By Vlad Bunea
August 26, 2024
Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.
Art by Jessica Perlstein. This piece was created as concept artwork for a film based off of the novel The Fifth Sacred Thing by Starhawk.
When I hear phrases like “degrowth is just not politically or economically feasible” (1) I suspect a combination of the following: ignorance about degrowth, malicious intent, selfish protection of privileges, lack of empathy, elitist arrogance, or just flawed analysis.
It doesn’t take much effort to recognize that green growth and ecomodernism are utter delusions. See some debates here: 1, 2, 3, and a funny sketch. They claim we can innovate our way out of the climate crises, social crises, political crises. Over and over again it has been proven that disconnecting economic growth from ecological damage cannot happen fast enough in absolute terms (1). Considering that we have breached six of the nine planetary boundaries, we do not have time to fool around, as a society, if we want to avoid collapse of economies and large-scale tragic social unrest.
Why do some Canadians dismiss degrowth?
Since the 2012 Montreal Conference, degrowth has not seen much advance in the public opinion unlike in Europe that gave birth to the concept. Is it because Canadians are so in love with their oversized houses, cottages, SUVs, lawn mowers, golf courses, spending sprees, stock portfolios, the 200k+ salary plus bonuses? Is it because Canadians are afraid not to upset the Americans? Is it because the Atlas Network has utter domination over public narratives? Is it the deeply ingrained fetish with meritocracy?
The honest answer is… we don’t know. We should not assume to know what all Canadians think about degrowth, about their ideal lifestyle, about how to increase wellbeing for everyone, about how to stop environmental destruction, about how to phase out capitalism.
Professor Richard Sandbrook writes: “we must rapidly make a green energy transition. This transition cannot happen unless people, including those employed in fossil fuel industries, see a better future at the end.” (1) Correct! That is what degrowth can do for everyone, including fossil fuel workers. One should not dismiss the word degrowth itself simply because of perceptions about how the syllable “de” rings in the ears of the growth-obsessed elites.
How about we unpack what degrowth actually proposes? A review of degrowth policy proposals found 530 different proposals, split into 13 policy themes. The most interesting proposals actually aim to dismantle capitalism, by dealing with fundamental constructions: the definition of property, the need for rationing and material caps on production and consumption, the fair and just amount of minimum and maximum wealth, the inequality of the ecological footprint of individuals and nations, the introduction of economic democracy which is absent under capitalism, the massive expansion of human rights from housing to universal basic services. Who can say no to this?!
This year, in an informal setting organized by Justice4Workers, I asked about three dozen Canadians, middle class and working class, what they thought about: (1) making housing a human right, namely nationalizing the for-profit housing, which would literally phase out price-gouging landlords, and then making residents equal owners in housing coops, all this to solve the housing crisis without relying only on market solutions, and (2) having a maximum wealth limit of ten million dollars. The answers I received? Unanimous support for both policy proposals, which by the way, are advanced by degrowth scholars and activists. Earlier this year, in a debate at University of Toronto where I defended degrowth against green growth, a whopping 80% of audience members (roughly 50 people) supported degrowth. Does this not make degrowth very politically acceptable? Can we remember how politically acceptable was the abolition of slavery, universal suffrage, the weekend, the 8-hour workday, paid vacation, paid family leave, civil rights, marriage equality?
Richard Sandbrook writes: “A green new deal could be more effective at delivering positive ecological change than green growth and would likely be more feasible in the short-term than a degrowth model.” Okay, we know that green growth is rubbish. When we talk about a green new deal, what are we actually talking about? What are the policies proposed under a so-called capitalist-friendly green new deal?
The heart of the matter
Some folks believe that degrowth is desirable but improbable, and we can have a radical green new deal and get to keep capitalism, at the same time. Ah, have your cake and eat it too? We have heard about this before.
Hold on, but what do we mean by capitalism? Is it about free markets, free enterprise, private ownership of the means of production? What is at stake here, that we are so afraid of demonizing capitalism for all its crimes? What are the quiet parts not said out loud?
The heart of the matter is the elitist, inhumane, exploitative, unjust, unfair, unstable, amoral, immoral, sociopathic, hubristic, exclusive, egregious, effluent design of capitalism. The link between property (equity shares) and power (ability to dictate decisions) in corporations is proportional, therefore profoundly anti-democratic. You have one share, you have one vote. Employees who do not own shares have no voice in how the company is ought to be run, how much to produce, what to produce, how to set the prices, who gets paid and how much, who gets to be a boss, how profits are shared. This doctrine of proportionality must be phased out and replaced with a doctrine along the lines of power by equal sentience. That is if we want to progress as a civilization.
