Naufal Aulia Hanif
Reading Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical Interdependence, Autonomy, and the Making of Worlds by Arturo Escobar brought to mind a constellation of intellectual traditions, including decolonial theory, queer theory, and Indigenous studies. Each of these fields argues that Western modernity lies at the heart of today’s global crises—ranging from environmental degradation to social injustice and deepening inequality. Together, they suggest that the modern worldview itself: how reality, progress, and humanity are conceptualized, constitutes the underlying root of these intertwined crises.
Escobar argues that the roots of the current crisis lie in modernity’s dualistic mode of thought, which produces a singular vision of reality, that is, a single dominant design for the world. He calls it the One-World World (OWW). Within this framework, one universal truth is presumed to exist, and all people are expected to conform to it. Consequently, alternative designs or ways of understanding the world that fall outside this logic are dismissed as irrational or inferior. This dualistic structure appears in pervasive dichotomies such as culture versus nature, modern versus traditional, and human versus nonhuman. Such binaries establish hierarchical relations, elevating one side as superior while subordinating or marginalizing the other (Escobar, 2018, pp.93–95).
According to Arturo Escobar (2018), the One-World World (OWW) design asserts dominance by subsuming diversity under a single universal vision. It operates with at least two central aims: first, to standardize the world according to modern norms and values; and second, to marginalize or invalidate other ways of knowing and being. As a result, local knowledge systems and traditional forms of wisdom—such as those that emphasize respect and reciprocity with nature—are frequently dismissed as irrelevant or backward. The current ecological crisis exemplifies the destructive consequences of this OWW framework (Escobar, 2018, p.44), in which humans are positioned at the center and granted authority to exploit the natural world.
The Pluriverse and Its Challenges
As an alternative to the One-World World, Escobar proposes the concept of the Pluriverse, that is, a world in which many worlds coexist. Although this idea may initially seem utopian, it is grounded in the recognition that multiple world-designs already exist around us. The Pluriverse not only challenges the assumption that there is a single universal model of reality, but also creates space for diverse ways of knowing and being to be acknowledged and valued. For instance, local and Indigenous teachings often emphasize cultivating respectful relationships between humans and nature through spiritual practices rooted in community values such as togetherness, reciprocity, and harmony with the natural world.
Escobar further emphasizes that movements embodying the Pluriverse are already unfolding in various parts of the world. In Latin America, Indigenous and Afro-descendant communities have been practicing forms of autonomous design, crafting ways of living that operate beyond the control of the state and the global market. The Zapatista movement, for example, demonstrates how communities can govern themselves through shared knowledge, collective decision-making, and ancestral wisdom (Escobar, 2018, pp.15–16). Both cases can be understood as tangible expressions of resistance to the dominant logic of the One-World World.
The transition from the One-World World to the Pluriverse is neither easy nor immediate. It requires a collective awakening among those shaped by modernity: a conscious effort to free ourselves from its deeply ingrained dualistic patterns of thought. Escobar describes this transformative effort as a “transition discourse” (Escobar, 2018, pp.138-139), a framework capable of linking diverse struggles across the Global North and the Global South. In the Global North, critiques of modernity emerge through movements such as degrowth, commoning, and conviviality, which challenge dominant models of development and consumption. Meanwhile, in the Global South, many communities resist by defending their territories, ecosystems, and local knowledge systems against extractivist and neoliberal forces. Together, these struggles form interconnected pathways toward the Pluriverse.
Conclusion
Escobar reminds us that the contemporary crisis is fundamentally ontological. It concerns how we understand life itself and how we relate to the world as a whole. Because this crisis is shaped by the universalizing logic of the One-World World, addressing it requires more than technical solutions. It calls for a profound redesign of how we perceive the world and how we inhabit it. If we then ask what kind of world we should design, Escobar points to the Pluriverse as a guiding vision. This concept invites us to assume responsibility, recognizing that design is never merely about producing objects or systems. It is also an ethical and political act. To design is to make moral choices about the kinds of worlds we help bring into being.
The Pluriverse encourages us to draw from multiple existing world-designs in shaping our actions and choices. This includes how we relate to nature and how we engage with others, both human and nonhuman. Through Escobar’s work, I have come to understand that design extends beyond material production, as framed by universal modernist traditions. It is also a matter of consciousness and relational awareness.
The idea of the Pluriverse prompts me to reconsider the origins of my own knowledge and to ask whose design it reflects. Ultimately, this reflection underscores that the Pluriverse is not merely a theoretical proposal, but an ethical invitation, one that calls for openness, humility, and responsibility. It urges us to imagine and cultivate a world shaped by multiple coexisting designs, where many worlds flourish without dominating one another.
In conclusion, within the Pluriverse, the freedom to shape our ways of living is fundamental, yet it is never isolated or self-contained. Every design we create is inherently relational, intertwined with the lives and worlds of others. For this reason, ethical responsibility becomes central—not as a means of control or domination, but as a commitment to sustaining conditions for coexistence. From this perspective, genuine collaboration becomes possible, opening pathways toward a more just and life-affirming world.
References
Escobar, Arturo. Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical Interdependence, Autonomy, and the Making of Worlds. New Ecologies for the Twenty-First Century. Durham: Duke University Press, 2018.
Acknowledgments
This essay draws on the ideas presented by Arturo Escobar in his book, enriched by my personal notes and reflections developed through class discussions.
Naufal Aulia Hanif is a graduate student in the Center for Religious and Cross-cultural Studies (CRCS), Graduate School, Universitas Gadjah Mada
