Good Living and Social Management: in Pursuit of a Decolonial Dialogue in the Management Studies Field

Abstract

Scholars often point out the need of building a Brazilian and Latin American way of thinking in opposition to the Eurocentric, colonial thinking. Based on this premise, the aim of the current study is to encourage reflections about decoloniality through the conciliation of Good Living practices and ideas – based on the original Ecuadorian concept of it – and Social Management attributes. This reflection was mediated by references that mainly derive from Latin American debates about decoloniality and Good Living, as well as from Brazilian debates about critical management studies and social management. In order to do so, confluences and divergences around worldviews contemporaneously built from the indigenous idea of Good Living, shared by Social Management, were synthesized in this study. The herein performed exercise enabled seeing similarities between the worldview encompassed by Good Living and that deriving from the Brazilian debate about Social Management, although with differences limited to applications in different periods-of-time and contexts, as well as in some epistemological premises. Including the decolonial debate in the Social Management scope can help broadening its understanding and action horizon, without compromising or replacing the construction process carried out to date. Finally, a research agenda aimed at broadening this debate should be developed.

good living; social management; decoloniality; indigenous peoples

Resumo

Costuma-se apontar a necessidade da construção de um pensamento brasileiro e latino-americano próprio em contraposição ao pensamento eurocêntrico, colonial. Sob essa premissa, é nosso objetivo, neste artigo, suscitar reflexões acerca da descolonialidade pela via da conciliação entre práticas e ideias de Bem Viver – na concepção original equatoriana – e atributos de Gestão Social. Tal reflexão é realizada com a mediação de referenciais provenientes, principalmente, de debates latino-americanos sobre descolonialidade e Bem Viver e brasileiros em torno dos estudos organizacionais críticos e gestão social. Sintetizamos, assim, confluências e divergências em torno de visões de mundo construídas, contemporaneamente, a partir do pensamento indígena do Bem Viver e que são compartilhadas pela Gestão Social. Como resultado do exercício realizado, visualizamos aproximações entre a cosmovisão enfeixada pelo Bem Viver e aquela derivada do debate brasileiro em torno da Gestão Social, todavia, com diferenças circunscritas a aplicações em períodos de tempo e contextos distintos, bem como em algumas premissas epistemológicas. Consideramos que a inclusão do debate descolonial no escopo da Gestão Social pode ajudar a alargar seu horizonte de compreensão e de atuação, sem prejuízo ou substituição da construção já realizada até o momento. Propomos, ao final, uma agenda de pesquisa para aprofundamento do debate.

Introduction

The aim of the current study was to encourage reflections about decoloniality through the reconciliation of Good Living practices and ideas – based on the original Ecuadorian concept of it – and Social Management attributes. The term “decoloniality” was herein used as counterpoint to colonialism. The present research started from the following question: how do the contemporary approach to Social Management and traditional Good Living experiences come to terms, when it comes to practices and concepts, in light of the concept of decoloniality? The already proclaimed need for building a Brazilian and Latin American way of thinking of its own¹is one of the factors encouraging the herein performed exercise, since coloniality expresses the local thinking dependence on a concept born in Europe. This epistemological submission feeds back into several sectors of local society, besides perpetuating cycles of poverty, submission, inequality, “underdevelopment”, among many other terms, whose meanings and adjectives also historically derive from the metropolis. Accordingly, Santos (2007) defends the need for a radical break with Western modernity structures of thought and action in order to think “from the other side of the line”, i.e., based on what happens in the Global South. Thus, the challenge lies on thinking about knowledge and on substantiating actions based on parameters that are different from those presented to us by the modern Western world. One of the ways to do so can be the search for references that were, and continue to be, built outside modernity and the European axis, as well as that, in the present case, derive from traditional/indigenous Latin American cultures.

The current study assumes that Social Management elements, which currently appear in the academic literature, are embodied in the concept of Good Living observed in indigenous communities. This assumption mainly arises, on the one hand, from the experience of the current authors in interacting with indigenous communities and, on the other hand, from working in projects that take Social Management as their main reference. Thus, the present study focused on investigating how Good Living presents perspectives that approach, in different ways, what is defined and exercised under the name “Social Management”. Traditional indigenous practices appear to express elements, such as sustainability, equality, community reciprocity and solidarity, which are acknowledged as Social Management principles.

From the methodological perspective, the present article provides a theoretical reflection based on research about Good Living and Social Management, by taking Epistemologies of the South (ES) and decoloniality as reference. This factor places the current study in the Critical Management Studies (CMS) field. This is one theoretical choice among many others, since the decolonial debate can follow several different and, in most cases, complementary strands, such as the feminist, black diasporic, ecological and complexity thought, among others, in addition to thoughts triggered by the vast African and Asian decolonial production. However, the current study does not intend to focus on this general conceptual aspect.

Thus, this discussion was structured at three complementary levels, namely: the macro level, which comprises general and abstract elements, and lists topics to situate the investigated theme - the purpose at this level is to point out paths taken to rethink knowledge in the ​​management studies and management field; the meso level, which presents the synthesis of Good Living elements in harmony with Social Management - this is the level of mediation between abstract and concrete; and the micro level, which regards community management and organization processes, based on the Social Management framework (Figure 1). Figure 1 presents the structure and concepts attributed to each level.

Figure 1
Text argumentation structure

It is worth emphasizing that the table shown in Figure 1, and the classification of concepts presented by it, are merely illustrative and have the main purpose of helping to organize the current debate. These concepts could be introduced in a different position depending on the perspective adopted from each of the herein presented topics, whereas others could be added to, or suppressed from, the table, based on others that would assume greater importance from a given selected argument. It is also worth highlighting the framing of three concepts, namely: democracy, which appears at the third level (based on a community democracy perspective), although it could be classified at the second level (based on broader debates on the meanings of democracy, mainly by taking into account the idea of ​​representative democracy); rationality, which, from its communicative perspective, and according to Habermasian debates, could be placed at the third level, although it also dialogues in the clash between substantive and instrumental rationality, at the second level; and the concept of indigenous worldview, which circulates in broader debates about decoloniality, as well as in discussions about Good Living.

Therefore, there are contemporary ideas that both directly and indirectly feed the Social Management field by focusing on concepts like deliberative democracy, communicative rationality and the theoretical foundation of the Frankfurt School itself, which is often used in Social Management, as explained below. All ideas surrounding the investigated topic, and those contributing to improve knowledge about Good Living and Social Management, were herein considered valid. However, this article aims at presenting a reading of the investigated field and at pointing out investigative possibilities based on the debate about decoloniality and the emerging concept of Good Living (at least in the academia, in public policy-making environments and among Brazilian social movements).

The current article was split into five sections. In addition to the present introduction, the following section addresses decoloniality and its impact on CMSs. The third section presents the concept of, and contemporary meanings attributed to, Good Living. The fourth section deals with Social Management elements, whereas the following section summarizes the confluences and divergences between Social Management and Good Living. The last section presents the final considerations and highlights both the possibilities and challenges of the herein performed conceptual exercise.

Decoloniality and critical management studies

Discussions about modernity / coloniality / decoloniality (MCD) are often part of CMSs. The MCD approach encompasses epistemological, political, cultural and economic contents, as well as other aspects capable of interfering with social life. The main issue associated with this approach refers to the understanding that intellectual production in the South/periphery/colony is systematically subordinated and/or suppressed by preferences for the supposedly superior production in Northern/center/metropolis-related countries.

Modernity is based on the colonial world model and it outspreads from core countries that hold political, military and economic power. According to Lander (2005), based on the North-Western liberal hegemony, modernity presents itself as project capable of providing the basis for knowledge production by establishing a worldview that expresses four dimensions: (a) history reduction to the idea of ​​progress, based on the hierarchy imposed to all peoples, cultures and histories; (b) ideals of a liberal-capitalist society whose natural economic outcome arises from social relations; (c) ‘ontologization’ of multiple society separations; (d) superiority attributed to knowledge produced by modern society in comparison to others – this knowledge is expressed through science.

The Eurocentric construction of modernity creates a metanarrative that, in its turn, defines a given path to be followed by all peoples, who must submit the traditional to the modern aspect. Liberal society has turned into the universal standard and the only possible (and desirable) future for all peoples – there is only this one path, otherwise obliteration is on the way. Lander (2005, pp. 13-14) defines this metanarrative as

. . . a colonial and imperial knowledge device, in which the totality of peoples, time and space is articulated as part of the world’s colonial/imperial organization. A given form of organization and “being” of society changes due to this knowledge-colonizing device into the “normal” form of both the human being and society. The other forms of being, the other forms of organization of society and the other forms of knowledge are transformed into different, lacking, archaic, primitive, traditional and pre-modern forms.

Based on this “universal path”, Dussel (2005, p. 29) pointed out that the “myth of modernity” was built based on seven points:

1. Modern civilization describes itself as more developed and superior (which means unconsciously upholding a Eurocentric position).

2. Superiority forces individuals to develop the most primitive, barbaric and rude behaviors, as moral requirement.

3. The path to be taken by such an educational development process must be the one followed by Europe (it is, in fact, a unilinear and European development that determines - again unconsciously - the “developmentalist fallacy”).

4. Since the barbarian opposes the civilizing process, modern praxis must exercise violence as a last resort, if necessary, to destroy the obstacles to this modernization (the just colonial war).

