By Francois Schneider (Research & Degrowth Cerbère)
Is degrowth about defending a new type of hegemony? In relation to the concept of buen-vivir, degrowth gives the space to different cultures. In this line we present here the concept of diversality.
We are haunted by the existence of hegemonies that are functioning the same way: the hegemony and its opposition the counter-hegemony. With the idea of “diversal”, the idea is here to build a plural reality.
What the diversel?
The diversel is a universalism which is built by taking into account of all particularisms. It builds another reality through dialogue, away from capitalist hegemonies (or others like the ones promoting state intervention overall), and away from closed or conquering particularisms. The diversel is not defined in opposition and does not create a single truth.
Where does this idea come from?
The idea of diversal comes from the Caribbean archipelago. It was developed by Aimé Césaire, and disseminated by Edouard Glissant, Ramon Grosfoguel and Walter Mignolo. It is clear that the mixing of culture that is the reality of the Caribbean islands were conducive to reflection about universalism and particularisms.
" Provincialism? Absolutely not. I’m not going to confine myself to some narrow particularism. But nor do I intend lose myself in a disembodied universalism. There are two ways to lose oneself: through walled-in segregation in the particular, or through dissolution into the “universal.” My idea of the universal is that of a universal rich with all that is particular, rich with all particulars, the deepening and coexistence of all particulars. "[1]
The concrete universalism of Césaire is the result of a horizontal process of critical dialogue between people who consider themselves equal.
What challenges the diversal?
First it challenge the fact that modern rationality is unequivocal. The diversel challenges “conquering universalisms”, those who say that a single rationalities like the capitalist, centralized communist or utilitarian ones should rule the world. These UNI-versalisms produce some forms of externality enabling to dominate what is not part of the norm.
The diversal also challenges conquering or closed particularisms such as those advocated by the extreme-right who want to create “diversity” by creating homogeneous clusters. They start from a critique of universalism to arrive at divisions & identity closure, up to such notions as ethnic separatism. In the critique of abstract/conquering universalism of the far right, cosmopolitanism is seen as problematic.
What is the relation to post-colonialism?
The diversel recognizes the contributions of post-colonialism, including the rejection of eurocentrism that is clearly identified as some type of hegemonic fundamentalism which can easily impose its dominance in the global system. However the diversal places itself into a decolonial framework rejecting ALSO Third World fundamentalisms. The diversal places itself in the context of an epistemological diversity not rejecting thinkers in relation to their origins nor Western philosophies, neither others. In this sense it approaches the Dussel transmodernity (Dussel 1992). It also rejects the veneration of postmodernist critical thinkers continuing to support hegemonic thinking, moreover euro-centric, as are Gramsci and his disciples (Mouffe, Laclau).
Relation to the idea of consensus
Diversel is about open societal consensus building, but whose outcome is of course not planned in advance. It does not negate conflict per se as it is often part of contructive processes. The consensus we are talking about is of course nothing to do with the social consensus around a dominating universalism, that we should rather call "false consensus", or social consensus because it implies a de facto agreement without debate. The prospect of diversel is a truly universal decolonial perspective which cannot be based on an abstract universal (which is in fact a particularism designed into a global / imperial universal), but is the result of a critical dialogue between various projects / policy perspectives - diverse in terms epistemic / ethical / cosmological - that aim to build a pluriversel transmodern world, as opposed to a universal one (Grosvoguel 2012).
Compared to the dialectics
The concrete universalism of Hegel and Marx referred to these rich concepts of multiple determinations but it is contained in a single cosmology and epistomology (in this case, Western), in which the dialectic movement suppresses all otherness assimilating them, and excludes some actors.
