New articles in this journal are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 United States License. 
 

This journal is published by the University Library System, University of Pittsburgh as part of 

its D-Scribe Digital Publishing Program and is cosponsored by the University of Pittsburgh Press. 

 
  

  JOURNAL OF WORLD-SYSTEMS RESEARCH 
 

 

 

What Goes Around Comes Around:  
From The Coloniality of Power to the Crisis of Civilization1 
 
 
Leonardo E. Figueroa Helland 

Westminster College 

lfigueroa-helland@westminstercollege.edu 

 

Tim Lindgren 

Westminster College  

tsl0126@westminstercollege.edu 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                             
1 We thank Abigail Perez-Aguilera, Joelle Chevalier, the editors and anonymous reviewers. 

ISSN: 1076-156X   |   Vol. 22   Issue 2 Pages 430-462 |                                               

DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2016.631  |   jwsr.org 

 

Vol. 1 |  DOI 10.5195/JWSR.1 

Abstract 

This article combines world-systems, decolonial, eco-feminist and post-human ecological approaches to deconstruct 

the planetary crisis of the hegemonic civilization. Underpinned by anthropocentric, androcentric, hetero-patriarchal, 

Euro/Western-centric, modern/colonial and capitalist systems of power, this civilization causes devastating 

socioecological effects. Globalized through (neo)colonialism/(neo)imperialism, it has subjugated the rural under the 

urban and the Global South under the North, becoming globally hegemonic. Through the coloniality of power 

hegemonic conceptions of progress, growth, development and modernity have been spread, procuring the loyalty of 

semi-peripheral and peripheral regimes into a civilizational obsession with endless accumulation based on the 

“mastery of nature.” Most “postcolonial” elites, especially across “emerging economies,” have not broken with this 

coloniality. They often reproduce govern-mentalities aimed at “catching-up” with, cloning, emulating, imitating or 

conforming to hegemonic models enacted in the North’s metropolitan cores. Overcoming this crisis requires not only 

a critique of neoliberal capitalist modernity, but a world-systemic transformation towards ecosufficient lifeways based 

on indigenous, eco-feminist, and post-human alternatives. 

Keywords: World-System, Hegemony, Civilization, Crisis, Coloniality, Transition 

 

http://www.library.pitt.edu/
http://www.pitt.edu/
http://www.library.pitt.edu/articles/digpubtype/index.html
http://upress.pitt.edu/
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
mailto:lfigueroa-helland@westminstercollege.edu
mailto:tsl0126@westminstercollege.edu


 

Journal of World-System Research   |   Vol. 22   Issue 2 

 

jwsr.org   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2016.631 

431 

[T]he imperial mode of living...refers to dominant patterns of production, 

distribution, and consumption…[among] upper and middle classes of the global 

North and increasingly in the emerging countries of the global South....The 

imperial mode of living is...based on an unlimited appropriation of resources and 

labor power and…a disproportionate claim to global sinks. In the constellation of 

the ‘multiple crises’, it…[helps preserve] stability in the…North and provides a 

hegemonic orientation…[for] the…South...[I]n some countries, such as China, 

Brazil, and India, we have seen the emergence of large upper and middle classes—

‘new consumers’...oriented toward ‘Western’ modes of living. (In…Latin America, 

this… emerged during the Fordist period.) A central dynamic in countries with so-

called emerging economies, particularly India and China, is that the fossilist 

pattern of consumption and production of the global North is spreading. This tends 

to generalize [an imperial] mode of living that, from an ecological perspective, 

cannot be generalized...   —Ulrich Brand and Markus Wissen 

 

We are 50 to 100 years behind the advanced countries. We must cover this distance 

in ten years. Either we'll succeed or we'll go under.   —Josef Stalin  

 

…how is it that we do not understand that we have better things to do than to follow 

the same Europe?…today we know with what sufferings humanity has paid for…their 

triumphs…[T]he European game has…ended; we must find something different. We 

today can do everything, so long as we do not imitate Europe, so long as we are not 

obsessed by the desire to catch up with Europe [or Western civilization]. So…let us 

not pay tribute to Europe by creating states, institutions, and societies that draw 

their inspiration from it. Humanity expects other things from us than this grotesque 

and…obscene emulation.   —Franz Fanon 

 

 

 

An Autophagous Civilization 

Today we face a planetary crisis. Environmental, energy, food, financial, and social reproduction 

crises are disrupting the world-system (Ahmed 2010; McMichael 2011; Chase-Dunn 2013; Houtart 

2010; Kallis, Martinez-Alier and Norgaard 2009; Foster, Clark, York 2010; Goodman and  Salleh 

2015; Peterson 2010; Rockstrom et.al. 2009, 2009b; Salleh 2012; Smith 2014; Steffen et.al. 2007). 

This planetary crisis, we argue, has been triggered by a globalizing mode of civilization that has 



 

Journal of World-System Research   |   Vol. 22  Issue 2   |   What Goes Around 

 

jwsr.org   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2016.631 

432 

become hegemonic.2 This mode of civilization is constituted and underpinned by anthropocentric, 

androcentric, hetero-patriarchal, Euro/Western-centric, modern/colonial and capitalist systems of 

power. Building on world-systems, decolonial, eco-feminist and posthuman theories, we contend 

that the “coloniality of power” (Quijano 1991; Grosfoguel 2009; Mignolo 2008; Lugones 2007; 

Maese-Cohen 2010; Dastile and Ndlovu-Gastheni 2013) has worked to globalize a civilization that 

exhausts the planet and exploits most of its people, thus unleashing a socioecological blowback that 

is turning this civilization into its own worst enemy.  

 By “coloniality” we refer to the complex and multidimensional legacy of divisive, 

exploitative, stratifying and hierarchical forms of power (e.g., Eurocentric/Western-centric 

hegemony), forms of knowledge (e.g., technoscientific instrumental rationality), forms of 

(inter)subjectivity (e.g., possessive individualism), forms of human interrelations (e.g., racism, 

classism, heteropatriarchalism, etc.), and forms of human dominion over land and mastery of 

“nature” (e.g., anthropocentric property/dominion/sovereignty) that have become entrenched and 

continue to be reproduced throughout the world as an ongoing consequence of colonization. 

Coloniality thus entails that the hegemony of colonial forms persists to this day as a legacy that 

structurally constitutes modernity, even into supposedly “postcolonial” times. Coloniality is the 

underside of modernity: the historical and structural foundation that has enabled—e.g., through 

conquest, imperialism, slavery, resource extraction and Western dominance—the rise, hegemony, 

and globalization of a world-system dominated by modern civilization. 

 This civilization has sought to globalize a political-economic model bent on endless 

accumulation, consumption and growth on a finite planet (Ahmed 2010; Foster, Clark, York 2010; 

Goodman and Salleh 2013; McMichael 2011; Steffen et.al. 2007; WPCCC 2010). Now in its 

“neoliberal” stage, this model reinforces a historically-ongoing coloniality of power premised on 

linear discourses of “progress,” “modernization,” “development,” and “evolution,” altogether 

                                                                                                                                                             
2 We understand a “mode of civilization” to be any large-scale form of human organization based on specific 

arrangements of relations among humans and with non-human nature which, in turn, underpin a complex ensemble of 

bioenvironmental, economic, political, social, cultural and psycho-ideological structures and dynamics engendering 

relatively stable patterns of practices and institutional apparatuses. There can thus be diverse modes of civilization, 

e.g., hegemonic vs. subaltern modes. Here we address the mode which, we argue, has become globally hegemonic; 

we elaborate a theory of the “infrastructures of power” which—we contend—underpin the mode of civilization now 

globally hegemonic. Our approach draws from literatures across disciplines addressing the “convergent crises of 

civilization” and the search for alternative, just and sustainable lifeways (e.g., Adelman 2015; Ahmed 2010; Houtart 

2010; Huanacuni 2010; Foster, Clark and York 2010; Harawira 2012; Kallis, Martinez-Alier and Norgaard 2009; 

Grosfoguel 2009; Gonzalez 2015; Apffel-Marglin 2011; Bond 2014; Brand and Wissen 2012; Cudworth and Hobden 

2011; McMichael 2011; Min. Rel. Ext., Bolivia 2009; Peterson 2010; Plumwood 2002; Quijano 1991; Raworth 2012; 

Rockström et.al. 2009; Salleh 2009, 2010, 2012; Steffen, et.al.; 2007; WPCCC 2010b). 



 

Journal of World-System Research   |   Vol. 22   Issue 2 

 

jwsr.org   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2016.631 

433 

constituting a hegemonic “standard of civilization.” Globalized through (neo)colonialism and 

(neo)imperialism, this “standard of civilization” has subjugated the global South under the North, 

and the rural under the urban, thereby stratifying the world into multiple overlapping hierarchies 

structured along core-periphery asymmetries. The globalization of this mode of civilization wouldn’t 

be possible without the coloniality of power which has assimilated semi-peripheral and peripheral 

elites into a Western-centric civilizational obsession with endless accumulation based on the 

“mastery of nature” (Plumwood 2002; Adelman 2015) and geared towards the aggressive pursuit of 

“high modernism”3 (Scott 1998)—and its “late modern(ist)” continuation. While settler-colonial 

elites have been instrumental to the expansion of hegemonic civilization, the colonial de-

indigenization and cultural assimilation of Southern elites through centuries of Western domination 

has increasingly entrenched dominant worldviews and practices throughout the globe.  

Gonzalez notes; “[i]n the post-colonial period, Southern elites, deeply influenced by 

Eurocentric ideologies, subjugated their own indigenous and minority populations in order to 

“modernize” and “develop” them” (2015: 13). Most “postcolonial” elites haven’t broken with this 

coloniality of power (Dastile and Ndlovu-Gastheni 2013); instead, they often reproduce govern-

mentalities aimed at “catching-up” with, emulating, imitating, “cloning” or conforming to 

hegemonic models enacted in the North’s metropolitan cores (Sheppard et.al. 2009; McMichael 

2011; Grosfoguel 2009; Mignolo 2008). In seeking to emulate the North’s unsustainable “imperial 

mode of living” (Brand and Wissen 2012), many Southern elites have replicated the North’s “eco-

destructive, consumerist-centric, over-financialized, [and] climate-frying maldevelopment model” 

(Bond 2012). 

 This coloniality of power has often consumed the creativity, energy, and “resources” of 

(semi)peripheries in aspirational attempts to emulate and/or conform to hegemonic models by, for 

example, aggressively pursuing accelerated modernization, developmentalism, urbanization, 

industrialization, and massified commodity/consumerist cultures at almost any cost, human or 

ecological. Playing catch-up with the North inevitably requires the present-day rehearsal, in 

accelerated, compressed manner, of structurally violent practices that have underpinned the North’s 

“rise” to planetary dominance—like the transformation of nature (including humans) into exploitable 

“resources” (Apffel-Marglin 2011) and the systematic reliance on coercive statecraft, ecological 

imperialism, and (neo)colonialism. Comparable practices, now rehearsed in “updated” forms by 

                                                                                                                                                             
3 Scott (1998) describes high modernism as “a strong, even…muscle bound…version of the beliefs in scientific and 

technical progress…associated with industrialization in Western Europe and North America…At its center [lies] a 

supreme self-confidence about continued linear progress, the development of scientific and technical knowledge, the 

expansion of production, the rational design of social order, the growing satisfaction of human needs, and…an 

increasing control and mastery over nature (including human nature) commensurate with scientific understandings of 

“natural laws.” High modernism is a…sweeping vision of how…technical and scientific progress might be 

applied…in every field of human activity…” (89-90). 