5. This domination makes victims (in many and varying ways) and this violence is interpreted as inevitable act, based on an almost ritualistic meaning of sacrifice; the civilizing hero invests its own victims with the condition of being holocausts of a saving sacrifice (colonized indigenous people, enslaved Africans, women, ecological destruction, among others).

6. According to the “modern”, the barbarian carries a “guilt” (for opposing the civilizing process) that allows “Modernity” to present itself not only as innocent, but also as capable of “emancipating” this “guilt” of its own victims.

7. Finally, and given the “civilizing” nature of “Modernity”, the suffering or sacrifices (costs) arising from the “modernization” of other “backward” (immature) peoples, of other enslavable races, of the other sex (because it is fragile) among others, are interpreted as inevitable.

According to Quijano (2005), four totalizing institutions set the basis for modernity’s domination project from the Eurocentric perspective, namely: nation-state, bourgeois family, business and rationality. These elements play key role in controlling authority, resources and products; sex; labor; and intersubjectivity, respectively. According to Lander (2005), given its totalizing claim, the modern and modernizing concept defines as valid the knowledge produced within societies where such a project is consolidated in. Thus, from the modern perspective, knowledge development only takes place through the idea of ​​progress, rather than from local knowledge. According to Quijano (2005), this epistemic violence is based on the idea of (or prejudice towards) race. This idea is structurally associated with the division of labor, according to which, one group dominates the other (the European group – mainly based on its image as colonizer – has power over several peoples).

The coloniality of power finds its counterpart in the coloniality of knowledge. Social sciences, in their early years, found support in this modern imaginary of colonial nature, which was substantiated by several “binary concepts”, such as the civilization-barbarism² pointed out by Castro-Gómez (2005). The coloniality of knowledge imposes several barriers to the construction of knowledge specific to Latin America. Eurocentrism, which is based on the idea of ​​scientific knowledge as the only valid knowledge, brings along the idea of modernity as “the new and the most advanced feature of the species” (Quijano, 2005, p. 111). Thus, the rest of the human species is reduced to an inferior status (Quijano, 2005)³.

Santos (2007) places this debate within the “abyssal thinking” substantiated by the idea of partial understanding of reality, based on an imaginary line that separates the modern Western world from the rest of it. According to Santos (2007) and Santos and Meneses (2010), there is a wide range of epistemological constructions (the so-called Epistemologies of the South) that are not covered by traditional (metropolitan) formulations of Social Sciences. In a self-critical position, the aforementioned author questions the previous formulation on regulation/emancipation, since he considers that it works to interpret the European reality, rather than to address the complexity of things taking place in other parts of the world, mainly in the “farther South”.

Dussel (2005), in his turn, introduces the concept of transmodernity as global liberation project that would provide space for otherness, which, in its turn, is acknowledged by the aforementioned author as proposal found in the “power” of modernity, i.e., before it comes into being. Santos (2007), in a similar position, defends the construction of a “post-abyssal” thought, of an epistemology to account for the world’s diversity, based on the ecology of different knowledge types. It is no coincidence that the aforementioned author pointed out that indigenous movements are exactly those that have the most convincing concepts and practices for the “emergence of post-abyssal thought”, because they are “the very paradigmatic inhabitants of the other side of the line, the historical field of the ‘appropriation/violence’ paradigm” (Santos, 2007, p. 84).

Likewise, Quijano (1992, p. 442, apudAlcântara & Sampaio, 2017, p. 8) addressed decolonization from the epistemological perspective:

Epistemological decolonization gives way to a new intercultural communication, to the exchange of experiences and meanings, as the basis for another rationality that can legitimately claim some universality. For nothing is less rational than claiming that the specific worldview of a given ethnic group must be imposed as universal rationality, even if it is so-called Western European worldview because, actually, it means claiming the universality title for a given provincialism.

The questioning of functionalism (Motta & Thiollent, 2016) with counterpoints to the idea that management is a “neutral technique that is, therefore, devoid of power relations” can be identified as common element at CMS scope (Souza, Souza, & Silva 2013). A scheme set by Davel and Alcadipani (2003), which was later used by Paula, Maranhão, Barreto and Klechen (2010), has listed three features related to critical studies in organizations, namely: denaturalized view of management, disconnection from performance analyses, and emancipatory intention.

On the other hand, prevalent currents (mainstream) of management studies conducted in Brazil adopt a coloniality self-imposition type and blindly (and often actively) adhere to a project of domination by “metropolises” or “core countries” (Abdalla & Faria, 2017; Wanderley, 2015)⁴. However, since the 1970s, there have been critical authors in Brazil who have set their own traditions (Alcadipani, 2005; Davel and Alcadipani, 2003; Paula, Maranhão, & Barros, 2009). Thus, it is possible assuming that the Brazilian production by authors, such as Alberto Guerreiro Ramos, Maurício Tragtenberg and Fernando Prestes Motta, represents a post-abyssal thought. One’s own production also appears in management studies conducted in other Latin American countries, as observed for Arteaga (2009).

Abdalla and Faria (2017 p. 921) addressed decoloniality in management studies and argued that a perspective of their own, which is free from Eurocentric fundamentalisms and colonialisms, must simultaneously break with the prevalence of the Western view and provide the perspective of “promoting critical dialogues and establishing legitimate bases for the co-construction of a pluriversal global academia”. By taking this path, the aforementioned authors adhered to Dussel’s concept of transmodernity.

There is lack of genuinely Latin American conceptual and theoretical references in management studies, mainly in the case of debates about Good Living. However, initiatives, such as that by Salgado (2010), bring Good Living (sumaq kawsay) closer to the Theory of Social Systems Delimitation (TSSD) by Ramos (1996) and to the debate about deliberative citizenship introduced in Administrative Science by Tenório (1998). The sociological reduction by Guerreiro Ramos was addressed to help better understanding sumaq kawsay within contexts other than the original one, which is that of pre-colonization native peoples. The initiative by Filgueiras (2012), who also used sociological reduction to approach the post-colonial imaginary, deserves to be highlighted, as well.

Good Living

Good Living emerged in the academic literature between the late 1990s and early 21^stcentury, based on the description of Kichwa people’s way of living in the Ecuadorian Amazon forest, which was a topic addressed by Carlos Viteri Gualinga (Hidalgo-Capitán & Cubillo-Guevara, 2014). Viteri Gualinga (2002) introduced a specific worldview and way of living in the academia – sumak kawsay⁵. From that moment on, this term started to be used in several political contexts and social spaces, and it encouraged debates about indigenous and alternative topics to think about the world and development models. It has become useful, for example, to the so-called “New Latin American Constitutionalism”, which is featured by the acknowledgement of nature as subject of rights. Initially, constitutional rights in Ecuador (2008 Constitution) and in Bolivia (2009) were attributed to nature, to Pachamama (Acosta, 2016, p, p. 28). Advancements in the Ecuadorian case also took place through adherence to the concept of plurinationality and through the encouragement of several participatory bodies, mainly at community level (Acosta, 2016).

Good Living became subject of controversies in academia. One of them refers to the translation of the indigenous term sumak kawsay into bien vivir (good living). According to Hidalgo-Capitán and Cubillo-Guevara (2014), the translation reduced this expression to material well-being, and it contradicted the indigenous view, according to which, the spiritual dimension is the core element to this concept. Cunha and Sousa (2023) conducted a literature review in Brazil and identified two main uses for this term: one of them referred to indigenous peoples and their features and lifestyle, whereas the other one featured political movements and different debates about contemporary society. In the first case, Good Living was used as synonym with, or as representation of, the way of acting and thinking by native peoples of the most diverse ethnicities. The second case, in its turn, has shown trend to mischaracterize the concept by considering its use to refer to elements foreign to its original concept. In this case, several approaches to topics like popular health, agroecology, eco-socioeconomics, popular education, communication, post-development and degrowth were made.

According to Hidalgo-Capitán and Cubillo-Guevara (2014), three currents of Good Living prevail in Ecuador: (a) socialist and statist, (b) post-developmentalist and environmentalist, and (c) indigenous and “Pachamamist”. The first current deals with political/state management, from the perspective of creating a “new socialism”. The second one, which is based on the criticism of the very idea of development, incorporates social movements’ participation in defining standards for society, from a “constructivist and postmodern” perspective. Finally, the third one recovers the traditional indigenous thought and criticizes the exclusion of the spiritual dimension from different uses of Good Living. The first current is criticized for its excessive pragmatism and lack of sensitivity to environmental issues, since it does not renounce extractive and development concepts. On the other hand, the second one is criticized for its lack of pragmatism and for certain naivety in its propositions, as well as for “corrupting” the original concept of sumak kawsay at the time to combine the modern worldview to the indigenous one. The third current is also criticized for its lack of pragmatism, for its “childish indigenism” and for the excessive reference to spiritual elements associated with sumak kawsay.

It is worth revisiting the study by Hidalgo-Capitán, Árias and Ávila (2014) to help better understanding the concept of Good Living. Sumak kawsay has two core dimensions: territorial and ethical. The territorial dimension happens within a physical place, the place where material and spiritual elements manifest themselves and articulate in a complex symbolic network of knowledge and actions. From the ethical perspective, the core elements comprise good relationship with everything involving the territory and the community, with emphasis on prevalent behavior-guiding values, both in the community and domestic spheres. Values, ​​such as reciprocity, integrality, complementarity and relationality, prevail in the domestic sphere; these values drive the search for harmony with nature/territory and within the community.

