I was given Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World by Jason Hickel (2020) having shared an article on social media by New Scientist recommending it. I wish I’d read it while researching for the Body of Work (BOW) and Contextual Studies (CS) modules of my degree. So often, while writing my OCA essay, I had doubts: maybe I was making things up or, I wondered if I had inadvertently and completely misunderstood things. Hickel’s book, however, would have reassured me that I was heading in the right direction.
Like Joseph Henrich’s book, which I read just before, and pretty much everything else I have read over the last few years, Hickel talks about a shift away from a Cartesian view of reality towards one that is more holistic, which is the idea that underpins my essay. He describes the sorts of economic structures rich nations should be aiming for to mitigate the threats we all face due to human-induced climate change and diversity loss. On one hand he says this must happen if we are to address our problems. On the other, the shift is taking place, albeit patchily, in pockets about the Western world, citing, policy changes in relation to GPD in New Zealand and the impact of the climate youth movement as examples
There seem to be two central recommendations in the book: One is for Western economies to stop seeing perpetual growth through the lens of GPD as the best indicator of a nation’s health. The other is for Westerners to address their long-held, deeply embedded view of humans as being separate to, and above in terms of value, reality. Like Henrich, Hickel spends a lot of time explaining how we came to see the world as we do; a void universe of separate, unconnected, individuals living within constructed economic scarcity. The reason behind this constructed perception of scarcity, Hickel, tells us, goes back to the first half of the previous millennia, when a policy of enclosure took hold, forcing people off the commons and driving up the price of land and commodities. From that, our economic structures were built, and the belief that there is never enough, that there should always be more, persisted. And so perpetual economic growth became the ideal. I was pleased to see Hickel suggest, as I have done, that we consider the idea of perpetual growth in the same way we think about cancer – something unhealthy, an aberration, a terrible sickness that has the potential to bring about an untimely and painful death. In my own life, since the 80s, I have witnessed production and consumption grow exponentially along with the effects of it. (I recall noticing people having much more stuff – for instance, gadgets were suddenly everywhere when I was about eleven year old.)
Although I agree with so much Hickel has to say, and have made much of the shift away from Cartesian views across disciplines, I could do with better access to economic theory to see more clearly where his arguments might seem flawed to anyone against the changes he suggests. Hickel does a good job of arguing against himself, however, and then providing answers. He knows, for instance, de-growth will lead to job losses and has suggestions for a healthier society based on higher wages and fewer hours: all of which seem idealistic during this right-wing authoritarian time, where a Conservative Government, despite pledging to reduce carbon emissions, have just agreed to open a new coal mine in Cumbria for the first time in 30 years, or else continue to strip away worker’s rights, even attempting to do away with those implemented while in the EU, having promised they wouldn’t. For now that argument has been put aside after uproar, but perhaps we can see now that anyone who trusts them is a glutton for punishment.
From my own point of view – reading this book, along with Henrich’s before, and all the other research (Barad, Rovelli, Lupton, Christakis and more) helped to further refine my central question for CS, despite having finished the essay, handed it in and received a grade for it. When I began that, I wanted to ask, is the photograph, so much of a Cartesian expression, that it can only ever convey a view of the world that perpetuates individualism – at a time when individualism is being usurped by a post-Cartesian (holistic?) view of reality and self? That is what I wanted to ask, and I think that is ultimately what I was getting at, but I am not sure I expressed it adequately or succinctly enough. I don’t think I could have done a year ago.
I recall wanting to cover advertising more, which Hickel does, going so far as to suggest we curtail it dramatically in order to address over-production and over-consumption, and especially setting up laws to stop planned obsolescence. My own work interrogates how the image and text together (whether moving or still) functions as a representation which tell us our lives are no good, or what we should look like. Even when claiming to do the opposite, representation offers us a view of the Other which we rely on to define what we should or shouldn’t be, inevitably through the lens of advertised ideals . I am constantly reminded of the comedian Bill Hicks doing a startling and uncomfortable piece about anyone working in marketing. I won’t repeat it here, it’s harsh – but the underlying message is that advertising is so pernicious and destructive that it should be stopped altogether if we are to have any hope at all of something better. A TV series, I particularly enjoyed, called Lodge 49 (Amazon 2018-19) also explores the emptiness of late Capitalism and the myths around our economic structures – always perpetuated by advertising – but which are in fact crumbling, leaving us lost and isolated in the wreckage.
My frustrations with my own limited economic theory wrangled throughout because, despite my deep agreement with Hickel’s arguments, I suspect he opens himself up to accusations of simplistic idealism. Outside certain academic, political and artistic circles, the ideas Hickel espouses are alien and even terrifying. He admits this but hopes that the shifts in people’s willingness to begin critiquing capitalism will gain traction and be enough to instigate some of the changes that are so necessary. I think if some sceptics were to read his pages, they might be convinced by a few of his arguments, but the final passages where he talks about animism would likely be too far for many. Even so, I have read so much that explores the shift away from Cartesian individualism towards a more holistic view of ourselves and reality, and this is one of the most persuasive and accessible of them all. Hickel’s descriptions of Cartesianism are some of the best I’ve come across. But for anyone to come to terms with this momentous and seismic cultural change, it behoves us to read and watch as much as we can. Thankfully, so much popular culture is addressing it one way or another, as are documentaries such as Adam Curtis’ I Can’t Get You Out of My Head (2021) and books like the ones I have discussed here on my study blogs. We don’t have to agree with every detail from each of these narratives. But together they help to build a picture of what is changing and might even allow us to imagine something less destructive for the future. That does not mean some Utopia is around the corner. However, if we allow the anti-adaptive mentality to continue as it has done for the last 200/500 years, then there is likely to be some kind of hell for many more of us than there is now (and yes, life is certainly hellish for millions already), as diversity collapses and tipping points are passed.
I am now reading Aaron Beneanav’s Automation and the Future of Work (2020), so my economic insights may improve yet. I am heartened by the beginning where he addresses various promises of Utopia and threats of dystopia, looking instead for realistic, nuanced possibilities in a post-scarcity economy. He also begins by telling us de-growth is happening anyway as the system, as it is set up, cannot do anything but at this point. I look forward to reporting back.
Benanav, A. (2020) Automation and the future of work. At: http://public.eblib.com/choice/PublicFullRecord.aspx?p=6356470 (Accessed 15/02/2021).
Field, S. (2020) Extended Written Project – SJField – OCA Level Three Study Blog. [Blog] At: https://sjflevel3.photo.blog/category/extended-written-project/ (Accessed 15/02/2021).
Henrich, J. (2020) The WEIRDest People in the World. S.I.: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Hickel, J. (2020) Less is more: how degrowth will save the world. London: William Heinemann.
Scientist, N. (2020) Christmas gift ideas: The 13 best science and technology books of 2020. At: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24833110-400-christmas-gift-ideas-the-13-best-science-and-technology-books-of-2020/ (Accessed 15/02/2021).