Sufficiency under debate: political and social challenges
Full text
1Sufficiency’s newfound resonance cannot mask the fault lines and various forms of criticism the concept attracts. Some voices question the very legitimacy and relevance of sufficiency, particularly when presented as the main approach for responding to the climate crisis.
2Alessio Terzi highlights some of sufficiency’s blind spots, looking at its assumption – that it is possible to alter people’s behaviors so they voluntarily renounce certain goods and services, a supposition seen as relying on an overly simplified vision of how humans make their choices – as well as its consequences. Specifically, he stresses the negative and unintended consequences of approaches focused on degrowth, often associated with sufficiency at the collective level, arguing instead for green growth and technological innovation, vital components for decarbonizing our economies and societies.
3Other contributors examine the difficulties associated with the acceptability of sufficiency, particularly in social terms. Elizabeth Currid-Halkett analyzes how mechanisms for social distinction are being restructured for the era of inconspicuous consumption. Far from abolishing strategies for distinction, the introduction of sustainable and frugal goods and services, in clothing and food in particular, has led to the appearance of new social and symbolic hierarchies rooted mostly in the acquisition of specialist knowledge and insights. Within this context, poor or modest households have little access to sustainable products. The acceptability of sufficiency and voluntary renouncement also has to contend with certain values deeply embedded in western societies, such as individual comfort, a notion whose centrality anthropologist Stefano Boni analyzes critically.
4Given these factors, the acceptability of sufficiency as well as its desirability are conditioned as much by political and social considerations as by symbolism. In a quest to construct a positive image for sufficiency, Nathan Ben Kemoun and Pauline Vigey develop the notion of intensive sufficiency, not necessarily associated with renouncement and reduction of consumption, production, and so on, but rather with a form of extension and intensification of our relationships and lifestyles. Creating positive storytelling for sufficiency is thus one of the keys to consolidating its large-scale acceptability.
5However, in addition to the symbolic and narrative challenges involved, implementing sufficiency also raises political and social questions, as underlined by Mathieu Saujot in the first part of this issue. How can we distinguish useful needs from superficial ones? How can we make sufficiency an acceptable prospect for the greatest possible number of people? How can we combine sufficiency with reducing inequalities? Mary Lawhon and Tyler McCreary offer us some answers as they present the conditions for success in a society centered on enoughness. In particular, they include the need to rethink the ways we consume as well as the role of work in our societies. Although these ideas do not provide all the answers to the challenges of sufficiency, they underscore the structural issues it raises when positioned as a new collective model.
List of illustrations
URL | http://journals.openedition.org/factsreports/docannexe/image/7452/img-1.jpg |
---|---|
File | image/jpeg, 887k |
References
Bibliographical reference
Iris Levy and David Ménascé, “Sufficiency under debate: political and social challenges”, Field Actions Science Reports, Special Issue 26 | 2024, 40-41.
Electronic reference
Iris Levy and David Ménascé, “Sufficiency under debate: political and social challenges”, Field Actions Science Reports [Online], Special Issue 26 | 2024, Online since 10 August 2024, connection on 12 November 2024. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/factsreports/7452
Top of pageCopyright
The text only may be used under licence CC BY 4.0. All other elements (illustrations, imported files) are “All rights reserved”, unless otherwise stated.
Top of page