Degrowth: When to Use It, When to Lose It

Exploring how to use the term effectively

"The term Degrowth tends to be misleading, it creates resistance, I always have to follow up with an explanation.”

"The main issue with degrowth is it is framed around what it isn't - growth. It is not framed around what it is. That's why it is 'misunderstood' (read: badly communicated). The term is inherently associated with negativity - sacrifice, doing without, getting worse etc.”

"It takes some effort getting past the emotional reaction to the word Degrowth."

Well, I hear you. This is the most common reaction we face while talking about degrowth to anybody hearing the term for the first time. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t feel the same when I first encountered the term myself. Degrowth, really? Degrow what? And why? How can not growing help anybody?

Before I explore what this concept means, I would like to tackle this naming issue once and for all, look at it from multiple perspectives, and conclude whether it is helpful to mention the word.

What Do Others Think?

Luckily, I’m not the first person to give thought to this topic, many have stood before me, expressing their views, defending the term, or saying that we don’t even need to use the term to popularise the concept behind it.

Proponents of degrowth, especially those from academia, see the word as a ‘missile’ word, a provocative and disruptive word that challenges the long-held belief that “growth is good” and because of this shock element, gets noticed immediately, paving the way for a discussion. The word is also very difficult to co-opt, something that happened with the words “sustainable” and “development”, where their meanings are distorted and misused to denote continuing destructive practices.

It is interesting to note that different people have different initial reactions and further responses after hearing the term. A 2021 paper, titled “What does degrowth mean? A few points of clarification” by Jason Hickel mentions this -

“For an increasing number of people, it is obvious that perpetual growth is a problem; for them, degrowth seems intuitively correct as a response to the ecological crisis, and they can get on board immediately.

Other people have a negative initial reaction to the word, but it is nonetheless useful in such cases to the extent that it challenges and disrupts people’s assumptions about how the economy should work, by questioning something that is generally taken for granted as natural and good.

In many cases, negative initial reactions give way to contemplation (do high-income countries really need more growth?), and then curiosity (perhaps we can actually flourish with less throughput, and even less output?), and then investigation (what is the relevant empirical evidence?) that eventually leads people to change their views. This kind of intellectual transformation is enabled, not inhibited, by using a provocative term.”

In the same paper, he also talks about how the word ‘growth’ has been co-opted by capitalism, is used to hide all the destructive and exploitative practices of our economy, and why it makes the word ‘degrowth’ relevant -

“It is important to recognize that the word ‘growth’ has become a kind of propaganda term. In reality, what is going on is a process of elite accumulation, the commodification of commons, and the appropriation of human labour and natural resources – a process that is quite often colonial in character. This process, which is generally destructive to human communities and to ecology, is glossed as growth.

Growth sounds natural and positive (who could possibly be against growth?) so people are easily persuaded to buy into it, and to back policies that will generate more of it, when otherwise they might not. Growth is the ideology of capitalism, it is the core tenet of capitalism’s cultural hegemony. The word degrowth is powerful and effective because it identifies this trick, and rejects it. Degrowth calls for the reversal of the processes that lie behind growth: it calls for disaccumulation, decommodification, and decolonization.”

I’ve found this argument quite effective in clearing out any confusion people might have about what the word ‘degrowth’ actually means, and exactly what type of ‘growth’ it is asking to decrease.

Why Not Use Another Term? Or No Term At All?

Why not frame this concept around what it is, instead of what it isn’t? Why not name it after the positives it has to offer to the world?

Well, there are a few alternative terms that are being used by people who would like to avoid the kind of provocation degrowth induces. “Post Growth” and “Well Being” economy are two such substitutes. Post Growth is a nice, less provocative word, often used by degrowth proponents in the business community and while dealing with government establishments. In 2023, European Research Council awarded a €10 million grant to a project called Real, A Post Growth Deal, not a degrowth deal, even though the team behind it almost entirely consists of degrowth researchers. The reason is clear, they knew that the term ‘Degrowth’ won’t really fly with established governmental agencies and they have to be malleable in communicating these ideas for them to be heard and accepted.