Cross-border thinking
One of many possible solutions to the dilemma between Eurocentric fundamentalism lies in what Walter Mignolo calls the "critical border thinking" or “critical cosmopolitanism” (Mignolo 2000). Critical border thinking is the epistemic response of the subalterns facing the euro-centered modernity project. Instead of rejecting modernity to retreat into a fundamentalist absolutism, border epistemologies redefine the emancipatory rhetoric of modernity using the cosmologies and epistemologies located in the oppressed and exploited pole of colonial difference, to bring it serving a decolonial liberation struggle to build a world beyond the Euro-centric modernity. The border thinking thus produces a redefinition of citizenship, democracy, human rights, humanity, economic relations while rejecting narrow definitions imposed by European modernity. Border thinking is not an anti-modern fundamentalism. It is a transmodern decolonizing answer in front of the euro-centered modernity (Grosvoguel 2012).
Criticism of postmodernity
Postmodernism is a Euro-centered critique of Eurocentrism, and as such it reproduces all the problems inherent to modernity and colonialism. According to Laclau and Mouffe (2009), the hegemony consists in unifying particularisms around a given subject against a common enemy. Instead of incorporating every particularism, the counter-hegemony proposed by Laclau or Mouffe dissolves them in a new “abstract universal” that opposes the hegemony. The slogan "Viva Perón" is an example of counter-hegemonic process (Laclau 2005). This acclamation - through which the oppressed are supposed to identify with each other - removes all specific claims in an abstract universal, in this case favouring the Peronist movement through the signifier "Perón", supposedly uniting all particularisms against a common enemy. This "avant-garde" approach renders impossible the emergence of a new universal from negotiations between individuals. In general the epistemic alterity, particularly from non-European people, is not sufficiently taken into account in the work of Laclau and Mouffe.
Proposal of an “Arrière-garde” movement
The Zapatistas do not define themselves as a party but as a movement. They have no predefined program, "they move by questioning" and "command by obeying". This approach, based on native American culture is at the opposite of the Judeo-Christian idea of "moving on by preaching", as reproduced by the Marxists, the Conservatives and the Liberals. The Zapatistas are not based on an abstract universal (Socialism, Communism, Democracy, the nation, as many empty or evolving signifiers) and then preach and convince Mexicans of the merits of their vision. Conversely, they start from the idea of "moving on by questioning," where their program is a “concrete universal” resulting of a critical transmodern dialogue that includes both the epistemic diversality and the particular demands of all the oppressed of Mexico. This diversal is very different from the abstract universal and "empty signifiers" that characterize the hegemonic process described by Laclau and Mouffe, the "subordinates" of Gramsci or the "multitudes" of Negri and Hardt. The decolonization of Western Euro-centric design of universality is a crucial step in the implementation of Zapatista slogan that calls to build "a world where all worlds are possible".
Degrowth & diversel
Degrowth is also a movement, it does not have the one solution, but develops and links proposals through debates. For instance it is a space for dialogue where different types of ideals: democracy, justice, ecology, bio-economy, friendliness, good living, justice (the sources of degrowth) - come together to form some kind of theoretical and practical nowtopia. The notion of diversality can appear for many aspects as it involves a dialogue with different sources, scales, limits, strategies, actors…
Grosfoguel, Latin American Colloquium on Rural Education: Coloniality of Power and Alternative Latin American Perspectives,” National Pedagogical University, Centro Regional Valle de Tenza, Sutatenza, Boyacá, Colombia (21 September 2006).
Dussel, Enrique. Filosofía de la liberación. Ciudad de México: Edicol, 1977. . 1492: El encubrimiento del Otro: hacia el origen del “mito de la modernidad”. La Paz: Plural Editores, 1994.
