25 Degrowth and Post-Growth: Quotations

Origins. “Protests erupted around the world in the 1960s and 1970s to highlight international civil rights, anti-war, feminist, gay liberation and student concerns along with a range of environmental and anti-consumerist issues. […] As all kinds of movements proliferated, changes in laws, policies and everyday culture ensued. […] It is in this context of heightened debate and widespread dismay that the degrowth movement sprang to life in Europe and spread further afield. The term ‘décroissance’, later translated into ‘degrowth’ in English, began as a provocative slogan used by activists in the early 2000s. The French political scientist and editor Paul Ariès has referred to degrowth as a ‘missile word’, intentionally making people question the ‘growth is good and more growth better’ flag under which all nations seemed to have united in economic terms” (Liegey and Nelson 2020).

Misunderstandings. “Most significantly, the word ‘degrowth’ has misled to the extent that its prefix and association with words such as decline and diminish seem to indicate that degrowth means austerity, puritanism and even poverty. The minimalist simple-living aspect of degrowth seems to confirm such suspicions. Especially since the global financial crisis broke during 2007–8, with persisting consequences, degrowth sounds unsettling. In contrast, degrowth theorists and activists see degrowth as establishing secure and safe lives, fulfilling everyone’s needs in collaborative and collective ways, as celebratory and convivial. […] The degrowth principle of living within Earth’s regenerative limits in socially equitable and collectively supportive ways addresses both global and environmental crises”  (Liegey and Nelson 2020).

Degrowth and postdevelopment. “In other words, to fully understand the emergence and potentiality of degrowth and postdevelopment it is important to consider, first, the entire ensemble of TDs [Transition Discourses] and, second, the bridges that can be established between northern and southern TDs, to come up with a clearer picture of what might constitute a radical and effective politics for transformation. Succinctly stated, those engaged in transition activism and theorising in the North rarely delve into those from the South; conversely, those in the South tend to dismiss northern proposals too easily or to consider them inapplicable to their contexts” (Escobar 2015).

“First, it is important to resist falling into the trap, from northern perspectives, of thinking that while the North needs to degrow, the South needs ‘development’; conversely, from southern perspectives, it is important to avoid the idea that degrowth is ‘‘ok for the North’’ but that the South needs rapid growth, whether to catch up with rich countries, satisfy the needs of the poor, or reduce inequalities; while acknowledging the need for real improvements in people’s livelihoods, public services, and so forth, it is imperative for groups in the South to avoid endorsing growth as the basis for these improvements; a key criteria is that growth and the economy should be subordinated to BV [and the rights of nature, not the other way around” (Escobar 2015)

“Two key areas of debate closely related to PD [postdevelopment] are the notions of Buen Vivir (Good Life or collective well being according to culturally appropriate conceptions; sumak kawsay in Quechua and suma qaman ̃a in Aymara) and the rights of Nature. Defined as a holistic, de-economized view of social life, Buen Vivir ‘‘constitutes an alternative to development, and as such it represents a potential response to the substantial critiques of postdevelopment’’ (Gudynas and Acosta 2011, p. 78). Very succinctly, the Buen Vivir (BV) grew out of indigenous struggles as they articulated with social change agendas by peasants, Afro-descendants, environmentalists, students, women, and youth. Crystallised in the recent Ecuadorian and Bolivian constitutions, the BV ‘‘presents itself as an opportunity for the collective construction of a new form of living’’ (Acosta 2010, p. 7; Gudynas 2011a, b). Echoing indigenous ontologies, the BV makes possible the subordination of economic objectives to ecological criteria, human dignity, and social justice. Buen Vivir is not purely an Andean cultural-political project, as it is influenced by critical currents within Western thought, and it aims to influence global debates (Escobar 2015).

Conviviality. The term conviviality was used by Ivan Illich in his 1970s writing about freedom, technology and technocratic society. In recent years convivialism has been transformed by its encounter with degrowth (including via the 2013 Convivialist Manifesto).

“As an alternative to technocratic disaster, I propose the vision of a convivial society” (Illich 1973).

From the Convivialist Manifesto (2013):

• “Principle of common humanity: beyond differences of skin colour, nationality, language, culture, religion, wealth, gender, or sexual orientation, there is only one humanity, which has to be respected in each and every one of its members.
• Principle of common sociality: human beings are social beings for whom the greatest wealth is the wealth of social relationships.
• Individuation principle: in agreement with the two aforementioned principles, a legitimate politics is one which enables anyone to assert and develop, at best, their singular individuality, by increasing his or her power to be and behave without harming others.
• Mastered and creative confrontation principle: because everyone is destined to express his or her singular individuality, it is natural for humans to oppose each other. It is, however, legitimate to do so only as long as it does not endanger the framework of common sociality which makes this rivalry a fertile and non-destructive one.”

“Redistributive taxation, taxes on international capital movement and a tightened control on tax havens, is hoped to secure enough funds to finance low economic cost-high welfare public investments, e.g. in community education or health and in convivial goods, such as new public squares, open spaces, community gardens, etc.” (Kallis 2011).

Beyond GDP. “The concept of ‘gross domestic product’ (GDP) was created and used in the mid-1930s to measure the impact of the New Deal on the US economy. Subsequently, GDP would become the main indicator of the state of national economies […] Although often regarded in positive ways, GDP growth simply indicates a total monetary amount of production and services traded, disregarding any of the environmental and social implications of its components. Hence, a fire in a chemical factory is good for GDP growth. Meanwhile a very pleasant ride on a bike in the forest with friends and family is not even captured by GDP. Efforts have been made to correct such absurdity, for instance by creating metrics such as the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI). However, the GDP maintains its status as the prime indicator of the state of society, blinding us to the key social and environmental challenges that we face as humans on planet Earth” (Liegey and Nelson 2020).