 

Journal of World-System Research   |   Vol. 22  Issue 2   |   What Goes Around 

 

jwsr.org   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2016.631 

434 

elites/regimes of semi-peripheral “emerging economies,” seek to replicate expansive core-like 

metropolitan centers of accumulation, consumption, and growth, like the grossly unequal BRICS 

(Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) megalopolises. To achieve this, emerging economies 

must resort to internal colonialism and “subimperialism” or “second degree imperialism” (Bond 

2014) so as to compel into subservience their “own” peripheries as sources of exploitable natural 

and human “resources.” 

Yet in striving to emulate a patently unsustainable Northern “way of life” built on centuries 

of dispossession, emerging economies face two obstacles: First, the hegemonic barriers imposed 

by the dominant regime of accumulation controlled by the North which resists any challenges to 

its hegemony. Second, the planetary boundaries (Rockström et.al. 2009) imposed by the Earth’s 

finite carrying capacity which is already responding to breaches with destabilizing consequences 

(Foster, Clark, York 2010). 

Seduced by the coloniality of power, large “emerging economies”—like BRICS—are on a 

crash course against entrenched “old” Northern cores—as the latter try to preserve their 

unsustainable privileges at any cost. Brand and Wissen (2012) note: 

 

 

[G]eopolitical and geo-economic shifts will…increasingly be…ecological 

conflicts…[Facing] increasing competition for the earth’s resources and sinks, 

national and supranational state apparatuses seem…willing to support ‘their’ 

respective capitals…to strengthen their competitive position and…secure the 

resource base of their…economies…Thus, the hegemony of the imperial mode of 

living…, [spreading from]…the global North…to the South…explains…an 

imperialist rearticulation…in the context of multiple crises (555).  

 

 

Increasingly volatile tensions are resulting from the clash between the hegemonic system of 

accumulation and the planetary boundaries. Geopolitical/geoeconomic conflicts, and grabs and 

scrambles over “resources” strategic for “development(alism),” are proliferating globally. 

 Such complications can often be traced to the hegemonization of an ecologically unsustainable, 

socially stratifying and politically volatile model of civilization bent on endless accumulation, 

consumption and growth on a finite planet. Ironically, the very success in globalizing this 

civilizational model through the coloniality of power may lead to its autophagous self-destruction 

through a planetary crisis. 

 Overcoming this crisis requires not only a critique of modernity in its neoliberal capitalist guise, 

but a transformation beyond the systems of power underpinning the hegemonic civilization. In 



 

Journal of World-System Research   |   Vol. 22   Issue 2 

 

jwsr.org   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2016.631 

435 

solidarity with movements for systemic change and drawing on decolonial dialogues we conclude 

with a blueprint for a just and sustainable transition inspired on indigenous, eco-feminist, and 

posthuman alternatives.  

 

Planetary Crisis 

Five converging crises are triggering a planetary crisis of civilization:  

Ecological Rift. Modern civilization is causing an ecological rift with global biospheric 

lifecycles, breaching planetary boundaries and overshooting the Earth’s carrying capacity by 

exhausting and disrupting nature’s metabolic labor (Foster, Clark, York 2010; Ahmed 2010; 

Rockström, Steffen, Noone et.al. 2009; Salleh 2010). We are breaching four of nine planetary 

boundaries;4 further breaching seems inevitable as we continue to rely on this civilizational model. 

This anthropogenic eco-crisis is undermining the natural bases for human existence. The 

ecological rift derives from the anthropocentrism of the hegemonic civilization, aggravated by 

modernist drives for mastery of nature and capital accumulation, resulting in gross 

overconsumption of planetary biocapacity: “humanity…uses the equivalent of 1.5 planets to 

provide the resources we use and absorb our waste… [I]t now takes the Earth one year and six 

months to regenerate what we use in a year” (World Footprint 2014). Most ecological degradation 

comes from overconsumption and waste driven by the lifestyle of metropolitan centers globally, 

and of “(over)developed” rich countries. McMichael (2011) notes: the richest countries have 

generated 42% of global environmental degradation while paying only 3% of resulting costs. 

Urban areas occupy around 2% of global land yet produce more than two thirds of CO2 emissions. 

If everybody in the world lived like the average US or Canadian resident, we would need between 

three and five Earths—if not more—to regenerate humanity’s annual demand on nature; if 

everybody lived like the average EU resident, we would need 2.5 to 3.5 Earths. Emergent 

economies seeking to rapidly catch up and emulate Northern lifestyles—like the BRICS—

dramatically aggravate this. This “imperial mode of living” propagated from cores and now also 

semi-cores is socio-ecologically unsustainable and dangerous (Brand and Wissen 2012). 

 Energy/Resource Depletion. Overconsumption is causing a crisis of energy scarcity and 

natural resource depletion of oil, natural gas, coal, uranium, essential minerals, and water (Ahmed 

2010; Zittel et.al. 2013; Sheppard 2009; Evans 2010; “Water Facts and Figures” 2014). Peak-oil 

may have already occurred in 2005-2008 (Ahmed 2010); the Energy Working Group estimated 

                                                                                                                                                             
4According to the Stockholm Resilience Centre: (1) climate change; (2) change in biosphere integrity; (3) 

biogeochemical flows (4) land-system change. The remaining boundaries at risk are (5) stratospheric ozone depletion; 

(6) ocean acidification (7) freshwater use; (8) atmospheric aerosol loading; (9) introduction of novel entities  

(http://www.stockholmresilience.org/21/research/research-news/1-15-2015-planetary-boundaries-2.0---new-and-

improved.html). 



 

Journal of World-System Research   |   Vol. 22  Issue 2   |   What Goes Around 

 

jwsr.org   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2016.631 

436 

overall conventional energy peak for 2015 (Zittel et.al. 2013). Mineral depletion is predicted to 

exhaust 26 of the 37 most important minerals by 2100 (Sheppard 2009). By 2025 the number of 

people living in absolute water scarcity is projected to rise 50%, with “two thirds of the world’s 

population…in water-stressed conditions” (Evans 2010). 

 Food System Crisis: Between 2001-2008 global demand exceeded supply and the global 

stockpile of grain shrank by half (Cribb 2010). “[A]verage productivity growth rates [2.0% 1970-

1990]…fell to 1.1% between 1990 and 2007 and are projected to continue to decline” (Evans 

2010:3). Modern industrial agriculture and the consumption/waste patterns of global North and 

metropolitan lifestyles are exhausting soils and sinks globally. Industrial agriculture through land-

use change, synthetic fertilizers and pesticides is eroding soils, creating topsoil loss, and 

exhausting nature’s “metabolic labor” (Salleh 2010; McMichael 2011). Agro-industrial methods 

like monocropping and industrial economies of scale destroy biodiversity and carbon sinks, and 

degrade nutritional quality (Altieri 2009). Industrial aquaculture has fully exploited or 

overexploited most of the world’s fish stocks. The food system’s increasingly corporate 

consolidation multiplies social-environmental externalities through overexploitation of natural and 

human resources and gross maldistribution. The “globalized” methane-releasing “meatified” 

modern food system requires unnecessarily long transportation and is heavily dependent on 

dwindling fossil fuels, making it a major greenhouse gas emitter. All this is triggering a global 

food system crisis, profoundly impacting semi/peripheral regions (Ahmed 2010; McMichael 2011; 

Cribb 2010; Evans 2010.). However, further growth isn’t the answer. We already produce excess 

food—albeit of disappointing nutritional quality, yet much is wasted and distribution is so skewed 

that “providing the additional calories needed by the 13% of the world’s population facing hunger 

would require just 1% of the current global food supply” (Raworth 2012: 5). By shifting to 

agroecology, indigenous/small peasant methods, and permaculture, coupled with equitable, 

redistributive, communal and local economies we can produce more nutritious food, ensure fairer 

distribution, reduce waste, regenerate biodiversity, and fight climate change (Altieri 2009). 

Economic/Financial Crisis. The 2008 global economic/financial downturn resulted from 

contingent, recent-historical, and structural factors. While contingent factors like the housing 

market collapse and recent-historical factors like neoliberal deregulation of financial markets are 

crucial, we underline the long-term structural problems. Most importantly the growing 

disconnection between (a.) an increasingly financialized global economy, (b.) the “real” economy 

of human production, and (c.) the “real-real” economy of socio-ecological reproduction based on 

the Earth’s biocapacity to provide “ecological services” (Kallis, Martinez-Alier and Norgaard 

2009). The increasingly financialized capitalist economy is grossly abstracted from the real 

economy of production based on human labor, and from the real-real economy of reproduction 

based on the socio-ecologically metabolic labor of communities and the planet. The second 



 

Journal of World-System Research   |   Vol. 22   Issue 2 

 

jwsr.org   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2016.631 

437 

structural problem is the exploding global inequality coupled with persistent poverty; this 

notwithstanding the continuous (albeit slowing) growth of the global economy. Again, the issue 

isn’t that we need more growth, but that we have an increasing concentration of wealth tied to 

gross maldistribution and rampant waste (according to Credit Suisse, the top 8% of the world’s 

population concentrates almost 80% of global wealth). The global economic system is based on a 

faulty notion of endless accumulation propelled by increasingly financialized debt disconnected 

from its growing social and ecological debt (Ahmed 2010; Foster, Clark, York 2010; Peterson 

2010; Kallis, Martinez-Alier and Norgaard 2009; Salleh 2010). 

Social Reproduction Crisis. This crisis results from the accelerated exploitation of 

productive and reproductive labor, leading to massive demographic displacements—so-called 

“migrations”—from rural to urban, and from peripheries to cores. Overconsumption in cores and 

now also semi-cores requires constantly increasing absorption of people—especially from semi-

peripheries and peripheries—into a global system of production geared towards endless growth. 

For example, people displaced from their local land bases by the globalization and intensification 

of corporate and/or state mega-projects, industrial monocrops and resource extraction are often 

absorbed as cheap migrant labor moving towards the exploding slum-settlements of chaotically 

growing urbanized centers in emerging Southern economies or towards already established 

Northern centers of accumulation. There, they are incorporated as easily exploitable, often 

undocumented labor, crossing dangerous, sometimes lethal, and increasingly militarized Northern 

borders (e.g., the US-Mexico border, the EU’s Mediterranean) (Robinson and Santos 2014). 

Demographic displacements are aggravated by environmental/climate degradation, oppression and 

conflicts—many rooted in colonial/postcolonial/neocolonial histories and hegemonic/imperialist 

wars. Rural to urban and South to North displacements drain the human, cultural, and social-

reproductive capabilities of traditional/rural/peasant/agricultural/fishing communities and 

Southern regions generally (Gasper and Truong 2014). The social reproduction crisis is gendered 

and racialized, primarily affecting women, peasants, indigenous communities, and people of color 

(Salleh 2010; Peterson 2010; McMichael 2011).  

