Juliet Schor Proposes That We Pursue Different Forms of Wealth

Rethinking Growth for Its Own Sake

Do we really need more evidence than the discernible changes in weather patterns, the wildfires, the untimely rains, heatwaves and floods to realize that climate change is upon us? In the past couple of decades, the frequency of such alarming events has only intensified. Whether one is optimistic or despondent about the recent COP 26 summit at Glasgow, Juliet Schor suggests in True Wealth that there are several grassroots movements afoot that can propel us towards a more buoyant future.

Though trained professionally as an economist, Schor has always been a much wider thinker – incorporating the outlooks of sociology, psychology, history, philosophy and ecology, among other fields, in her works. As a result, she has been among the scholarly pioneers who have questioned tenets of mainstream economics with the confidence and agility of someone who is deeply conversant with its methods.

She is acutely aware of the manner in which macroeconomic models that shoot for “growth” have been slack about incorporating ecological costs of such projections. This despite the fact that a significant chunk of business expansion has resulted in visible (or invisibilised) ecological impoverishment. As Schor puts it, we have not just been “creating” wealth; but often, depleting one resource (example: forests) to create another (example: buildings). Such ongoing degradation is absent from one of the key economic indicators – GDP.

Even if we “grow” the green economy, the beneficiaries of such growth are likely to buy more cars and TVs – which would eventually worsen an already untenable situation. Perhaps, as Schor suggests, we have reached a point at which we have to “grow less” or “grow differently.” And this requires a more imaginative rethink of what constitutes wealth. Instead of just toting up bank balances or physical assets, Schor suggests we conceive of four dimensions to wealth: time, creativity, community and consumption. 

The Pillars of Plenitude

Coining the term “plenitude” – perhaps to intentionally yank us out of a familiar scarcity mindset – Schor identifies some of the fundamentals of this new era. For one thing, we need to stop assuming that Business-As-Usual (BAU) needs to dictate the order of things for all time. She recommends a shift away from the market-dominated mindset, wherein individuals pursue more and more money (and businesses, profits), in a relentless work-and-spend cycle.

Instead she suggests that almost everyone should move to more moderate hours in their mainstream jobs, which at a societal level, would also create more employment without exhausting the already-employed. More significantly, all workers – whether one is a blue-collar worker or a highly-paid executive – would then be time-rich, even if paid slightly less than earlier. More moderate working hours would also lower costs on childcare and other household obligations, which can offset the reduced earnings.

The second plank to her proposal is a conscious fostering of greater self-reliance. To “make, grow; or do things for oneself.” For instance, by cultivating a backyard or terrace garden, one can save on grocery bills, with the added benefit of knowing that no pesticides or fertilizers have been used. For those who do not have the space or inclination to garden, sewing clothes or cooking or engaging in any other craft/production activity can fill in. This counters the notion of “specialization” that the current global economy is ordered around, but it also leads to the freeing logic that the “less one has to buy, the less one is required to earn.”

Thirdly, she suggests an altered approach to consumption. While she does not advocate “sacrifice” of any sort (because surely such an appeal will not entice most, apart from a few fervent idealists), she recommends more conscious buying. For instance, “fabulous clothes, low-impact electronic gadgetry, great local food and more leisurely travel.” Withdrawing from the ecologically damaging use-and-throw cycles of fast fashion, we would be better off with fewer things that we value more, even if they are, for those who can afford it, slightly more highly-priced.

Choosing Time Rather Than Money

Even as we might be wary about imposing limits – voluntary or otherwise – to the seductive pulls of the consumer economy, we must realize how consumerism itself is a very recent trend. In the United States, average consumption per person has ballooned. Only as late as 1960, per capita consumption was one-third of what it was in 2008.

More tellingly, even as consumption has soared, over all well-being of the nation has slid. America’s Human Development Index (HDI) ranking has fallen from #2 in 1990 to #17 in 2021. Increasingly, with the mushrooming of brands, wealth has acquired stronger symbolic contours. Buying to signify status – at increasingly shortened fashion cycles – has led to the mountainous pileups of discarded stuff. As Schor puts it, it’s a McFashion world.

