Degrowth is a word that upsets. In certain settings, a mere evocation of the D-word is enough to transform a constructive discussion into a strife; in others, the term becomes a smoke bomb causing widespread confusion. On these grounds, several commentators have argued that “degrowth” must change its name. I hear their arguments and yet I still find myself using the word – here is why.
“Degrowth” is unappealing
Some say that the word carries negative initial feelings. In the aftermath of economic crises, talking about “degrowth” may trigger a sensitive spot, namely the phobia of negative GDP – this being especially true for the poorest and most disfranchised. Even though the audience might agree with the underlying idea (frugality, care, sharing, and so on), they may just not engage because they have been scared off by a first negative impression.
Fear, however, is not always bad. The purpose of using a negation is not to frighten but to overcome a phobia. The fact that the term provokes such an emotional reaction is an evidence of the hold of the growth ideology over people’s imaginary. So instead of the It-That-Must-Not-Be-Named approach of using broad terms like “sustainable economy” or “economy for the common good,” degrowth attempts to acknowledge and defuse an unconscious fear.
“Degrowth” makes people think of growth
Another reason to censure D******* is that the term is etymologically rooted in the ideology of growth. And indeed, the term “degrowth” makes it difficult to not think about growth. It is linguist George Lakoff’s famous “don’t think of an elephant”: the first think “degrowth” makes us think about is that thing we are trying not to think about.
But, that’s precisely the point. Economic growth has become so pervasive that it is impossible to think outside of it, and so liberating the imaginary from this hegemony requires a semantic escape, which, like any escape, starts from inside. The slogan “décroissance durable” was created by a former marketing consultant and a comedian, whose communication strategy was precisely to startle and provoke – think about growth in order to defeat growth. In the same way the Alcoholics Anonymous is not called the Sober Club, it would be unsuitable to trade “degrowth” for “sustainable economy” too early.
“Degrowth” sounds too radical
“Degrowth,” I am told, polarises the debate. It creates an us-and-them attitude. If the goal of degrowth is to actively engage citizens in political debate, an uncompromising take-it-or-leave-it sounding name is counter-productive.
Polarisation, however, is not necessarily negative. Branding something as “degrowth” protects it from being co-opted by those who do not genuinely adhere to the idea. Buen vivir, convivialism, transition towns, or circular economy, among other positive-sounding terms all suffer from the fact that it is all too easy to agree with them upon first hearing. In fact, who would be against a “well-being economy”? In contrast, degrowth tickles a sensitive political spot and starts a debate. An appealing revolutionary term is a contradiction in terms. If nobody disagreed with “degrowth,” it would probably involve little change from the status quo.
“Degrowth” sounds like a loss
A problem with “degrowth” is that it emphasises a loss. Prospect theory in behavioural economics has shown that people are more averse to losses than to gain. Psychologist Barry Schwartz talks of an “endowment effect” to describe the fact that it is more difficult to take something out than to add something in. This would mean that terms such as “green growth,” “circular economy,” or “capitalism with a conscience” are more alluring than “anti-globalisation,” “economy without growth,” or “degrowth.”
If “degrowth” sounds like a necessary reduction in consumption, that is because it is. The term does not sugar-coat the drastic changes in lifestyle that are necessary to reduce environmental pressures. If ecological sustainability is a goal, and if one acknowledges that certain people are today consuming more than their fair share of resources, then degrowth necessarily involves a reduction (even though degrowth is not only about that reduction). Not only is the term straightforward in describing a necessary decrease, but the negation could well be understood as a gain and not as a loss. Not all losses are undesirable and not all gains are desirable – think of losing weight to be healthy.
***
Does the name really matter? I think it does because names frame discussion and with it the substance of what is – and what is not – being discussed. The negative reaction to degrowth is ideological and not merely a matter of linguistics: degrowth sounds ugly only because we love economic growth so much. Maybe the word “degrowth” will one day disappear to be replaced with another term. I actually hope it does because this will mean that growth has finally left our social imaginary. But as long as economic growth will stand in the way of social-ecological justice, it will make sense to speak of degrowth.
* This article is based on a section of The Political Economy of Degrowth (2019). For the full text with references, see “Deterrent? The linguistic critique” in Chapter 7: Controversies, pp. 393-408.