The critical consequences are threefold: the brain drain, the proliferation of 

migrant/refugee labor, and the care drain. Racialized rural, peasant, indigenous and traditional 

communities are eroded by the massive transference or displacement of productive, reproductive, 

and intellectual labor to cities and to the North. Working-age people are being absorbed, often in 

violent, exploitative and oppressive conditions, into hyper-productive globalized economies of 

capital accumulation. Concomitantly, many children, elderly, and disabled are marginalized, left 

uncared for as socially-reproductive labor erodes. The care drain feeds the new genderization and 

feminization of labor in manufacturing, especially light assembly (e.g., maquiladoras, export-

processing zones, sweatshops). Labor feminization draws from migrant female workers coming 



 

Journal of World-System Research   |   Vol. 22  Issue 2   |   What Goes Around 

 

jwsr.org   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2016.631 

438 

from rural communities. Communities of origin, deprived of working age females (and males), 

lose the reproductive labor needed to care for social needs like education, safety, health, child and 

elderly care, often becoming reliant on migrant remittances. The care drain also feeds the South to 

North export of female labor to cover for the scarcity of reproductive labor resulting from the 

absorption of Northern female labor into the “productive” labor force. Moreover, the growing 

global sex trade absorbs and exploits economically-marginalized women, especially from 

semi/peripheries. Add gendered—and racialized—labor exploitation in less visible realms like 

domestic work, care work, and agroindustry. The social reproduction crisis also embeds a health 

crisis stemming from acute inequality, environmental degradation, neoliberal erosion of public 

health infrastructures, and deteriorated access to food, water and resources. This health crisis, on 

the one hand creates the growth of noncommunicable “diseases of globalization” resulting from 

consumerist, commodity-based, sedentary and industrial lifestyles (e.g., diabetes, coronary heart 

disease, obesity, hypertension, depression, etc.), while on the other hand it perpetuates in the 

“Third World” communicable diseases such as malaria and cholera, among many others. This 

health crisis interacts with other abovementioned crises to further complicate social reproduction 

and to trigger displacement (Harris and Seid 2004; Schreker 2012; McMichael, Barnett and 

McMichael 2012; Ottersen, Dasgupta, Blouin et.al. 2014; The Global Health Watch 2014). 

These crises are partly triggered and aggravated by neoliberalism, including its dismantling 

of social support networks and ecological protections globally since the 1980s, which set the stage 

for the globalization of corporate and financial capital at the expense of people and planet. Yet the 

roots of the planetary crisis are deeper. 

The planetary crisis, we contend, has resulted from the generalization of a hegemonic mode of 

civilization underpinned by the layered intersection of anthropocentric, androcentric, heterosexist, 

rationalist, Euro/Western-centric, modern/colonial, racialized, industrialist/developmentalist, 

capitalist, and ableist systems of power. These ten systems of power constitute the infrastructures of 

hegemonic civilization. Upon them, complex discursive and institutional apparatuses have been built 

and reproduced, asymmetrically shaping relations, practices, and cultures, often in structurally 

hierarchical, violent, oppressive, and exploitative ways. Such infrastructures buttress vitiated 

relations among humans and with non-humans, thereby producing, reproducing and accelerating the 

crises. These infrastructures must be critically and materially deconstructed to enable alternative 

worldviews, lifeways, organizational forms and practices to flourish. Drawing on decolonial, 

ecofeminist, posthumanist-ecological, and world-systems analysis we describe these infrastructures 

and how they feedback on each other:5  

 

                                                                                                                                                             
5 Diagram 1, illustrated later in the paper, also details this feedback. 



 

Journal of World-System Research   |   Vol. 22   Issue 2 

 

jwsr.org   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2016.631 

439 

 Anthropocentrism entails power relations that separate and privilege “human” life-forms vis-à-

vis the rest of nature. Anthropocentrism undergirds some of the central worldviews constituting 

the hegemonic order: Abrahamic traditions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), humanism, modern 

Western science, capitalism, the Westphalian state-system as based on the principle of non-

human nature as “territory” subject to anthropocentric sovereign dominion, etc. 

Anthropocentrism underpins an order where “Man” entitles himself with the right and power to 

hold and exercise dominion, sovereignty, property, territoriality and ownership over the rest of 

“nature.” “Nature” becomes accessory, instrument, and resource to an abstracted “Man” 

alienated from the lifeworld (e.g., Harawira 2012; Cudworth and Hobden 2011). 

 

 Androcentrism entails power relations that privilege human life-forms manifesting male 

attributes and masculine behaviors over non-male and non-masculine attributes/behaviors. 

Patriarchalism undergirds social orderings that privilege male/masculine forms, attributes, 

values, and dispositions. Hegemonic masculinity privileges dominant males and/or domineering 

masculinities (e.g., militarist, businessman). Androcentric, hegemonic-masculine, and 

patriarchal premises interact with anthropocentric and other premises (below) to buttress various 

worldviews underpinning the hegemonic order (e.g., Abrahamic traditions, colonialism, modern 

Western science, capitalism, the states-system, etc.) (e.g., Plumwood 2002; Salleh 2010; 

Peterson 2010).  

 

 Heterosexism privileges social-reproductive regimes based on dyadically-gendered 

(masculine/feminine) and/or biologically-dimorphic (male/female) relations. Hetero-

patriarchalism normalizes social-reproductive regimes that rely on dyadic, heterosexually-

constituted relations where male/masculine poles dominate feminine/female poles. These power 

relations have underpinned multiple, now hegemonic, worldviews (e.g., Abrahamic traditions), 

driving modernity, modern science, colonialism/imperialism, capitalism and the states-system 

(Lugones 2007; Connell 2000).  

 

 Rationalism privileges the faculty of “reason” (logos or ratio) as the principal means through 

which humans should relate to each other and to the lifeworld, and according to which humans 

should order their relations with themselves, each other and the rest of nature. Rationalism 

presumes a world operating according to an intelligibly coherent, predominantly linear and 

“universal” order of logic, language and/or law of which human “reason” is a mirror; and/or 

assumes that humans ought to structure the world through the projection of “reason” to order 

life, nature and “reality.” Rationalism often assumes a subject/object hierarchical binary where 

the “rational” and active subject (e.g., human, male, European/white) acts upon the “irrational” 



 

Journal of World-System Research   |   Vol. 22  Issue 2   |   What Goes Around 

 

jwsr.org   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2016.631 

440 

and passive/receiving object (e.g., non-human, non-male, non-European/non-white). It often also 

assumes an objectivism, positing a “reality” outside the “subject,” and a mind/body, 

intellect/matter division. Rationalism presumes the possibility to compartmentalize, separate or 

analyze the world for the purposes rationalizing, objectifying, mastering and instrumentalizing 

“it,” or synthesizing “it” in the service of human interests. Rationalism seeks to demystify and 

desacralize the world, rendering it amenable to mastery, power, control and manipulation. 

Rationalism privileges “reason” over pathos, passion, emotion, spirit/spirituality, sensation, 

relationality, intuition, empathy, compassion, instinct, animality, etc.—and deems “inferior” 

and/or marginalizes life-forms/lifeways (whether human or non-human) associated with the 

latter attributes (e.g., views privileging and separating “rational” men from “emotional” women, 

“rational” Europeans-whites from “savage/barbaric” non-Europeans, “rational Man” from 

“instinctual” animals and “wild” nature, “rational, self-governing” upper classes from 

“ungovernable” lower classes driven by bodily passions, etc.). Rationalism underpins modernity, 

modern science, capitalism, industrialism, the state, anthropocentrism, colonialism, 

Eurocentrism, racism, and other hegemonic systems (e.g., Apffell-Marglin 2011; Quijano 1991; 

Adelman 2015). 

 

 Euro/Western-centrism entails a “civilizational chauvinism” privileging European cultures and 

their inheritors (e.g., settler states) as bearers of “reason,” “superior culture,” “civilization,” 

“modernity,” “ethnoracial supremacy,” etc. Euro/Western-centrism undergirds the 

modern/colonial and racialized world ordering, in turn shaping a global class structure and 

division of labor privileging the West over the rest, placing the Western and Westernized at the 

core of the world-capitalist system, setting the “standard of civilization” and “development” for 

“uncivilized/undeveloped/developing others” (e.g., Gruffyd-Jones, et.al. 2006). 

 

 Modernity/Coloniality is the power-matrix enabling the emergence and consolidation of the 

modern world, its “epistemologies of mastery” (Adelman 2015), notably its “mastery of nature” 

through modern science, technology, industry, urban civilization, and development(alism). 

These have been built on an intersection of oppressive systems like the imperial/colonial world 

ordering under Euro/Western-centric domination and hegemony, leading to the subjugation, 

extermination, enslavement, destruction, destructuration and/or marginalization of the non-

Western, non-white and non-urban. This power matrix underpins a historically-ongoing 

racialized, classist, and sexist world-ordering with hierarchically-differentiated divisions of 

power and labor (Quijano 1991; Grosfoguel 2009). 

 

 Race and racism derive from, and help constitute Euro/Western-centrism and the 



 

Journal of World-System Research   |   Vol. 22   Issue 2 

 

jwsr.org   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2016.631 

441 

modern/colonial power matrix wherein discourses construing humans as hierarchically separated 

by phenotypical and ethno/culturally essentialized attributes are circulated globally, and 

sedimented locally, through disciplinary powers and normalized governmentalities of rule; this 

has entrenched hierarchically racialized systems of power/oppression privileging a socio-

politically constructed, and materially/economically entrenched ordering where Euro-Western 

and white supremacy rests on the subjugation of “non-white/Southern other(s)” (Gruffyd Jones 

2008). 

 

 Industrialism and developmentalism operate together, structuring complex socioeconomic and 

political-economic apparatuses through which “modernization,” built upon discourses of 

mastery of nature and metanarratives of linear growth and progress, is attained. This through 

reliance on hierarchical, mechanized, specialized and bureaucratizing/corporate modes of social 

division of labor, production, and distribution. Their purpose is to harness energy/labor from 

human and non-human sources so as to extract and process “resources” into the creation of mass 

socioeconomic infrastructures meant for the enhancement of commodious lifestyles (especially 

for globally-privileged classes/groups) and the production, distribution and consumption of ever 

increasing amounts of commodities (e.g., McMichael 2010; Salleh 2010, 2012). 

 

 Capitalism is a system based on private property/ownership of means of production held by a 

class seeking to capitalize on the commodification and extraction of surplus value from labor 

and nature. Capitalism produces ever more numerous commodities for exchange in a market 

with the intent of obtaining profits. These profits are reinvested in further production for 

exchange in a perennial drive to accumulate capital. Capital accumulation and the systematic 

pursuit of profit builds on, reproduces and aggravates the “two contradictions of capital:” That 

in the drive for profit and capital accumulation, both human labor and nature’s labor must be 

increasingly subjected to the extraction of surplus value (e.g., through disciplinary 

“enhancements of productivity and efficiency”). In turn this leads to the exploitation and 

exhaustion of the two main sources of value and wealth: humans and Mother Earth/“nature.” 

