Search

ABSTRACTProfessional sociology in Ecuador started with the first chair in sociology in 1915. This led to a series of foundational texts during the 1920s and 30s that sought to define what sociology is while applying it to core aspects of Ecuadorian society. While this time was – in the Global North- marked by a growing centralization on the theories of Durkheim and Weber, the Ecuadorian sociologists preferred other thinkers in order to understand society. The result was a mixture of different theories that were not always clearly articulated but did sustain the first relatively coherent sociological readings of Ecuadorian society. This text will shed light on how the first professional sociology in Ecuador used the classics of sociology in a particular way to build local sociology. The focus will be on the four most relevant sociological thinkers of the first half of the twentieth century, Agustín Cueva Sáenz, Ángel Modesto Paredes, Víctor Gabriel Garcés, and Luis Bossano. They worked with Tarde, Worms, Durkheim, and some German, US-American, and Latin American authors. The creation of the first School for Sociology in the 1960s meant a break from this tradition that has not been reflected adequately until today.

Academic sociology in Ecuador started in 1915 with the establishment of the sociology chair at the Central University of Ecuador. This original moment entrenched a certain way of thinking about society, which included a canon of accepted classic authors. The development of a specific school of thought, which became dominant until the 50’s, made it more difficult for Ecuadorian sociology to incorporate new perspectives, especially when Ecuadorian sociology needed to open itself to the new currents of thought resulting from the creation of novel global and continental sociological institutions. However, this particular theory, which assumed that society evolved according to fixed natural laws and which granted elites a key role in promoting social progress; helped legitimize the discipline and provided a link with the then dominant ideas of political liberalism. The present article is based on an examination of the theories and concepts present in the most important texts invoked by practitioners during the central debates in early Ecuadorian sociology. The analysis of authors such as Agustín Cueva Sáenz, Belisario Quevedo, Ángel Modesto Paredes and Luis Bossano, allows for an adequate description of key the concepts present in their works and of the route followed in their efforts to develop adequate theoretic arguments. Additionally, a comparison of their ideas with Herbert Spencer´s shows that the earliest Ecuadorian sociology was not only positivistic, but also was heavily influenced by the Spenserian school.

The decolonial sociology has been a project of a considerable group of thinkers. There are many texts that contribute to a critique of the colonial and imperial roots of sociology, its questionable institutionalization, its inherent power structures, or its persistent Eurocentrism. However, generally, these texts leave aside the teaching of sociology, especially if it occurs in the Global South. The present text tries to remedy that. It parts from the concrete experience of the formation of a department of social sciences and the reform of the curriculum of sociology in a university of the Global South. This experience and the material related to it form the basis for a theoretical reflection that seeks to bring the decolonial debate into dialogue with a particular local reality. Emphasizing the importance of the local, this text is developed in a scheme that leads to the formulation of three principles for a decolonial sociology: the double contextualization, comparison and self-criticism.

Indigenous peoples have been and still are largely excluded from the most important areas of modern society. They cannot participate adequately in politics, economics, education, etc. This exclusion is linked to colonialism and the coloniality of power and manifests itself in the term «indigenous» itself. The indigenous movement, especially since the 1970s, showed a clear awareness of this contradiction. It took advantage of the oppressive categories in the sense of a collective liberation. The indigenous function as a mechanism of political inclusion allows a local movement to connect with other movements, insofar as they are linked to the indigenous. And the indigenous became a discursive vehicle for the central demands of indigenous movements worldwide. In this contribution, it will be discussed the internal and external effects of the dissemination of the buen vivir concept by the indigenous movement based on a deeper discussion of the mechanisms of self-inclusion sustained on the indigenous movements. The centre of this discussion will be the framed of the concrete demands of the indigenous movement, especially the Ecuadorian movement and its economic proposals, in the concept of buen vivir.

La interculturalidad se ha convertido en un paradigma que orienta la política de estados, partidos y movimientos sociales y atraviesa diferentes aspectos de la vidasocial. Desde sus orígenes en los años setenta en América Latina, la interculturalidad se ha expandido en los ámbitos de la educación, la justicia, la comunicación, las artes, la salud, entre otros. Los últimos años han sido testigos de numerosas reflexiones sobre el concepto mismo de interculturalidad, sus relaciones con conceptos asociados, más no equivalentes, como multiculturalidad, pluriculturalidad o plurinacionalidad, pero también sobre los peligros que encierra una aplicación ingenua del concepto sin un cuestionamiento profundo de las estructuras de dominación de nuestras sociedades. En la misma línea, los debates sobre interculturalidad han asumido con demasiada frecuencia que se trata de un estado de cosas y no de un proyecto por construir, o bien de aquello que tiene que ver única y exclusivamente con aspectos étnicos. Una renovada discusión sobre la interculturalidad exige, por lo tanto, un giro que tome en cuenta su carácter dinámico de construcción y promueva una visión crítica sobre los alcances de los procesos interculturales en marcha en la región, a más de reflexionar no sólo sobre el qué de la interculturalidad, sino especialmente sobre el cómo de su construcción.