Hidalgo-Capitán et al. (2014, p. 30) have also pointed out eight elements focused on the approach to sumak kawsay in Ecuador: (a) rejecting the concept of economic development, based on fundamental criticism of the idea of ​​development itself; (b) llaki kawsay (bad living), which would be “miserable life” in comparison to full life (Good Living) - which can originate within the community through the incorporation of Western values; (c) self-sufficient, community-based, supportive, equitable and sustainable economy, which involves obtaining what one needs from nature and sharing the surplus with the community⁶. Elements, such as reciprocity (kunakuna), generosity (kuna) and solidarity (llakina, minga and ayni) appear in this economy in the process to complete family and community self-sufficiency and balance (equality); (d) the community (ayllu), where all forms of solidarity are materialized, where the entire indigenous economic and political system is organized, and where forms of relationship with nature are established; (e) nature (Pachamama), which is a living being that encompasses all human beings and all life forms (including water, rivers, mountains and rocks) and that all humans must take care of and take from it only what is necessary for their subsistence. Individuals relationship with the earth/nature has spiritual and transcendental nature, since it is a relationship with a “mother” and with life itself; (f) man-woman complementarity, which is based on equality and difference, on the view of differences as complementary, on mutual support, on shared dreams and on the abandonment of selfishness and individualism; (g) interculturality, which refers to respect and dialogue among different knowledge types and cultures; and (h) plurinationality, which refers to the coexistence of different cultures, in a self-determined way, in the same State, in the process of liberation from, and transformation of, the colonial State.

Likewise, Zambrano and Páucar (2014) pointed out five significant elements of Good Living: sense of reciprocity, biosocioeconomic dimension; sense of intersubjectivity; Earth’s role as mother, and indigenous spirituality. All these elements are closely connected to one another. The first one refers to native peoples’ way of life, which is strongly based on collective work and solidarity, both with human beings and with other life forms. The second element refers to the way of producing, which is strongly connected to the first element. The third element arises from daily dialogues among all life forms, including Mother Earth, a fact that leads to the fourth element, according to which, Earth is a nourishing and protective mother with whom family relationships are formed. Finally, indigenous spirituality is largely based on individuals’ relationship with this Mother, in the sense of perceiving and feeling it, a fact that leads to appreciating life in all its substantive aspects (Zambrano & Páucar, 2014).

Bock (cited by Alcântara et al., 2017), in his turn, pointed out four Good Living traits that, in substance, align to the previously named ones: (a) relationship between sense of territoriality and nature, i.e., the land has an essential meaning in this way of living, whereas Good Living is for all beings; (b) there is a fundamental relationship with culture and ancestors, as well as with cultural transmission; (c) the economy of Good Living is that of sharing and gifting, i.e., there is no accumulation; (d) there is a strong sense of community and respect for others is essential.

In order to summarize the debate, Alcântara and Sampaio (2017) acknowledged that Good Living started to represent an anti-systemic perspective, by referring to territorial vocations, as well as to collective ways to identify problems and to point out solutions through local efforts. Thus, it maintains correlation to movements presenting a complex and holistic framework of reality aimed at favoring affection sharing based on tradition, custom and community values like slow cities, slow food, ecovillages, permaculture, ecogastronomy and community-based tourism (Alcântara et al., 2017). This concept is based on traditional practices adopted by peoples from all the Americas and it incorporates principles, worldviews and ways of life shared by these peoples. Outside the indigenous context, Good Living appears as movement based on the global social change discourse (Acosta, 2016), in association with proposals to build alternatives to development, a utopia and a post-capitalist and post-neoliberal society.

Acosta (2016) acknowledged that Good Living turned into a platform to address global and local issues, or, “a semantic field, where emancipatory experiences can be placed in” (Alcântara et al., 2017, p. 3). Right at this point, it is possible seeing an interface with some of the primary foundations of Social Management, which were originally introduced in Brazil by Tenório (1998, pp. 11-12), according to whom:

First-generation Frankfurtians see the instrumental rationality phenomenon as a fact inhibiting man’s emancipation, whether in spaces reserved for culture, where they analyzed the cultural industry phenomenon, or in spaces reserved for production purposes, which were perceived by them as the ‘technification’ or one-‘dimensionalization’ of man.

. . .

Habermas, from the second Frankfurtian generation, agrees that instrumental reason hinders individuals’ social autonomy to the extent that the world of life, which is the structuring substance of a person’s reason, is subjected to functional reason through strategic actions.

Despite this agreement, Habennas does not advocate for the critical pessimism of his predecessors who did not see a way out for man under technical reason. In order to confront this type of reason, without losing sight of the consequences of technical-scientific progress, this German thinker proposed a theoretical-social paradigm to implement reason based on the consensus reached by a social action of the communicative type, rather than by a social action of the strategic type.

The ideals of Good Living at the interface with Social Management not only strengthen the Latin American decolonial thinking, but also show potential for practical action. Thus, the agenda, which was originally driven by indigenous and indigenist intellectuals, gains strength as one of the most important currents of thought to emerge in Latin America in recent years (Acosta, 2016; Alcântara et al., 2017; Siqueira, 2017). Its contributions to CMS mediated by Social Management precepts are herein highlighted.

Epistemological bases of Social Management: review and criticism

Tenório (1998) was the first to address the convergence between Social Management (by differentiating it from strategic management) and the theoretical-critical framework of the Frankfurt School in Brazil. The aforementioned author identified the association between a given concept of citizenship and the concept of Social Management, which was understood as deliberative political action, according to which, individuals participate in a democratic procedure to make decisions in different instances of society and in different roles. It is done in such a way that self-determination does not happen under the market logic, but under the logic of social democracy, based on political and decision-making equality. He concluded that “the development epistemology of Social Management cannot be guided by market mechanisms accounting for guiding strategic management informed by traditional theories” (Tenório, 1998, p. 21).

Tenório (1998) adopted a concept of citizenship based on communicative rationality and deliberative conception to defend Social Management as managerial action aimed at understanding processes, at consensus reached through arguments in the midst of an intersubjective process that presides over the exercise of citizenship at both the private and public spheres. Therefore, Social Management uses participatory and dialogical resources (Tenório, 1998, p. 16). It is, in essence, a deliberative citizenship. According to the aforementioned author, the basis of it lies on Habermas’ communicative action, which takes place in a public dialogic space for understanding between actors and that, consequently, is distant from both the liberal (human rights) and republican (community ethics) actions.

França Filho (2008), in his turn, defines Social Management based on practices and principles related to certain spheres. It can be seen in the most diverse organizations due to the prevalence of substantive rationality, thus it inverts the logic of instrumental rationality that prevails in business management. In Social Management, the second rationality is subordinate to the first one, which is oriented towards social, environmental, political, cultural goals, as well as towards non-economic-market principles. Thus, the rational action content in Social Management (substantive) is similar to that addressed by Tenório (1998) through Habermas’ concept of communicative rationality.

Instrumental rationality subordination to substantive rationality, as defended by França Filho (2008), is an understanding previously formulated by Souza and Oliveira (2006). However, history, most specifically the Industrial Revolution, is the epistemological basis used by Souza and Oliveira. The aforementioned authors assume the premise that the Industrial Revolution is a privileged space to rescue Management foundations. Therefore,, based on history, Social Management is

. . . the set of management strategies and policies aimed at promoting individuals and communities’ well-being, as well as at rebuilding links among man, its fellows and the environment, by articulating substantive rationality elements with instrumental rational action, under the human emancipation ideal (Souza & Oliveira; 2006, p. 59).

The aforementioned authors emphasize that, successful businessman, Robert Owen, gathered values ​​in A New View of Society (1813) and in Report to the County of Lanark (1820), where he disclosed a peculiar viewpoint of transformations experienced by British society between the mid-18^th and 19^th centuries, as well as introduced personal beliefs as remedies. Despite the lack of rigor, based on Owen’s life trajectory, Souza and Oliveira (2006) identified Social Management experiences in the Industrial Revolution, although they were based on philanthropy and charity. However, they were anchored in solving society's issues, with emphasis on quality of life, on the environment and on corporate social responsibility.

Another epistemological trend is that of Social Management seen as social development management conducted by inter-organizations, in a debate encouraged by Tânia Fischer. Therefore, Social Management emerges as territorially anchored processes, as representations of local powers articulated in inter-organizations, revealed in institutions’ interests through projects and programs used as public action instruments (Fischer, 2012, p. 114). It is, therefore, the dialogical managerial action in the society/State relationship (Tenório, 1998).

Peres, Pereira and Oliveira (2013) refer Social Management to Giddens’ Structure Theory. They use Giddens to overcome one of the main debates in Sociology, namely: structure versus action. The aforementioned authors understand that the non-state public space is the locus of cooperation among State actors, the market and civil society in pursuit of common good. This interaction space gives rise to Social Management understood as political action among people, organizations and inter-organizations, i.e., between public and private agents that articulate themselves around collective goals and the common good (Peres et al., 2013, p. 38). Once again, dialogic managerial action is seen through cooperation, whereas communicative rationality is seen through interaction.

Cançado, Pereira and Tenório (2015), in their turn, summarize Social Management into three categories: (a) Well-Understood Interest (WUI), (b) public sphere, and (c) emancipation. The first category is the starting point, the second one is the space where Social Management happens, and the third one (its purpose) is the final goal of Social Management. Based on this formulation, WUI refers to solidarity and sustainability. The public sphere, in its turn, involves deliberative democracy, dialogicity, intersubjectivity and rationality, whereas emancipation is mediated by negative dialectics. The aforementioned authors resort to references, such as Habermas (communicative action), Hannah Arendt, Alberto Guerreiro Ramos and Alexis de Tocqueville. In synthesis, they understand that Social Management is based on the premise that collective well-being is the precondition for individual well-being (IBC) and that it is achieved at the public sphere, in pursuit of emancipation.

