(1) Aleksandra Ćwik-Mohanty & Josep Maria Folch
(1) KEA European Affairs
There is a noticeable momentum in the emerging world of conferences advocating for degrowth, like the recent 10th International Degrowth Conference in Pontevedra, Spain, in June 2024. We are hoping for more focus on culture and arts, not just as add-ons but as essential parts of the conversation; hence, today, we are sharing a talk from one of these conferences, which made waves in Brussels' influential circles, showing how it shapes political and bureaucratic discussions. In the wake of the "Beyond Growth" Conference in May 2023, we sat down with Celia Fernández, PR and Outreach Officer at the Green European Foundation and Jamie Kendrick, current Political Advisor in European Affairs for the European Greens and former Editor in Chief of the Green European Journal, for an insightful chat. This interview comes at a crucial time, aiming to keep the conversation on degrowth alive after the conferences generate so much interest. We feel obliged to discuss the idea of degrowth in art and creative industries, which are vital parts of our economy. Starting with the notion that art can help explain the critique of our current economic system, our conversation reveals how much more it entails. We explore how embracing degrowth principles can actually benefit art and creative industries. If you are curious about what degrowth is and how it's different from terms like sustainable development, read on for our conversation.
The interview was prepared and edited by Aleksandra Ćwik-Mohanty and Josep Maria Folch from KEA European Affairs
Josep Maria Folch, KEA
Let’s start with a general introduction to basic terms by outlining the fundamentals for an audience with varying levels of awareness regarding environmental issues, particularly those sensitive to climate concerns and already conscious of ongoing events but lacking in technical or foundational knowledge.
What exactly is meant by degrowth? How does it distinguish itself from the principles of a circular economy? And how does it diverge from established sustainability practices?
Celia Fernández, GEF
Degrowth, in very simple terms, is the critique of growth. It aims to decolonise the public debate on the fetishisation of economism. It is about reducing material and energy consumption and using fewer resources. At the core of degrowth are concepts such as simplicity, care, sharing, the commons, conviviality, and solidarity. It also may be interesting to know that degrowth is not just a discipline or a theory. It is actually a movement, a community of activists and thinkers. I think one of the central points that degrowthers make is that growing GDP has been linked to an increased use of energy and materials, and it argues that there are limits to that.
Jamie Kendrick, European Greens
It is not about shutting down the whole economy or making people jobless. Degrowth is more about saying: “the current way of developing can't last forever”. And it is not only a matter of doing things differently; there will have to be more of some things and less of others. Then, there are lots of concepts that are close to degrowth but slightly different. Degrowth proposes that some areas of the economy need to shrink, while others can stay the same or even grow. Ideas such as post-growth are about moving beyond the time when all our thinking about the direction of society and the economy was based on growth, and we need to find something to replace it. You might say that postgrowth is a bit less radical or more open compared to degrowth, but it is another way of thinking about the same problem.
Celia Fernández, GEF
Degrowth is a big movement, and there are different perspectives within it. For example, many authors critique the concept of sustainable development because, they argue, why should we sustain the way things are? Other terms can be used such as “to flourish”.
Aleksandra Ćwik-Mohanty, KEA
So, let us discuss how the movement translated into the Beyond Growth 2023 Conference, which, despite its still niche theme, made it to the mainstream media.
Jamie Kendrick, European Greens
The first Beyond Growth conference was in May of 2018. When we think about openness to the whole green agenda and environmental critiques, such as beyond growth, we are in a completely different place today in 2023 than in 2018. 2018 was before Fridays For Future, Greta Thunberg, or the green wave of elections. Over the last few years, European societies have also seen the effects of climate change a lot more: floods, droughts every summer, and heat waves. We also went through COVID-19, which was a shock for traditional models of growth. It touched the cultural sectors very deeply and also caused many people to question how we organise our societies, including globalisation. It triggered a whole series of conversations across society and politics.
The shocks of the last few years, including the energy crisis, have prompted people to think much more deeply about how we provide for our societies. This was just not the case in 2018, when the central project of the Juncker’s Commission was jobs and growth.
Celia Fernández, GEF
The media coverage the conference got [in 2023] was not so much orchestrated as a reaction to how big the conference got in the end. The high-profile politicians, the Greens, MEPs from other political families, and many important commissioners were there. Even The Economist covered it, although the article they published was against the degrowth movement. But importantly, they were talking about it.
Jamie Kendrick, European Greens
That was actually a good thing.
Aleksandra Ćwik-Mohanty, KEA
Congratulations on that. We should have started with congratulations.
It is time to move on to the central theme of the interview, which is the role of culture, both during the conference as a part of the programme and the role of arts and culture in degrowth as a movement. Were culture and creative industries a part of the conversation at the conference? Also, in the movement as a whole, is the Creative and Cultural Sector perceived as a campaigner to raise awareness, or is it an actual economic player? How do you see it?
Celia Fernández, GEF
At the conference, I did not hear many discussions around the cultural sector. A lot of art workers are also activists or create artwork with political motivation. But this was not so much reflected in the conference, which was mostly about civil society and policy discussions around energy and other sectors.