How on Earth can we keep growing the material economy and satisfy the design of capitalism? If we agree that we cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet, and that capitalism cannot exist without the profit incentive (aka growth), should we then not bite the bullet, be honest, and say that capitalism must be phased out using degrowth policies, so we can phase in a new economic system that provides wellbeing for everyone?
What would a degrowth green new deal look like for Canada
Of course, degrowth advocates for the phasing out of capitalism. No doubt about that. Degrowth aims at the heart of capitalism, its undemocratic structures. There is nothing special about Canada, in terms of how asset managers, investment bankers, stock brokers, venture capitalists conduct their affairs. What is specific about Canada is an innate cultural deference to the United States, a superficial mentality of cultural-geographical isolationism from the rest of the world which comes with the arrogance that fossil fuels can be extracted in Alberta and elsewhere with impunity, entitlement over the lands that were stolen from the First Nations, and all too often ignorance about the plunder of labour, energy, and resources that happens in the majority world (often known as the Global South) to sustain shameless sprawl and consumerism here.
So, let’s do a degrowth radical green new deal in Canada. We begin with permanent nationwide Citizens Assemblies that would be tasked to provide answers to the following questions and more:What is the fair amount for a maximum wealth limit for all Canadians?
What is the procedure to establish housing as a human right?
How can we protect the entire biosphere, of which we are all members, against the interest of profit-seekers?
How can we establish a job guarantee program that eliminates unemployment, creates well paid, decent, necessary jobs for all those who want it?
How much should the maximum income, or maximum wage gap be?
How can we expand public transportation nationwide, and make it free, sustainable, and ultra-accessible?
How can we phase out the stock market while maintaining fair value of pensions and savings, to build real value in the economy that is connected with the physical world?
How can we build sustainable provisioning systems for healthy food and essential products?
How can we phase in economic democracy, and phase out the profit motive?
How can we pay for our colonial responsibility to contribute to global climate and social justice?
This would be just the beginning. We will know what the entire country actually believes, once we engage all Canadians in the process. We will have crowd-sourced policies to back up the public sentiment. Whatever government will occupy Parliament Hill in Ottawa, they will be forced to listen, and execute the will of Canadians.
We should also remember that there is big public support for this kind of transformation, worldwide: In the world’s largest standalone survey on climate change, 72% of people globally said they want their country to move away from fossil fuels to clean energy quickly; 62% of Canadians said their country needs to give more help to poorer countries to address climate change; 47% of Canadians are more worried, and 40% about the same worried about climate change, compared to last year.
A survey of people in 34 European countries found that, on average, 61% of people favour post-growth. That is one way of saying degrowth, without saying it.
A survey study done by the German Environment Agency found that 88% agree that “we must find ways of living well regardless of economic growth”, and 77% agree that “there are natural limits to growth, and we went beyond them.
70% of more than 10,000 people surveyed in 29 high-income and middle-income countries believe that “overconsumption is putting our planet and society at risk”; 65% believe that “our society would be better off if people shared more and owned less”.
A study exploring two survey datasets found that 61% of the Spanish public hold growth-critical positions (agrowth or degrowth), with less than one-third of respondents in the survey expressing support for green growth.
A responsible consumption survey found that 52% of French people believed that “we need to review all or part of our economic model and get away from the myth of infinite growth”.
Poll shows that 81% of people in Britain believe that the prime objective of the government should be to secure “the greatest happiness” for people rather than “the greatest wealth”.
Two in three people across 17 G20 countries surveyed (68%) agree that the way the economy works should prioritise the health and wellbeing of people and nature, rather than focusing solely on profit and increasing wealth.
Another French study found that 67% of respondents had a “favourable” or “quite favourable” opinion of the term “degrowth”. Importantly, people from all the political spectrum had a majority favourable opinion of “degrowth” (86% for the far left and 59% for the far right).