The first contradiction is that capital accumulation requires, yet undermines the human source of 

value (i.e., “labor/human resources”); the second contradiction is that capitalism requires, yet 

undermines the “natural” source of value (i.e., “natural resources” like biodiversity, the 

atmosphere, and the Earth’s crust). Hence, capitalism is a major driver of the ecological rift 

(Foster et.al. 2010; Ahmed 2010). 

 

 Ableism privileges bodies considered within hegemonic discourses to manifest faculties, 

attributes and behaviors enabling them to “fully operate” within expectations set by the above-



 

Journal of World-System Research   |   Vol. 22  Issue 2   |   What Goes Around 

 

jwsr.org   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2016.631 

442 

described power relations. Thus, faculties associated with the “human,” “male,” and “fully-

abled,” etc., are privileged (e.g., “rationality” over instinct, intellect/mind over emotion, 

humanity over animality, culture over nature, youth over old age, ability over “disability,” etc.). 

Within this intersection of power infrastructures, certain capabilities—and their bodily carriers—

are hierarchically privileged over others as a function of interlocking standards like “efficiency” 

and “productivity” (e.g., capitalism), and of the disciplinary/functional and aesthetic expectations 

imposed by dominant cultures of power that are anthropocentric, androcentric, heterosexist, 

rationalist, Eurocentric, racist, etc. (Russel and Maholtra 2002).  

These infrastructures, which directly relate to the crises, underpin the dominant structures, 

discourses, practices and relationships constituting the hegemonic civilization (see Diagram 1, 

below).  

 

Diagram 1. Infrastructures of Hegemonic Civilization & Global Crises 

 

 

 

Coloniality of Power: Cloning Hegemony 

For decolonial theorist Nelson Maldonado-Torres, coloniality entails “long-standing patterns of 

power that emerged as result of colonialism” and continue to “define culture, labor, 

intersubjectivity relations, and knowledge-production well beyond the…limits of colonial 



 

Journal of World-System Research   |   Vol. 22   Issue 2 

 

jwsr.org   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2016.631 

443 

administrations. Thus, coloniality survives colonialism” (quoted in Dastile and Ndlovu Gastheni 

2013:108-109). This continuation and/or reconfiguration of colonial legacies in multifarious forms 

of “coloniality” is embodied and reproduced by hegemonic assemblages including structures, 

practices, discourses, knowledges, institutions, hierarchies, and cultural manifestations. For 

instance, belief-systems, religions, spiritualities, worldviews and cosmovisions (e.g., Abrahamic 

worldviews, especially Christian hegemony over indigenous cosmovisions); also languages, 

ideologies, discourses and structures of social relations (e.g., race/ethnicity, class, gender, 

sexuality, linguistic imperialism, etc.); international/global relations and political structures (e.g., 

Western over non-Western, North over South, center over periphery, rural over urban, states over 

commons, etc.); socio-ecological modes of organization (e.g., anthropocentric systems) including 

regimes of land tenure (e.g., “property” over commons, “dominion/sovereignty” over land, “man” 

over nature), regimes of production (e.g., modern industrial capitalism and state socialism over 

land-based communalism) and regimes of reproduction (e.g., the hetero-monogamous family). 

Such hegemonic apparatuses build on, reconfigure, reproduce and seek—whether consciously or 

not—to perpetuate asymmetric and/or exploitative relations born of colonial legacies and 

reenacted through (neo)colonial relations of power/knowledge and mastery of nature.  

 Coloniality persists, even when formal colonialism has supposedly ended. The so-called 

“postcolonial” condition (e.g., throughout the “Third World”) embeds a coloniality reproduced and 

propagated by Westernized elites and intelligentsias through the abovementioned hegemonic 

assemblages and apparatuses, etc. Ramon Grosfoguel notes:  

 

One…powerful myth…of the twentieth century was the notion that the elimination 

of colonial administrations amounted to the decolonization of the world. This led 

to the myth of a ‘postcolonial’ world. The…structures put in place over…450 years 

did not evaporate with…juridical-political decolonization of the periphery over the 

past 50 years. We continue to live under the…‘colonial power matrix’. With 

juridical-political decolonization we moved from…‘global colonialism’ to the 

current period of ‘global coloniality’ (quoted in Dastile and Ndlovu-Gastheni 

2013:118).  

 

Not even formal colonialism has ended; many settler-colonial states, elites and powers persist 

and many people(s) are subject to settler-colonialism and border imperialism—e.g., “Fourth World” 

indigenous populations, migrants, refugees, etc. (Walia 2013). In any case, like Dastile and Ndlovu-

Gastheni underline, often “postcolonial states…remain…operating like colonial states, unleashing 

violence” on local and indigenous people “who are…often treated like subjects rather than citizens 

by their leaders. Juridical freedom has not…translated into popular freedom” (118)—let alone 



 

Journal of World-System Research   |   Vol. 22  Issue 2   |   What Goes Around 

 

jwsr.org   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2016.631 

444 

economic emancipation or cultural/civilizational decolonization. Postcolonial elites and 

intelligentsias are heavily assimilated into the coloniality of the dominant worldview, they often 

aspire to be(come) like the colonizer and create in their lands a mirror image or clone of the 

colonizer’s society. They “conceive…[their] mission as the dragging of a [‘]technically 

backward[’], [‘]unschooled[’], subsistence-oriented population” into “modernity” (Scott 

1998:96)—often violently dragging the “undeveloped”, either through “markets” or the “state” or 

both. Gonzales (2015) summarizes: “[i]n the post-colonial period, Southern elites, deeply 

influenced by Eurocentric ideologies, [have] subjugated…indigenous and minority 

populations…to ‘modernize’ and ‘develop’ them” (13). 

 To understand how coloniality disseminates the dominant civilizational model we revisit 

Essed’s and Goldberg’s (2002) critical analysis of (1) the “cultures of cloning” and (2) the “cloning 

of cultures.” Here, “cultures of cloning,” entails the colonization of the lifeworld by systems that 

standardize the production and reproduction of objects (e.g., standardized commodification of life) 

and subjects (e.g., reproduction of modern and/or neoliberal subjectivities). This, according to 

hegemonic models, privileges male, masculine, heteronormative, Euro-Western, modernist, 

productivist, consumerist, bourgeois-capitalist subjectivities. Invoking Walter Benjamin 

(2008[1936]), we argue that hegemonic modes of production propagate a mechanical/automatized 

reproduction of commodified objects and subjects modeled on modernist/colonial, industrial, and 

capitalist economies of scale. Hegemonic apparatuses mechanize/automatize/standardize the 

replication of entities and subjectivities framed by the (above-described) infrastructures of power. 

Consider how corporate apparatuses of capital clone entities and commodities employing industrial 

economies of scale and monocultures, and promoting consumerism through marketing to reproduce 

standardized “modern” subjectivities. Ideological state apparatuses play a crucial role in reproducing 

subjectivities modeled on hegemonic infrastructures. 

 “Cloning of cultures” entails the imposition, exportation, transplantation, copying, emulation, 

or imitation of hegemonic modes of social (and we add ecological) ordering. Consider how 

coloniality propagates a desire to transplant and mechanically reproduce or “clone” the worldviews 

and lifeways of “cores” to “peripheries.” Consider also how “diffusionist” and “catch up” discourses 

and practices of “civilization” and “development” propagate models of social-ecological ordering 

that replicate the infrastructures of hegemonic civilization. Colonialism/neocolonialism has been 

crucial in “spreading” this mono-cultural “standard of civilization” via notions of progress that 

“globalize” anthropocentric, hegemonic-masculine, modernist, Euro/Western-centric, liberal, 

capitalist and consumerist models of organization; thus attempts at establishing the hegemonic 

civilization as the long-term global aspiration of all peoples—especially elites—embody a 

systematic cloning of cultures propagated through coloniality. 

 



 

Journal of World-System Research   |   Vol. 22   Issue 2 

 

jwsr.org   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2016.631 

445 

This cloning of hegemonic cultures has ensued without regard to its destruction of diversity 

(both social and biotic—sociobiodiversity) and its undermining of resilience. Resilience rests on 

diversity as a source of alternative lifeforms and lifeways so that the potential failure of one mode 

of social-ecological ordering need not bring a universal “planetary collapse of civilization.” 

Contrarily, the planetarization of one hegemonic civilization clones imperial modes of living which 

undermine the diversity needed for the resilience of—human and nonhuman—life. This is equal to 

the spread of a monoculture, and as such it damages the Earth and is unsustainable. The violence 

done to sociobiodiversity through the worldwide cloning of hegemonic civilization not only damages 

particular lifeforms and lifeways, but weakens overall socioecological resilience. Resilient 

ecosystems, species and cultures must cultivate diversity as a strategy for flexible adaptation; thus, 

if one “model” fails, other alternatives will survive to buttress healthy, viable lifeways in the service 

of life’s reproduction. The hegemonic model is structurally violent not only because of its unjust and 

exploitative hierarchies, or the social-ecological crises they engender, but its obliteration of the 

sociobiodiversity needed for resilience. These violences engender manifold social-ecological 

resistances now destabilizing the hegemonic civilization and counteracting its colonization of the 

planet. 

 Cloning of the hegemonic model is risky as it respects no limits, demands endless growth and 

needs continued expansion and colonization of the lifeworld to reproduce. Modern industrial 

civilization—especially its capitalist variant—requires socioecological imperialism because its drive 

for growth, profit, and accumulation overexploits and exhausts the labor of nature and humans in 

their local ecologies. Its search for ever lower human and natural resource costs makes it 

expansionary, normalizing the exploitation of humans and exhaustion of nature. Its expansive 

coloniality embeds its own contradiction as the hegemonic model cannot realize for all the aspiration 

of effectively globalizing an imperial mode of living. This is because a class of subordinated labor 

must exist, and the planet cannot sustain the global elites’ excesses of consumption and waste. The 

hegemonic model already dangerously transgresses planetary boundaries; the Earth won’t withstand 

its further universalization. The colonially-manufactured desire for a “Western way of life” will go 

unfulfilled; tensions, frustrations and conflicts will erupt. The coloniality of power stimulates 

aspirations which hegemonic barriers concomitantly frustrate—as subjugated classes are required to 

provide labor for dominant classes. These contradictions spell tension between established cores, 

and aspiring semi/peripheral groups. 

 Coloniality operates in/through discourses like the “standard of civilization,” 

“modernization,” “progress,” “development(alism),” “hegemonic masculinity,” and the “End of 

History” with its globalization of a modern-Western-liberal-capitalist-consumerist-market 

“democracy.” Propagated through neo/colonial ideological apparatuses these discourses have 

subjugated and destroyed alternative worldviews and lifeways, disseminating instead practices, 



 

Journal of World-System Research   |   Vol. 22  Issue 2   |   What Goes Around 

 

jwsr.org   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2016.631 

446 

hierarchies, and power relations that enact and entrench hegemonic civilizational infrastructures. 

Today, dominant discourses spread through “diffusionist” processes (often with complicity from 

not-so-“postcolonial” elites) propagating standardized hegemonic models and reproducing the 

expectation that peripheral subjects ought to emulate and “catch up” with cores. This cloning of 

cultures is a risky global experiment supplanting diversity—the source of resilience—with a 

speculative investment of the human species and the planet’s fate into a single civilizational model 

that is unsustainable, destabilizing and unjust. 