While striving to keep up with the Joneses or the Jaipals, we are in the midst of the sixth mass extinction. The previous one of this scale was 65 million years ago. As we speak, birds and mammals are getting extinct at rates that are 100 or 1000 times more than normal rates.

Choosing time instead of more money is an almost ethical choice. Some of the freed time can be used to cultivate skills (such as in craft activities, or in any other enticing personal pursuit, like learning an instrument or language), and the rest of the time can be used to build social capital. In other words, to build healthier relationships with family and friends, and to participate more actively in community organizations and neighborhood initiatives.

Tracking The Voluntary Simplifiers

The good news is that this is not just a theoretical model proposed by Schor and a few other academics. Many ordinary citizens on the ground have actually started moving in this direction, making small but enduring changes to shift from a “me” economy to a “we” economy. To sift between status-cultivating spends and real needs. And this is where economics or the dismal science falls short: it underestimates the human capacity to adapt to changed or shrinking circumstances. After all neuropsychologists agree that the “brain is more plastic than previously understood.”

The psychologists Kirk Brown and Jim Kasser measured the ecological footprints of 400 people, who called themselves “voluntary simplifiers”. Their footprints were 23% lower than randomly-matched samples. More tellingly, they seemed to experience higher well-being. Households that consciously become “time rich” can cook their own foods, hang their clothes to dry, use public transport, grow vegetables, engage in community activities. As Schor puts it, “It’s time to reclaim hours, build skills, invest in people, save more, and perfect the art of self-provisioning.”

This is a trend among voluntary simplifiers and bioneers. They do their own carpentry, knitting, quilting, sewing cloth, home repair and renovation, composting and so on. They also engage in other home-based activities like brewing beer, or making wines. Or getting off the grid, and installing solar panels.

In West Texas, followers of the Egyptian architect Hassan Fathy created the Adobe Alliance to build homes for “many low-income and unemployed inhabitants.” In Montana, Tome and Renee Elpel built a “solar slipform house” on a $10/sqft budget, with an income of only $12,000 per year. They also blog about their lifestyle and expertise in making do, rather well, with little.

Transition Towns help towns become self-reliant through community-based local initiatives; the Post Carbon Cities Network is on a similar mission to help cities transform themselves. They are already active in cities across the U.S. and the European Union. Other experimental communities have tried to live on scaled-back bio resources. For instance, an ecovillage called Beddington Zero in South London, has consciously diminished its energy and bio inputs.

One of the means by which resources can be reduced is through sharing. Since Pierre Bourdieu coined the term “social capital” in the 1970s, Robert Putnam, in Bowling Alone, has charted its decline in the U.S., post-World War II. Fortunately, the sharing economy – whether driven by innovative technology platforms that help with carpooling or other services – helps build social ties.

Countering the effects of commodified travel, the Slow Travel movement tries to foster ecologically-conscious trips, that are also more sensitized to the impact on local communities. Some trips include volunteering in different parts of the world or living as the locals do; walking or cycling, rather than traveling in polluting vehicles.

Woody Tasch is the founder of the Slow Money regime. Tasch is a VC and entrepreneur and he has founded a movement, wherein people “invest where they live, for the long term, and in ways that enrich the soil, communities and human welfare.”

Wellbeing does not continue to rise with growth in incomes. There is a point at which it plateaus. Economist Richard Layard found that happiness in a country stops rising after achieving a per-capita income of $26,000. Psychologists Tim Kasser and Kennon Sheldon found that being “time-affluent” is more strongly associated with well-being than just being financially affluent. Perhaps, we would do well to heed their words, and cultivate new forms of plenitude for ourselves.

References

Juliet B. Schor, True Wealth: How and Why Millions of Americans Are Creating a Time-Rich, Ecologically Light, Small-Scale, High-Satisfaction Economy, Penguin Books, 2011