Degrowth, post-capitalism are actually very popular among scholars and citizens: a survey of nearly 500 sustainability scholars found that 77% call for post-growth pathways in high-income countries; a study of European citizens’ assemblies found that sufficiency policies enjoy very high approval rates (93%); a survey shows that a majority of people around the world (56%) agree with the statement “Capitalism does more harm than good”, in France it is 69%, in India it is 74%; a 2018 poll shows that 70% of US citizens believe that “environmental protection is more important than economic growth” – how about that!
When are we actually going to talk to all Canadians about what they actually think, instead of jumping to opinions that degrowth is not politically feasible?
Dear Canadians, don’t be afraid of degrowth. That syllable “de” is also in front of beautiful words, like democracy, decent, delicious. Degrowth is the path from crisis to wellbeing. Once you realize that infinity (the wet desire of growth-seeking capitalism) cannot fit into finitude (Planet Earth) you will suddenly have agency to agree that capitalism must go, so we can phase in sustainable wellbeing for everyone, forever.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers. Donate
Art by Jessica Perlstein. This piece was created as concept artwork for a film based off of the novel The Fifth Sacred Thing by Starhawk.
When I hear phrases like “degrowth is just not politically or economically feasible” (1) I suspect a combination of the following: ignorance about degrowth, malicious intent, selfish protection of privileges, lack of empathy, elitist arrogance, or just flawed analysis.
It doesn’t take much effort to recognize that green growth and ecomodernism are utter delusions. See some debates here: 1, 2, 3, and a funny sketch. They claim we can innovate our way out of the climate crises, social crises, political crises. Over and over again it has been proven that disconnecting economic growth from ecological damage cannot happen fast enough in absolute terms (1). Considering that we have breached six of the nine planetary boundaries, we do not have time to fool around, as a society, if we want to avoid collapse of economies and large-scale tragic social unrest.
Why do some Canadians dismiss degrowth?
Since the 2012 Montreal Conference, degrowth has not seen much advance in the public opinion unlike in Europe that gave birth to the concept. Is it because Canadians are so in love with their oversized houses, cottages, SUVs, lawn mowers, golf courses, spending sprees, stock portfolios, the 200k+ salary plus bonuses? Is it because Canadians are afraid not to upset the Americans? Is it because the Atlas Network has utter domination over public narratives? Is it the deeply ingrained fetish with meritocracy?
The honest answer is… we don’t know. We should not assume to know what all Canadians think about degrowth, about their ideal lifestyle, about how to increase wellbeing for everyone, about how to stop environmental destruction, about how to phase out capitalism.
Professor Richard Sandbrook writes: “we must rapidly make a green energy transition. This transition cannot happen unless people, including those employed in fossil fuel industries, see a better future at the end.” (1) Correct! That is what degrowth can do for everyone, including fossil fuel workers. One should not dismiss the word degrowth itself simply because of perceptions about how the syllable “de” rings in the ears of the growth-obsessed elites.
How about we unpack what degrowth actually proposes? A review of degrowth policy proposals found 530 different proposals, split into 13 policy themes. The most interesting proposals actually aim to dismantle capitalism, by dealing with fundamental constructions: the definition of property, the need for rationing and material caps on production and consumption, the fair and just amount of minimum and maximum wealth, the inequality of the ecological footprint of individuals and nations, the introduction of economic democracy which is absent under capitalism, the massive expansion of human rights from housing to universal basic services. Who can say no to this?!
This year, in an informal setting organized by Justice4Workers, I asked about three dozen Canadians, middle class and working class, what they thought about: (1) making housing a human right, namely nationalizing the for-profit housing, which would literally phase out price-gouging landlords, and then making residents equal owners in housing coops, all this to solve the housing crisis without relying only on market solutions, and (2) having a maximum wealth limit of ten million dollars. The answers I received? Unanimous support for both policy proposals, which by the way, are advanced by degrowth scholars and activists. Earlier this year, in a debate at University of Toronto where I defended degrowth against green growth, a whopping 80% of audience members (roughly 50 people) supported degrowth. Does this not make degrowth very politically acceptable? Can we remember how politically acceptable was the abolition of slavery, universal suffrage, the weekend, the 8-hour workday, paid vacation, paid family leave, civil rights, marriage equality?
Richard Sandbrook writes: “A green new deal could be more effective at delivering positive ecological change than green growth and would likely be more feasible in the short-term than a degrowth model.” Okay, we know that green growth is rubbish. When we talk about a green new deal, what are we actually talking about? What are the policies proposed under a so-called capitalist-friendly green new deal?
