Page added on September 3, 2014
We need to talk a lot more about sharing as a way to radically reframe the post-growth debate, argues a recent report from the Green House. If growthism is the substitute for a more just and equal society, then it’s time that we all start saying so – and embrace a new common sense for sharing.
In recent years, the simple concept of sharing has increasingly gripped the public imagination as a solution to the many problems in our societies. But at present, this still evolving conversation is often limited to interpersonal forms of sharing on a peer-to-peer or community basis, and the wider implications of applying the principle of sharing on a national or global level (and through government policies) is only rarely considered in open terms.
For this reason, it was encouraging to read a recent paper by the academic and Green Party politician Dr Rupert Reade that outlines the importance of sharing in the transition to a post-growth society. In a lively and wide-ranging analysis, he investigates how to positively frame the need for a new economy and society – one that is no longer predicated on the endless expansion of GDP growth through unbridled consumerism, regardless of the social and environmental costs. As the paper sets out, it can be off-putting for a general audience to talk in abstract terms of a post-growth, steady-state or degrowth economy, and a more appealing vision or ‘positive narrative’ is required in order to inspire popular engagement in this crucial debate. Is there a better term that can be used, the author asks, and how is it to be framed, communicated and argued for?
Reade states that he’s been searching over many years for a way to describe the alternative to a growth-driven economy, which is clearly a huge challenge when it is still taken for granted across the mainstream media that economic growth is necessary, permanent and obviously desirable. What is needed, he writes, is not just a neat phrase to summarise the nature of a post-growth economy, but to make clear that what matters most is a post-growth society where all people understand – as the prevailing common sense – what the economy is really for. Hence we need to challenge the basic assumptions of neoclassical economics and neoliberal ideology in which the economy is viewed as the most important part of society, and as a self-existent ‘thing’ with its own natural laws that must never be harmed or challenged.
Reframing the post-growth debate
In this endeavour, Reade promotes various framings around the concept and practise of sharing as a way to radically reframe the post-growth debate. As he argues, the guilty secret of growthism is that it’s an excuse for not having to ask the rich to share, because if the pie can keep getting bigger, then why worry too much about how it is distributed? Clearly, when the ingredients of the economy start running out, then the imperative of sharing wealth and resources more equitably becomes ever more real and urgent. Hence one can talk of the future being better if we share more – including our jobs, which presents a solution to the overwork culture and the problem of high long-term employment. ‘Sharing not growing’ is a slogan that could be used to describe this approach, Reade suggests, so long as it is also made clear that a truly sharing society will undoubtedly have improved levels of wellbeing and a higher quality of life.
In Reade’s words: “Considerations of distributional equity, of genuinely sharing, trump economistic considerations of allocation and of the size of the pie. Thus: We need to talk more about SHARING. We all know that growthism is a SUBSTITUTE for real fairness, a more equal society, serious redistribution. (It is what ‘socialists’ turned to once they abandoned hope of achieving socialism.) Let’s start saying so! Let’s let go of ‘trickle down’ nonsense once and for all.”
From a broader perspective, Reade also sees the idea of our shared Earth as having great promise in contributing to a new post-growth common sense, which is a positive framing that contrasts with the more negative associations that many people have with the concepts of ‘limits to growth’ or degrowth. After deftly summarising the problems with the term sustainability, as well as outlining the case for why so-called green economic growth is impossible on a planet with finite resources, he goes on to argue that we need to talk plainly about the need to live within the constraints of ‘one-planet living’. And in so doing, the central importance of creating more equal societies within these constraints means that we have to start talking a lot more about having a sense of ‘enough’, of ending the materialistic culture of ‘more’, and of the necessity and benefits of sharing.
The new commons-sense
Reade concludes by arguing that common sense in the future will become commons sense, in reference to the revived concept of the commons that poses a way out of the endless quest to turn resources into commodities and expand the profit-driven economy. Reclaiming the commons presents the means of doing sharing, he states, and it holds the potential to revive the public and social (i.e. the non-commercialised aspects of life), to renew our interconnectedness with our environment, and to act as an antidote to the alienation that is inherent in modern society.
Although this proposed framing on the commons is not explored in any detail in the paper, it is inspiring to see how the concept of sharing is being explicitly linked to the post-growth debate. It may not be an entirely original idea: the green economist Molly Scott Cato has long since discussed the resistance to sharing encouraged by capitalism, for example, and the conversation on sharing the commons is increasing in popularity by the day. But it appears that Reade is on to something new in advocating that we explicitly reframe the post-growth vision in terms of sharing, which could be an important way to engage a mainstream audience on this critical theme of social and economic transformation.
He readily admits that he has not completely filled out this proposal, and the report is a first step and call to action for others to get involved in developing, as he puts it, this “language of inspiration… that helps to make sense to the world out of the common good that we share. Of the shared project of sharing and more, that could yet see the post-growth world as a place that is good, rather than terrifying and depressing, to live in.” So we would do well to take up Reade’s final recommendation to contribute to this work ourselves, and to adopt this new framing and vision of sharing in our various endeavours.
7 Comments on "Sharing as the new common sense in a post-growth world"
Plantagenet on Wed, 3rd Sep 2014 1:42 pm
The concept of a “shared” earth is false. In reality the earth is subdivided into nation states, and most of the land within the nation states is privately owned. If people in favor of sharing want to open up their land, homes and wallets to sharing then I commend them, but in reality this concept is unlikely to gain many adherents.
J-Gav on Wed, 3rd Sep 2014 1:54 pm
You may be right to a certain extent Plant, unless reality forces people to do it to avoid a Mad-Max sitch. That would be on a community level of course, as no top-down program will ever adopt that approach.
The number and extent of such communities which may burgeon is debatable, but they are coming and represent one of the few reasons for optimism still available.
Plantagenet on Wed, 3rd Sep 2014 2:12 pm
The US has had a long history of communal communites from the Shakers to Steven Gaskin’s Farm started in the Hippie Era. Israel has kibbutzes, and communists have forced labor on state-owned farms. These are indeed interesting social experiments, but they don’t provide useful models for global planning or even national planning for the post-peak oil future.
Makati1 on Wed, 3rd Sep 2014 8:04 pm
I agree Plantagenet and J-Gav. I might add that many countries have laws that prevent such a culture from arising. And, of course, corporations discourage it as much as possible. Especially in the West/US.
For example: You loan you car to your neighbor. He has an accident. You were not even in the car, but you are sued as the insurance and title is in your name and the neighbor is not covered by your insurance or he may be but was negligent. You lose everything.
Think about how you feel when you borrow something and break it. Or when someone borrows something of yours and he/she breaks it. If you say that it doesn’t bother you, I would bet you are lying.
Now multiply that by the factor that in the future, that item may not be replaceable. How would you feel? We might share our food, as we were wired for that as hunter-gatherers, but how about that necessary garden/farm tool that cannot be replaced? Different reality, right?
Sharing is still common in the Ps, but that too might change when there is no chance of replacement. We shall see.
Norm on Thu, 4th Sep 2014 1:13 am
Sharing = the guy who wants to borrow your socket set, and returns it with 3 pieces missing and the handle scraped up.
XRumer753 on Thu, 4th Sep 2014 8:39 pm
Hi all
I’m xrumer, where is my beer?!
It is only a test…
play euchre on Thu, 10th May 2018 3:58 am
My euchre is online card game players have to choose the cards and play it easily,two teams including four players played it.I know after played you became a great fan of it.