternatives
in Paradigm Development
Present debates on alternative universities emerge from different developmental models. Western approaches criticize acceleration (Rosa 2013) and from there formulate
alternatives of resonance and wellbeing (Rosa et al. 2014), Far Eastern alternative
developmental models center around spirituality and collective wellbeing, such as
the ‘Gross National Happiness’ model of Bhutan. The Bhutanese government has
declared happiness as the leading vision of their national development initiatives and
political approaches (Weber 2015).
All those debates can be used together to challenge the given paradigms of development. These voices claim a shift towards inclusion, in the sense of social, ecological
and economical, as well as cultural sustainability as a new paradigmatic shift in our
present age. Organizing inclusion and sustainability in the given context becomes
increasingly relevant for universities, too. In order to lead into sustainability and
social innovation strategies, these approaches tend to involve interorganizational
cooperation, multi-stakeholder processes and multi-layered governance of educational and regional or global actors.
While western concepts of inclusion and diversity relate to deceleration, wellbeing and social security, Latin American cosmology includes spiritual dimensions,
which become relevant as a topic and as a practice for organizing and realizing Higher
Education. In different approaches, we find models connected to the movement of
the “Commons” (Helfrich et al. 2012), which practices inclusiveness and collective responsibility (Ostrom 1990). Debates on “lived sufficiency” in its elements of
deceleration, societal and collective use of goods, of less and conscious consumption
come into view, when adopting the concept of ‘Buen Vivir’ as a paradigm and as an
orienting vision for alternative universities.
2 ‘BUEN VIVIR’—The Latin American Alternative
Paradigm Questioning ‘Development’
Sumak kawsay (kechwa from Peru or kichwa in Ecuador), Suma qamaña (aymara
from Bolivia), ñande reko (guaraní from Paraguay) are the most well-known indigenous concepts of ‘Wellbeing’, or ‘Buen Vivir’ today. This concept was developed by
CAOI (Coordinación Andina de Organización Indígenas), the roof organization of
indigenous organizations of the Andes. In the beginning of the 20th century it was formulated in order to define a collective indigenous concept of Wellbeing (Huanacuni
2010).
This paradigm of life refers to ancient traditions and styles of life, which
are observed in all indigenous communities within Latin America. The Mapuche
(Chile and Argentine), the Kolla (Argentina) and different nations of the Amazons
joined, to form a consortium indigenous organizations of the Amazonian COICA