The heart of the matter
Some folks believe that degrowth is desirable but improbable, and we can have a radical green new deal and get to keep capitalism, at the same time. Ah, have your cake and eat it too? We have heard about this before.
Hold on, but what do we mean by capitalism? Is it about free markets, free enterprise, private ownership of the means of production? What is at stake here, that we are so afraid of demonizing capitalism for all its crimes? What are the quiet parts not said out loud?
The heart of the matter is the elitist, inhumane, exploitative, unjust, unfair, unstable, amoral, immoral, sociopathic, hubristic, exclusive, egregious, effluent design of capitalism. The link between property (equity shares) and power (ability to dictate decisions) in corporations is proportional, therefore profoundly anti-democratic. You have one share, you have one vote. Employees who do not own shares have no voice in how the company is ought to be run, how much to produce, what to produce, how to set the prices, who gets paid and how much, who gets to be a boss, how profits are shared. This doctrine of proportionality must be phased out and replaced with a doctrine along the lines of power by equal sentience. That is if we want to progress as a civilization.
How on Earth can we keep growing the material economy and satisfy the design of capitalism? If we agree that we cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet, and that capitalism cannot exist without the profit incentive (aka growth), should we then not bite the bullet, be honest, and say that capitalism must be phased out using degrowth policies, so we can phase in a new economic system that provides wellbeing for everyone?
What would a degrowth green new deal look like for Canada
Of course, degrowth advocates for the phasing out of capitalism. No doubt about that. Degrowth aims at the heart of capitalism, its undemocratic structures. There is nothing special about Canada, in terms of how asset managers, investment bankers, stock brokers, venture capitalists conduct their affairs. What is specific about Canada is an innate cultural deference to the United States, a superficial mentality of cultural-geographical isolationism from the rest of the world which comes with the arrogance that fossil fuels can be extracted in Alberta and elsewhere with impunity, entitlement over the lands that were stolen from the First Nations, and all too often ignorance about the plunder of labour, energy, and resources that happens in the majority world (often known as the Global South) to sustain shameless sprawl and consumerism here.
So, let’s do a degrowth radical green new deal in Canada. We begin with permanent nationwide Citizens Assemblies that would be tasked to provide answers to the following questions and more:What is the fair amount for a maximum wealth limit for all Canadians?
What is the procedure to establish housing as a human right?
How can we protect the entire biosphere, of which we are all members, against the interest of profit-seekers?
How can we establish a job guarantee program that eliminates unemployment, creates well paid, decent, necessary jobs for all those who want it?
How much should the maximum income, or maximum wage gap be?
How can we expand public transportation nationwide, and make it free, sustainable, and ultra-accessible?
How can we phase out the stock market while maintaining fair value of pensions and savings, to build real value in the economy that is connected with the physical world?
How can we build sustainable provisioning systems for healthy food and essential products?
How can we phase in economic democracy, and phase out the profit motive?
How can we pay for our colonial responsibility to contribute to global climate and social justice?
This would be just the beginning. We will know what the entire country actually believes, once we engage all Canadians in the process. We will have crowd-sourced policies to back up the public sentiment. Whatever government will occupy Parliament Hill in Ottawa, they will be forced to listen, and execute the will of Canadians.
We should also remember that there is big public support for this kind of transformation, worldwide: In the world’s largest standalone survey on climate change, 72% of people globally said they want their country to move away from fossil fuels to clean energy quickly; 62% of Canadians said their country needs to give more help to poorer countries to address climate change; 47% of Canadians are more worried, and 40% about the same worried about climate change, compared to last year.
A survey of people in 34 European countries found that, on average, 61% of people favour post-growth. That is one way of saying degrowth, without saying it.
A survey study done by the German Environment Agency found that 88% agree that “we must find ways of living well regardless of economic growth”, and 77% agree that “there are natural limits to growth, and we went beyond them.
70% of more than 10,000 people surveyed in 29 high-income and middle-income countries believe that “overconsumption is putting our planet and society at risk”; 65% believe that “our society would be better off if people shared more and owned less”.
A study exploring two survey datasets found that 61% of the Spanish public hold growth-critical positions (agrowth or degrowth), with less than one-third of respondents in the survey expressing support for green growth.
A responsible consumption survey found that 52% of French people believed that “we need to review all or part of our economic model and get away from the myth of infinite growth”.
