“In the beginning was the Word”. This sentence, with slight modifications, is at the heart of almost all religions that also consider language as a sacred entity per se. Words matter. Beyond the content of what is stated by religions, it is important to understand the evocative power of words. Even highly technological and secularised societies are driven by “laic myths” (paradigms), i.e., a common Vision of the world that defines how to behave and what is ethical or not. The social nature of language shapes Reality by means of myths that construct new imaginaries: Words are powerful.

Nowadays, there is a lot of talking about “sustainable development” and “green growth”. We all care deeply about ecological justice and social inequalities. However, the words we use to talk about them matter, and none of them are politically neutral. In this recipe, we will learn how to debunk mainstream conversations about these topics, as well as how to carefully choose the words we use to frame and fight our environmental and social battles.

Keywords

Honesty: question and state clearly your system of values before accepting/going against any statement. For instance, before any discussion, you might ask yourself: why am I against/in favour of a certain position? Do I have rational arguments, or do I feel any personal bias?

Critical mind: questioning what others (or you!) are claiming, based on what and for what purpose, seeking to understand how the truth can be caught up and communicated. Why do I/others use a specific word instead of another? What does this/that word mean (etymologically) and what, instead, does it evocate at an irrational/emotional level?

Conviviality: ethical values are not individual but require communication, social engagements, and knowledge exchange. We also need other people to build up and live in a better world. For instance, recycling is of course a (morally) right action, but if you are alone, it will have little (or no) impact.

Trust: Nobody knows everything, but others know more on specific topics. Listen to them but be careful on investigating the source of information and the argumentations provided.

Rather than precise “ingredients” to be used in a recipe, the above-mentioned concepts should be conceived as general attitudes to be trained to face mainstream conversations in a critically constructive way.

Preparation

I will now use the ingredients I have just listed to debunk a few myths and misunderstandings about three concepts that dominate today’s mainstream conversations about ecological justice, and I introduce you with the novel paradigm of Ecological Economics. I hope this may inspire you to apply the same method and critically review other words and ideas and to elaborate new concepts.
Development. This term is now common in our language and recalls to our mind a division of countries (and implicitly people) between “advanced” and “less developed/developing” ones. Etymologically, this word indicates an unfolding towards a predetermined end. Which one? Although this concept has manyfold meanings, the core stands on income per capita. Then, to be “mature” and considered as peers, poor countries must follow the not-to-be-questioned arrow of Western progress by setting up a capitalistic organisation of their social and economic activities. Do we need this word? It seems to me that we should get rid of it and find new ways to define a desirable evolution of civil life, including opposite social conditions that fulfil how a community decides to live. For instance, indigenous people in Amazonia might feel as well as a citizen of New York although their economic conditions are deeply different.

Sustainability. This refers, broadly, to an economy that saves more than the combined depreciation of natural and man-made capital. In other words, it meets the needs of the present without compromising those of future generations. But what is the hidden assumption? This definition entails a monetary reductionism, i.e., everything can be commensurate only via prices so that cost-benefit analysis becomes the unique “objective” way to decide what is right or not. This is the so-called “weak” sustainability. So, how do we make this term more valuable? If we want to be open to plural and irreducible stances, then we should accept the conflicts between different positions and the vagueness of this concept. A more valuable position is to support a “strong” sustainability in which economic activities should be made compatible with the biophysical limits and organised to improve the social conditions.

Green growth. It is the pillar of the main international policy agendas, and it subsumes the concept of sustainable development. What is it based on and what is it aimed at? “Green” relates to the possibility to substitute fossil fuels with renewable sources and “Growth” reflects the alleged belief that economic expansion automatically translates into more happiness and social welfare. Most efforts should then be made towards technological investments capable of reducing emissions while keeping the GDP growing. Is this possible? Continuous growth entails an exponential expansion, i.e., the size of market activities becomes larger and larger over time. This seems highly questionable given the physical planetary boundaries (and the physical laws, most of all the entropy one). Assuming it is possible, is it desirable? To reply I refer to Polanyi (1957), who claimed that commodification in market societies tends to dissolve all social relations into one of monetary exchange, which corrupts moral values (Sandel, 2013). Alternatively, we should think with a “post-growth” mindset. This allows for recognition that the economy is a mean and not an end, and should be subordinated to natural laws and serve societal needs.

Ecological Economics. To imagine and build a new world we need new words. Here, I will introduce you to the “heterodox” field of Ecological Economics that is gaining momentum. It was born in the 70s thanks to Georgescu-Roegen, MIT, and the Club of Rome, among other laudable thinkers. It should be noted that both the words have the same root, eco- (òikos), that derives from Greek and means “home”. The goal is to bring back and subordinate the administrative sphere (eco-nomy) to the biophysical and social laws (eco-logic) that regulate the environment that hosts us. The paradigm promoted by the ecological economists is rooted in the recognition of the complex relations between humans and natural spheres. This dynamic cannot be reduced to monetary evaluation. Hence, markets cannot be conceived as a real tool of transformation because decisional power is distorted in favour of more affluent people. Rather, the difficult task of reconciling ecological and social justice stands on institutions and local communities to enhance diversity by offering a variety of lifestyles, increasing public space for discussion, and pluralising the possibilities of self-realisation.

Bibliographical references

Books: What Money Can’t Buy (Michael Sandel, 2013).
The Great Transformation (Polanyi, 1957).
Movies: Wittgenstein (Derek Jarman, 1993)
The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology (Sophie Fiennes and Slavoj Žižek, 2012)
Websites: Postgrowth Economics Network: https://www.postgrowtheconomics.org/
European Society for Ecological Economics: https://ecolecon.eu/