Peres and Pereira (2014), who conducted a survey on the Brazilian intellectual production, pointed out four theoretical currents in the Social Management field: (a) the current deriving from critical theory of the Frankfurt School; (b) the one based on the idea of social development management conducted by inter-organizations; (c) the approach centered on concepts of societal public management; and (d) the Puquian approach. Authors like Jürgen Habermas and Boaventura de Sousa Santos were also mentioned in their survey. Peres and Pereira (2014) observed Social Management subdivision into two strands: one of them understands it as linked to public management (it is called societal public management and social development management), whereas the other one understands it within a dialogical managerial framework implemented in different – private and public, governmental and non-governmental – organizational environments.

Peres and Pereira (2014) pointed out four features defining Social Management in the assessed studies, which would be a quasi-consensus among different understandings of this term. The first feature refers to the managerial action, whose fundamental concern lies on common good and on meeting social needs – this feature brings Social Management closer to the idea of public management. The second feature lies on dialogue as core element associated with collective and participatory management processes, and closely connected to the idea of ​​participation, which is the third feature. The fourth feature lies on seeing the third sector as privileged locus of Social Management actions.

In light of this set of concepts, it is pertinent referring to Fundamentos da gestão social na Revolução Industrial: leitura e crítica aos ideais de Robert Owen [Fundamentals of Social Management in the Industrial Revolution: Reading and Criticism of Robert Owen’s Ideals] by Souza and Oliveira (2006) to introduce counterpoints to the foregoing. By pointing out weaknesses identified in both Owen and the Social Management construct, the aforementioned authors concluded that (a) both start from idealized conjectures about social and organizational environment, rather than from a rigorous reflection about the nature of man’s relationships with others and with nature; (b) they articulate organizational management strategies aimed at mitigating the undesirable effects of development, whose origin lies on the hegemonic type of social relationship and on the economic and social structure; (c) they provide aesthetic shape to management elements that, in essence, privilege substantive rationality while preserving work and life processes that, in their turn, inhibit – or delay – effective human emancipation; (d) due to the previous weaknesses, they appear in the form of fragments, rather than forming a single, coherent theoretical body.

Social Management in unequal societies incorporates ideals of democracy, territorial development, substantive rationality, deliberative citizenship and participation in the public sphere. Criticism towards democracy is based on two different points: the first one lies on the advancement of the elitist, minimalist and hegemonic vision defended by Schumpeter (1961), for example, a vision that is questioned through the incorporation of participation in the social context of the public sphere, based on the adoption of Habermasian criticism by Tenório (1998), for example. The second point lies on the improved understanding that the Habermasian procedural approach is not enough to account for both the complexity and demands of the social field, even when the contribution from communicative actions to hegemonic currents is acknowledged. Deliberative democracy procedures and public sphere space are not available for everyone in unequal societies; thus, more inclusive democracy forms and experiments emerge, mainly in non-core countries (Santos & Avritzer, 2002). The debate about the first point is more advanced in Social Management, since it was scheduled from the very beginning because this field is always presented as a counter-hegemonic action. The second point, however, brings along possibilities and challenges to incorporate decolonial debates (or from the Global South, in Boaventura de Sousa Santos’ terms) into the Social Management field.

With respect to the communicative action based on Habermas’ logic, criticism is based on both the understanding of language and communication itself, and on the concept of public sphere. Language criticism is based on the idea that communication and collective understanding are not only established in the rational verbalization of arguments; it rather happens at different levels and forms, by involving several other intelligences (besides the logical-verbal one), emotions and the body, for example (Giannella & Batista, 2013). Moreover, by basing itself on a specific language and collective action type, deliberative democracy represents an elitist and, therefore, exclusionary stand, since its codes are mainly ruled by the economic, political and intellectual elite. Furthermore, other class (economic), gender or racial asymmetries can emerge in the public sphere. Although Habermas revised the concept of public sphere based on criticisms to it, the revision mainly focused on expanding the public, rather than on the meanings and forms of organization (Santos & Avritzer, 2002).

Limits in the worldview associated with Frankfurt's Critical Theory are pointed out based on the debate above. Accordingly, Laville and Frère (2022), in The Factory of Emancipation, outlined some of these limits. They analyzed the first two Frankfurt School generations in order to build a new and constructive critical theory, according to which, emancipation would be the most likely accomplished task. Thus, contours were drawn of an “Impure Critical Theory”, which gives up the “perfection of the ideal” that the aforementioned authors see as typical of what they call traditional Critical Theory.

With respect to the production of the first Frankfurt School generation, Laville and Frère (2022) believe that criticism is trapped in hypercriticism, and it leads to the construction of a closed proposal, which is distant from reality, focused on negative, pessimistic and paralyzing criticism, according to which, emancipation would exceed the reach of most social actors. On the other hand, criticism towards Habermas (member of the second Frankfurt School generation) lies on the fact that he built normative concepts that are distant from concrete data on reality. Therefore, he would be much more concerned with defending the world of life from the action of systems than with acknowledging emancipatory and concrete experiences, that are oftentimes outside the established reading standards – as it happens in the South, according to Santos and Meneses (2010). A renewed critical theory would be capable of making deconstructive criticism to, subsequently, lead to constructive criticism, by embracing and understanding actually existing emancipation practices (Laville & Frère, 2022).

Good Living and Social Management: confluences and divergences

Modern society is not a field for the uniform expression of practices, beliefs and cultures, since it encompasses several coexisting worldviews. However, it is possible outlining the general elements of a worldview that emerges from the “project of modernity”, according to which, human action is understood as fragmented; therefore, it inevitably results in disorder. The self-regulated market, for example, is naturalized and accepted as entity (perhaps the only one) capable of establishing order in society. A deterministic view, according to which, there is no other alternative and adopting any other format would inevitably bring worse results than those presented by the “natural” course of history, prevails in it (Moreno, 2005). The idea of human being is that of an “autonomous individual, who is responsible for itself and for the goods owned by it (including labor power) and who relates as owner individual to other owner individuals in fragmented, individual and exchange actions”⁷ (Moreno, 2005, p. 89).

The hegemonic order of regulation does not establish concern for the individual beyond itself, or for the environment, in order to set changes in the system. Collective equilibrium is achieved through the automatic supply/demand binomial harmonization in the market context well-being should result from. Therefore, the broader the market’s action, the higher the likelihood of well-being, since its virtues will have a broader scope. In order to function, such a mechanism must operate free from external interventions and, ideally, free from state regulation. Thus, regulation must be as limited as possible, so as not to interfere with market functioning (Moreno, 2005).

Mind, body and emotions are separated from each other in the hegemonic order, whereas soul and spirit are denied; rationality is exalted (or at least a specific type of it, which is instrumental and based on the scientific method); and a society based on anthropocentrism is established (Salazar, 2016). In contrast to this worldview and social practice, the Andean thought embodied in Good Living is cosmocentric; it integrates emotions, body and spirit, and sees the natural environment as a mother (Pachamama) who provides the necessary conditions for human existence. Furthermore, it acknowledges emotions, the act of feeling, subjectivity and spirituality (Salazar, 2016).

Based on these premises, and on concepts reported in the previous sections, Table 1 summarizes conformities between hegemonic worldviews (Western, Global North worldviews) and Good Living. These conformities were established based on Salazar (2016); however, option was made for selecting analytical categories that could be connected to each other in order to incorporate different Social Management interpretations. Thus, conceptual convergences and divergences between Good Living and Social Management principles were herein outlined based on seven elements that, in the end, can become research agendas in the dialogue between these two constructs.

Table 1
: Conformities among the Western Paradigm, the Andean-Amazonian Paradigm and Social Management

Category	Western Paradigm	Andean/Amazonian Paradigm (Good Living)	Social Management
Philosophy	Anthropocentric, the human being (man) is its core element, it organizes life and its environment	Cosmocentric, the human being submits to the order of the cosmos expressed in both nature and society.	It questions anthropocentrism, but it does not define its own philosophy.
Relationship with nature	Nature is a resource that belongs to human beings; therefore, it can be controlled to meet their needs.	Human beings belong to nature. The earth is honored as a mother who provides and gives us everything we need (Pachamama).	It criticizes the instrumental use of nature
Disciplinarity	Split into fields, disciplines and parts to help better understanding phenomena or systems.	Holistic, everything is related to everything else; it acknowledges interrelationships among different planes and dimensions.	It positions itself as interdisciplinary field
Knowledge	Knowledge based on reason; knowing contents in science and in ideas’ construction processes	Knowledge based on lived experiences; it integrates emotions, spirituality and mind.	It is anchored in substantive/communicative rationality, as well as proposes integrative methodologies for knowledge acquisition purposes.
Learning	Scientific, rational, positivist and objective method; it denies everything that cannot be proven. Written transmission, teacher assessment.	Conscious experiential learning method (intuition), based on experience; oral and symbolic transmission, elderly people’s assessment.	It acknowledges the use of scientific method in combination to other learning methods
Mind-body	Cartesian logic with unquestionable validity. It separates the mind from the body and emotions. It denies the spirit or soul.	Double and trivalent logic including the claim of third parties; grammatical indecision. It takes into consideration uncertainty, contradiction and the invisible.	Debate still under construction regarding mind-body integration. It seeks to integrate the logic of diverse social groups; it acknowledges specificities.
Objectivity and Neutrality	Epistemological model that claims objectivity and neutrality.	It acknowledges emotionality, feelings and subjectivity.	It acknowledges subjectivity and non-neutrality
Idea of time	Linear and progressive time, the past is behind us and we seek to reach a better future (forward); it is linked to production. Separation between time and space.	Time-space seen as cyclical whole, the present comprises the past and the future, importance given to the here and now; time and space are articulated with natural cycles and with the cosmos.	Collective processes are continuously under construction. It assumes “comings and goings” in collective processes, although it has a teleology.
Individual and community	Individualistic, it promotes competition, egocentrism and consumerism.	Community-based, it promotes solidarity, redistribution and reciprocity.	Fundamental principles are anchored in solidarity, cooperation and dialogicity; criticism of competition and consumerism.
View of spirituality	It denies spirituality as part of scientific knowledge.	It acknowledges spirituality expressed in the form of personal, social and natural life.	It accepts individual or collective expressions of spirituality, but it does not systematically incorporate the spiritual element.

