Dialogues for Degrowth: interview with Marula Tsagkari
Vlad Bunea: The book Dialogues for Degrowth you co-edited with Ksenija Hanaček and Brototi Roy is a fascinating account of how unjust the world has come to be due to colonialism and the general design of capitalism. Morena Hanbury Lemos writes in chapter 1: “Colonialism as a matter of the present means that there is, on one side, a positive inheritance received by white European individuals and nations, and on the other side, a negative accumulation piled up by the descendants of slaves and colonised peoples.”. Do people currently living in the Global North countries have a moral responsibility to recognize this truth and modify their behavior accordingly?
Marula Tsagkari: Indeed, one of the things we tried to do with this book is to open a dialogue between degrowth and decolonial studies from the viewpoint that colonialism is not a closed chapter but an ongoing structure that shapes material wealth, access to resources, and global hierarchies of privilege. And, yes, there is a strong moral and political argument that people living in the Global North have a responsibility to recognize and respond to this legacy. Let me clarify, however, that this is far from individual guilt; it is more collective accountability. The privilege, comforts, and opportunities many of us in the Global North take for granted are structurally linked to centuries of labor and resource extraction from the South. To “recognize this truth,” as you put it, means not only understanding history, but seeing how it continues to operate through global supply chains, military domination, climate inequalities, and even the green transition (where mining and land appropriation again occur mostly in the South). The call of the book and of the degrowth movement in general is to act in solidarity toward systemic, reparative and reciprocal transformation. Decolonizing involves acknowledging and critically examining both past and present realities, so as to envision and create futures free from the influence and structures of colonial and imperial domination in all their manifestations.
VB: Can an open conflict with capitalism be avoided, assuming degrowth is adopted on a large scale?
MT: I don’t think anyone can answer that with certainty. It also depends on what you define as a conflict. If by conflict we mean open confrontation between opposing economic and political systems, that might not be inevitable. But if we understand conflict more broadly as a deep tension between incompatible worldviews and interests, then yes, some form of it is unavoidable. What is clear, however, is that degrowth fundamentally challenges the very logic of capitalism, and as such, it disrupts the material and ideological basis of the current order. Rapid and radical change inevitably unsettles existing hierarchies, since those who hold, privilege are often asked to relinquish both material comforts and the identities built around them. In Marxist terms, overcoming capitalism requires dissolving the structural divide between those who sell their labor and those who own the means of production. But If our goal is to move beyond a system based on domination and extraction, then similar reconfigurations are necessary across many dimensions of life, like human-nature, men-women etc. These “conflicts” might unfold as a deep societal negotiation, like a gradual but decisive shift in values and institutions.
Around the world, we already see prefigurative movements and local economies experimenting with cooperation, commoning, and reciprocity within, yet against, capitalist structures. These alternatives suggest that transformation can occur through erosion and replacement rather than through collapse or coercion. Whether this transition becomes openly conflictual or unfolds as a more gradual transformation will depend on many things like how entrenched interests choose to respond, the level of urgency and how open society is to reimagining its priorities. And to quote Silvia Federici: “Our struggle will not succeed unless we rebuild society”. Ultimately, the question is not about conflict or collapse, but about the collective rebuilding of society and about envisioning what kind of society we truly want.
VB: Some people who first hear about the word degrowth or have not studied it enough may feel uninspired by it and may think degrowth does not suggest enough “positivity”. What would you say to these people?
MT: This is a question that comes up frequently in degrowth debates, and scholars like Timothée Parrique have addressed it in detail. It is true that the term “degrowth” can sound negative at first glance, especially if you’re unfamiliar with its broader meaning. But I would argue that the apparent negativity is not necessarily a problem. Language often carries initial impressions that are shaped by dominant cultural narratives. Think of words like decentralization or deregulation.