Mignolo, Walter. The Many Faces of Cosmo-polis: Border Thinking and Critical Cosmopolitanism. Public Culture Fall 2000 12(3): 721-748
[1] Letter of resignation to the French Communist Party in the mid-1950s, which was addressed to the Secretary General of the time Maurice Thorez
Module overview:
Time | Content and Methods | |
30' | 1. | Introductory Presentation on the concept of Mental Infrastructures by Harald Welzer |
30' | 2. | Open Plenary Discussion + Collection of open questions |
60' | 3. | Worldcafé: Link the concept to concrete examples and transfer to personal lives of the participants |
15' | 4. | Coffee break |
30' | 5. | Plenary: Presentation of the Worldcafé results, extraction of a common definition of „Mental infrastructures“ |
30' | 6. | Design a big wall paper: Collective mapping of the concept of mental infrastructures |
15' | 7. | Wrap-up: Discuss the relevance of the concept for the course, look-out to the next modules, address open questions |
Total: 3,5h
General aims of the module
Participants understand what the term „Mental infrastructures of growth“ means and how it can be filled (here: by Harald Welzer)
Participants critically discuss and question the concept and its limits
Participants link the concept to their personal lives
Participants evaluate the possible impact of mental infrastructures for a social-ecological transformation
Module Description
1. Presentation (30')
The module starts with an introductory input on the concept of mental infrastructures. In this case it was based on the concept formulated by Harald Welzer in his essay „Mental Infrastructures: How Growth Entered the World and Our Souls“ (see: http://www.boell.de/en/2013/12/09/mental-infrastructures-how-growth-entered-world-and-our-souls). The presentation aims at explaining what mental infrastructures are and why they are relevant. It then focuses on three mental infrastructures (or „socio-cultural schemes“) that currently sustain the growth oriented society and that are specifically addressed within this course in the following workshops:
a. Bookkeeping and the „Economic Man“ (see Module 2)
b. Acceleration and the Shrinking of the Present (see Module 3)
c. Efficiency and the Knowledge Society (see Module 4)
These mental infrastructures are inspired also by other authors like Hartmut Rosa, Ulrich Bröckling and Christine Ax. (see Material 1, as pdf)
2. Open Plenary Discussion (30')
This open phase aims at clarifying open questions and expressing doubts and critique concerning the concept.
3. Worldcafé (60')
In this part the participants wrap up the core of the concept, transfer it to concrete examples and make a link to their personal lives. In order to do this, the room is set up with tables (approx. 1 table for every 5-6 participants), where the following questions are discussed seperately in a „Worldcafé“:
a. Find a coherent working definition for „Mental infrastructures of growth“ based on the presentation. What are examples for it according to your definition?
b. How are you affected by „mental infrastructures of growth“ in your personal lives – within your family, friends, work, your own habits...?
c. How do you deal with or react to them?
Each questions is discussed for 20 minutes within groups of 5-6 participants. Then the participants change tables and come together in new combinations. A „host“ stays at each table to introduce the newcomers to the previous debate which is the basis for the discussion of the next question. For further explanation of the worldcafé method see: http://www.theworldcafe.com/method.html.
4. Break (15')
5. Presentation of the World Café results (30')
First, the different working definitions (Question 1) are presented and evaluated in the plenary: What are the differences? Can they be integrated to a common/ coherent definition? Or are there aspects that cannot be harmonized?
In a second step, the hosts are invited to give an overview of the further discussed topics and share especially interesting points with the whole group.
6. Collective mapping (30')
This last step aims at clarifying the concept by mapping existing mental infrastructures of growth, which we see within society and in our personal lives around the newly developed working definition. If needed, it is possible to form another small group that integrates the different definition proposals into a common definition, which then can be placed in the middle of a big wallpaper. All other participants are invited to write down the mental infrastructures they discussed within the worldcafé and illustrate the map with colours, drawings etc. This is supposed to be interactive, creative and fun and serves as a base for further discussions within the seminar.
The wallpaper is put up in the seminar room and can be complemented in the following days.
7. Wrap-up and outlook (15')
At the end, there should be some time to embed the concept into the following parts of the seminar – that this seminar aims at giving the chance to experience our own mental infrastructures and the role they play in our lives as well as to experiment with alternative experiences that may have the potential to change our mental infrastructures.