Towards unlearning growth

Climate change has been ringing alarm bells for decades now, and it finally features high on the agenda. Two of the world’s biggest economies, the EU and the U.S., have announced ambitious green deals, though they will inevitably fall short of what is necessary to really fight climate change. These deals rely greatly on technological fixes and efficiency improvements, which though necessary also distract us from the real issue: what is needed is a complete overhaul of our economies, and the implementation of a new economic system that does not depend on growth. Biofuels come to mind here. Not only is their sustainability seriously questioned, but they have also sparked land-grabs and displacement in the global South, led to increases in food prices, and acted as a complementary fuel rather than substitute, thus leading to maintained or increased consumption.

The devastating effects of global warming are felt unevenly throughout the world, with the Global South suffering more, and the North polluting more. But this is a problem that knows no borders, and sooner or later it will reach us all. What has become clear is that it cannot be resolved solely with a ‘techno-fix’, despite what green capitalism’s most passionate defenders may say. As it turns out, even renewables are costly in terms of resources such as water or metals, both of which have associated social and environmental costs that are unloaded onto the world’s poorest nations, in a clear exercise of what professor Dr. Olúfúmi O. Táíwò terms ‘climate colonialism’. Moreover, there is an inherent contradiction in the very idea of ‘green capitalism’ because capitalism necessarily requires the continuous expansion of production to maintain itself, with associated increases in the use of resources. The search for profit and the drive to accumulate translate into a strong dependency on growth. So even if we manage to consume resources more efficiently, the truth of the matter is that it will not be enough: we have to consume much less. Growth and sustainability are incompatible.

We have to consume much less. Growth and sustainability are incompatible.

In this context, the idea of degrowth is an interesting avenue for research. Degrowth began to be discussed in France in the 1970s, with thinkers such as Serge Latouche, Mauro Bonaiuti, Jacques Grinevald, François Schneider and Pierre Rabhi as some of its first proponents. However, it draws from a range of traditions in Southern countries such as ‘Buen Vivir’ in various parts of South America or ‘Swaraj’ in India. As the authors of ‘The Case for Degrowth’ explain, degrowth questions fundamental assumptions about the way we live and “makes the case that we have to produce and consume differently, and also less. That we have to share more and distribute more fairly, while the pie shrinks.” To do this, we need to foster different kinds of relationships between humans and the environment, akin to what Indigenous environmental justice scholar Kyle Powys Whyte, a member of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation, refers to as systems of responsibility between humans and the land they inhabit. Further, we need to fundamentally change the way we understand the health of our economies, moving away from quantitative indicators such as GDP growth towards valuing education, care, creativity, and so on.

We need to fundamentally change the way we understand the health of our economies, moving away from quantitative indicators

The degrowth movement is developing as a counter-paradigm to a society solely focused on economic growth. And as the attention for this movement as a critique on the way we structure our society is growing, it is naturally influencing an increasing number of areas within society. As “Schooling the World – The White Man’s Last Burden”, a documentary by American filmmaker Carol Black, shows us, our so-called system of education is teaching people to become elements in the capitalist system. That is why the degrowth movement has also inspired teachers, educators and trainers to incorporate elements of this movement into their field.

During a conference of the Amsterdam-based Centre of Sustainable Development Studies, an entire session was dedicated to university lecturers discussing how the idea of degrowth has affected their teaching. For these educators, nurturing degrowth through teaching means “deconstructing the top-down teaching method”. In practice, this means their courses include a vast emphasis on self reflection, activism, learning by doing, student-led elements, and the practice of horizontality through creating space for students to bring their own topics into class. Lecturer C.F. Rammelt, who teaches the course on degrowth at the University of Amsterdam, states his method is based on four principles: reflectiveness, creativity (specifically in terms of self-determination), diversity, and cooperation. An interesting issue within this debate is the use of assessment to practice degrowth, as the current grading milieu shows the enduring focus on growth within our society by continuously quantifying students’ progress. In addition, it contributes to an environment of competition rather than cooperation. Some teachers currently practice degrowth in their assessment by always passing every student and others let students have a say in their final grade. However, lecturers discuss the struggle with the University with regards to changing the rules for grading.

The unsolved issue of assessment makes the constant tension with neoliberal institutions painfully clear: growth and performance as the end goal still guide all rules, regulations and institutions. In much the same way, growth is the ultimate parameter by which we evaluate the ‘health’ of our economy. According to the degrowth perspective, we could do much better without this arbitrary parameter.