La Vida Simple (Simple Life): A Maroon Vision on Development
By Nataly Castillo Bennett
This article is a shortened version of the eponymous MECILA Working Paper, which was originally published by the Maria Sibylla Merian Centre Conviviality-Inequality in Latin America in 2020 and can be read here.
Abstract
Global practices shaped by colonization and modernity have disrupted humanity’s intrinsic connection to nature, resulting in ecological and social crises. Rooted in the colonization of the Americas, colonial inhabitation imposed exploitative relationships with nature and marginalized communities, laying the foundation for the imperial mode of living. Superficial frameworks like green capitalism fail to address this crisis, perpetuating colonial ecocide. In contrast, Afro-Ecuadorian Maroon communities, through la vida simple – a philosophy grounded in African traditions and marronage – offer transformative insights for ecological sustainability and climate justice. This worldview emphasizes harmonious coexistence with nature, as Maroon communities adapted to “uninhabitable” spaces and fostered mutual care with their environment. This paper asks: How can the Afro-Ecuadorian concept of la vida simple inform contemporary approaches to sustainability and climate justice? By examining la vida simple as a counter-hegemonic framework, this study highlights its potential to reshape ecological movements and promote social progress.
1. Introduction:
Since 1492, specific ways of inhabiting the Earth have been imposed globally (Ferdinand 2022). These practices, rooted in the foundations of modernity, have significantly shaped today’s ecological, social, and political challenges. The European colonization of the Americas marked a pivotal moment in history, giving rise to “colonial inhabitation” (Ferdinand 2022) – antecedent of the “imperial mode of living” (Brand and Wissen 2021) – which continues to influence global systems, power structures, and environmental degradation.
Colonial inhabitation, framed within the Anthropocene, diminishes humanity’s intrinsic connection to other living entities on the planet by commodifying nature (Crutzen and Stoermer 2013). This worldview enforces a profound divide between humans and the natural world – a divide that many in modern society struggle to fully comprehend. Even scientists, activists, and self-identified environmental protectors often grapple with reconciling this fragmented perspective (Moore 2015).
As a result, we are confronted with a present characterized by widespread social and ecological degradation and an environmental crisis that threatens the livelihoods of all. Certain actors – whether due to a lack of understanding or a refusal to enact meaningful change – seek refuge in superficial frameworks like environmental sustainability, the Green New Deal, or green capitalism (Benjaminsen and Svarstad 2021). These paradigms often exploit the environmental crisis as an opportunity to reshape the inhumane economic system yet ultimately serving those in power and prioritizing capital accumulation over genuine solutions for planetary preservation.
It is within this context that alternative ways of thinking, pedagogies, and worldviews become essential to redirect us toward effective environmental protection. Marronage, as both a worldview and a philosophical practice, is often reduced to mere symbols of resistance tied to the space from slavery, stripping it of its ecological, economic, and political dimensions (Green and Price 1974). Yet marronage represents a political- ecological practice that set the grounds for what we now recognize as environmental preservation.
Since the 16th century, in defiance of colonization, Maroons cultivated an alternative way of living in harmony with nature (Castillo Bennett 2023). Malcolm Ferdinand (2022) describes the forests, swamps, mountains, and other so-called “uninhabitable” spaces that sheltered Maroons as “natural allies” (Castillo Bennett 2023). These environments were instrumental in ensuring the survival of Maroon communities.
Within this alliance, palenques emerged as political-territorial entities shaped by the Maroons’ adaptation to nature (Castillo Bennett 2023). 1Instead of altering the environment to suit human needs, they sought to coexist with it, fostering a relationship of mutual care. This approach stood in stark contrast to the ecocide perpetrated by European colonizers (Ferdinand 2022).
From this perspective, the Afro-Ecuadorian concept of la vida simple (the simple life) emerges as a philosophy deeply rooted in African traditions (García Salazar and Walsh 2017). It emphasizes the celebration of life through harmonious coexistence with nature. As Grandpa Zenón, an ancestral figure who safeguards Afro-Ecuadorian collective memory, often said, “The life of Black people and the life of nature are inseparably connected” (García Salazar and Walsh 2017: 56). Elders instilled in their communities a profound respect for the land and rivers, teaching that caring for nature is essential to sustaining life.