But art should perhaps be taken more seriously as a political tool. At its core, art is a mode of expression. Humans have used it since the beginning of time to express themselves and to portray reality and its alternatives. Today's reality is the climate emergency, inequality, and the frustrations that come with it. Art can be a great force to transmit emotions and a great mobiliser, too. Through art, we can experience rage, fears, and hopes. Storytelling is so much more powerful than data. Storytelling helps us imagine other ways of inhabiting the world and other futures. That brings me to something that is often discussed in degrowth debates and workshops: the need for a mindset shift, the need for people to be able to imagine cleaner and more livable futures.
Jamie Kendrick, European Greens
To go back to the preparations for the conference, I don't think art and culture were particularly represented. Many supporting organisations were think tanks, policy institutes, and social or environmental NGOs. Some did not really fit into that, for example, the youth sector, but for whatever reason, arts and culture were not there. Otherwise, I can only relay Celia’s final point about imagining an alternative society, alternative ways of organising how we provide for ourselves, and economic production. Culture and art has so much to offer on the level of imagination. They are also important because they allow you to prefigure things. The business models or cooperation models used in the world of art can also prefigure arrangements that could be used more broadly across society. It is also worth saying that degrowthers, when calling for a different society, also want more of some things, more care, more time for human relations, more time for creativity. Art and culture are definitely in the category of something they want more of rather than less of.
Josep Maria Folch, KEA
In the long term, culture can shape the mindset and help people imagine alternative futures and alternative modes of production. But then, we also need to think about short-term solutions daily. I guess the cultural and creative sectors also offer a new mode of production that is not so centred on material things. Let us think about music, literature, and performances. I guess this also can be linked to the discussion on how to escape from this materialism and whatever fuels overconsumption. Maybe the CCS are a natural ally in the movement because of its capacity to create value and well-being without using or consuming resources or foils.
Aleksandra Ćwik-Mohanty, KEA
Indeed, if purchasing experiences rather than material products is healthier for our planet, the CCS could be very effective in the short term, teaching our society how to be more critical of marketing efforts and how to purchase more critically. I do not know how about you, but I am exhausted by omnipresent algorithms and the fact that I do not really experience new things because the technology keeps suggesting all the same things all over again. This is detrimental to our mental health. You already mentioned the shifting of the mindset, but how do we measure it at the macroeconomic level? Are we naive to believe that arts and culture can have a role in that?
Celia Fernández, GEF
We should make a distinction here. One thing is Art with capital A, and another is the creative industry, right? The creative industry is a tool for economic growth. In European or national policy papers, culture is often referred to as essential for GDP, this is how it´s framed. But this framework can be deconstructed. How? One way can be by moving towards slow institutions that allow for slow processes, like conversations stemming from communities. The current system robs us from having slow unproductive talks. The other day, I read about how having a slow conversation can actually be seen as a rebellious act against production. Think about it: at school children are often taught not to talk during class, conversation is penalised and framed as distractive This is replicated in mass-production factories: no conversation, the focus is on work.
The creative industry currently favours overproduction, having multiple exhibitions in a very short time, massive festivals, and so on. There is a lot of work to be done within the industry. What if we start dealing with the “overproduction versus geographies” dilemma? In some places, we have a lot of artistic production and exposure; whereas in others, there are not enough resources allocated. How can this be balanced? There is also the question of what museums are for. Who were these institutions created for? For what purpose? How can this be changed?
Josep Maria Folch, KEA
Let us hang on to why we value the CCS. There is indeed too much focus on GDP. Recently, we presented one of our projects, CICERONE. Its main objective is to go beyond the scientific methodology that reduces culture and the arts to GDP and GVA, and to look for qualitative data that we can capture. The project ended, and when you go to Eurostat, for example, or any national statistical bureau to present the results and advocate for a change, it is tough to present convincing arguments because, at the end of the day, we measure economy based on the industrial understanding that was coined in the 19th century. The problem is that when we think of culture, we still use the same categories and the exact measurements that we used to do for whatever production chain that was to produce cars, for example, in the 19th century. We know cultural production does not follow the same creation, production, and distribution patterns as other products.
Jamie Kendrick, European Greens
Essentially, economic growth was introduced in the early 20th century as a way of making industrial economies comparable. It has got its roots in analysing factory output and is a very industrial concept that can also be linked to military competition. It very much thinks of national economies as productive systems. I do not think arts and the creative industries have ever fit directly with that idea of GDP because there is something intangible there. Of course, there are positive economic spillover effects of culture and creative industries, but there is also something more. Part of the reason why the [Beyond Growth] conference echoed so much and part of the reason why all these conversations around the post-COVID world echoed too is that people do want different values to orient society towards other than economic growth. Economic growth alone is seen as a bit empty and insufficient in a way, especially when you have pushed the planet and pushed people so close to their limits. We need to, and this can be an immediate and long-term thing, decolonise the imaginary. We do need values in our society, and, currently, growth is seen as a value or even the sole value. Instead, there need to be more values, different values. Of course, art and creative industries have a key role there.
