This chapter presents a comparative history of development and change over the longue durée. It weaves between Latvian and South African history at pivotal moments in spacetime, with particular focus given to the historical processes of colonization, imperialism, and resistance. The chapter concludes with coverage of national independence and social transitions to democracy.
Post-Soviet Latvia and post-apartheid South Africa are far apart geographically and yet have endured a similar history of colonial and authoritarian rule before transitioning to democracy at the end of the 20th century. This book examines these two nations in an unusual comparative study of post-authoritarian efforts to decolonize production and trade.
The book combines an analysis of political economy and ecocultural heritage to unpack alternative trade formations. It also connects world systems thinking with Indigenous knowledge to articulate a decolonial theory of development and change over the longue durée. Conclusions and insights drawn are timely and important for a planet confronted by crises such as authoritarianism, laissez-faire capitalism, climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic.
This culminating chapter returns to various strands presented in earlier chapters of the book to articulate a decolonial theory of development. It begins with a decolonial critique of modern rationalism. Next, it draws from research findings to lay out the three features of authoritarian monocultures as an imperial mode of existence. It then identifies the features of egalitarian ecocultures, showing how this Indigenous and counterhegemonic mode of existence works to establish regenerative food, heritage and trade cultures at the fringes of the hegemonic world-system. These heterotopias of resistance offer critical insight into the relational knowledges, values and practices that support decolonization from within and without.
This chapter shares research findings from a participatory action research study conducted with Rooibos tea farmers at a time of market crisis and against a backdrop of systemic scarcity. It weaves a broader analysis of the racialized political economy informing the Rooibos tea sector with a cultural history of a marginalized yet heritage rich people who are producing Rooibos tea in the Indigenous way of their ancestors at the geographic origin of this culturally important product.
This chapter documents a multiracial body of Ubuntu philosophy and interprets key lessons for an international readership. It joins a textual analysis of the apartheid resistance literature with autoethnographic reflection to show how South Africans are engaging the Ubuntu ethic to organize communities and heal collective trauma. The chapter concludes by situating Ubuntu in sustainable development context.
This chapter documents and interprets Indigenous Latvian philosophy for an international readership. It joins a textual analysis of Latvian Dainas with autoethnographic reflections, showing how one of the largest cultural bodies of recorded folk songs in the world transmit intergenerational wisdom and ecocultural values grounded in an agrarian way of life. The chapter concludes by situating the Dainas in sustainable development context.
This chapter shares research findings from fieldwork conducted at the time of Latvia’s accession into the European Union. It shows how land reforms enabled a generation of farmers to return to the land, where small-scale famers have combined the matriarchal horticultural model of ancient Latvian tradition with investments in local and slow food. It also examines the political, economic, and cultural challenges that Latvia has experienced as part of its integration into the European Union.
This chapter provides an overview of the Latvian and South African case studies. It explicates the theoretical and conceptual frameworks applied in the book and details historical eras of great transformation. After describing research methods and author positionality, the chapter concludes by summarizing the chapters to come.
The common use of the term bayanihan has inspired NGOs, governments, and the media evoke this principle after major disasters to demonstrate the resilience of the Filipino people. But what is bayanihan in theory and practice, and does this Indigenous principle really serve to increase resilience in urban communities suffering from widespread poverty and frequent disasters? Drawing from two separate but overlapping case study research projects in the province of Leyte after typhoon Haiyan and drawing on the ‘insider-outsider’ dimensions of doing disaster research, we argue that despite its popular use after disasters, calling on communities to evoke bayanihan is often an inadequate policy response to the collective action problem that commonly exists in post-disaster recovery. As such, we call for a more critical examination of the potential and limitations of using bayanihan as a post-disaster response in the Philippines. In addition, echoing the concerns of others, we caution against the over-reliance on bayanihan and other Indigenous Filipino coping strategies as a source of post-disaster community resilience, particularly if doing so shifts pressure away from governmental institutions and humanitarian organizations with formal responsibilities.
This chapter is based on an independent and follow-up study on integrated child-centered disaster risk reduction and management (IC-DRRM) programs and activities of the Department of Education, concerned local government units (LGUs), and select communities in Bohol, Philippines, that were the project-implementing partners of the School-based Disaster Risk Reduction and Management in the Philippines. Adopting the insider and outsider perspectives of doing qualitative research provide an in-depth and objective analysis in examining whether the project interventions during the Bohol earthquake post-disaster response and partners’ initiatives are sustained and/or scaled up that promote resilience among children and communities. Results of the study demonstrate the synergies, child participation, and how the Department of Education, the two pilot LGUs (Maribojoc and Loon), and their communities have adopted and scaled up to sustain an integrated child-centered DRRM as they move forward in resilience building. The conclusion underscores the much-needed IC-DRRM and resilience building and its requisites for safer and resilient schools and communities and ‘disaster risk proofing development’ towards sustainable development.