Poll shows that 81% of people in Britain believe that the prime objective of the government should be to secure “the greatest happiness” for people rather than “the greatest wealth”.
Two in three people across 17 G20 countries surveyed (68%) agree that the way the economy works should prioritise the health and wellbeing of people and nature, rather than focusing solely on profit and increasing wealth.
Another French study found that 67% of respondents had a “favourable” or “quite favourable” opinion of the term “degrowth”. Importantly, people from all the political spectrum had a majority favourable opinion of “degrowth” (86% for the far left and 59% for the far right).
Degrowth, post-capitalism are actually very popular among scholars and citizens: a survey of nearly 500 sustainability scholars found that 77% call for post-growth pathways in high-income countries; a study of European citizens’ assemblies found that sufficiency policies enjoy very high approval rates (93%); a survey shows that a majority of people around the world (56%) agree with the statement “Capitalism does more harm than good”, in France it is 69%, in India it is 74%; a 2018 poll shows that 70% of US citizens believe that “environmental protection is more important than economic growth” – how about that!
When are we actually going to talk to all Canadians about what they actually think, instead of jumping to opinions that degrowth is not politically feasible?
Dear Canadians, don’t be afraid of degrowth. That syllable “de” is also in front of beautiful words, like democracy, decent, delicious. Degrowth is the path from crisis to wellbeing. Once you realize that infinity (the wet desire of growth-seeking capitalism) cannot fit into finitude (Planet Earth) you will suddenly have agency to agree that capitalism must go, so we can phase in sustainable wellbeing for everyone, forever.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers. Donate
Vlad Bunea
Vlad Bunea is a video essayist, economist, author, and activist based in Toronto. He is a founding member of Degrowth Collective and the International Degrowth Network. His most recent book is The Urban Dictionary of Very Late Capitalism, and his upcoming book is Degrowth of Humans and Sheep.
Degrowth Aims to Achieve ‘Frugal Abundance’
August 26, 2024
Source: Resilience
Image from the 'Dear Alice' Decommodified Edition by Waffle to the Left
Degrowth is about building societies in which everyone is rich – without much material. It is a desirable project to strive for.
For critics, degrowth is not very appealing. According to them, it means impoverishment, restraint, scarcity, austerity or recession. It is seen as a project to reduce the overall prosperity of individuals and societies.
In contrast, in a recently published academic article, I argue that degrowth aims to achieve abundance, prosperity and richness. Other degrowth advocates have reached a similar conclusion, but here I claim that it first requires rethinking the dominant meaning of abundance.
It is impossible to promise everyone to achieve high levels of consumption. Indeed, it would lead to environmental and societal catastrophes. It would also be extremely unfair, as those most suffering from environmental degradation are already the most marginalised.
Instead, degrowth aims to achieve an abundance that does not entail high levels of consumption: a ‘frugal abundance’.
Challenging the myth of abundance through high consumption and production
Of course, abundance from a degrowth perspective requires the fulfilment of the basic material necessities. But it also aims to satisfy non-material aspects of life such as having many friends, a thriving environment, a lot of free time, deep relationships, plenty of passions, a healthy life, a thorough sense of purpose and high moral standards, among others.
The terms ‘prosperity’, ‘richness’ and ‘abundance’ have not always referred to high levels of material consumption and production. In the recent past, they also brought to mind a general sense of flourishing – it still partly does so for many. These terms alluded to morality, freedom, time, brotherhood, trust or wisdom.
Similarly, ‘frugality’ has not always been associated with restraint. Its etymology traces back to the Latin word frux, which means fruit, profit, or value. In this context, frugality relate to abundance.
By putting together two words that intuitively seem contradictory, the phrase ‘frugal abundance’ shocks and causes interrogations. As such, it makes us question what is important in life. For instance, is it to have the best car and the newest smartphone or is it to be happy? Is it to have a high-paid job or is it to spend time with loved ones and enjoy the beauties of nature?
By doing so, ‘frugal abundance’ challenges one of the most rooted myths of our times: that a good life and prosperity require high levels of consumption and production.
Conceptualising frugal abundance
The expression ‘frugal abundance’ intuitively refers to the idea of being rich without much. It is already used in degrowth spheres, but often as a catchphrase without really explaining what it means. I do so in the article mentioned above.