This paper seeks to explore how the vidasimple philosophy offers a counter-hegemonic framework that can inform contemporary approaches to ecological sustainability, climate protection, and social progress. By shedding light on an alternative form of inhabitation – Maroon inhabitation – through the pedagogies, experiences, and ancestral practices of Black/Afro-Ecuadorian communities, this study aims to contribute to the alternatives to development urgently needed within the contemporary political-ecological movement.
2. Colonial Inhabitation: Modernity’s Foundation
According to Malcolm Ferdinand, colonial inhabitation refers to a singular perspective on the existence of specific human beings on Earth – namely, the colonizers – and their relationships with nature and other humans, particularly the colonized (Ferdinand 2022). This framework includes principles, foundations, and forms that established the basis for the “imperial mode of living”, a concept later developed by Ulrich Brand and Markus Wissen (Brand and Wissen 2021).
The European approach to inhabiting the Earth systematically destroyed, altered, or alienated the plural ways of perceiving life and communing with others (Quijano 2020). It imposed specific principles, forms, and norms to reshape the world according to the desires of a select few. The first principle of colonial inhabitation involves its geographical dimension. It required the establishment of specific spaces designated for extraction and exploitation while subordinating these locations to a “mainland”, where resources were consumed (Ferdinand 2022).
The second principle is rooted in the exploitation of humans – othered for the purpose of subjugation – and nature. Inhabiting the Americas was not driven by the “maintenance of human life” but rather by the commercial exploitation of its lands. This quest for enrichment provided European colonizers with the rationale “to render these territories inhabitable” under colonial terms (Ferdinand 2022).
The third principle, described by Malcolm Ferdinand as “othercide”, refers to the refusal to coexist or commune with others who lived in ways different from Europeans (Ferdinand 2022). Despite the colonized Other being central to the colonial project, the denial of their plurality and independence was crucial for colonial inhabitation to function. By imposing the imperial mode of living and thinking upon others, colonizers ensured their compliance with the colonial system (Brand and Wissen 2021).
Colonial inhabitation, according to Ferdinand (2022) was built on a foundation of land grabbing, land clearing, and violent domination, institutionalized through systems of private property, plantations, and human exploitation. Land grabbing introduced the concept of private ownership of land-territory − unfamiliar to many Indigenous cultures in the Americas − while land clearing equated inhabitation with deforestation, where the act of felling trees symbolized the beginning of colonial settlement. These practices were accompanied by massacres of Indigenous populations and brutal violence, particularly against Indigenous women, intertwining colonization with gendered oppression (Mies and Shiva 2014; Ferdinand 2022; Voss 2008).
This violent foundation gave rise to the plantation system as the primary form of land use, encompassing cultivated fields, workshops, the master’s house, and enslaved people’s quarters. Plantations not only structured agricultural production but also dictated territorial organization, including ports, roads, and parishes (Ferdinand 2022). Furthermore, colonial inhabitation relied on the mass exploitation of human beings in a hierarchical system where enslaved individuals, excluded from the notion of inhabiting, were reduced to property. Even after the abolition of slavery, systems such as indentured servitude perpetuated this exploitation.
Together, these principles, foundations, and forms reveal how colonial inhabitation merged political domination with ecological destruction, reshaping both human and environmental systems under the broader colonial project (Ferdinand 2022).
3. From Colonial Inhabitation to the Imperial Mode of Living
Colonial inhabitation, as described by Malcom Ferdinand, “refers to a singular conception with regard to the existence of certain being on earth as well as their ways of relating to nature and to non-humans” – a process in which the Earth is re-engineered to serve the interests of colonial powers. A vehicle to perform this domination was the plantation system (Mbembe 2019). The colonial project, driven by the need to extract resources and labour, imposed a singular understanding of human existence and the purpose of the planet, one that continues to shape contemporary ways of life (Quijano 2020). This vision of the world – the colonial worldview – remains embedded in modern social, economic, and ecological practices, shaping both our daily activities and our relationships with each other and the environment (Moraña et al. 2021).
The concept of the “imperial mode of living”, coined by Ulrich Brand and Markus Wissen, builds on this legacy, encapsulating the patterns of consumption, production, and lifestyle that persist today (Brand and Wissen 2021). These practices, rooted in the colonial past, are not only central to the lifestyles of the Global North – those former colonizer nations – but have also been adopted as dominant aspirations in urban areas of the Global South (Brand and Wissen 2021). If colonial inhabitation can be seen as the creation of modernity, the imperial mode of living ensures that the structures, ideologies, and inequalities established by European colonial powers endure, shaping global social and economic systems long after formal colonialism ended.