 

Costs of Playing Catch-Up 

Playing catch-up with the North often requires the present-day rehearsal in accelerated and 

compressed manner of practices that have underpinned the North’s “rise” to planetary dominance—

including coercive statecraft, eco/imperialism, neo/colonialism. Comparable practices, now 

rehearsed in “updated” forms by regimes/elites of “emerging economies,” often attempt to replicate 

core-like centers of accumulation/consumption/growth (e.g., BRICS megalopolises). To achieve 

this, emerging economies must resort to internal colonialism and/or subimperialism to compel into 

subjection their “own” peripheries as sources of exploitable natural and human resources. 

 The cloning/imitation and local entrenchment of the hegemonic civilizational model has been 

promoted to—purportedly—bring peripheral and semi-peripheral economies out of economic 

disparity, most recently through neoliberal development projects. Such projects have had opposite 

results, increasing inequalities left by colonialism. Since the hegemonic civilizational 

infrastructure has been partly constructed during direct colonialism, it has consolidated 

dependency structures that cannot be dismantled without destabilizing the world-system 

(Grosfoguel 2009). In such a world-system, core economies and semi-peripheries (1) depend on 

natural resources and labor from peripheries; (2) core-economies depend on peripheries and semi-

peripheries for high-intensity/low-wage labor and low cost natural resources; and (3) peripheral 

and semi-peripheral economies depend on cores for capital (credit, investments) and manufactured 

commodities (Sheppard 2009). 

 As the hegemonic world-system triggers an ecological crisis created by its anthropocentric 

political-economy, the pursuit of endless accumulation and consumption confronts planetary 

boundaries (Foster, Clark and York 2010). Hegemonic powers increasingly depend on 

superstructural apparatuses that have enabled resource outflow and labor exploitation from 

semi/peripheries to maintain their imperial mode of living. Path-dependence commits hegemonic 

powers to securitize structural inequality to preserve the world division of labor and power. This 

prevent cores from allowing spaces for the development of aspiring semi/peripheries as this would 

challenge the world-system structure which maintains their privilege. The core of the world-

system cannot be enlarged: its political-economy is already breaching planetary boundaries. 



 

Journal of World-System Research   |   Vol. 22   Issue 2 

 

jwsr.org   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2016.631 

447 

Enlargement would accelerate commodity extraction, production, consumption, and waste further 

destabilizing the planet, catastrophically. Development projects wedded to hegemonic 

civilizational values cannot open spaces for autonomous development (Sheppard 2009). 

 Thus, peripheral and semi-peripheral countries have two roads to “development:” (1) 

play the catch-up game based on Northern rules (e.g., those imposed via the global financial 

institutions); or (2) play the “true” catch-up game by replicating the colonial/imperial behavior 

underpinning the North’s rise to core-status. The first road means adopting neoliberal development 

projects—like Structural Adjustment Programs—entailing deregulation, privatization and 

liberalization, which transfers assets into circuits of globalized capital (Ahmed 2010). Countries 

adopting WB and IMF recommendations/programs have faced increased dependency on core-

economies, and experienced slower economic growth than those distancing themselves from them 

(e.g., China, India). Since the 1980s, China and India displayed the strongest growth rates in the 

developing world. Conversely, as Ahmed states, “another 80 or so less developed 

countries…experienced worsening…poverty” (2010:111). China and India “accounted for 12% of 

total developing countries income in 1980 and 30% in 2000”; both—especially China—have 

rejected neoliberal policies (Chang 2008). Global economic inequality has increased since the 

implementation of neoliberal projects: “In 1960, the income of the 20% of the world’s population 

living in the richest countries was 30 times greater than that of the 20% in the poorest countries. 

By 1997 it was 74 times greater” (Ahmed 2010:119). Adopting the development projects promoted 

by hegemonic cores seems ineffective for emerging out of peripheral status.  

 Historically, few—if any—of the current core-economies have reached (or maintained) core-

status through classical or neoclassical (neo)liberal policies, but instead have combined 

(neo)imperialism and protectionism until domestic markets could compete internationally; thus, 

“[w]hile they were imposing free trade on weaker nations through colonialism and unequal 

treaties, rich countries maintained…high tariffs, especially industrial tariffs” (Chang 2008:25). So, 

playing the catch-up game by the core’s rules means playing on an unequal field; “newcomers” 

are expected to obey rules established by hegemons who haven’t followed them, and to overlook 

historical injustices that entrenched structural inequalities. 

 The second road into achieving the hegemonic civilizational model is to imitate—in 

contemporary contexts—the actual practices that underpinned the North’s rise to planetary 

hegemony during direct and indirect colonialism and state-protectionism. Yet, such an approach 

meets contemporary challenges because it requires an accelerated and compressed present-day 

imitation of these practices, and it challenges the economic, military, and political domination of 

contemporary core-economies. Hence, emerging economies are forced to (re)identify or (re)create 

their own peripheral economies through subimperialism and/or internal colonialism so as to fuel 

development through increased natural resource extraction and subjugation of labor. Due to the 



 

Journal of World-System Research   |   Vol. 22  Issue 2   |   What Goes Around 

 

jwsr.org   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2016.631 

448 

world-system’s hegemonic structure, such approach is difficult to execute externally without 

amassing and employing substantial political, military and economic power. Thus, the cloning of 

the modern/colonial infrastructure and the creation of core-like metropolises (of 

accumulation/consumption/growth) requires new forms of colonialism and/or imperialism. Many 

“emerging countries”—e.g., BRICS—turn to either regional sub-imperialism (e.g., South Africa 

in Sub-Saharan Africa, Brazil in the Andes, Russia in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus, China in 

Africa, Tibet, Inner Mongolia, South China Sea) and/or to domestic internal-colonialism (e.g., 

China in Ugyur territory, India in adivasi lands, or Brazil in the Amazon). This form of ecological 

and human subjugation is seen as more permissible since it doesn’t directly challenge core 

economies’ sphere of influence. 

 Hence, the rise to (semi)core status through the imitation of the actual historical rise of 

hegemons can only be executed internally or regionally if emerging economies don’t want to 

directly challenge the world-system’s power balance. Yet, such development doesn’t only mean 

regional and/or internal subjugation, but subjugation in a condensed version where developing 

countries attempt to create what took current core economies 200-500 years of colonial-industrial 

development/modernization (Sheppard 2009; Grosfoguel 2009). In historical perspective this is 

crucial. Consider the relationship between oppressive totalitarian statecraft and rapid 

industrialization during the USSR’s rise with today’s BRICS. In 1931, Stalin (1976) stated: “[w]e 

are 50 to 100 years behind the advanced countries. We must cover this distance in ten years. Either 

we'll succeed or we'll go under.” Stalin(ism)’s rapid modernization not only entrenched crucial 

infrastructures of hegemonic civilization but relied on violent and totalitarian control over 

agriculture, urbanization, industrialization, military and culture, resulting in internal and 

regional/external subjugation of labor and nature through “authoritarian high modernism” (Scott 

1998). Authoritarian modes—whether more or less violent—of internal/sub-imperialism (whether 

through state, corporate-market, or mixed policies) have reappeared whenever emerging 

economies pursuing rapid growth start relying on comparable methods, which aggravate 

colonially-inherited and add new oppressions, inequalities, human rights violations and 

environmental degradations (Ribeiro 2015). Patrick Bond warns:  

  

 

[T]here are…greater dangers of BRICS playing a ‘sub-imperialist’ 

role…contributing to neoliberal regime-maintenance (especially in Africa), or…an 

inter-imperialist role as Russia…in the Ukraine/Crimea…[Notice the] super-

exploitative relations…[as] Chinese households are torn from rural land during 

the…urbanization process…[T]ransferred to the international scale…China’s role 

has been…predatory…, backed by its support to local dictators (e.g.,…Chinese 



 

Journal of World-System Research   |   Vol. 22   Issue 2 

 

jwsr.org   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2016.631 

449 

military and Zimbabwean generals conjoined…in the world’s largest diamond 

fields, with a resulting Resource Curse as extreme as any…) (Bond 2014). 

  

The world-system’s predatory “logic” has been entrenched through a coloniality now 

reproduced by emerging economies’ regimes/elites. The two approaches to development 

(hegemonically-sponsored neoliberal developmentalism vis-à-vis sub-imperialism/internal-

imperialism/neo-imperialism) compared in the economic growth they stimulate show that global 

development is limited by the cores’ interests. Moreover, the hegemonic mode of civilizational 

development can “succeed” only through violent transformations of local and regional landscapes 

and peoples into “resources.” Oftentimes, aggressively developmentalist emerging economies 

combine both approaches, multiplying the violence. Given the continued growth of core 

economies and the increasing destabilization of the Earth-system, emerging economies only have 

two practical choices if they want to play the “catch-up” game with the North’s imperial mode of 

living without clashing directly with cores: either remain dependent on the hegemonic system, or 

turn to internal colonialism and/or sub-imperialism. 

 

Civilization on a Crash Course 

In striving to emulate the hegemonic civilization, emerging economies face two obstacles. First, the 

barriers imposed by cores which resist challenges from subaltern states and economies on whose 

low-cost resources and labor their power and lifestyles depend (the “first contradiction of capitalism” 

writ-large). Second, the planetary boundaries imposed by the planet’s finite carrying capacity, in an 

already destabilized Earth system (the “second contradiction of capitalism” writ-large). These 

barriers and boundaries impose limits on semi/peripheral development. They reveal the inability of 

the hegemonic economic system to function without unevenly exploited labor and without 

exhausting the planet’s metabolism. Cloning the core’s civilizational model is unsustainable. If this 

model continues expanding, it will destroy the natural and human bases for its own reproduction. 

Plus the socioecological resistance and blowback it provokes may overwhelm it. Understanding the 

unsustainability of the global economic system requires a planetary civilizational perspective that 

includes, yet transcends the critique of capitalism. Even if capitalism were materially deconstructed 

and supplanted by a less exploitative system, problems derived from other infrastructures of power 

(e.g., anthropocentrism) would remain. A deeper deconstruction and transformation is required. 

To maintain the hegemonic civilization and its overconsumptive patterns cores and 

metropolitan centers must uphold a hierarchically divided world-system and rely on superstructural 

barriers to limit semi/peripheral economies from reaching core status and/or challenging power 

distributions. Such barriers are upheld by neoliberal governmentality, sponsored by the 

WB/IMF/WTO trinity, and through policy packages that have been shown to slow growth, increase 



 

Journal of World-System Research   |   Vol. 22  Issue 2   |   What Goes Around 

 

jwsr.org   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2016.631 

450 

intersectional inequalities, maintain poverty, and devastate environments. Southern majorities 

resist and oppose the policies of international economic/financial institutions and their adoption 

by Southern regimes/elites. In 2000 the WB conducted a collaborative 5-year research project with 

Southern civil society groups. It concluded that neoliberal policies led to: 

 

[I]ncreased current-account and trade deficits and debts; disappointing levels of 

economic growth, efficiency and competitiveness;…misallocation of financial and 

other productive resources;…‘disarticulation’ of national economies;…destruction 

of national productive capacity; and extensive environmental damage…[With 

neoliberal policies] far more intense and pervasive than…20 years ago, wealth is 

more highly concentrated, and opportunities are far fewer for the many who have 

been left behind by adjustment (quoted in Ahmed 2010:111). 

