Latouche: “Degrowing to live better”
Serge Latouche is a Frenchman in his middle age, sure of himself, who by the way in which he carries himself reminds one a bit of Sean Connery. He's well-loved in Italy and in South America, but is seen in the United States as something of an inconvenient radical. A friend of Vandana Shiva, Carlo Petrini and Massimo Cacciari, he is considered the standard-bearer of those who wish for the end of consumerism and the advent of a more sober way of life. He teaches at the University of Paris XI and is a world-renown economist, although he prefers to define himself as an "objector to growth". Which is only natural, seeing as his name is universally associated with the concept of "degrowth". Latouche is convinced that the society we live in is now utterly unfit to satisfy our needs and that it is necessary and urgent that we change our course, re-dimensioning our way of life in order to reacquire a humanity that we are slowly losing. He doesn't use a car or a cell phone and avoids flying whenever possible. I met him in a small bar in Paris, near his apartment, because (ever since that time when they shot a documentary in my house...) his wife doesn't like the comings and goings of journalists. And I met him with a precise question in mind: admitting that slowing down is the right thing to do, re-dimensioning our consumption and settling for fewer objects, how can seven billion people who each have their own particular and often incompatible interests, ambitions and needs make a decision together that is so big and costly? And who should it be that takes the first step? NGOs? Governments? Or single individuals, with small everyday actions?
The most important changes, the ones that truly change the course of history, are almost never the result of a decision, Latouche answered. Indeed, these sort of grand decisions often lead to the risk of falling into totalitarianism. But think of the affirmation of human rights or of the emancipation of women, of the profound change in the relationship between parents and children, of the achievements in the field of the protection of workers and of the welfare state. All epoch-making changes that weren't on the political agenda of any party. There was no one who made the decision to change. It happened simply because the time was ripe and because the people were ready. The laws were simply adapted to a new social context, as in the case of mad cow disease, where laws were enacted ad-hoc only after consumers had stopped buying meat.
OK. But we'll have to start somewhere.
The governments of entire world came together in 2009 in Copenhagen and finally decided to do... nothing. A year later, in Cancun, they managed to reach a minimal level of agreement, which however is still quite far from resolving the problems at hand.
But while the governments lose themselves in words there are towns and villages, in Italy too, which have for several years been organizing the reduction of their consumption so as to be prepared for the moment when fossil fuels run out (Latouche is a supporter of the thesis - now widely accepted - of peak oil and is referring to Transition Town, a movement born in Great Britain, Ed.). There are many people who no longer use cars and get around with public transportation, trains, and bicycles. And there are others who only consume food produced in the area where they live. And others still who have voluntarily committed themselves to diffusing degrowth culture to the people around them. I meet people like this every day.
So there are, in sum, people who are "degrowing". But how will these precursors of degrowth avoid getting hurt in this economy, as has happened so often in the past to martyrs who sacrificed themselves in the name of causes that were won only years later?
For a long time those who chose to degrow were criticized and even scorned. Attacking a powerful multinational corporation, or a big lobby, brings some notable risks and this sort of "economic martyrdom" is one of them. Fortunately however, contrary to certain popular beliefs, capitalism is not a monolithic object. It has its rules, it's true. But at the same time it's a complex system made up of a myriad of micro relations, that has many niches in which it's possible to degrow while maintaining a way of life that's more than acceptable. So those who decide to degrow can still prosper, waiting for the system to change.
Will you explain what you mean exactly by the word degrowth and why it's so important.
Up until a few years age it was still legitimate to have some doubts. But today, after all of the official reports and the evidence that's been accumulated it's no longer possible to close one's eyes. We are facing a very serious danger, not only due to the degradation of the environment, but also due to the loss of biodiversity, the exhaustion of natural resources and the impoverishment of our very happiness. Therefore changing is no longer just a choice, it's a necessity. Degrowth is a word. A slogan if you prefer. But it's a slogan that's necessary to oppose another: "sustainable development".
Will you explain a bit more...?
Development is by definition not sustainable. No one is advocating degrowing everything, of course. We want to increase the joy of living, the quality of air and of water, and the well-being that this growth society has destroyed. What we're trying to stop is not growth in of itself, but the Economy of Growth, that phenomenon derived from capitalism that leads us to the need to become richer not in order to improve our living conditions, but to feed the survival of the system itself. Growth understood no longer as a means but as an end. In the Fifties and Sixties this economic model made sense because it did indeed generate greater well-being for many people of various social classes. But today it's no longer like this and it is destroying that same welfare state which we previously worked so hard to achieve. Growth now is only useful for inflating profits, production, consumption and, of course, as a consequence, waste and the degradation of the planet on which we live.