Brand and Wissen argue that the imperial mode of living is not just about material consumption – it is underpinned by the exploitation of labour, resources, and ecological sinks in other parts of the world (Brand and Wissen 2021). For the capitalist system, it is essential that the worldviews promoted by colonial powers, which frame material wealth and economic growth as the ultimate measure of success, are adopted globally. This imposition of values and practices facilitates the exploitation of peripheral regions, where communities and ecosystems are continuously subordinated to the needs of capitalist accumulation. In this way, the imperial mode of living continues to be a tool for maintaining global inequality (Dunlap and Jakobsen 2020).
Some members of the Black/Afro-Ecuadorian community offer powerful reflections on how the imperial mode of living has reshaped their understanding of well-being and community. One individual reflects on the shift in values:
Today, almost everything we do – both as individuals and as a community – is driven by the pursuit of material things dictated by the power of money. This is the era of modernity, of what comes from outside. That’s what defines us now – or rather, what drives us to be. In the past, the value of people was respected; now, it’s the power of money that commands respect. (García Salazar et al. 2010: 56).
This testimony underscores the deep transformation in how value and respect are perceived in these communities – once rooted in collective well-being, now driven by external, materialistic forces.
The imposition of the imperial mode of living is not limited to cultural shifts; it also forces non-Western societies into economic systems that prioritize resource extraction and exploitation (Dunlap and Jakobsen 2020). The example of the African palm oil industry in the Pacific regions of Colombia and Ecuador illustrates how capitalist interests impose a materialistic, consumption-driven way of life on local communities (Martinez 2018; García Salazar et al. 2010). The introduction of such industries typically coincides with the degradation of communal resources, such as the contamination of water and land, and the privatization of what were once commonly available utilities. In northern Esmeraldas, for instance, Afro-Ecuadorian communities can no longer rely on rivers for daily consumption – due to pollution – forcing them to purchase water instead (García Salazar et al. 2010). The expansion of such infrastructure burdens these communities economically, driving many to enter into wage labour, often in the very industries that have caused these disruptions. As one community member observes:
It is true that many of our cultural traditions are being lost, and this is connected to the death of the rivers and the loss of collective territories. But the loss of our traditions is also tied to the distance we, as teachers, have taken from community life. In the past, during the time of our elders, we were more rooted in rural life. Now, in the time of others, we are more urban (García Salazar et al. 2010: 50).
The imperial mode of living fundamentally reshapes how societies interact with nature. As exemplified in the Afro-Ecuadorian case, the commodification of natural resources and the destruction of collective territories not only undermine traditional ways of life but also integrate communities into global capitalist systems. These changes are not only economic and cultural but also environmental, leading to the erosion of sustainable practices and the deepening of ecological inequalities.
This process, as Brand and Wissen note, involves the hegemony and subjectification characteristic of the imperial mode of living. The imperial mode of living carries with it a set of materialistic ideas about progress, which alter the “everyday rationality” of most of the global population. These ideas are so deeply embedded that they are accepted without question – an unquestioned consent from the governed (Brand and Wissen 2021). Nation-states play a crucial role in maintaining this system, acting as enforcers of the imperial mode of living by framing economic growth as the ultimate goal of progress. This includes those socialist models that continue to base their economic proposals on resource extraction, such as the case with 21st-century socialism, which, despite its claims to oppose capitalism, remains rooted in similar patterns of exploitation (Carlet and Ferreira 2018).
The values underpinning the imperial mode of living – extraction, commodification, and material accumulation – are not confined to the Global North but have also influenced the Western environmental movement (Brand and Wissen 2021). These values shape how environmentalism is practiced in the West, often guiding it towards solutions that do not challenge the fundamental structures of exploitation. Rather than dismantling these structures, much of the mainstream Western environmental movement, in its current form, frequently seeks to adapt them to environmental concerns, resulting in what is now known as “green capitalism” (Moore 2015). This model attempts to address ecological crises by implementing market-based solutions while leaving the exploitative mechanisms intact. The following section will explore how the imperial mode of living has shaped Western environmentalism and contributed to the rise of green capitalism, a system that continues to prioritize economic growth over environmental justice.
Keep reading here to find out more about la vida simple and the Maroon vision on development.