Aleksandra Ćwik-Mohanty, KEA
It is an interesting twist in our conversation because I have a feeling that we started with a pre-assumption that CCS is important for degrowth. Still, it turns out that degrowth is essential for the CCS to thrive and be recognised at a European and global level. To endorse the [degrowth] movement, what can creative communities do to avoid? I will call it by its name: hypocrisy. Creative industries often lag behind when it comes to, for example, the treatment of employees. There is a very high level of precarity in the working conditions. For example, harassment in a workplace is often not sufficiently addressed because of this hermetic bubble-like environment. Would you say that it is important for cultural institutions to embrace the ideas and concepts that degrowth is promoting in order to start producing fairly and be labelled fair trade? There is a fair-trade stamp on products, but should it also be on, for example, a film or a theatre piece?
Jamie Kendrick, European Greens
Absolutely. Any worker involved in producing anything should receive full protection from exploitation or harassment, as well as fair pay. This principle applies to any sector. If there is tacit acceptance within the cultural sector of precarious working conditions because "that's the way it is," then there is a case for self-criticism and self-reflection.
Another question is whether the pressures that may explain some of these trends can be separated from the changes many European economies have undergone in the last 40 years. For example, considering my homeland, the UK, there has been a significant reduction in training schemes and funding for arts grants for young actors and musicians over the past 30 years due to austerity cuts. Consequently, in certain cultural and creative industries, there are many individuals who either come from wealthier backgrounds and can afford to navigate their careers or are pushed into situations of vulnerability.
There is a need for self-reflection when things are accepted as normal when they should not be. But at the same time, these issues cannot be isolated from the pressures that the cultural and creative industries face due to broader cuts in welfare systems across many European countries.
Josep Maria Folch, KEA
Jamie, your point reminds me of our discussions on analysing the CCS back at KEA. Given its inherent heterogeneity, how do we define what constitutes the CCS? What defines all its dimensions and elements collectively? Perhaps the most significant aspect is its reliance on intrinsic motivation among its workforce. It is possibly the only sector in our economies predominantly fueled by the passion of its workers. Regardless of their backgrounds, they all share this intrinsic drive to create, to express themselves artistically, and to produce.
This leads me to reflect on our previous conversations about growth being the central value of our societies. However, it is also clear that mere growth for the sake of growth does not contribute meaningfully to individuals' lives. Do you agree that there is a significant intersection between the intrinsic motivation inherent in the CCS and our broader discussions about the limitations of growth-centric values? Perhaps we need to explore alternative metrics or values.
Jamie Kendrick, European Greens
I think so. I think that the intangibility that your research project might have been struggling with is the very strength that you found. It might be hard if you need to put that in your report to pitch to a minister, for example. Still, of course, the ability to provide a sense of purpose, to communicate, to create a shared experience that then other people participate in, whether it is participants, whether it is an audience, I think there is an incredible power there, a power that is not only a question of monetisation, but it goes well beyond that.
Celia Fernández, GEF
I also believe this approach could address one of the shortcomings inherent to the creative industries —the prevalence of elitism and competition. There is sometimes an overwhelming sense of ego in this field. A fairer and greener future requires fostering networking and collaboration, creating more inclusive spaces where success is not measured solely by one's position or accolades but by alternative metrics.
Aleksandra Ćwik-Mohanty, KEA
Before we finish this extremely satisfying conversation, I have a very general question for you. If you think about success or achieving the agenda of the degrowth movement, who does it depend on? Who will help to achieve this success? Is it politicians? Is it the citizens? Is it a collective effort?
Jamie Kendrick, European Greens
I personally think that degrowth is an extremely powerful critique, but I think that if the degrowth movement really wants to be successful, it has to move beyond critique. Already, the name itself states that it is against growth. I think that, as a political movement, to succeed, you must move beyond critiquing something and go to the next step of offering something. So I think degrowth has done a tremendously important job by emphasising the flaws, the environmental and social damage of the current way of orienting how we think about the economy and society. But I think that the banner that will resolve those contradictions might not be degrowth. It will probably be something else. And I think that this is the challenge.
Comment 1
Of course, there is nothing to comment on an interview. From my personal perspective, which in this case is not very relevant, statements like It aims to decolonise the public debate on the fetishisation of economism, seem to me to have little value from the point of view of the interpretation of reality. Although I share the common sense basis of the movement, which is to reduce material and energy consumption.
The role of art and culture in the process of rationalisation of production, from my perspective, can come through two channels; firstly, cultural and creative production is, on average, less material-intensive than the economy as a whole. Regarding energy use, since digitalisation and the emergence of artificial intelligence it is no longer so clear that CCS sectors are less energy intensive than the economy as a whole but we can assume that in general, we can consider that any increase in the share of the cultural sectors in GDP will mean a lower use of material resources and energy. The second way, as highlighted in the interview, is indeed through the generation of messages that raise awareness about the value and social functionality of degrowth . In general, in the interview, as could not be otherwise given the format and length, some of the arguments about the role of culture and art as a critical element of the capitalist economic model are addressed in a very simplified and naïve way.