 

Following the report’s release, the WB discarded the research, distancing itself from these 

collaborative practices (Ahmed 2010). This clarifies the impact of hegemonic developmentalism. 

It shows that many developing nations are caught in a vicious circle of dependency and 

underdevelopment where the adoption of neoliberal policies that comes with the acceptance of 

conditional loans from the IMF and WB limits development. This structure is not only upheld by 

financial dependency relations. International economic/financial institutions (e.g., 

WB/IMF/WTO), and supranational and intergovernmental economic organizations/instruments 

(e.g., EU, NAFTA, CAFTA, TPP) that supposedly promote equitable global/regional development 

are highly undemocratic, corporatized, and dominated by core economies and capitalist interests. 

In the WB, the US holds the largest share of 15.62%, Japan 7.8% and China 5.4%. The three most 

powerful countries hold four times more voting power than all of Africa (53 countries, 7.05%) 

(“International Bank” 2015). In the IMF the US controls 16.75% of the votes; Japan holds 6.23% 

(“IMF Members’” 2015). The US holds close to veto-power in both. And while the WTO has a 

one-country-one-vote-system, power is still skewed: 

 

[V]otes are never taken, and the organization is…run by an oligarchy [of]…rich 

countries… [I]n various ministerial meetings…all…important negotiations were 

held in…so-called Green Rooms…‘by-invitation-only’…[D]uring the 1999 Seattle 

meeting…, some developing country delegates who tried to get into Green Rooms 

without invitations were physically thrown out (Chang 2008: 36-37). 

 

If any revisionist power among emerging economies were to consider employing non -

peaceful means to challenge the hegemonic order, they’d face an equally skewed international 



 

Journal of World-System Research   |   Vol. 22   Issue 2 

 

jwsr.org   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2016.631 

451 

security order where NATO members represent 60% of global military spending (NATO 2013); 

US expenditures alone constitute 34% of global spending (Perlo-Freeman et.al. 2015). Further, the 

UN Security Council has institutionalized veto-power for the largest weapons manufacturers; four 

are European or Euro-American powers, three are NATO members (SIPRI 2014). 

 Thus, intergovernmental and supranational organizations are set up to block newcomers from 

reaching core status. Moreover, it is difficult to break into a global market dominated by interests 

associated with core states. An ensemble of preferential and free trade agreements among core-

economies further complicates market entry to non-core actors (Sheppard 2009). Given this 

superstructural institutional apparatus, semi/peripheral economies are obstructed in pursuing 

development. 

 As continuing economic growth creates ever-larger resource demand exceeding the Earth’s 

carrying capacity, controlling the remaining resources and preserving dependency relations 

becomes essential for core economies seeking to securitize an unsustainable lifeway facing 

planetary boundaries and global resource depletion. As depletion continues to drive natural resource 

costs upwards, capital “compensates” by relocating to labor markets with depressed wages and/or 

putting downward political-economic pressures on labor costs while demanding increased 

productivity. Maintaining core lifestyles aggravates labor exploitation. For example, Southern 

workers in export-processing zones earn unlivable wages producing commodities sold in the North 

at prices allowing superprofits. 

 Planetary boundaries further complicate the pursuit of growth for semi/peripheral 

economies; especially as catch-up strategies require them to extract like core-economies to emulate 

the imperial mode of living. As continued growth clashes with planetary boundaries neoimperialist 

and subimperialist strategies will likely accelerate in a scramble for rapidly dwindling resources. 

Both imperial market globalism and subimperial/interimperial strategies will intensify. 

 The structural limitations to the development of the underdeveloped show three contradictions 

of the hegemonic civilization: endless accumulation, consumption, and growth deplete resources, 

breach planetary boundaries and exhaust Earth’s metabolic labor.  The global propagation of the 

hegemonic model through coloniality widens intersectional inequalities and triggers geopolitical 

volatilities. Core economies rely on a world-systemic structural division of power and labor, while 

large emerging economies must elbow their way into an imperial lifestyle, inevitably challenging 

such structure. The planet, already facing ecological tipping-points, cannot sustain core imperial 

lifestyles; it will certainly collapse if the South fails to emancipate itself from the obsession to catch-

up with the North and if it fails to resist and overcome the coloniality buttressing this obsession. Yet 

various powerful “emerging economies” are already failing at this, venturing instead beyond internal 

colonialism towards subimperialism and neoimperialism to build their own “spheres of economic 

influence.” The hegemonic civilizational model demands such expansionism, yet because of it the 



 

Journal of World-System Research   |   Vol. 22  Issue 2   |   What Goes Around 

 

jwsr.org   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2016.631 

452 

multiple crises undermining the socioecological basis for its reproduction are triggered. These 

contradictions produce “scarcities,” social-ecological resistances and conflicts that wouldn’t 

otherwise emerge. Consider tensions in Eastern Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, 

and the Arctic where conflicts proliferate around the geopolitics/geoeconomics of food, energy, and 

resources strategic for development(alism). In the Arctic, for example, Nordic Rim countries and 

other powers like China scramble for geostrategic control over resources (oil, natural gas, minerals) 

and new trade/shipping routes (e.g. Northwest/Northeast passage). Consider also global land/water 

grabs (TNI 2103, 2014), and the “new” scramble for/recolonization of Africa (McMichael 2011). 

 Contemporary events resemble conditions leading to World War I, which partly resulted from 

conflicts over colonial control. Current neocolonial tendencies project comparable 

geopolitical/geoeconomic tensions. Prior to WWI, the rapid spread of modernization, 

industrialization and nationalism created new powerful nation-states—mainly Germany, Italy, US, 

Japan, and Russia. This challenged the hegemony of established European empires. Emergent 

economies propelled revisionist states which sought entry into the “great game” yet e ncountered 

hegemonic economic and military barriers. Through aggressive state-building and rapid 

industrialization/modernization, revisionist states sought to elbow their way into the colonial 

spheres of established powers. “New Imperialism” allowed some emergent powers (e.g., the US, 

Germany, Japan, Russia, Italy) to grab spacious lands and subject peoples in the service of empire 

and economic growth. So long as emergent powers didn’t have to elbow out established empires, 

conflict was averted—or deferred. But for Germany, Italy, and later Japan revisionist aspirations 

for parity in the interimperial order clashed with established imperial cores. Emergent economies 

paid dearly for late entry into a violent inter-imperial order. The era of New Imperialism 

temporarily deferred conflict over resource scarcities within Europe—scarcities created by the 

unsustainable political-economy of the dominant civilization; but conflict within Europe was 

deferred only because established and emergent powers were colonizing peoples and territories 

outside Europe. Old and new empires roamed the globe subjugating lands and peoples to serve 

their “imperial mode of living.” As socioecological space ran out, ecological limitations and 

political resistances against imperial expansion created explosive tensions, especially as German 

and Italian industrialization increasingly challenged the hegemonic/imperial system while the US 

and Japan vied over control of the Pacific. Ultimately “the imperial chicken came home to roost” 

as the scramble turned inwards against Europe. Like the old empires, new empires seeking to 

catch-up sought socioecological peripheries for labor and resource exploitation and markets to fuel 

growth. This anthropocentric, Eurocentric and modern-industrial civilization required 

socioecological imperialism/colonialism. Massive conflict resulted from an exploitative 

civilization. 

 



 

Journal of World-System Research   |   Vol. 22   Issue 2 

 

jwsr.org   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2016.631 

453 

 Today’s world-system risks a similar collision course. Consider the numerous international 

conflicts, land and resource grabs reflecting increased global volatility (e.g., Russian-Ukrainian 

conflict, Middle East energy conflicts, the Arctic scramble, land/water grabs, etc.). Possible future 

outcomes may be: (1) a paradigm shift and “great transition” beyond the hegemonic civilization, 

and/or (2) a clash if large emerging economies grow enough to challenge current hegemons; or (3) 

further concentration of resources, commodities and capital, centralization of global political-

economic authority, increasing planetary degradation and limitations on growth—all potentially 

resulting in unprecedented, long-lasting and severe global economic depression marked and 

potentially triggered by profound ecological degradation and widespread social instability. 

 

 

The Great Transition 

Contemporary crises result from the globalization of an ecologically unsustainable, socially 

stratifying and politically volatile model of civilization driven by endless accumulation, consumption 

and growth on a finite planet. Ironically, the very success in globalizing this model through the 

coloniality of power may provoke its autophagous self-destruction through the planetary crisis. 

 To explore alternatives we invoke two decolonial/postcolonial discussions. First, Inayatullah’s 

(2013) differentiation of power relations based on claims to “exclusive knowledge” versus equitable 

“knowledge encounters;” second, Grosfoguel’s (2009) proposal for “border thinking” in the pursuit 

of “transmodernities.” Exclusive knowledge claims (re)produce epistemological power relations 

where one side claims to know the “true” logic, language, or law concerning the desirable order and 

working of the world. Such claims are often monological and universalist. They arrogate for the 

claimant an entitlement to position the self over others. Here, the claimant often believes, 

condescendingly, that he—more often than she—can patriarchally “lead,” “bestow” upon, or “teach” 

others the “truth” (e.g., the “standard of civilization”) and the “path” to it (e.g., through progress, 

modernization, industrialization, development, the market). While the claimant might consider his 

condescending attitude benevolent, others recognize it as paternalistic, perhaps domineering. 

Exclusive knowledge claims undergird the coloniality of power, doing violence to diversity and 

its plural perspectives. They provoke resistance as alleged recipients often recognize that their 

experiences, knowledges, practices, worldviews, and even bodies are being dismissed, excluded, 

distorted, appropriated, subordinated and othered—that is, sub-alter(n)ed. However, where 

asymmetric power relations prevail, hegemonic domination complicates subaltern resistance. Still 

“underground arts of resistance” (Scott 1990) can be employed, including foot-dragging and 

mimicry (i.e., pretending to follow and obey but superficially). Yet exclusive knowledge claims may 

not be resisted by all subalterns, as some may benefit from partaking in the reproduction of purported 

“universal truths.” This characterizes some not-so-postcolonial elites who exploit dominant 



 

Journal of World-System Research   |   Vol. 22  Issue 2   |   What Goes Around 

 

jwsr.org   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2016.631 

454 

discourses in their desire to emulate hegemonic models and partake of some privileges. This 

perpetuates internalized coloniality, domestic colonialism, and subimperialism—yet sparks 

resistances.  

 Whenever postcolonial elites fail to look beyond the colonizers legacy and decolonize their 

worldviews and aspirations, they clone the very lifeways which led to their subjugation. As they 

strive to clone the colonizer’s model and obtain recognition as “equals” within the colonizer’s world, 

“postcolonial” elites may tragically end up relying on the very means through which established 

powers achieved their dominant position—however violent these may be. Gonzales (2015) notes, 

“[f]ar from defending the rights of their citizens, post-colonial states often pursue socially and 

environmentally destructive development strategies and ruthlessly repress grassroots resistance 

movements” (171). By giving in to the desire to emulate and achieve parity with the colonizer, these 

not-so-“postcolonial” elites become complicit in globalizing the same hegemonic civilizational 

model that wounded them. This is the same model whose attempted universalization/globalization 

now provokes widespread social-ecological resistance, motivating unprecedented social-ecological 

backlash from below and triggering “Gaia’s Revenge” (Lovelock 2006). This growing resistance is 

the source of rich alternatives that do look beyond the dubious claim that the hegemonic civilization 

embodies the “universal truth” and aspiration for all. 