About the Author:
Nataly Castillo Bennett holds a Bachelor’s degree in political science with a specialization in international relations, international political economy, and political theory, a Master’s degree in Latin American interdisciplinary studies specializing in development and transformation, and is currently a PhD Candidate at the International Research Training Group “Temporalities of Future” majoring in Sociology. Their dissertation is titled “On Then and Tomorrow: The Return to Cimarronaje as Technology of Resistance” at the Freie Universität Berlin.Their research explores the exclusion of Afro-descendant communities in Ecuador’s constitutional framework and the loss of ancestral lands. Collaborating closely with Afro-descendant communities, their work highlights development alternatives, Afrofuturism, and political ecology as key areas of interest. Bennett has experience in both public and private sectors, including sustainability management, project management, communication, strategy development, risk analysis, and migration advisory. They have also served in political representation roles for marginalized groups, advocating for Black, Indigenous, and students of colour at FU Berlin.
Footnotes:
- Palenques (or quilombos), were settlements founded by maroons who escaped from plantations. These communities were – and continue to be – present throughout the Americas. ↩︎
References:
Benjaminsen, Tor A. and Svarstad, Hanne (eds.) (2021): Political Ecology: A Critical Engagement with Global Environmental Issues, Cham: Springer International.
Brand, Ulrich and Wissen, Markus (2021): Modo de vida imperial. Vida cotidiana y crisis ecológica del capitalismo, Buenos Aires: Tinta Limón.
Carlet, Flávia and Ferreira, J. Flávio (2018): “Toward a Post-Colonial Socio-Anthropology of Law: From the Western ‘Ethos’ to the Afro-Ecuadorian Narratives of Resistance”, in: Oñati Socio-Legal Series, 8, 5, 647–676.
Castillo Bennett, Nataly Andrea (2023): On Then, Now,and Tomorrow:An Anti-Colonial, Counter-Hegemonic and Afrofuturist Look at the Construction of Afro-Ecuadorian Existence in Relation to Territory, Deterritorialization and Development [Doctoral Thesis], Berlin: FU Berlin.
Crutzen, Paul J. and Stoermer, Eugene F. (2013): “The Anthropocene”, in: Robin, Libby; Sverker Sörlin and Paul Warde (eds.), The Future of Nature:Documents of Global Change, New Haven: Yale University Press, 479–490.
Dunlap,Alexander and Jakobsen, Jostein (2020): The Violent Technologies of Extraction: Political Ecology,Critical Agrarian Studies and the Capitalist Worldeater, Cham: Springer International.
Ferdinand, Malcom (2022): Decolonial Ecology: Thinking from the Caribbean World, Cambridge: Polity Press.
García Salazar, Juan and Walsh, Catherine Elizabeth McDonald (2017): Pensar sembrando/sembrar pensando con el Abuelo Zenón, Quito: Universidad Andina Simón Bolivar / Abya-Yala.
Green, Edward and Price, Richard (1974): “Maroon Societies: Rebel Slave Communities in the Americas”, in: Anthropological Quarterly, 47, 4, 407–409.
Martinez, Edna Yiced (2018): Capitalist Accumulation and Socio-Ecological Resilience: Black People in Border Areas of Colombia and Ecuador and the Palm Oil Industry, Berlin: Peter Lang.
Mbembe, Achille (2019): Necropolitics, Durham: Duke University Press. Mies, Maria and Shiva, Vandana (2014): Ecofeminism, London: Zed Books.
Moore, Jason W. (2015): Capitalism in the Web of Life:Ecology and the Accumulation of Capital, London: Verso.
Moraña, Mabel; Jáuregui, Carlos A.; Dussel, Enrique D. (eds.) (2021): Coloniality at Large: Latin America and the Postcolonial Debate, Durham: Duke University Press.
Quijano, Aníbal (2020): “Colonialidad del poder, raza y capitalismo”, in: Debates en Sociología, 49, 165–180.
Voss, Barbara L. 2008. «Gender, Race, and Labor in the Archaeology of the Spanish Colonial Americas». Current Anthropology 49(5):861-93.
Citation: Nataly Castillo Bennett. La Vida Simple (Simple Life): A Maroon Vision on Development, in TRAFO – Blog for Transregional Research. 1.08.2026. https://trafo.hypotheses.org/67907
The text only may be used under licence Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial No Derivatives 4.0 International
. All other elements (illustrations, imported files) are “All rights reserved”, unless otherwise stated.
OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Forum Transregionale Studien (September 1, 2026). La Vida Simple (Simple Life): A Maroon Vision on Development. TRAFO – Blog for Transregional Research. Retrieved September 10, 2026 from https://doi.org/10.58079/16pfy
