| dc.description.abstract | In the context of the Anthropocene crises, I address the onto-epistemic challenges
to the establishment of non-strictly utilitarian relations with nature. The dualist
ontology - which limited it to a resource - justifies its destruction by economic
development, a common good determined by the State. This imposition integrates
not only environmental but also ontological conflicts. The modern world, which
claims the right to be unique, has waged a war against ontologies that do not
operate through the separation of humans and other-than-humans. In resistance,
relational worlds challenge the monopoly of defining what is the common good and
what, in its name, can be sacrificed. Taking as a basis and as a starting point the
constitutionalized experience in Ecuador, which guaranteed their own and
unconditional rights to nature and Pachamama, I argue that, although these entities
have been included in the law as synonyms, they are not or may not be the same.
Taking into account the possibility of the existence of radical differences, in
cosmopolitical terms, is a bet that dissident practices can negotiate alternative
commons, in alliance for other possible world. I divide this thesis into two parts that
can be read independently. In the first one, because the analyzes of the Constitution
of Ecuador place it as an expression of a transition from anthropocentrism to
biocentrism or ecocentrism, I try to explain what these descriptions presuppose and
imply. The Second Part is dedicated to the political precedents that contributed to
the arrival of Pachamama in the Constitution and the equivocations that can
emerge from the dialogue between different perspectives, understood as ontologies
or worlds. | en |
