As it was exposed by Hunter Lovins and Boyd Cohen: “Climate chaos is not a future threat” (Lovins, 2011, p.274). By observing the recurrent and recent evidences around the globe, we can easily conclude that “the very basis for life on earth is declining at an alarming rate” (Lovins, 2011, p.274). As a matter of fact, devastating fires sweep which have occurred in Russia, Australia, Greece and even in the United States, are coupled with exponential droughts hitting India, China and sub-Saharan Africa. (Lovins, 2011). The list is long, which is why the de-growth discourse generally claims that “perpetual growth on a finite planet leads inexorably to environmental calamity” (Schwartzman, 2022, p.1). Whether the term itself implies a consequent process of changes, de-growth must be understood as a multidimensional concept founded on an anti-utilitarian perspective and an anthropological ground. Accordingly, by considering its literal implications, de-growth is a challenge to capitalism itself. André Gorz, who termed this environmental ideology in 1972, explained ‘de-growth’ as “a critique to the central role of economic (monetary or market-based) transactions in human relations and society” (Marty, 2023, p.2).
However, it would be a mistake to reduce the ‘de-growth’ theory to its economic paradigm, in other words, to its aims of GDP reduction. The ideology itself has a more significant scope of action, which also presupposes a consequent amount of micro and macro level of transformations. Therefore, our leading question appears to be: “is the theory of de-growth and its relation with technology, an unrealistic solution to the climate crisis?” In order to provide an answer, we will explain the concept behind the relocation of production to a local level and what it implies. Then, this will lead our discussion toward the technologies issued from diverse global value chains, which will allow us to conclude on a critic of the idea around a “convivial society”.
One of the answer suggested by sustainable de-growth is to “avoid or leave, recessions through rethinking needs and shifting objectives away from the regime of accumulation (and exchange) in monetary terms” (Sekulova, 2013, p.2). Accordingly, simplification between the social and economic sphere is required to tackle this strive for accumulation. This simplification implies the reduction of levels, which link both social and economic paradigms, by re-locating the systems of production. However, it also means the reduction of intermediaries and an introduction of simpler technologies, which also implies a decrease of the volume of goods used or consumed per household (Sekulova, 2013).
Despite being a really attractive solution to the downsides of globalization, such mechanism needs to be more detailed in term of its realization. Are all the chains of production re-localisable? And what do we mean by introducing simpler technologies? First and foremost, the amount of technological comfort that many of us enjoy nowadays, is a product of many global value chains and trade. Appropriately, the measures of vertical specialization in trade have allowed “intermediate inputs, including parts and components, natural resources and services” to become increasingly dense. (Hernandez, 2017, p.138) Therefore, the consequence resulting from this vertical specialization is undoubtedly the creation of new complex products, which are indispensable nowadays.
As a matter of fact, “case studies of high-end electronics products suggest that activities required for the production of the consumer products are increasingly dispersed around the globe” (Hernandez, 2017, p.142). Accordingly, the example of a smart phone assembled in China, which needs “graphic design elements from the United States, computer code from France, silicone chips from Singapore and precious metals from Bolivia”, illustrate the impossibility to relocate all these elements on a national scale for many states around the world. (OECD)
Thus, even if the theory of de-growth appears to be manageable in terms of re-localising the chains of productions for certain industries (like the food industry to some extent), this would not be applicable for many other sectors, whose products are judged as a necessity nowadays (computers, cars, etc…). A potential critic to this argument would be that phones, cars or any electronic devices, can be replaced by fewer, shareable and more sustainable, traditional savoir-faire. The argument initially was built upon a criteria, called “appropriateness”, which resulted from a broad consensus among the de-growth community, which encompasses technologies “ developed and maintained with local materials, which are repairable and adaptable without the help of external experts” (Kerschner, 2018, p.1628).
According to this perspective, the appropriate technology will reinforce sufficiency and creativity by supporting traditional knowledge and their associated local skills. As a consequence, this would promote decentralised small scale production and local supply chains while favouring an affordable, durable and repairable technology, which would empower the overall community (Illich, 2009). In other words, this would lead to a conception of a ‘convivial society’, which would be based upon a principle of shareable, “lower power tools” (Illich, 2009). The issue with this concept is that it doesn’t take in account the individualist nature of modern societies, which is ultimately the result of a long, established socio-economical structure (capitalism). Appropriately, the liberal values associated with this economic model of organisation have shaped not only individuals’ interactions with the private and public sphere, but also their relations with the collective. Thus, phenomenon like “social atomization”, generated by a lack of connection between individuals, can be considered as the reason why communities are disappearing in most modern societies. (Omais, 2018) Accordingly, establishing an alternative model of society, based upon a traditional and collective organisation, would be quite challenging if there is no inclination to form communities in the first place.
Moreover, if modern devices have facilitated and amplified the role of economic transactions in human relations, it is also because of actual social values and practices. As a matter of fact, if technology is ‘a form of relation to the world and to others, as it embodies and shapes social relationships’ and tools ‘are carriers of meaning, reflect power relations, enframe the sphere of actions and collective practices’, then it also means that adopting a different approach toward technology will require major changes in the society first (Muraca, 2018, p.1815). To conclude, such changes must be compatible with a specific social setting, which is currently not the case. In order to do so, it is undeniable that the process of change itself will require a slow adoption of adequate social values before society finally adapts to the de-growth paradigm. As the climate crisis is initially characterised by its urgency, the de-growth narrative appears to not be the solution, as it would requires results from long term practices before being an efficient and successful alternative.
Word count: 1093
Referencing
Lovins, H., Cohen, B., (2011), “Climate Capitalism: Capitalism in the Age of Climate Change”, Hill and Wang.
Schwartzman, (2022), “A critique of Degrowth”, https://climateandcapitalism.com/2022/01/05/a-critique-of-degrowth/
Sekulova, F. (2013), “Degrowth: from theory to practice”, Journal of Cleaner Production.
Hernandez, V. (2017), “Global value chain configuration: A review and research agenda”, BRQ Business Research Quartely.
Marty, C. (2023), “André Gorz’s Vision for Autonomy and Radical Frugality”, Green European Journal.
Omais, S. (2018), “The Death of Community and the Rise of Individualism”, https://traversingtradition.com/2018/07/16/the-death-of-community-and-the-rise-of-individualism/
Kerschner, C. et al. (2018), “Degrowth and Technology: Toward feasible, viable, appropriate and convivial imaginaries”, Journal of Cleaner Production.
Illich, I. (2009), “Tools for Conviviality”, London: Marion Boyars.
Muraca, B. (2018), “Viable and convivial technologies: considerations on Climate Engineering from a de-growth perspective”, Journal of Cleaner Production.