In a nutshell, I give three conditions for societies to achieve frugal abundance. First, everyone has a good life. Then, consumption is low enough to avoid large environmental impacts and so that everyone has enough resources to thrive. In short, it should enable global ecological and social justice. Finally, the material wants of everyone are satisfied.
Under these three conditions, societies achieve abundance because individuals have a good life and do not feel that they are lacking material consumption. Nevertheless, this abundance is frugal because the population does not consume much.
Credit: Plomteux (2024).
Some societies approach(ed) frugal abundance
Several ancient and still-existing societies are or have been close to reaching these three conditions. For instance, some communities in the Global South are happier than the happiest countries referenced in the World Happiness Report. Some indigenous societies like the Maasai and the Inughuit also seem satisfied with their material conditions even if they do not have much from Western standards.
The anthropologist Marshall Sahlins provided similar evidence in his famous 1960s’ essay The Original Affluent Society. He studied some societies which were able to fulfil their material desires without much consumption and production. He stated that they “enjoy an unparalleled material plenty – with a low standard of living”.
It is important not to romanticise these societies, but they can provide inspiration to build more sustainable and just futures. Moreover, they are or were close to frugal abundance not because they are ‘simple’, but because they have been able to create cultures and societal organisations in which the material wants of the population are finite and satisfied without much.
In contrast, most individuals in the so-called ‘rich countries’ are constantly dissatisfied with what they have and what they consume. Many also fail to fulfil the immaterial aspects of abundance, given the high levels of mental health issues and loneliness. From this perspective, many so-called ‘rich’ people and societies are actually poor. However, by creating the right societal organisations and cultures, our societies could achieve this abundance.
Degrowth is a radical project which contends that it is necessary to challenge the major social structures of our times, such as capitalism, imperialism and patriarchy in order to build societies based on sustainability, justice, care, simple living, democracy and emancipation.
Achieving degrowth objectives will certainly not be easy, but seeing the project as desirable is a precondition for any meaningful change in this direction. By associating degrowth with abundance, the societal project of degrowth becomes appealing and worth striving for.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers. Donate
Related Posts
Image from the 'Dear Alice' Decommodified Edition by Waffle to the Left
Degrowth is about building societies in which everyone is rich – without much material. It is a desirable project to strive for.
For critics, degrowth is not very appealing. According to them, it means impoverishment, restraint, scarcity, austerity or recession. It is seen as a project to reduce the overall prosperity of individuals and societies.
In contrast, in a recently published academic article, I argue that degrowth aims to achieve abundance, prosperity and richness. Other degrowth advocates have reached a similar conclusion, but here I claim that it first requires rethinking the dominant meaning of abundance.
It is impossible to promise everyone to achieve high levels of consumption. Indeed, it would lead to environmental and societal catastrophes. It would also be extremely unfair, as those most suffering from environmental degradation are already the most marginalised.
Instead, degrowth aims to achieve an abundance that does not entail high levels of consumption: a ‘frugal abundance’.
Challenging the myth of abundance through high consumption and production
Of course, abundance from a degrowth perspective requires the fulfilment of the basic material necessities. But it also aims to satisfy non-material aspects of life such as having many friends, a thriving environment, a lot of free time, deep relationships, plenty of passions, a healthy life, a thorough sense of purpose and high moral standards, among others.
The terms ‘prosperity’, ‘richness’ and ‘abundance’ have not always referred to high levels of material consumption and production. In the recent past, they also brought to mind a general sense of flourishing – it still partly does so for many. These terms alluded to morality, freedom, time, brotherhood, trust or wisdom.
Similarly, ‘frugality’ has not always been associated with restraint. Its etymology traces back to the Latin word frux, which means fruit, profit, or value. In this context, frugality relate to abundance.
By putting together two words that intuitively seem contradictory, the phrase ‘frugal abundance’ shocks and causes interrogations. As such, it makes us question what is important in life. For instance, is it to have the best car and the newest smartphone or is it to be happy? Is it to have a high-paid job or is it to spend time with loved ones and enjoy the beauties of nature?
By doing so, ‘frugal abundance’ challenges one of the most rooted myths of our times: that a good life and prosperity require high levels of consumption and production.
Conceptualising frugal abundance
The expression ‘frugal abundance’ intuitively refers to the idea of being rich without much. It is already used in degrowth spheres, but often as a catchphrase without really explaining what it means. I do so in the article mentioned above.