Well-being economy on the other hand, perfectly captures the positives of degrowth, centering the economy around well-being, instead of growth. It’s a feel-good term that practically no one can object to, who would be against well-being? But, in my opinion, this term not only runs the risk of being co-opted, it’s lack of provocation often results in a lack of curiosity and can prevent further engagement with the subject deeply. Jason writes, “Trying to avoid provocation, or trying to be agnostic about growth, creates a milieu where problematic assumptions remain unidentified and unexamined in favour of polite conversation and agreement.”

Another take on this matter is, why use any term at all, why not just talk about issues and solutions directly? That’s a possibility, and I see many degrowth advocates talking about the core ideas and policy recommendations of degrowth, without using this label. This approach seems to be working for many degrowthers, as our survey indicates -

"I am beginning to shift strategy to talk about the issues, before getting to the topic of degrowth, that seems to resonate better."

“Don't mention degrowth in the beginning, slowly bring the anti-capitalist lens”

"Instead of persuading people about degrowth, simply try to shift their thinking a bit."

Ultimately, It All Depends

So far, my conclusion is that there are multiple approaches to talk about degrowth ideas and there’s no silver bullet that will work in all situations. One might want to pick up one way or the other depending on the context, audience, and purpose of the conversation. And of course, your personal communication style plays a critical role as well. I personally prefer to drop the word here and there because I kinda enjoy stirring up the emotions in the room and then engaging in a deeper conversation about explaining it. For me, trying to clarify the term Degrowth, is in itself a part of the communication process, not something that hinders it.

Let me explore some examples of different situations, audiences, and purposes when discussing degrowth, and suggest appropriate communication strategies -

1. Context - Casual conversation with friends and family.

• Audience - People with varying levels of awareness about economic and environmental issues.

• Purpose - Introduce the concept of degrowth in a non-confrontational way, gauge interest, and potentially spark further discussion.

• Approach - Use clear and accessible language. Focus on shared values like community, well-being, and environment. Instead of leading with ‘degrowth,’ talk about creating a more sustainable and equitable future. For example: "Wouldn't it be great if we focused less on working long hours, buying more stuff and more on having time to spend with loved ones and enjoying nature?" If they express interest, you can then introduce the term ‘degrowth’ as a way to describe this vision.

2. Context - Discussing with someone concerned about climate change or social inequality.

• Audience - Individuals already sympathetic to the problems degrowth addresses.

• Purpose - Connect degrowth to their existing concerns and show how it offers a systemic solution.

• Approach - With this audience, the term ‘degrowth’ is likely to be well-received. Acknowledge their concerns and explain how degrowth can address them. For example: "You're right, climate change is a huge problem. Degrowth offers a way to reduce our impact on the planet by rethinking our economic system."

3. Context - Talking to a business leader or someone in the corporate world.

• Audience - Individuals focused on economic growth and profit.

• Purpose - Introduce business practices based on degrowth principles.

• Approach - Try to explain how infinite growth on a finite planet is not realistic and how businesses can prioritize impact and values instead of maximizing profits and endless expansion. You might want to avoid the term ‘degrowth’ altogether, instead focus on the practices associated with it, such as circular economy (durability, repairability of products), sharing economy, reduced advertising, local and community focus, democratic ownership etc.

These are just a few examples. The key is to be adaptable and tailor your communication strategy to the specific context, audience, and purpose.

I would end this piece by quoting Emilia Reyes from this webinar, where she says “Let's not waste more time in debating if the word ‘degrowth’ is good or not, it’s exhausting, please stop being lazy by just critiquing the term.” She urges people to move past it, “instead, get to know degrowth, listen to what degrowthers are saying, go into the point, and engage in a more substantive conversation.”

I hope my next few pieces will allow my audience to do just that. See ya!