Convergences between Social Management and Good Living are likely to happen. Debates about Social Management incorporate elements close to the worldview of Good Living, with emphasis on the criticism to the instrumental use of nature, on interdisciplinarity, as well as on the mind/body and reason/emotion integrations. They also incorporate community spaces and the co-production carried out through dialogue and horizontality. On the other hand, Social Management carries the Western thought when it does not behave like an ecological philosophy and is carried out through formal processes demanded (and granted) by the academic environment, besides abstaining from considerations about spirituality.

Thus, Social Management does not incorporate the worldview intrinsic to Good Living, likely due to the historical context and the environment it derives from. There is a dual aspect to Social Management that limits its cohesion and scope, namely: having emerged in modernity and in the academic environment, it brings along elements that diverge from Good Living, although it attempts to deconstruct hegemonic structures.

The problem of “early institutionalization”, which creates “interpretative constraints and ‘problematization’ structures for social actions”, as pointed out by Araújo (2012, p. 43), may contribute, to some extent, to this perception. In addition, this factor poses the risk of crystallizing normative structures of modernity by closing itself to some emerging (and, at the same time, very old) practices and thoughts found in society, such as the case of indigenous communities and, by extension, of other traditional communities in Brazil.

Some points of a research agenda aimed at bringing together practices and concepts of Social Management and Good Living

The idea of ​​common purpose and community perspective

There is an understanding that Social Management is based on the premise that “collective well-being precedes individual well-being”, i.e., collective well-being is a precondition for individual well-being (Cançado, Pereira & Tenório, 2015). The way of living of people who follow Good Living, in its turn, is based on community life (Carranco, 2010; Silva, 2019) guided by solidarity and reciprocity forms observed in several traditional indigenous community institutions, such as minkas, pagos (Salazar, 2016), in ideas like “collective advancement”⁸ and “nosotric identity”⁹ (Zambrano and Páucar, 2014). According to Stumpf and Bergamaschi (2016), “community” is a concept that guides native peoples’ lives; it is a prevalent paradigm from “Alaska to Patagonia”. Communitarianism, in this case, is not opposed to individuality, but rather to individualism (Sampaio, Parks, Mantovaneli, Quinlan, & Alcântara, 2017).

Environment and sustainability

The concept of community in Good Living goes beyond the group of people and incorporates the natural environment. It is an ethical key, a deeply substantive perspective of nature, as described by Krenak (2019, p. 21):

Doce River, which we, the Krenak, call Watu, our grandfather, is a person, not a resource as economists say. It is not something that anyone can take ownership of; it is part of our construction as collective entity that inhabits a specific place, where we have been gradually confined by the government so that we can live and reproduce our organization forms (despite the external pressure).

The indigenous worldview is one of eternal and infinite time, and it assumes that both the land and nature will continue to exist, although in constant mutation. Sampaio et al. (2017) pointed out that future generations will be intertwined with current generations, as well as with the past ones. The cyclical concept of time points towards the deconstruction of the very idea of societies’ development and evolution forms (Acosta, 2016). Thus, a connection and a front of debate in Social Management emerge through other collective organization forms, based on a different idea of time, such as slow cities that adopt Good Living as municipal policy (Sampaio et al., 2017).

Participation and dialog

Salgado (2010) acknowledges that deliberative citizenship, based on what was developed by Tenório (1998), is the one that best features the action in sumak kawsay, as it appears in “the discriminating key between the predominant Western model of development and Sumaq Kawsay is deliberative citizenry” (Salgado, 2010, p. 208). Rampazo (2016), in his turn, based on Little's reflections, highlights that the idea of “participation” within community contexts makes more sense if it is thought of as the agency of subjects:

The realization of the ethnic agency of a given group is different from a mere process of participation. When there are true situations of agency (“acting as subjects”), it does not make much sense to talk about participation, since this term applies more to situations where people take part in externally organized events or programs. An example may clarify this point: it would not be very appropriate to say that the “Xingu indigenous community participated in the Quarup”; it would be more appropriate to say that “the Xingu indigenous community performed the Quarup”. If journalists, tourists or anthropologists were invited to watch this rite, they would have a “participation” in it because they “took part” in an event that was designed and carried out by another group (Little, 2006 apud Rampazo, 2016, p. 95)

From the organizational perspective, ritualistic/spiritual and political meetings represented as physical space (oftentimes a “prayer room” that takes central space in the village) are a common element in indigenous cultures. Speech is freely expressed and collective decisions are made there (Silva, 2019).

Elders and spiritual leaders play relevant role in decision-making processes. Oliveira (2012, p. 90), highlighted the example of Guarani-Mbya by stating that “the elders, who are shamans and grandparents, play fundamental role in the fight for rights, since they are the ones who ask Nhanderú to have strength, as well as to have houses and plantations”. Therefore, it is important having the younger ones listening to the words and advices of the elders (Oliveira, 2012). Menon (2019 p. 108) highlighted the ability to engage in dialogue, which is considered an essential quality for leaders: “Indigenous chiefs’ ability to listen and to understand the community’s needs is the essence of Guarani indigenous leadership”. Dialogue – which is a constituent element of Social Management (Tenório, 1998) – takes on specific features among indigenous people. According to Stumpf and Bergamaschi (2016, p. 926), dialogue between Guarani individuals is conducted with one’s heart and sincerity:

In a conversation with Mr. Adolfo, who is the spiritual leader of the Tekoa Ka’aguy village, he explained that feeling is a key element for memory and knowledge to take place; he also highlighted the importance of the word spoken from the heart and of listening with one’s heart, since it enables learning with one’s heart.

Public sphere

According to Cançado, Pereira and Tenório (2015), public sphere is the space accounting for bringing the population closer to politics. According to them, a space where people can meet to deliberate on their needs and on the future is necessary for Social Management to take place. The public sphere in the indigenous context is expressed in two different spaces, namely: in meetings held inside the village or between different peoples/villages. This is the case, for example, of assemblies taking place at regular periods among the Xukuru people (Medeiros, 2019), or of Yvyrupa commission, which represents the coordination of Guarani peoples to demand rights (Oliveira, 2012). According to Oliveira (2012), speech is open in such meetings and leaders often take the opportunity to present their positions. They are usually permeated by spiritual elements and by demands of each people, which often converge on issues involving their territories. Oliveira (2012) also emphasized that representatives of these collectivities, who are spokespersons for their demands, often comprise young leaders who have been trained in the “white” world and who are able to properly talk in, and move through, non-indigenous spaces outside their villages.

Indigenous subjectivity/intersubjectivity and Social Management

According to Sampaio et al. (2017), the construction of subjectivity based on Good Living mainly takes place in compliance with the idea of ​​community rooted in social ties. Subjectivity appears interconnected to, and even based on, the idea of ​​intersubjectivity. Several examples can illustrate this understanding. Stumpf and Bergamaschi (2016), who investigated education among Guarani peoples, have emphasized that community influence is visible in, and has straight impact on, learning processes. Zambrano and Páucar (2014), in their turn, investigated the Urireo people in Mexico and concluded that reciprocity is key element in individual and collective identity formation processes, in the aforementioned “nosotric identity”.

According to Sampaio et al. (2017, p. 45), the community is where individuals get to know their own world, where people carry out their daily activities, where they “are born, walk, work, grow, love and die”. Indigenous people believe that the territory is a constituent aspect of subjectivity and intersubjectivity, of religiosity and of way of living (Rampazo, 2016; Marquesan, 2013; Silva, 2019). Thus, intersubjectivity is not only processed or defined in individuals’ relationship with other human beings, but also with all beings on the planet and in the universe (Zambrano & Páucar, 2014). Therefore, the boundaries among all individualities forming the universe are fluid and do not have hierarchy or anything that privileges human beings over other beings. Social Management gets close to the idea of indigenous intersubjectivity by, for example, adopting Tocqueville's (2004) WUI (Cançado, Pereira and Tenório; 2015) when he designates something that appears as singular attribute, from the individual interest x common good association perspective.

