Is Sustainable Development an Oxymoron?

The harvesting of peyote—a small, spineless cactus known for its psychoactive properties and use in spiritual practices by the Wixarika (Huichol) people, an Indigenous community in Mexico—is at risk due to mining development in the region where it’s grown. Global conglomerates reap huge profits off the sale of coffee grown in Costa Rica, yet farming the beans is no longer a way for the country’s people to make a sustainable living.

This semester, Teresa Giménez, Director of the Spanish Language Program and Lecturer in Foreign Languages, is teaching a course about sustainable development and culture in Latin America. The course exposes students to the environmental, economic, and social facets of this type of development through an examination of the agricultural scenarios like those mentioned above regarding coffee and peyote.

Image

Omnia spoke with Giménez about why sustainability as a concept is difficult to pin down, how these two products illustrate the complicated nature of “sustainable” development, and why the consideration of culture must be centered in any discussion about development that is truly sustainable.

What does “sustainability” mean to you?

Sustainability as a term is overused and wishy-washy. There’s really no consensus on its meaning. There are things here and there that guide us toward an understanding. The most recognized is probably the definition from the United Nations Brundtland Commission [formerly the World Commission on Environment and Development], which states that sustainable development is development that meets present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own. However, sustainable development is kind of an oxymoron because, in reality, there are so many tensions between the term’s ideals and real-world practices.

Why do you think “sustainable development” is an oxymoron?

Because of its inherent contradiction: balancing economic growth with environmental protection and social equity. In practice, economic growth often requires resource consumption and environmental impact, which can undermine sustainability. This tension is particularly evident in many Latin American economies, which are highly dependent on exporting raw materials. Countries such as Ecuador, Bolivia, and Mexico rely on oil, gas, and minerals to drive their economies. Extractive industries also have significant social impacts, often leading to the displacement of Indigenous communities, health problems, and conflicts over land rights. The pursuit of immediate economic benefits frequently conflicts with the broader goals of ecological balance and social equity.

Why is it important to consider culture when thinking about sustainable development in Mexico, particularly as it relates to growing peyote?

For the Wixarika (Huichol) people in Mexico, as for many Indigenous peoples, nature is sacred. Peyote is used for healing and spiritual practices. It represents their soul and their God, simultaneously. It’s used to connect them with their ancestors and the “other world.” Shamans use it to guide the community. Yet, development and mining are encroaching on Wirikuta, the sacred land where peyote is grown.

Mining concessions highlight a disregard for this sacred heritage and raise concerns about how sustainable development can proceed without further damaging the environment and the cultures that depend on it. This represents a clash of cultures between the Western development model, which is pretty disconnected from nature, and Indigenous people, who see themselves as one with the land and the environment around them.

Nevertheless, it’s important to stress that the beliefs and feelings of the Indigenous people of Mexico are not a monolith, because their identities are dynamic and not immutable. Development is a nuanced issue. On the one hand, there is a clash of cultures, but on the other, there’s this paradox because members of the community—even Indigenous members of the community—might want development. They are juggling the realities of marginalized communities. The tensions that development can create within a community are very real. There are no easy answers.

How is development in Costa Rica affecting the country’s long relationship with coffee?

Coffee is a huge part of the culture of Costa Rica, a culture that goes back many generations for families who are growers. In Costa Rica, coffee culture has always had a deep connection with the arts, especially literature. One way this comes through is with juegos florales, public poetry competitions. These events were really important because they promoted coffee not just as an economic product, but as a cultural symbol. People would write poems and create other forms of art around coffee, which helped embed it into the national identity.

The sustainability issue here comes from the fact that modern development is unequal. In Costa Rica, most of the coffee producers are smallholders [an agricultural holding smaller than a farm]. Coffee prices are highly volatile, and the crop is mainly exported raw and processed in Europe or the United States where big, multi-national companies make a huge profit. But the growers of coffee in Costa Rica are not making a living, which is a part of sustainability that can get overlooked. Costa Rica’s coffee culture is kind of disappearing because parents don’t want their kids to grow coffee and be unable to make a living.

Another side of sustainability focuses on environmental considerations, and when you can’t make a living, it’s hard to put in place sustainable practices because they’re expensive. For example, coffee requires a lot of water. It has to be washed. Coffee is better if it’s grown in the shade, but that’s costly because shade-grown coffee is very labor-intensive and ripens more slowly. Prices in coffee markets tend to peak earlier in the harvest, and shade-grown coffee often receives lower prices simply because it is harvested later in the season. These are all nuanced problems that are part of the sustainable development discussion.

You’ve said that many of these questions don’t have straightforward answers. How would you encourage thinking about sustainable development?


I encourage people to think about the idea of sustainability in a more holistic way. How do we create thriving communities? How do we work toward a sustainability that means everyone has clean water and access to good, quality education—a kind of sustainability where there is a connection between the community and the environment in a more contextualized way? It’s also important to think about whose voices are being heard in these conversations and how we can create solutions that balance environmental protection with economic and social justice.