Reviewing Article #3

Encountering the Pluriverse: Looking for Alternatives in Other Worlds

Author: Amaya Querejazu (2016)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7329201600207

Querejazu (2016) explains the lack of ontological pluralism in her expertise, in International Relations (IR), which is strongly dominated by Western perspective and Modernism vision. I was curious when I read her journal about the possibility of applied pluriverse in IR studies. My reason is merely about how the pluriverse can change the global ontological assumption in the IR discourses, which means we know that the domination of its approaches is inspired by western rationalism and positivism. In this short review, I will describe some words and resume her main ideas and also at the end of this review, I may give some comments. In my mind, this is an unfinished project. Nevertheless, she provokes that the possibility of many alternative worlds in IR is adequate and can be interpreted by showing hidden many worlds and many realities, for example, the Andean cosmovisions. In her paper, she depicts at least how to overcome the myth of modernity and how relational ontologies help the basic theoretical constitution of global IR.

The lack of pluralism in IR has been showed by the mainstream concepts or theories in the methods, philosophy, politics, and the Eurocentric historical in farming of the world. Ironically, the knowledge of world is not only produced by Western perspective, but also neglects other alternative theoretical contributions from various perspectives. Sometimes, they also work against them, thinking under rationality and the domination of knowledge power. Consequently, the question about the pluriverse of the world is non-sense, unspoken reality, the world is only one, and it is universal reality. It is because the general disciplines of IR have not only marginalized differences, also ignoring epistemologies-ontologies, particularly those indigenous people, local knowledge, declining the realm of myths, legends, and beliefs. By capturing this perspective, the roots of ontological marginalization are intensely referring to the ultimate ‘truth’ of one-world, one reality. Therefore, Querejazu believes that modernity has own myth in tendency of the universal truth and anthropocentrism.

Drawing the pluriverse in IR implies very different worlds many worldviews and somehow interconnected, the human and non-human being. They coexist each other in incommensurability. Multiple perspectives of one world is what theoretically pluriverse advocates for, these different worlds can only coexist, not submitted in other worlds, or dominant in one world. It is different from the modernity project, following the universalization of the world and the results of colonialization and the diffusion of particular values in the life-world. So, what we called as certain rationality is only socially situated, and historically Western legacy. The pluriversal thinking, by definition, not tend to generalize everything in one world, because it is useless and insufficient to explain all or many realities existed.

According to modern Western rationality, the phenomenon of reality is assumed as whole, out there, defined, and singular. The results of these understandings are the reductionism and a form of epistemic violence that stimulates the problem of anxiety about self-existence, in contrary, the feeling of superiority as the center of being also appears and tends to dominate the world of multi-species and non-human beings. The Western category consistently marginalizes the unknown world, or it can be accepted in terms of reducing the complexity or differentiation based on fitting the explanation needs. One reality of the world is produced by Western and is still transported to the rest of the world, with generalization, a fake universal framework. The terms of tolerance and acceptance are viable only when they are reasonable and conceivable by authorized imagination, and others that are not fit, are considered as exotic, not real, and undeveloped.

To against the majority of ontological isolation, she offers relational ontologies as pluriversal ontologies, they reveal different form of interaction in at least four principles follow. a) correspondence, entities are correlated in a balance duality; b) complementarity, one opposites each other and becoming whole, but cannot exist without the other, only in complementarity an entity becomes total; and c) reciprocity, the fundamental notion of justice in every aspect of relation, as well as human, natural, spiritual, and cosmic. Seen from Western rationality, it seems weird and undefined. However, from the Andean community views, all the truth of the modernity can be put on the criticism, especially about anthropocentrism, which is no place here, humans do not have any superiority or domination status within their environmental living, they never dominate nature, but same as other non-humans, they are care-takers. Andean worlds place the non-human world in similar aspect like human world, but they exist on their own independently of any interpretation human beings, human only communicate using the language of symbols, rituals, and specific skills that make human develop. In the local knowledge of Amerindian, objects can embody subjects, vice versa, so living and being in this world are not necessarily fixed, but changing depending on the perspective of time and space. Another example of the Andean’s imaginary is the world’s perspective translated as the Pachamama or Mother Earth, not only as entity or thing but may have the strong connection itself, revealing the different world. Also, some local people are aware of the importance of talking with nature, and implemented the ayllu (a concept of socio-politics in the matter of life). The ayllu is a pluriversal concept of organizational life.

Lastly, when we consider applying the pluriverse concept as ontological approach, it means not only borrow this concept in a short explanation of how beautiful the many worlds are, but this concept should be breaking the rules and eliminate ontological hierarchy. In my view, Querejazu’s explanation is a solid argument to overcome the domination of Western notions in the IR methods. Some argumentations are interesting, but I believe that we cannot separate between Western perspective and alternative perspective, it is always interconnected, indeed, since post-modernity exists. Talk about the pluriverse, the one point that we have to promote is how the pluriverse of IR can help the many worlds speak loudly in the front of conflict, sovereignty, and also global policy that is dominant by global developmentalism. Therefore, the last question is what the world is likely to be pluriverse, where many worlds exist…