Social Management, Good Living and rationality

Cançado, Pereira and Tenório (2015) have pointed out that substantive rationality is the one expected in Social Management. Therefore, instrumental rationality in Social Management is a means, not an end. Salgado (2010), in his turn, classified sumaq kawsay (Good Living) within the substantive rationality framework. According to the aforementioned author, the starting point lies on the etymology of the word oiko-nomia, whose suffix “nomia” is related to nutrition, which, in its turn, has close correlation to the indigenous concept of sumaq kawsay. This correlation is closely connected to intersubjectivity and dialogicity, as well as to territory, land and spirituality. This set of elements gives rise to a worldview that guides indigenous peoples’ behaviors and decision-making processes. Stumpf and Bergamaschi (2016, p. 929) have pointed out that the guarani-mbya people are deeply guided by spirituality, and that the resulting ethics and conduct reflect on all aspects of their lives.

Therefore, understanding indigenous rationality requires taking into account both the centrality and specificities of spirituality. These elements are part of everyday life and attest to the deep body/mind integration into the totality of life, besides being integrated into daily experiences in all spaces and times. Behaviors and ways of thinking and feeling the world are expressed in individuals’ imagination, intuition, joy, creativity, affection and art mediated by feelings (heart) (Stumpf & Bergamaschi, 2016). The relationship with the land, which is seen as mother (or Pachamama, in certain cases), is at the core of spirituality. This is the giver of life for indigenous peoples in Mexico (Zambrano & Páucar, 2014), in the Andean culture (Salgado, 2010) and in Brazil. This vision activates the human sense of coexisting in harmony with all life forms, as well as the respect for all beings and for the territory itself, as subjects who have their own personality and subjectivity, and it reveals high prevalence of substantive rationality. This factor is what Zambrano and Páucar (2014) called “moral economy”, according to which, economic aspects become secondary, or even strange, since exploiting a mother for profit is inconceivable.

The logic stemming from the spiritual vision constitutes a subjectivity-intersubjectivity essentially based on reciprocity, sharing and non-exploitation of the land, since it encourages behaviors that puts social relationships above the economic ones. Rampazo (2016, p. 89), for example, conducted a study focused on investigating an environmental compensation program aimed at fostering economic activity among the Kaigang people. He observed that “social relations with relatives are more important than economic relations”, and it led to frustrations in the execution of the program, which was exogenously designed by the executing company. The aforementioned author went on to state that “traditionally, the fruits of indigenous labor could not be appropriated by one individual alone, since ‘kinship relations... play key role in organizing the form of work and the appropriation of products deriving from it’” (Rampazo, 2016, p. 89). This idea of sharing in the Social Management field can be associated with solidarity economy and with concepts of reciprocity and equitable distribution of results among partners in enterprises.

Good Living and the meanings of emancipation

The concept of emancipation can take on different perspectives, even in the Management Studies field (Souza et al., 2013). In Social Management, Cançado, Pereira and Tenório (2015, p. 12) describe emancipation based on the Critical Theory, in the sense of “liberation from oppressive domination”. On the other hand, Sampaio et al. (2017) describe Good Living as emancipatory project linked to ethics as opposed to individualistic and alienating ideas, such as quality of life. Thus, the collectivist and awareness-raising perspective associated with emancipation becomes consistent with CMS (Souza et al., 2013).

It is worth mentioning Santos’ (2007) reflection about the appropriation/violence dichotomy in contrast to the regulation/emancipation. The first one represents situations that would be unthinkable under the European modernity framework in different metropolises: “overall, appropriation involves incorporation, co-optation and assimilation, whereas violence implies physical, material, cultural and human destruction” (Santos, 2007, p. 75). Furthermore, the community organization environment in the village is, overall, not the place where any of these dichotomies can be seen in a more complete form. On the contrary, they are products of society and the State, featured by a historical process that dates back to early Americas’ colonization stage (Santos, 2007). Another understanding runs parallel to the concept of emancipation in question, namely: the self-determination of peoples based on their own references and on the freedom to reproduce life against societal pressure. Thus, the idea of ​​freeing oneself from oppressive domination, as outlined in Social Management by Cançado, Pereira and Tenório (2015), would be seen in the idea of living freely, in spontaneous connection to nature and community life, as well as to spiritual and artistic practices that are at the very core of Good Living.

Conclusion

The herein conducted theoretical exercise enabled visualizing convergences and divergences between the Good Living perspective and the Brazilian debate about Social Management. This task required a unique composition and some abstraction level, since any approach to the worldview of Good Living finds limitations when it is extrapolated to non-indigenous cultures. Therefore, this exercise was herein understood as DYI. In the end, several points of contact between Good Living and Social Management were identified, except for the fact that the second concept/practice was covered by modernity elements, even if from a critical perspective, with propositional intention, which is explained by its origin in modern society and by the academic environment.

It was possible seeing that several Social Management elements incorporate practices similar to that of Good Living. Particularities are the point to be herein highlighted. It is the case, for example, of community dimension, whose meaning among indigenous peoples refer to the natural environment and to a coexistence type that contrasts the Western idea of sustainability. A conformation of democracy, which is built around indigenous leaders’ legitimacy and influence, is another component that deserves attention. Democracy, in its dominant contemporary (liberal) version, is achieved through voting, whereas among indigenous peoples, this idea is not appropriate. Furthermore, substantive rationality among indigenous peoples is permeated by their relationship with the territory, as well as by reciprocity and spirituality, which are the so-called public sphere, in Social Management. Furthermore, human relationship with the land (Pachamama) has a very particular feature among indigenous peoples. Emancipation among indigenous peoples, in its turn, takes on its own meaning, which is mostly taken into consideration by the correlation of such people to the surrounding society, rather than by processes shared by them.

In synthesis, it is necessary acknowledging that the decolonial framework was as useful as the Epistemologies of the South at the time to read Social Management from the Good Living perspective. If Social Management is a practice whose contours are in the process of being defined, the current study sought to bring new elements to this debate. It did not intend to seek to invalidate, or even reduce, the contributions already made by Social Management, but rather to propose paths capable of enriching its construction and its debates.

The present study was a reflection exercise surrounded by contradictions and challenges, given the Brazilian and Latin American context itself. Abdalla and Faria (2017, p. 925) investigated the organization field and pointed out that “decoloniality coexists with coloniality just as transmodernity coexists with hypermodernity radicalization at global scale”. This understanding stands out in the academic production and represents an intellectual challenge to the herein performed exercise type.

Some general questions still arise when we talk about the likely agenda for future research: what Social Management type emerges from indigenous practices of Good Living? Can Good Living practices, strictly speaking, be considered Social Management? These questions seem relevant to help building an epistemology specific to the Contemporary Management Studies field and to the Brazilian and Latin American contexts, both in terms of Social Management and Good Living.

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank Capes for supporting the Research Project through public notice n. 42/2014 - Support Program for Post-graduation Studies and for Scientific and Technological Research in Socioeconomic Development in Brazil (PGPSE).