From your words it seems as though you yourself hold degrowth to something of a long shot. How will we be able to renounce our Ulysses syndrome, the desire that most of us have of growing, of having a bigger house, a better salary?
I'll respond to your provocation by saying that it's our society that was the first to endorse these desires of ours for having more. In English there's the celebrated phrase "greed is good". Previous civilizations also knew this desire quite well, but they tended to limit it because they knew that it could be dangerous for society.
Professor, someone riding a motorcycle on the freeway knows that he needs at least 50 meters to be able to brake. How many meters does our society need, if you'll permit us the metaphor?
Fortunately, human history is not a long tranquil river (here Latouche is citing the eponymous book of the three sisters Sophie, Carole and Nelly Savoie, Ed.), but it moves forward in sudden leaps and bounds. Who could have foreseen the revolutions in Egypt and in Tunisia? Nobody! Nevertheless there is now a part of the world that is changing direction. The same thing has happened in recent years in Latin America.
So you wish for a sudden turning point, a change founded on a developed awareness of people...
The awareness of degrowth already exists, as I was saying before. It exists in Latin America, where several countries have even included it in their constitutions. It exists in India, with Vandana Shiva's movement. It exists in Japan, where more and more people look back with regret on past eras that were more static and serene. And it exists in Italy too, where people such Carlo Petrini, Massimo Cacciari and Beppe Grillo are helping to diffuse it.
And yet in Milan this ecological awareness is difficult to see. People who insist on recycling are still looked at a bit askance...
I'm aware of this and realize of course that it will be tough battle to fight, because we are the victims of the colonization of the image. Advertising, which for the record represents the second worldwide market, is a difficult enemy to defeat. But the battle has not at all been lost. Before 2002 nobody spoke of degrowth and yet today, just nine years later, we've succeeded in getting even President Sarkozy to say this word. Today degrowth is being discussed more and more often, and more seriously, in a great many countries.
Professor, while we're waiting for the world to degrow, how should we deal with the energy situation? What is your position on it?
Of course, we must focus on renewable energies. But not on those horrendous solar power plants in Southern Italy or on those enormous wind farms that have been growing like fungi in Europe in recent years. The key to renewable energy is in localism. A windmill and a good solar panel can make a house or even an entire village independent from the electrical network: there's no need to take that energy and transport it around Europe. Every area of the world has a suitable energetic resource to exploit: whether it's the sun, the wind, the heat of the earth or something else.
But the most important energy source of all is energy saving. It's been calculated that France could still have the same way of life it currently has but consuming only a quarter of the energy it consumes today. There are those in Germany who believe it's possible to get to even 10 percent, although that's perhaps a bit optimistic. And keep in mind that the scientists who carried out these studies are not in any way involved with the degrowth movement.
But to achieve this result we also have to change our way of life. We'll need to conceive houses and offices in a different way, to move about less.
But wait a moment, imagine an Italian who's girlfriend lives in London. What should he do, leave her and find a girl who lives in his town?
Perhaps it will come even to that. After all one hundred years ago the situation was exactly like you've described and no one looked at it as a sacrifice. If we're able to prepare ourselves in a timely manner, and degrow gradually, the young couple you speak of will be able to find a solution, perhaps for example coming to live together in Paris.
Let's end this interview with some practical advice. What would you suggest to my readers who would like to move in the direction of degrowth?
First of all I'd suggest getting involved in spreading the message, because while we can adopt virtuous behavior, it's effect is limited if other people go in the opposite direction. Show others that one can live better with less, something which is not at all easy to do if those around you are not doing it. It's a from of heroism.
Then, get rid of your TV, which pollutes both the environment and your mind, and use your car as little as possible, if you're not in the position where you can sell it. A third suggestion: throw away your mobile phone. Cell phones are wonderful invention, I know, and very useful too. But we have to force ourselves to follow a tech-free diet, and to say at a certain point that enough is enough.
Anything else?
Yes. Don't fly, consume food and energy produced in your area and if possible participate in an Ethical Purchasing Group.
In the event that your revolution does take place, will it be our children or our grandchildren who enjoy the benefits?
Whatever happens, we're obliged to succeed by 2050. I mention this date because in that year we'll be roughly ten billion, desertification will have reached an unbearable level, biodiversity will be seriously compromised, we'll have very little water and we'll no longer be able to use oil, and as far as climate is concerned it will definitely be a few degrees warmer.
Thanks you for everything Professor. Ah, I nearly forgot, will you recommend two books for us to read?
It's difficult, because there are so many. But if I must choose I'll recommend The Party's Over, by Richard Heinberg, and Manifesto for Happiness by Stefano Bartolini.