 As an alternative to exclusive knowledge, Inayatullah proposes decolonial “knowledge 

encounters” wherein anticolonial critiques of hegemonic discourses are followed by critical yet 

constructive encounters among diverse perspectives searching for complementary diversities without 

universalist pretensions. Dallmayr (2002) similarly calls for anti/post-hegemonic intercultural 

dialogues among civilizations in search for common grounds to build more just lifeways that can 

sustain an integrated world of reciprocal collaboration.  

 A more radical decolonial approach advocates pursuing “transmodernities” based on “border 

thinking.” Here, hegemonic knowledges must be deconstructed and strategically reinterpreted from 

the margins through the revitalization of subjugated worldviews with a view to transcend coloniality. 

Yet subaltern knowledges must not be romanticized or essentialized, and should be reassessed from 

the margins of other worldviews—including other subjugated worldviews (e.g., feminist-indigenous 

engagements). Thinking critically from the margins of diverse worldviews embodies “border 

thinking.” This can propel transmodern worlds that combine, yet transcend previous 

knowledges/practices. What is sought is not “universal truths”— not the “standard of civilization” 

nor the “correct” development path. Instead, cultivating pluriversal knowledges/practices built on 

reciprocal and complementary diversity becomes the source of epistemological wealth and 

socioecological resilience. Transmodern alternatives may retain some emancipatory aspirations of 

modernity, but must abandon its oppressive dimensions. Yet the prefiguration and enactment of non-

alienating transmodernities must primarily rely on revitalizing subjugated knowledges and 



 

Journal of World-System Research   |   Vol. 22   Issue 2 

 

jwsr.org   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2016.631 

455 

reappraising subalternities in the transition towards a pluriversal planet “where many worlds fit”—

one that is socially-and-ecologically richer, more diverse and resilient. 

 Postcolonial knowledge encounters, post-hegemonic inter-civilizational dialogues, and 

decolonial border-thinking towards transmodern projects can help nurture the “great transition” 

towards pluriversal lifeworlds based on healthy socioecological relations. Many such projects are 

underway. One, especially promising, amalgamates indigenous, agroecological, eco-feminist, and 

posthumanist alternatives. Ariel Salleh (2009) theorizes it as global justice through eco-sufficiency. 

Salleh (2012) emphasizes “metaindustrial labor,” which is a form of labor seeking to “fit” human 

processes within the broader demands to reproduce the metabolic vitality of Earth and all its 

constitutive socioecological communities. Metaindustrial labor includes socioecologically 

reproductive modes that nurture “metabolic value”—in contrast to productive value. 

Metaindustrial labor fosters “eco-sufficiency” by enacting eco-communal economies which do not 

externalize socioecological costs, nor produce socioecological debts. Metaindustrial labor 

characterizes indigenous peoples enacting traditional indigenous lifeways, gatherers, peasants and 

small farmers practicing agroecology, and people practicing reproductive and care labors—mostly 

women. Metaindustrial labor is most salient in the South, at the margins of capitalism. Salleh 

writes: 

 

[M]eta-industrial labor denotes workers, nominally outside of capitalism, whose 

labor catalyzes metabolic transformations—be they peasants, gatherers, or 

parents….[M]etabolic value denotes…value sustained and enhanced by this kind 

of worker in supporting ecological integrity and the social metabolism. Meta-

industrial workers translate principles learned hands-on in the material world—a 

vernacular epistemology, cognizant of cross-cutting synergies in living processes, 

and replicating…thermodynamic circuits of nature. This labor is relational, flow-

oriented, and regenerative of biotic chains. Its unique rationality is a capacity for 

economic provisioning…that preserves metabolic value…Unlike the extractive 

mode of production with its…metabolic rift, this economy is eco-sufficient without 

externalized costs in social, ecological, or embodied debt…Where the…North has 

not yet appropriated local resources…, the labor of indigenous cultivators in 

the…South has established a…“metabolic fit” between human…and ecological 

growth. In using…“fit,” I am inspired by Jessie Wirrpa, an Australian Aboriginal 

elder…(2010:212). 

 

 

 



 

Journal of World-System Research   |   Vol. 22  Issue 2   |   What Goes Around 

 

jwsr.org   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2016.631 

456 

For Miguel Altieri this “metabolic fit” can often be attributed to Indigenous worldviews: 

 

For centuries the agricultures of developing countries were built upon…local 

resources…, local varieties and indigenous knowledge, which have nurtured 

biologically and genetically diverse smallholder farms with…resilience 

that…help[s] adjust to…changing climates, pests, and diseases. The persistence of 

millions of agricultural hectares under ancient, traditional management [as] raised 

fields, terraces, polycultures (with various crops growing in the same field), 

agroforestry…, etc., document a successful indigenous agricultural strategy and 

comprises a tribute to the “creativity” of traditional farmers…Indigenous 

technologies [and practices]…reflect a worldview and…understanding of our 

relationship to the natural world that is more realistic and…sustainable than…our 

Western European heritage (2009: 103-108). 

 

Within ecosufficient modes of socioecological reproduction “the real material bottom line 

of any social metabolism” is its “ecological integrity” (Salleh 2010:212). Further, understanding 

ecological integrity results in practices that nurture “a recursive web of self-regulating 

matter/energy flows signified by metabolic value,” as Salleh argues (216). This understanding 

characterizes indigenous practices. Similar views are increasingly found also in the posthumanism 

underpinning postdevelopment and degrowth alternatives. There is also growing convergence 

between recent, ecologically-informed, scientific evidence from Western researchers, and the 

“traditional ecological knowledge” and practices of indigenous cultures and subsistence farmers: 

“Scientific evidence supports the argument that…subsistence farming and 

indigenous…economies in the…South are ecologically…and climate friendly” (Salleh 2012:132).  

 Salleh contrasts this to the “green economy” promoted by hegemonic institutions: 

 

For two decades, the transnational capitalist class has used the UN sustainable 

development agenda to promote a technocratic…ecological modernization. 

However, the reproductive labor class of women, peasants, and indigenous peoples 

are advancing an alternative discourse on society and habitat…This rejects 

economic provisioning based on the fracture, commodification, and 

financialization of “eco-system services.” Instead…accords legal rights to nature 

as a living-subject. It advocates [indigenous] sumak kawsay [or suma qamaña], 

buen vivir, or “living well” as a guide to building low-footprint models of the 

humanity-nature metabolism. The World Social Forum’s…Another Future is 



 

Journal of World-System Research   |   Vol. 22   Issue 2 

 

jwsr.org   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2016.631 

457 

Possible, applies this… [i]n calling for a “bio-civilization,”…[which] articulates a 

rationality practiced…by an…invisible meta-industrial class (2013: 144). 

 

This proposal builds on collaborations among indigenous, ecological and (eco)feminist 

movements who gathered in 2010 at the World People’ Conference on Climate Change and the 

Rights of Mother Earth (WPCCC), resulting in a “Draft Universal Declaration on the Rights of 

Mother Earth” and a “People’s Agreement” stating: 

 

Humanity confronts a…dilemma: to continue on the path of capitalism, 

depredation, and death, or…choose…harmony with nature and respect for life. [We 

must] forge a new system that restores harmony with nature and…equity among 

human beings.  We propose…the recovery, revalorization, and strengthening of the 

knowledge, wisdom, and ancestral practices of Indigenous Peoples…, affirmed 

in…“Living Well” [which entails] recognizing Mother Earth as a living being with 

which we have an indivisible, interdependent, complementary and spiritual 

relationship… [W]e must recognize Mother Earth…as the source of life… 

(WPCCC 2010b) 

  

Indigenous intellectual Huanacuni (2010) summarizes Living Well as the “wisdom 

to…relate in conviviality with all forms of existence.” In Aymara ‘suma qamaña’ means “living 

in plenitude” through “harmony and equilibrium…with the cycles of Mother Earth, the cosmos, 

life, and history.” What matters is “neither ‘Man’ nor ‘Money’” but synchronization “with the rest 

of nature and life.” Suma qamaña can help “save humanity and the planet” by nurturing “a simple 

life that reduces…addiction to consumption” and fosters “an equilibrated production without 

ruining the environment.” Suma qamaña proceeds from non-anthropocentric communalism which 

cherishes sociobiodiversity through practices that regenerate socioecological cycles of 

reproduction based on relational and complementary reciprocities among different life-forms and 

lifeways. We must “complement…and share…without competing.” Thus living well, in plenitude, 

is not the same as “living better”— the latter may imply “living better than others” which motivates 

“profound competition,” promoting “egotism, disinterest for…others, individualism, thinking only 

of profit.” The desire to “live better than others”—whether human or non-human—leads to 

“exploitation,” “concentration of wealth” and power (Huanacuni 2010, non-paginated; emphasis 

original).  

 The Draft Universal Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth proceeds similarly from 

indigenous premises promoting eco-sufficiency. For example: “we are all part of Mother Earth, an 

indivisible, living community of interrelated and interdependent beings with a common destiny;” 



 

Journal of World-System Research   |   Vol. 22  Issue 2   |   What Goes Around 

 

jwsr.org   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2016.631 

458 

we must “gratefully acknowledge…that Mother Earth is the source of life, nourishment and 

learning and provides everything we need to live well;” moreover, “in an interdependent living 

community it is not possible to recognize the rights of only human beings without causing an 

imbalance within Mother Earth.” Article 3 outlines the obligations of humans to Mother Earth, 

e.g., “Human beings, all States, and all public and private institutions must…respect, protect, 

conserve and where necessary, restore the integrity of the vital ecological cycles, processes and 

balances of Mother Earth” and must “promote economic systems…in harmony with Mother Earth” 

(WPCCC 2010b). 

To conclude, we recall the manifesto Vivir Bien como Respuesta a la Crisis Global (Living 

Well in Response to the Global Crisis), which set the stage for the WPCCC. After deconstructing 

the planetary crisis from an indigenous perspective, it proposes reorganizing the global political-

economy through indigenous principles of regenerative complementarity and non-anthropocentric 

communality:  

 

[We] propose…a political economy that…, addressing…North/South… 

asymmetries, will defend life in the long run and…spread…the possibility and 

responsibility to Live Well (Suma Qamaña)…[I]n this political economy the world 

shall reciprocally share in… complementary equilibrium…global and local 

resources…in harmony with nature and within the limits that nature’s health 

and…resources…allow. Learning from nature and…its functioning as a 

complementary community…of diversities we…suggest three…principles for…an 

economy in equilibrium with Mother nature: (1) to reinsert humanity within the 

limits of Mother Earth’s…carrying capacity, drawing on Father Sun…as…source 

of energy; (2) to close all material cycles and not transport them for…long 

distances; (3) to respect equilibria among…diverse…species and cultures. In 

simple ways we can live slower in sync with cyclical time, and enter a deceleration 

phase…to have time for life, to care for, restore, and nurture Mother Earth…, as we 

should nurture plants and fruits…and to…foster personal relations with 

all…beings…[W]e can proceed from the experience of our…Indigenous 

communities to achieve the Life in Plenitude by reciprocally exchanging in 

complementarity…what we produce among diverse lands in different ecoregions 

and altitudes and among…diverse communities…at…national, continental, and 

global levels… (Min. Relaciones Exteriores, Bolivia 2009:154)6 

                                                                                                                                                             
6 This manifesto, authored by indigenous and social movements working with/in the Indigenous-led Bolivian 

government, was presented in 2010 at the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. 