References

• Abdalla, M. M., & Faria, A. (2017). Em defesa da opção decolonial em administração/gestão. Cadernos EBAPE.BR, 15 (4), 914-929. doi:10.1590/1679-395155249
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-395155249
• Acosta, A. (2016). O bem viver: uma oportunidade para imaginar outros mundos São Paulo, SP: Elefante.
• Alcadipani, R. (2005). Réplica: a singularização do plural. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 9 (1), 211-220. doi:10.1590/S1415-65552005000100011.
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-65552005000100011
• Alcântara, L. C. S., Grimm, I. J., Sampaio, C. A. C., Mantovaneli, O., Jr., Feuser, S., & García, M. (2017). Bem viver: discussões teórico conceituais. Revista Pensamiento Actual, 17 (28), 66-77. Recuperado de https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=6053600
  » https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=6053600
• Alcântara, L. C. S., & Sampaio, C. A. C. (2017). Bem Viver: uma perspectiva (des)colonial das comunidades indígenas. Revista Rupturas, 7 (2),1-31. doi:10.22458/rr.v7i2.1831
  » https://doi.org/10.22458/rr.v7i2.1831
• Araújo, E. T. de. (2012). (In)consistências da gestão social e seus processos de formação: um campo em construção (Tese de doutorado). Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP.
• Arteaga, F. J. S. (2009). Teorías organizacionales desde una perspectiva latinoamericana. Universidad Verdad, 48, 161-211. doi: 10.33324/uv.vi48
  » https://doi.org/10.33324/uv.vi48
• Cançado, A. C.; Pereira, J. R.; Tenório, F. G. (2015). Fundamentos teóricos da gestão social. Desenvolvimento Regional em Debate, 5 (1), 4-19. doi: 10.24302/drd.v5i1.703
  » https://doi.org/10.24302/drd.v5i1.703
• Carranco, M. F. O. (2010). Visão ética complexa na estratégia sustentável de turismo comunitário em uma comunidade indígena andina (Dissertação de Mestrado). Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS. Recuperado de http://hdl.handle.net/10183/27962
  » http://hdl.handle.net/10183/27962
• Castro-Gómez, S. (2005). Ciências sociais, violência epistêmica e o problema da "invenção do outro". In E. Lander (Org.). A colonialidade do saber: eurocentrismo e ciências sociais Perspectivas latino-americanas (pp. 87-95). Buenos Aires: Clacso. Recuperado de https://libreria.clacso.org/publicacion.php?p=164&c=13
  » Recuperado de https://libreria.clacso.org/publicacion.php?p=164&c=13
• Cavalcanti, M. F. R., & Alcadipani, R. (2011). Em defesa de uma crítica organizacional pós-estruturalista: recuperando o pragmatismo foucaultiano-deleuziano. Administração: Ensino e Pesquisa, 12 (4), 557-582. doi:10.13058/raep.2011.v12n4.138
  » https://doi.org/10.13058/raep.2011.v12n4.138
• Cubillo-Guevara, A. P., Hidalgo-Capitán, A. L., & Domínguez-Gómez, J. A. (2014). El pensamiento sobre el Buen Vivir. Entre el indigenismo, el socialismo y el posdesarrollismo. Revista del CLAD Reforma y Democracia, 60, 27-58. Recuperado de https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=357533692002
  » https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=357533692002
• Cunha, E. V., & Sousa, W. S. (2023). O Bem Viver no Brasil: uma análise da produção acadêmica nacional. Revista Katálysis, 26 (2), 321-332. doi:10.1590/1982-0259.2023.e91555.
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-0259.2023.e91555
• Davel, E., & Alcadipani, R. (2003). Estudos críticos em administração: a produção científica brasileira nos anos 1990. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 43 (4), 72-85. doi:10.1590/S0034-75902003000400006
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-75902003000400006
• Dussel, E. Europa, modernidade e eurocentrismo (2005). In E. Lander (Org. ), A colonialidade do saber: eurocentrismo e ciências sociais perspectivas latino-americanas (pp. 25-34). Buenos Aires: Clacso. Recuperado de https://libreria.clacso.org/publicacion.php?p=164&c=13
  » https://libreria.clacso.org/publicacion.php?p=164&c=13
• Filgueiras, F. de B. (2012). Guerreiro Ramos, a redução sociológica e o imaginário pós-colonial. Caderno CRH [online]. 25 (65), 347-363. doi:10.1590/S0103-49792012000200011.
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-49792012000200011
• Fischer, T. (2012). Gestão social do desenvolvimento de territórios. Revista Psicologia Organizações e Trabalho, 12 (1), 113-119. Recuperado de http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/pdf/rpot/v12n1/v12n1a10.pdf
  » http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/pdf/rpot/v12n1/v12n1a10.pdf
• França Filho, G. C. (2008). Definindo Gestão Social. In J. T. Silva Jr., R. T. Mâish, Cançado A. C., P. C. Schommer (Orgs.), Gestão Social: práticas em debate, teorias em construção. Fortaleza: Imprensa Universitária.
• Giannella, V., & Batista, V. L. (2013). Metodologias Integrativas: Tecendo Saberes E Ampliando A Compreensão. Revista Interdisciplinar de Gestão Social, 2 (3), 83-108. doi:10.9771/23172428rigs.v2i3.9691
  » https://doi.org/10.9771/23172428rigs.v2i3.9691
• Hidalgo-Capitán, A. L.; Arias, A., & Ávila, J. (2014). El pensamiento indigenista ecuatoriano sobre el Sumak Kawsay. In A. L. Hidalgo-Capitán, A. G. García; N. D. Guazha (Orgs.), Sumak Kawsay Yuyay: antología del pensamiento indigenista ecuatoriano sobre Sumak Kawsay (pp. 29-73). Huelva: Universidad de Huelva.
• Hidalgo-Capitán, A. L., Cubillo-Guevara, A. P. (2014). Seis debates abiertos sobre el sumak kawsay. Íconos: Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 48, 25–40. doi:10.17141/iconos.48.2014.1204
• Krenak, A. (2019). Ideias para adiar o fim do mundo São Paulo, SP: Companhia das Letras.
• Lander, E. (Org.) (2005). A colonialidade do saber: eurocentrismo e ciências sociais perspectivas latino-americanas Buenos Aires: Clacso. Recuperado de https://libreria.clacso.org/publicacion.php?p=164&c=13
  » https://libreria.clacso.org/publicacion.php?p=164&c=13
• Laville, J.-L. & Frère, B. (2023). A fábrica da emancipação Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Ateliê de Humanidades.
• Medeiros, L. (2019). A roda grande passando pela pequena: descolonização e Bem Viver no território indígena Xukuru do Ororubá em Pesqueira - PE (Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso). Universidade Federal do Cariri, Juazeiro do Norte, CE.
• Menon, R. A. (2019). A. Estratégias psicossociais de resistência das lideranças indígenas Avá-Guarani da Região Oeste do Paraná: uma perspectiva não-gerencialista na área de administração (Dissertação de mestrado). Universidade Estadual do Centro-Oeste, Guarapuava. Disponível em https://sucupira.capes.gov.br/sucupira/public/consultas/coleta/trabalhoConclusao/viewTrabalhoConclusao.jsf?popup=true&id_trabalho=7691873
  » https://sucupira.capes.gov.br/sucupira/public/consultas/coleta/trabalhoConclusao/viewTrabalhoConclusao.jsf?popup=true&id_trabalho=7691873
• Marquesan, F. F. S. (2013). Terra e artesanato Mbyá-Guarani: Polos da contraditória política indigenista no Rio Grande do Sul (Tese de doutorado). Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS. Recuperado em https://sucupira.capes.gov.br/sucupira/public/consultas/coleta/trabalhoConclusao/viewTrabalhoConclusao.jsf?popup=true&id_trabalho=754066
  » https://sucupira.capes.gov.br/sucupira/public/consultas/coleta/trabalhoConclusao/viewTrabalhoConclusao.jsf?popup=true&id_trabalho=754066
• Motta, A. C. de G. D., & Thiollent, M. (2016). Abordagem crítica nos estudos organizacionais no Brasil: Grupos de Pesquisa e Iniciativas em Universidades. Trabalho apresentado no IV Congresso Brasileiro de Estudos Organizacionais, Porto Alegre. Recuperado de https://anaiscbeo.emnuvens.com.br/cbeo/article/view/156/148
  » https://anaiscbeo.emnuvens.com.br/cbeo/article/view/156/148
• Mignolo, W. D. (2005). A colonialidade de cabo a rabo: o hemisfério ocidental no horizonte conceitual da modernidade. In E. Lander (Ed.), A colonialidade do saber: eurocentrismo e ciências sociais Perspectivas latino-americanas (pp. 35-54). Buenos Aires: Clacso. Recuperado de: https://libreria.clacso.org/publicacion.php?p=164&c=13
  » https://libreria.clacso.org/publicacion.php?p=164&c=13
• Misoczky, M. C., & Amantino-de-Andrade, J. (2005). Uma crítica à crítica domesticada nos estudos organizacionais. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 9 (1), 193-210. doi:10.1590/S1415-65552005000100010
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-65552005000100010
• Moreno, A (2005). Superar a exclusão, conquistar a equidade: reformas, políticas e capacidades no âmbito social. In E. Lander (Org.). A colonialidade do saber: eurocentrismo e ciências sociais Perspectivas latino-americanas (pp. 88-94). Buenos Aires: Clacso. Recuperado de https://libreria.clacso.org/publicacion.php?p=164&c=13
  » https://libreria.clacso.org/publicacion.php?p=164&c=13
• Oliveira, L. (2012). Reconhecimento dos direitos territoriais indígenas: uma mediação entre os Guarani e o Estado (Dissertação de mestrado). Fundação Getúlio Vargas, São Paulo, SP. Recuperado de http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/dspace/handle/10438/9468
  » http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/dspace/handle/10438/9468
• Paula, A. P. P. de., Maranhão, C. M. S. de A., Barreto, R. de O., & Klechen, C. F. (2010). A tradição e a autonomia dos Estudos Organizacionais Críticos no Brasil. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 50 (1), 10-23. doi:10.1590/S0034-75902010000100002
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-75902010000100002
• Paula, A. P. P. de, Maranhão, C. M. S. de A., & Barros, A. N. de. (2009). Pluralismo, pós-estruturalismo e "gerencialismo engajado": os limites do movimento critical management studies. Cadernos EBAPE.BR, 7 (3), 392-404. doi:10.1590/S1679-39512009000300002
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1679-39512009000300002
• Peres, M. R., Jr., & Pereira, J. R. (2014). Abordagens teóricas da gestão social: uma análise de citações exploratória. Cadernos EBAPE.BR, 12(2), 221–236. doi:10.1590/1679-3951907
• Peres, M. R., Jr., Pereira, J. R., & Oliveira, L. C. de. (2013). Gestão Social sob a lente estruturacionista. RAM. Revista de Administração Mackenzie, 14(6), 18–49. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-69712013000600003
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-69712013000600003
• Quijano, A. Colonialidade do poder, eurocentrismo e América Latina (2005). In E. Lander (Org.), A colonialidade do saber: eurocentrismo e ciências sociais perspectivas latino-americanas (p. 107-130). Buenos Aires: Clacso. Recuperado de https://libreria.clacso.org/publicacion.php?p=164&c=13
  » https://libreria.clacso.org/publicacion.php?p=164&c=13
• Rampazo, A. S. V. (2016). O management e o Índio: um estudo sobre o Programa de Sustentabilidade Socioambiental e Cultural na Terra Indigena Apucaraninha, Paraná (Tese de doutorado). Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP. doi:10.11606/T.12.2016.tde-20052016-161319
  » https://doi.org/10.11606/T.12.2016.tde-20052016-161319
• Ramos, A. G. (1996). A redução sociológica Rio de Janeiro: Ed. UFRJ.
• Salazar, A. R. (2016). Teoría y práctica del buen vivir: orígenes, debates conceptuales y conflictos sociales (Tese de doutorado). Universidad del Pais Vasco, [Bizkaia]. Recuperado de http://hdl.handle.net/10810/19017
  » http://hdl.handle.net/10810/19017
• Salgado, F. (2010). Sumaq Kawsay: The Birth of a Notion? Cadernos EBAPE.BR, 8(11), 198-208. doi:10.1590/S1679-39512010000200002
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1679-39512010000200002
• Sampaio, C. A. C., Parks, C. D., Mantovaneli, O., Jr., Quinlan, R. J., & Alcântara, L. C. S. (2017). Bem viver para a próxima geração: entre subjetividade e bem comum a partir da perspectiva da ecossocioeconomia. Saúde e Sociedade, 26 (1), 40-50. doi:10.1590/S0104-12902017166634
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-12902017166634
• Santos, B. de S. (2007). Para além do pensamento abissal: das linhas globais a uma ecologia de saberes. Novos estudos CEBRAP, (79), 71-94. doi:10.1590/S0101-33002007000300004
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0101-33002007000300004
• Santos, B. S., & Avritzer, L. (2002). Para ampliar o ca^none democra´tico. In B. S. Santos (Org.). Democratizar a democracia: os caminhos da democracia participativa Rio de Janeiro: Civilizac¸a~o Brasileira.
• Santos, B. de S.; & Meneses, M. P. (2010). Epistemologias do Sul São Paulo, SP: Cortez.
• Schumpeter, J. A. (1961). Capitalismo, socialismo e democracia Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Fundo da Cultura.
• Silva, L. F. M. da. (2019). A gestão das escolas Avá-Guarani do Oeste do Paraná: dilemas e resistências (Dissertação de mestrado). Universidade Estadual de Maringá, Maringá. Recuperado de https://sucupira.capes.gov.br/sucupira/public/consultas/coleta/trabalhoConclusao/viewTrabalhoConclusao.jsf?popup=true&id_trabalho=7748872https://sucupira.capes.gov.br/sucupira/public/consultas/coleta/trabalhoConclusao/viewTrabalhoConclusao.jsf?popup=true&id_trabalho=7748872
  » https://sucupira.capes.gov.br/sucupira/public/consultas/coleta/trabalhoConclusao/viewTrabalhoConclusao.jsf?popup=true&id_trabalho=7748872https://sucupira.capes.gov.br/sucupira/public/consultas/coleta/trabalhoConclusao/viewTrabalhoConclusao.jsf?popup=true&id_trabalho=7748872
• Siqueira, J. M. da (2017). Bem viver, Ubuntu e a Sociomuseologia: contribuições para descolonizar a Educação Museal. Educación y Lengua, 17 (28), 174-185. Recuperado de https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/6053585.pdf
  » Recuperado de https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/6053585.pdf
• Souza, W. J. D., & Oliveira, M. D. D. (2006). Fundamentos da gestão social na revolução industrial: leitura e crítica aos ideais de Robert Owen. Organizações & Sociedade, 13 (39), 59-76. Recuperado de https://periodicos.ufba.br/index.php/revistaoes/article/view/10858/7804
  » https://periodicos.ufba.br/index.php/revistaoes/article/view/10858/7804
• Souza, E. M. de, Souza, S. P., & Silva, A. R. L. da. (2013). O pós-estruturalismo e os estudos críticos de gestão: da busca pela emancipação à constituição do sujeito. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 17(2), pp. 198–217. doi:10.1590/S1415-65552013000200005
• Stumpf, B. O., & Bergamaschi, M. A. (2016). Elementos espirituais, simbólicos e afetivos na construção da escola mbyá guarani. Educação e Pesquisa, 42 (4), 921-935. doi:10.1590/s1517-9702201612158353
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/s1517-9702201612158353
• Tenório, F. G. (1998). Gestão Social: uma perspectiva conceitual. Revista de Administração Pública, 32(5), 7-23. Rio de Janeiro. Recuperado de: https://periodicos.fgv.br/rap/article/view/7754
  » https://periodicos.fgv.br/rap/article/view/7754
• Tocqueville, A. (2004). A Democracia na América São Paulo, SP: Martins Fontes.
• Tureta, C., & Alcadipani, R. (2009). Perspectivas críticas no Brasil: Entre a "verdadeira crítica" e o dia a dia. Cadernos EBAPE.BR, 7 (3), pp. 504-508. Recuperado de: http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/ojs/index.php/cadernosebape/article/view/5395
  » http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/ojs/index.php/cadernosebape/article/view/5395
• Vargas, A. L. B.; Ikeda Júnior, R; Guedes, C. A. M. (2018). Gestão Social e Bem Viver. In Cançado, A.; Ikeda Júnior, R. Controle Social de Territórios: teoria e Prática. Vol. 4.
• Viteri Gualinga, Carlos. (2002). Visión indígena del desarrollo en la Amazonía. Polis: Revista Latinoamericana (3). Recuperado de https://journals.openedition.org/polis/7678#text
  » https://journals.openedition.org/polis/7678#text
• Wanderley, S. (2015). Estudos organizacionais, (des)colonialidade e estudos da dependência: as contribuições da Cepal. Cadernos EBAPE.BR, 13 (2), 237-255. doi:10.1590/1679-395115852.
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-395115852
• Zambrano, G. A. M., & Páucar, R. P. S. (2014). Visão altermundialista do paradigma do Bom Viver e pensamento ecosociocentrico em um povoado Indígena no México. Revista Hospitalidade, 11 (2), 135-157. Recuperado de https://www.revhosp.org/hospitalidade/article/view/546
  » https://www.revhosp.org/hospitalidade/article/view/546

