Degrowth: When To Use It, When To Lose It
Editors note: This article is part of our Thematic Focus “Degrowth, the word”.
“The term Degrowth tends to be misleading, it creates resistance, I always have to follow up with an explanation.”
“The main issue with degrowth is it is framed around what it isn’t - growth. It is not framed around what it is. That’s why it is ‘misunderstood’ (read: badly communicated). The term is inherently associated with negativity - sacrifice, doing without, getting worse etc.”
“It takes some effort getting past the emotional reaction to the word Degrowth.”
Well, I hear you. This is the most common reaction we face while talking about degrowth to anybody hearing the term for the first time. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t feel the same when I first encountered the term myself. Degrowth, really? Degrow what? And why? How can not growing help anybody?
What Do Others Think?
Luckily, I’m not the first person to think about the term ‘Degrowth’, many have stood before me, defending the term, or saying that we don’t even need to use the term to popularise the concept behind it.
Proponents of degrowth, especially those from academia, see it as a ‘missile’ word, a provocative and disruptive word that challenges the long-held belief that “growth is good” and because of this shock element, gets noticed immediately, paving the way for a deeper discussion. The word is also very difficult to co-opt, something that happened with the words “sustainable” and “development”, where their meanings are distorted and adapted to capitalism.
It is interesting to note that different people have different initial reactions and further responses to the term. A 2021 paper, titled “What does degrowth mean? A few points of clarification” by Jason Hickel mentions this -
“For an increasing number of people, it is obvious that perpetual growth is a problem; for them, degrowth seems intuitively correct as a response to the ecological crisis, and they can get on board immediately.
Other people have a negative initial reaction to the word, but it is nonetheless useful in such cases to the extent that it challenges and disrupts people’s assumptions about how the economy should work, by questioning something that is generally taken for granted as natural and good.
In many cases, negative initial reactions give way to contemplation (do high-income countries really need more growth?), and then curiosity (perhaps we can actually flourish with less throughput, and even less output?), and then investigation (what is the relevant empirical evidence?) that eventually leads people to change their views. This kind of intellectual transformation is enabled, not inhibited, by using a provocative term.”
In the same paper, he also talks about how the word ‘growth’ has been co-opted by capitalism, is used to hide the process of elite accumulation and exploitation of humans and ecologies and , and why it makes the word ‘degrowth’ relevant -
“It is important to recognize that the word ‘growth’ has become a kind of propaganda term. In reality, what is going on is a process of elite accumulation, the commodification of commons, and the appropriation of human labour and natural resources – a process that is quite often colonial in character.
Growth sounds natural and positive (who could possibly be against growth?) so people are easily persuaded to buy into it, and to back policies that will generate more of it, when otherwise they might not. The word degrowth is powerful and effective because it identifies this trick, and rejects it. Degrowth calls for the reversal of the processes that lie behind growth: it calls for disaccumulation, decommodification, and decolonization.”
I’ve found this argument quite effective in clearing out any confusion people might have about what the word ‘degrowth’ actually means, and exactly what type of ‘growth’ it is asking to decrease.
Why Not Use Another Term? Or No Term At All?
Well, there are a few alternative terms to avoid the kind of resistance degrowth induces. “Post Growth” and “Wellbeing economy” are two such substitutes. Post Growth is a less provocative, often used by degrowthers in the business and government contexts. In 2023, European Research Council awarded a €10 million grant to a project called Real, A Post Growth Deal, not a degrowth deal, even though the team behind it almost entirely consists of degrowth researchers. The reason is clear, they knew that the term ‘Degrowth’ won’t really fly with established governmental agencies, and they have to be malleable in communicating these ideas for them to be heard and accepted.
Wellbeing economy, on the other hand, perfectly captures the positives of degrowth, centering the economy around well-being, instead of growth. It’s a feel-good term that practically no one can object to, who would be against well-being? But, in my opinion, this term not only runs the risk of being co-opted, its lack of provocation often results in a lack of curiosity and prevents further engagement with the subject.
Another take on this matter is, why use any term at all, why not just talk about issues and solutions directly? That’s a possibility, and I see many degrowth advocates talking about the core ideas and policy recommendations of degrowth, without using this label. This approach seems to be working for many, as our survey indicates -
“I am beginning to shift strategy to talk about the issues, before getting to the topic of degrowth, that seems to resonate better.”
“Don’t mention degrowth in the beginning, slowly bring the anti-capitalist lens”
“Instead of persuading people about degrowth, simply try to shift their thinking a bit.”
Ultimately, It All Depends
So far, my conclusion is that there are multiple approaches to talk about degrowth ideas and there’s no silver bullet that will work in all situations. One might want to pick up one way or the other depending on the context, audience, and purpose of the conversation. And of course, your personal communication style plays a role as well. I personally prefer to drop the word because I enjoy stirring up the emotions in the room and then engaging in a deeper conversation about it. For me, trying to clarify the term Degrowth, is in itself a part of the communication process, not something that hinders it. The key is to be adaptable and tailor your communication strategy to the specific context, audience, and purpose.
For example, while having a casual conversation with your friends and family, instead of leading with ‘degrowth,’ talk about creating a more sustainable and equitable future first. With a social or climate activist, the term ‘degrowth’ is likely to be well-received, simply acknowledge their concerns and explain how degrowth can address them. Meanwhile, for individuals focused on economic growth, like businessmen or politicians, you might want to avoid the term ‘degrowth’ altogether, instead focus on the practices associated with it, such as circular economy (durability, repairability), sharing, reduced advertising, local and community focus, democratic ownership etc.
I would end this piece by quoting Emilia Reyes from this webinar, where she says “Let’s not waste more time in debating if the word ‘degrowth’ is good or not, it’s exhausting, please stop being lazy by just critiquing the term.” She urges people to move past it, “instead, get to know degrowth, listen to what degrowthers are saying, go into the point, and engage in a more substantive conversation.”
 |
|