The multi-level nature of our complex societies obliges the degrowth movement to follow multiple strategies. This has led to debates.
Firstly, there have been debates between activist movements that focus on opposition, for example the ones fighting infrastructures (i.e. highways, incinerators, big dams, nuclear plants etc.), and the ones promoting alternatives (i.e. bicycles, reuse, solar panels etc.)
The other debate is between the one who focus on the national/international political level against the ones that consider that action should be focused on the local level. Similarly people debate about the importance of individual and collective action.
Another big debate has been taking place between degrowth supporters who focus on replacing existing institutions (e.g. financial institutions) and the ones who consider that institutions only need some adaptations and should on the contrary be defended (e.g. social security).
There has also been a debate between the ones who give priority to practical action at either grass-root or political level and the ones who prefer doing theoretical analysis and denouncing the “growth religion”.
Most, if not all, strategies are appearing within each source of degrowth mentioned above. A degrowth perspective that avoids reductionism of all kind would welcome the diversity and the complementarity of strategies (and sources). Although how much of each one is needed and the priorities remain subject of debate and determine the specialization of the actors. Again degrowth is far from a guideline of action.
 |
