Congrats for this interesting process that does precisely identify the marketing issues with the word degrowth and try to reconstruct it.
While I agree with the process, I disagree with the language of the conclusion :
« We are a movement for Directed Prosperity. Our mission is to build a Sustainable Sufficiency Economy that will deliver lasting Sustainable Prosperity for all. »
The reasons:
- In my opinion the word « Economy » does not work as people are tired of mainstream economy and the focus on money, trade, finance… We have to get rid of this term.
- « Directed » is really weird, it reminds me of the word « director » and for sure citizens don’t want to be directed by a class of directors, they want direct participatory democracy, so « Democratic prosperity » or something like that would be better.
- Then, while the word « sustainable » and « sufficiency » are important, I am not sure that they sound very interesting for citizens who don’t know the topic.
Overall, for people who don’t know degrowth, the language of your conclusion paragraph may sound like a movement where some directors will impose green measures and restrictions in comfort to ensure to optimize the Economy.
A lot of work has gone into this and I am in complete agreement with seeing the limited perceptions that the old terminology has resulted in. I have previously commented on the 'degrowth' title and preferred the label of 'sufficiency' used by some advocates.
Words are difficult, though, as they come with a raft of different meanings and a workshop of enthusiasts will not necessarily share the same interpretation as those who are not familiar with or supportive of the project. I suspect there was quite a lot of debate within the workshop about meanings, as well.
This is not to disparage the choice. More to suggest that the ideas behind the label are far more important than the label itself. It is easy to pigeonhole an idea or organisation through identity with the name and focussing on this 'spearhead' therefore comes with costs as well as advantages. Those who oppose this idea have deep pockets and control much of the media. They will, as they have done before, seek to associate the name with negative ideas.
Speaking about greater economic and social equality and reducing the production of goods only affordable to a few is likely to strike a positive chord within a population that is increasingly feeling on the precipice. These are the terms that this project must deal in. The term 'directed prosperity' will no doubt play well with the more intellectual crowd in this space but I am not sure it will win over the public in general. Perhaps that is asking too much of a name.
This is of course a matter of degree rather than an either/or debate and language has always to be attuned to the audience. I have not been a part of this debate so I may be preaching to the converted!
Congrats for this interesting process that does precisely identify the marketing issues with the word degrowth and try to reconstruct it.
While I agree with the process, I disagree with the language of the conclusion :
« We are a movement for Directed Prosperity. Our mission is to build a Sustainable Sufficiency Economy that will deliver lasting Sustainable Prosperity for all. »
The reasons:
- In my opinion the word « Economy » does not work as people are tired of mainstream economy and the focus on money, trade, finance… We have to get rid of this term.
- « Directed » is really weird, it reminds me of the word « director » and for sure citizens don’t want to be directed by a class of directors, they want direct participatory democracy, so « Democratic prosperity » or something like that would be better.
- Then, while the word « sustainable » and « sufficiency » are important, I am not sure that they sound very interesting for citizens who don’t know the topic.
Overall, for people who don’t know degrowth, the language of your conclusion paragraph may sound like a movement where some directors will impose green measures and restrictions in comfort to ensure to optimize the Economy.
A lot of work has gone into this and I am in complete agreement with seeing the limited perceptions that the old terminology has resulted in. I have previously commented on the 'degrowth' title and preferred the label of 'sufficiency' used by some advocates.
Words are difficult, though, as they come with a raft of different meanings and a workshop of enthusiasts will not necessarily share the same interpretation as those who are not familiar with or supportive of the project. I suspect there was quite a lot of debate within the workshop about meanings, as well.
This is not to disparage the choice. More to suggest that the ideas behind the label are far more important than the label itself. It is easy to pigeonhole an idea or organisation through identity with the name and focussing on this 'spearhead' therefore comes with costs as well as advantages. Those who oppose this idea have deep pockets and control much of the media. They will, as they have done before, seek to associate the name with negative ideas.
Speaking about greater economic and social equality and reducing the production of goods only affordable to a few is likely to strike a positive chord within a population that is increasingly feeling on the precipice. These are the terms that this project must deal in. The term 'directed prosperity' will no doubt play well with the more intellectual crowd in this space but I am not sure it will win over the public in general. Perhaps that is asking too much of a name.
This is of course a matter of degree rather than an either/or debate and language has always to be attuned to the audience. I have not been a part of this debate so I may be preaching to the converted!