Notes

• 1
  . Although Brazilian thought is embedded in Latin American thought and is, in fact, an important component of it, we made the decision to highlight it in the present article in order to emphasize the national discussions on Social Management carried out in the current study.
• 2
  . Among others, such as East-West, primitive-civilized, magical/mythical-scientific, irrational-rational, traditional-modern, according to Quijano (2005).
• 3
  . In fact, Quijano (2005) calls into question the very idea of ​​modernity taken as definition of the “new”, of technologies that a given society is capable of inventing. Accordingly, several other civilizations older than Europe, which were classified as “high culture” (such as China, India, Egypt, Greece, Mayan-Aztec, Tauantinsuio), have shown unequivocal signs of this modernity type.
• 4
  . It is also worth emphasizing that this field was built within an internal clash filled with disputes between trends in order to highlight which one of them would be able to produce more forceful or appropriate criticisms, with emphasis on the clash between supporters of the critical theory current and post-structuralists. These clashes can be seen, for example, in special issues by RAC, in 2005 (Misoczky & Amantino-de-Andrade, 2005; Cavalcanti & Alcadipani, 2011) or by Cadernos Ebape, in 2009 (Paula et al., 2009; Tureta & Alcadipani, 2009).
• 5
  . There are some differences in the way this term is spelled. Hidalgo-Capitán and Cubillo-Guevara (2014) write sumak kawsay, whereas Gualinga, Carlos (2002) write sumac kausay.
• 6
  . The authors herein reflect on the economy hybridization process, according to which, the monetary economy would become part of different ways to get economic resources, although without assuming the profit or accumulation perspective typical of the capitalist market system. “When it is not possible extracting enough resources from the forest, or when there is production shortage in the vegetable garden, or when there is neither vegetable garden nor forest nearby, indigenous individuals are forced to get money to buy food, among other products to complete their subsistence. In these cases, in a punctual and complementary manner, they can carry out productive activities as salaried workers (on plantations, in factories, in commerce, in domestic service...) or work for themselves (as artisans, traders...), which, in many cases, requires them to temporarily emigrate from their own territory. The money obtainment logic is not based on profit; it is the same as that of hunting or fishing, i.e., to complete self-sufficiency” (Viteri, 2003, pp. 85-93, cited by Hidalgo-Capitán et al., 2014, p. 53).
• 7
  . This is the very definition of Homo economicus, someone who is selfish and whose greatest interest is to meet its own needs.
• 8
  . “Avanzar colectivo” (Moving forward collectively) is an expression identified by the authors that prevails in many interviewees’ speeches.
• 9
  . We do not believe there is a Portuguese translation capable of expressing an equivalent idea in the same succinct way. However, the term refers to an identity created around “us”, around the collective being. “It is not in vain that these peoples are known as sharing cultures established upon a nosotric identity, according to which, the collective subject plays fundamental role in organizational principles, with emphasis on components like plurality, antinomianism, diversity and complementarity (PALACIOS, 2006, p. 4)” (Zambrano & Páucar, 2014, p, p. 143).
• Inclusive language:
  The authors use an inclusive language that acknowledges diversity and shows respect for all people, as well as that is sensitive to differences and promotes equal opportunities.
• Plagiarism check:
  The O&S subjects all documents approved for publication to plagiarism check in a specific tool.
• Data availability:
  The O&S encourages data sharing. However, out of respect for ethical principles, it does not require the disclosure of any means of identifying research participants in order to fully protect their privacy. The open data practice aims at ensuring research results’ transparency, without revealing research participants’ identity.

• Financial support:
  The author(s) did not receive any financial support for the research, authorship, or publication of the current article.

• Associate Editor:
  Valeria Gianella

Data availability

The O&S encourages data sharing. However, out of respect for ethical principles, it does not require the disclosure of any means of identifying research participants in order to fully protect their privacy. The open data practice aims at ensuring research results’ transparency, without revealing research participants’ identity.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  27 Jan 2025
• Date of issue
  2025

History

• Received
  22 Nov 2022
• Accepted
  07 Mar 2024