In a nutshell, I give three conditions for societies to achieve frugal abundance. First, everyone has a good life. Then, consumption is low enough to avoid large environmental impacts and so that everyone has enough resources to thrive. In short, it should enable global ecological and social justice. Finally, the material wants of everyone are satisfied.
Under these three conditions, societies achieve abundance because individuals have a good life and do not feel that they are lacking material consumption. Nevertheless, this abundance is frugal because the population does not consume much.
Credit: Plomteux (2024).
Some societies approach(ed) frugal abundance
Several ancient and still-existing societies are or have been close to reaching these three conditions. For instance, some communities in the Global South are happier than the happiest countries referenced in the World Happiness Report. Some indigenous societies like the Maasai and the Inughuit also seem satisfied with their material conditions even if they do not have much from Western standards.
The anthropologist Marshall Sahlins provided similar evidence in his famous 1960s’ essay The Original Affluent Society. He studied some societies which were able to fulfil their material desires without much consumption and production. He stated that they “enjoy an unparalleled material plenty – with a low standard of living”.
It is important not to romanticise these societies, but they can provide inspiration to build more sustainable and just futures. Moreover, they are or were close to frugal abundance not because they are ‘simple’, but because they have been able to create cultures and societal organisations in which the material wants of the population are finite and satisfied without much.
In contrast, most individuals in the so-called ‘rich countries’ are constantly dissatisfied with what they have and what they consume. Many also fail to fulfil the immaterial aspects of abundance, given the high levels of mental health issues and loneliness. From this perspective, many so-called ‘rich’ people and societies are actually poor. However, by creating the right societal organisations and cultures, our societies could achieve this abundance.
Degrowth is a radical project which contends that it is necessary to challenge the major social structures of our times, such as capitalism, imperialism and patriarchy in order to build societies based on sustainability, justice, care, simple living, democracy and emancipation.
Achieving degrowth objectives will certainly not be easy, but seeing the project as desirable is a precondition for any meaningful change in this direction. By associating degrowth with abundance, the societal project of degrowth becomes appealing and worth striving for.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers. Donate
Related Posts
How to Pay for Saving the World: Modern Monetary Theory for a Degrowth Transition
Christopher Olk -- October 02, 2023
A Response to Daniel Driscoll: Another Slice of Degrowth Bashing
Timothée Parrique -- March 04, 2024
A Response to Hannah Ritchie: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Economic Growth
Timothée Parrique -- January 29, 2024
Degrowth (and More) 4Liberation — Part One: Shared Vision
Michael Albert -- October 04, 2023
Degrowthers Gain Support as Planet Cooks. Can They Ally With Green New Dealers?
Gareth Dale -- August 28, 2023
DonateFacebookTwitterRedditEmail
Adrien Plomteux
I am a researcher-activist involved in the degrowth movement. I am a member of the editorial collective of the Degrowth journal and a founding member of Degrowth London. My PhD research centres on the concept of ‘frugal abundance’, which applies to societies in which everyone lives well without consuming too much. I am carrying out participatory and mixed method research with rural and indigenous communities in Kenya and Iceland to better understand what frugal abundance means for them, how it works in practice and how they think that this way of life could flourish elsewhere. I have previously worked in NGOs on social-environmental topics after transitioning from mathematics to the social sciences.
Christopher Olk -- October 02, 2023
A Response to Daniel Driscoll: Another Slice of Degrowth Bashing
Timothée Parrique -- March 04, 2024
A Response to Hannah Ritchie: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Economic Growth
Timothée Parrique -- January 29, 2024
Degrowth (and More) 4Liberation — Part One: Shared Vision
Michael Albert -- October 04, 2023
Degrowthers Gain Support as Planet Cooks. Can They Ally With Green New Dealers?
Gareth Dale -- August 28, 2023
DonateFacebookTwitterRedditEmail
Adrien Plomteux
I am a researcher-activist involved in the degrowth movement. I am a member of the editorial collective of the Degrowth journal and a founding member of Degrowth London. My PhD research centres on the concept of ‘frugal abundance’, which applies to societies in which everyone lives well without consuming too much. I am carrying out participatory and mixed method research with rural and indigenous communities in Kenya and Iceland to better understand what frugal abundance means for them, how it works in practice and how they think that this way of life could flourish elsewhere. I have previously worked in NGOs on social-environmental topics after transitioning from mathematics to the social sciences.
No comments:
Post a Comment