 

Journal of World-System Research   |   Vol. 22   Issue 2 

 

jwsr.org   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2016.631 

459 

About the Authors 

Dr. Figueroa-Helland is Chair and Professor of Politics, Justice, and Global Studies at 

Westminster College (UT). His work focuses on transformational alternatives to global crises 

based on transdisciplinary research that combines critical global studies, intercultural international 

relations, indigenous studies, global political ecology, agroecology, decolonial/postcolonial and 

depatriarchal/gender studies, and world-systems analysis. 

 

Tim Lindgren is an Honors student and Research Assistant at Westminster College (UT), pursuing 

a customized major in Global Studies and employed as a Legal Assistant for Environmental Law 

and Development. You can find his previous publications in The Myriad and Perspectives on 

Global Development and Technology (PGDT).  

 

Disclosure Statement 

Any conflicts of interest are reported in the acknowledgments section of the article’s text. 

Otherwise, authors have indicated that they have no conflict of interests upon submission of their 

article to the journal.  

 

 

References 

Adelman, Sam. 2015. “Epistemologies of Mastery.” In Anna Grear and Louise Kotze, eds., 

Research Handbook on Human rights and the Environment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 

Ahmed, Nafeez. 2010. A User's Guide to the Crisis of Civilization. London: Pluto. 

Altieri, Miguel. 2009. “Agroecology, Small Farms and Food Sovereignty.” Monthly Review 

61:102-111 

Apffel-Marglin, Frederique. 2011. Subversive Spiritualities. New York: Oxford University. 

Benjamin, Walter. 2008[1936]. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. London: 

Penguin. 

Bond, Patrick. 2014. “BRICS and the Tendency to Sub-imperialism.” Pambazuka 673(04). 

Brand, Ulrich and Markus Wissen. 2012. “Global Environmental Politics and the Imperial Mode 

of Living.” Globalizations 9(4):547-560. 

Chang, Ha-Joon. 2008. The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism. New York: 

Bloomsbury. 

Chase-Dunn, Christopher. 2013. “Five Linked Crises in the Contemporary World-System.” 

Journal of World-Systems Research 19(2):175-180. 

Connell, Raewyn. 2000. Masculinities and Globalization. Los Angeles: University of California. 



 

Journal of World-System Research   |   Vol. 22  Issue 2   |   What Goes Around 

 

jwsr.org   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2016.631 

460 

Cribb, Julian. 2010 The Coming Famine. Los Angeles: University of California.  

Cudworth, Erika and Stephen Hobden. 2011. Posthuman International Relations. London: Zed. 

Dastile, Nontyatyambo P. and Savbelo J. Ndlovu-Gastheni. 2013. “Power, Knowledge and Being.” 

Alternation 20(1):105-134. 

Dallmayr, Fred. 2002. Dialogue among Civilizations. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.  

Essed, Philomena and David Theo Goldberg. 2002. “Cloning Cultures.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 

25(6):1066-1082. 

Evans, Alex. 2010. “Resource Scarcity, Climate Change and The Risk of Violent Conflict”. World 

Development Report Background Paper.  

Fanon, Frantz. 2004[1961]. The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove.  

Foster, John, Brett Clark, and Richard York. 2010. The Ecological Rift: Capitalism’s War on the 

Earth. New York: Monthly Review. 

Gasper, Des and Thanh-Dam Truong. 2014. “‘Women in Motion’ in a World of Nation-States, 

Market Forces, and Gender Power Relations”. In Migration, Gender and Social Justice. 

Hexagon Series on Human and Environmental Security and Peace 9. 

Gonzalez, Carmen. 2015. “Environmental Justice, Human Rights, and the Global South”, Santa 

Clara Journal of International Law 13:151  

Goodman, James and Ariel Salleh. 2013. “The ‘Green Economy’: Class Hegemony and Counter-

Hegemony.” Globalizations 10(3):411-424. 

Grosfoguel, Ramon. 2009. “A Decolonial Approach to Political-Economy.” Kult 6:10-38. 

Gruffyd-Jones, Branwen. 2006. Decolonizing International Relations. Lanham: Rowman & 

Littlefield. 

Gruffyd-Jones, Branwen. 2008. “Race in the Ontology of International Order.” Political Studies 

56(4):907-927. 

Harawira, Makere. 2012. “Returning the Sacred: Indigenous Ontologies in Perilous Times.” In L. 
Williams, ed., Radical Human Ecology, 73-88. 

Harris, Richard and Melinda Seid. 2004. “Globalization and Health in the New Millennium”. 

Perspectives on Global Development and Technology 3(1-2).  

Houtart, Francois. 2010. “The Multiple Crisis and Beyond.” Globalizations 7(1-2):9-15.  

Huanacuni, Fernando. 2010. Buen Vivir/Vivir Bien: Filosofía, Políticas, Estrategias y 

Experiencias Regionales Andinas. Lima: CAOI. 

Inayatullah, Naeem. 2013. “Why Do Some People Think They Know What is Good for Others?” 

In Jenny Edkins and Maja Zhefuss, eds. Global Politics. New York: Routledge.  

 

 



 

Journal of World-System Research   |   Vol. 22   Issue 2 

 

jwsr.org   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2016.631 

461 

Kallis, Giorgios, Joan Martinez-Alier, and Richard Norgaard. 2009. "Paper Assets, Real Debts: 

An Ecological-Economic Exploration of the Global Economic Crisis." Critical 

Perspectives on International Business:14-25. 

Lovelock, James. 2006. The Revenge of Gaia. New York: Basic Books. 

Lugones, Maria. 2007. “Heterosexualism and the Colonial/Modern Gender System.” Hypatia 

22(1):186-209. 

Maese-Cohen, Marcelle. 2010. “Toward Planetary Decolonial Feminisms.” Qui Parle 18(2):3-27. 

McMichael, Celia, Jon Barnett, and Anthony McMichael. 2012. “An Ill Wind: Climate Change, 

Migration, and Health.” Environmental Health Perspectives 120(5):646-653. 

McMichael, Phillip. 2011. Development and Social Change. London: Sage.  

Mignolo, Walter. 2008. “The Historical Foundation of Modernity/Coloniality and the Emergence 

of Decolonial Thinking” in Companion to Latin American Literature and Culture. Malden: 

Blackwell. 

Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, Bolivia. El vivir bien como respuesta a la crisis global. 2009. 

Web. 6/24/2015.  

N/A. "Water facts and figures." IFAD. http://www.ifad.org/english/water/key.htm (accessed 

7/15/2014). 

N/A. “IMF Members' Quotas and Voting Power, and IMF Board of Governors." International 

Monetary Fund. 2/14/2015. 

N/A. “International Bank for Reconstruction and Development Subscriptions and Voting Power 

of Member Countries." World Bank. 2/5/2015. 

N/A. 2014. “World Footprint” Global Footprint Network. www.footprintnetwork.org (accessed 

10/27/2014). 

N/A. 2013. “Secretary General’s Annual Report 2012.” NATO.  

N/A. 2014. "The Top 20 Arms Exporters, 2009–2013.” SIPRI. 

Ottersen, Petter, Jashondhara Dasgupta and Chantal Blouin, et.al. 2014. “The Political Origins of 

Health Inequity.” The Lancet 383:630-667. 

Perlo-Freeman, Sam, Aude Fleurant, Pieter Wezeman and Siemon Wezeman. 2015. “Trends in 

World Military Expenditure, 2014.” SIPRI. 

Peterson, Spike. 2010. "A Long View of Globalization and Crisis." Globalizations:187-202.  

Plumwood, Val. 2002. Environmental Culture: The Ecological Crisis of Reason. London: 

Routledge.  

Quijano, Anibal. 1991. “Colonialidad y Modernidad/Racionalidad.” Perú Indígena 29:11-21. 

Raworth, Kate. 2012. "A Safe and Just Space for Humanity." Oxfam. 

Ribeiro, Gustavo, Tom Dwyer and Antonadia Borges, et.al. 2015. Social, Political and Cultural 
Challenges of the BRICS. Bamenda: Langaa. 

Robinson, William and Xuan Santos. 2014. “Global Capitalism, Immigrant Labor, and the 



 

Journal of World-System Research   |   Vol. 22  Issue 2   |   What Goes Around 

 

jwsr.org   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2016.631 

462 

Struggle for Justice”. Class, Race and Corporate Power 2(3).  

Rockström, Johan, Will Steffen, Kevin Noone, et.al., 2009. “A Safe Operating Space for 

Humanity.” Nature 461:472-475 

Russel, Marta and Ravi Maholtra 2002. “Capitalism and Disability.” Socialist Register 38.  

Salleh, Ariel, ed. 2009. Eco-Sufficiency & Global Justice. New York: Pluto. 

______. 2010. “From Metabolic Rift to ‘Metabolic Value’.” Organization & Environment 

23(2):205-219. 

______.  2012. ““Green Economy” or Green Utopia.” Journal of World-Systems Research 

18(2):141-145 

Schrecke, Ted. 2012. “Multiple Crises and Global Health.” Global Public Health 7(6):557-573. 

Scott, James. 1990. Domination and the Arts of Resistance. New Haven: Yale. 

______. 1998. Seeing Like a State. New Haven: Yale.  

Sheppard, Eric, Philip Porter, David Faust and Richa Nagar, R. 2009. A World of Difference. 

New York: Guilford. 

Smith, Jackie. 2014. “Counter-Hegemonic Networks and the Transformation of Global Climate 

Politics.” Global Discourse. 

Stalin, Josef. 1976. “The Task of Economic Executives.” Foreign Languages Press: 519-31. 

Steffen, Will, Paul Crutzen, John McNeill. 2007. “The Anthropocene: Are Humans Now 

Overwhelming the Great Forces of Nature?” AMBIO 36(8):614-621.  

Stockholm Resilience Center, “The Nine Planetary Boundaries.” Web. 10/10/2014.  

TNI. 2013. The Global Land Grab: A Primer. Amsterdam: TNI. 

TNI. 2014. The Global Water Grab: A Primer. Amsterdam: TNI. 

The Global Health Watch. 2014. Global Health Watch 4. London: Zed. 

Walia, Harsha. 2013. Undoing Border Imperialism. Oakland: AK Press.  

World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth (WPCCC), 2010a. 

“Draft Universal Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth.” Web. 10/27/2014. 

World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth (WPCCC), 2010b. 

“Peoples’ Agreement.” Web. 10/27/2014. 

Zittel, Werner, Jan Zerhusen, Martin Zerta, and Nikolaus Arnold. 2013. Fossil and Nuclear 

Fuels–The Supply Outlook. Berlin: Energy Watch Group.