The early discussions about terminology were important to define the movement, but focusing too much on linguistic debates can also be distracting or disorienting. In my experience, when I speak about degrowth in public settings, I always encourage people to look past the literal reading of the word and engage with its essence: degrowth is not about “less for the sake of less,” but about living well within ecological limits, reducing social and environmental impacts, and creating societies centered on care and solidarity. Once people grasp this, the term begins to feel not only meaningful, but inspiring. And it is also a question of audience. If you speak to a politician the word post-growth might be more relevant and less confrontational. If you talk to family members, community groups, or people who are less familiar with academic debates, words like well-being economy or living well within limits often make more sense as they connect directly to everyday life. The key is to preserve the core vision of degrowth.
In the book, we chose the word “degrowth” consciously because we wanted to engage with the history of the movement and highlight areas that have remained unexplored. The term carries a lineage of critical thought about growth, capitalism, and ecological limits, and by using it, we signal a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths.
VB: One way to deny capitalism is to refuse to participate in it, to reject consumerism, to retreat to a quiet rural place and live simply. If enough people did all of that that, as realistic or unrealistic it may be, will that be enough the break the chains of present-day colonialism?
MT: I don’t think the answer depends simply on whether people retreat to rural areas or live in urban settings. While opting out of consumerism and simplifying one’s lifestyle can be a meaningful personal choice, breaking the chains of present-day colonialism requires much more than individual action. Coloniality and capitalism are systemic; they are maintained through institutions, global economic structures, and cultural norms, and cannot be dismantled solely through individual withdrawal.
What is required is a profound and deep cultural and ideological shift in how societies understand value, well-being, justice, and a recognition of the historical and ongoing structures of inequality. As shown in the book, the idea of growth is deeply rooted in our everyday lives, from the way we move our bodies to the way we tell our stories. Beyond cultural change, systemic and institutional approaches are essential. True transformation demands reconstructing the material, social, and ideological foundations of society: redistributing resources, canceling unjust debts, respecting Indigenous and local knowledge, and creating institutions and relationships based on cooperation rather than domination. Radical living is meaningful, but it must be accompanied by systemic, collective action that can challenge entrenched structures of power.
As Frantz Fanon wrote in his letter to Roger Tayeb (December 1961), “We are nothing on earth if we are not in the first place the slaves of a cause, the cause of the peoples, the cause of justice and liberty.”
VB: What is the feeling of living a life that is compatible with degrowth principles?
MT: That is a very personal question, but one thing I can say for sure is that living a life compatible with degrowth principles is deeply fulfilling. There is a certain lightness in aligning your actions with your values. Life moves at a different pace and somehow at a different “place”.
Yet it is important to recognize that living this way can often be a privilege: the freedom to opt out of consumerism, to slow down, or to live simply is not equally accessible to everyone, and is shaped by material conditions, social safety nets, and historical inequalities. Degrowth can be experienced in every aspect of personal life. As we discuss in the book, it shapes not only consumption and work but also sexuality, spirituality, dance, education, and architecture. It is a lens through which every choice (from how we relate to others, to how we move our bodies, to the spaces we inhabit) can become an act of care, creativity, and intentionality.
Living a life aligned with degrowth principles is also a daily act of resistance. Every choice, what we consume, how we move, how we relate, pushes back against systems that prioritize profit over care and extraction over community. I often look at the work of Native American novelist, poet, and children’s book author Louise Erdrich who in her poem Resistence captures this beautifully:
“Resist your disappearance into sentimental monikers, into the violent pattern of corporate logos, into the mouth of the unholy flower of consumerism. Resist being consumed. [...] Resist loss of the miraculous by lowering your standards for what constitutes a miracle. It is all a fucking miracle. [...] Resist all funding sources but accept all money. Cut the strings and dismantle the web that needing money throws over you. Resist the distractions of excess. Wear old clothes and avoid chain restaurants. Resist your genius and your own significance as declared by others.”
Her words remind us that the feeling of living a degrowth-aligned life is both intimate and political. It is in noticing and cherishing the miraculous in the ordinary, in resisting pressures to conform, and in cultivating authenticity and presence. Yet it is also a constant evolution and internal battle with habits, desires, and social pressures that pull us back toward consumerism, competition, or complacency. Living aligned with degrowth is not a fixed state; it requires continual reflection, self-discipline, and courage.
VB: Thank you Marula.
Photo credit: Max Hou.
 | A guest post by
|