Benjamín Inuca fue un líder histórico del movimiento indígena—designación que le resultaba jocosa—que participó en diferentes organizaciones.

The concept of 'sumak kawsay, buen vivir' or “good life”—in Bolivia, 'suma qamaña', or 'vivir bien'—has been widely diffused on an international level since the Ecuadorian Constituent Assembly in 2007–2008 and the Bolivian one in 2006–2009. Good life has been understood as an alternative to capitalist modernizing development that is based on the indigenous ideal of harmony between individual, society, and nature. Nevertheless, in the usage of the indigenous movement, which initiated the diffusion of this concept, good life is a local and territorial conception of a lifestyle. While this notion of locality is largely ignored or invisibilized by the Ecuadorian government and by nonindigenous intellectuals, and to some degree even by national indigenous organizations, local indigenous organizations integrated good life into their discourse of territorial autonomy in a pluralist state. Good life allows for local decolonialization, a concrete and local fight against the structures of “the coloniality of power” framed within a discursive panorama that includes concepts of plurality and autonomy. This text analyzes sumak kawsay as a key concept of local decolonialization, emphasizing its relation to similar concepts and the differences in its usage by different actors. Resumen El concepto de 'sumak kawsay', o buen vivir —igual que su versión boliviana 'suma qamaña'— ha experimentado desde la Constituyente ecuatoriana en 2007–2008 y la boliviana en 2006–2009 una amplia difusión a nivel internacional. El buen vivir ha sido entendido como una alternativa al desarrollo modernizante capitalista que se basa en el ideal indígena de una harmonía entre individuo, sociedad y naturaleza. No obstante, en el uso del movimiento indígena —actor que inició la difusión de este concepto— el buen vivir es una concepción local y territorial de un estilo de vida. Mientras que en el uso por el gobierno ecuatoriano y por intelectuales no-indígenas —y en algún grado hasta en las organizaciones indígenas nacionales—, esta noción de localidad es ignorada o invisibilizada, las organizaciones indígenas locales integraron al buen vivir en su discurso de autonomía territorial en un Estado pluralista. El buen vivir permite una apertura en la perspectiva para una decolonialización local, una lucha concreta y localizada contra las estructuras de la colonialidad del poder enmarcada en un panorama discursivo que incluye conceptos de pluralidad y autonomía. Esta presentación va a analizar al sumak kawsay como concepto clave de una decolonialización local, poniendo énfasis en su relación con conceptos afines y en las diferencias de su uso por los diferentes actores discursivos.

El movimiento indígena del Ecuador está compuesto por diferentes organizaciones indígenas que compiten entre sí por miembros y recursos. Estos actores encarnan diferentes intereses y tendencias que a veces son contradictorias, dadas las distintas concepciones políticas, étnicas y sociales que se manifiestan en el interior de las organizaciones, por lo tanto hablar del movimiento indígena sin considerar esta diversidad organizativa resultaría un análisis limitado. Este artículo intentará hacer un resumen histórico de las organizaciones indígenas, destacando sus demandas, sus estrategias particulares y las relaciones que existen entre ellas. No vamos a interpretar el desarrollo del movimiento como sucesión de organizaciones con ideologías generalmente incompatibles, sino como una dinámica de competencia y a veces cooperación entre las distintas organizaciones. Este estudio se basa en publicaciones realizadas por las propias organizaciones, completándolas y ampliándolas con textos académicos, con la intención de ayudar a la sistematización de una auto-historia del movimiento indígena desde una perspectiva científica.

Desde la década de los 1980, las organizaciones del movimiento indígena en Ecuador lucharon no sólo por derechos económicos, políticos o culturales, sino además por una reconstrucción de la sociedad y del Estado ecuatoriano. Esta reconstrucción pasa por conceptos bastante específicos como Interculturalidad y Plurinacionalidad. Aún si estos conceptos fueron adoptados en la Constitución del 2008, desde la perspectiva del movimiento indígena, todavía falta implementarlos. Este texto es un análisis del desarrollo tanto del movimiento indígena como de sus conceptos con un enfoque en las relaciones entre las diferentes organizaciones y conceptos. English: The fight of indigenous movement organizations in the Republic of Ecuador (Ecuador) since the 1980s has not only been for equal economic, political or cultural rights, but also for reconstruction of the Ecuadorean society and the State. This reconstruction is formed alongside quite specific concepts, such as Interculturality and Plurinationality. Even if these concepts have been adopted in the Constitution of 2008, from the perspective of the Indigenous movement, they are yet to be implemented. This article is an analysis of the development of both Indigenous movement and their concepts with a focus on the interrelation between the different organizations and Interculturality and Plurinationality.

This essay reviews the following works: