The world faces some significant challenges. The
According to the curators of the
One of the Triennale’s four curators,
Rory Stott: Where did the germ of this idea come from? Why have you been interested in degrowth and what made you think of that as an idea for a Triennale?
Maria Smith: I like the way you put it, as a “germ”—I think the germ first landed in my body through frustration, seeing all the things that architects whinge about all the time: it’s long hours, poor pay, dealing with fee proposals, wondering why firms can’t share knowledge better, valuing our own time, wondering why we do so much work for free. I feel that frustration in running a business. But it didn’t feel right to just whinge about it. When I ran across the concept of degrowth it really captured my imagination, and I realized there’s a systemic problem here. All of these little complaints are actually part of something much larger – that’s why you can’t deal with any of these single issues.
If you start to read more about degrowth and its context within the current addiction to increasing GDP – no matter the cost to the environment or human well-being – and if you can imagine a world in which that isn’t the number one goal, then all of these little things start to loosen. This is something really important to talk about more generally, but also it’s something that architects could contribute to because architects are people who tend to be idealistic. At university they really care about communities and creating social spaces and all of this stuff, but then they end up on the frontline of capitalism working for property developers. This duality is perhaps fueling a debate about degrowth.
Phineas Harper: It’s really interesting to think about the stuff that attracts people to architecture in the first place—and it’s not the same for everybody—for a lot of people it’s a mix of wanting to make stuff, wanting to make a positive impact on other people’s lives, and… something about a fear of death and wanting to leave a mark on the world [laughs]. But fundamentally it’s something to do with craft and social craft. And yet, that world is just a billion miles away from what actually happens once you’re in practice.
You hear all of these offices talking about how their mission is “to deliver a service that adds value” as if that’s how we go around thinking about architecture. There is this bizarre gulf between the stuff that brings us into architecture and the stuff that we do as architects, and that is extremely frustrating for people.
RS: Maria, as an architect would you say that there’s any way that you have attempted or even succeeded to incorporate this idea into your own practice so far?
MS: I think most of what
PH: Have you encountered this term, dépense? There’s always this surplus of potential energy, and in a growth economy the prevailing attitude would demand that you use that surplus energy to do something like refurbish your house, decorate and add value to it – or even take up a new hobby and spend money on something frivolous. Dépense runs counter to that narrative and says actually what you should do with your excess energy is waste it—but waste it in ways that are culturally and socially enriching. So if we went on a walk into a forest, that would be an example of dépense because we haven’t grown the economy in any way.
MS: It’s not necessarily things you can’t spend money on, it’s more that act of wasting—it might be that that means wasting money as well. It’s things you can do outside of the economy. Stopping the endless monetization of everything is also an important topic in degrowth.
But I think dépense is really interesting for architecture because when you think about the things that we make together, and things that we make for festivities—from opera houses to places where you can have barn dances—this is all good, wasteful behavior that’s also really communally and spiritually nourishing stuff. It’s good to waste things but it goes against the contemporary grain of what we “should” be doing.
RS: It’s interesting that you put that kind of waste contrary to the idea of constant growth fueling the environmental crisis we have now. So there are things you can waste which are harmless waste and then very harmful waste which is caused distinctly by growth.
MS: The language here is really interesting, that you can have “good waste” and “bad waste” and you can have “good growth” and “bad growth.” It just goes to show how endemic this is in our thinking that growth is always good, that all waste is bad; that those things are diametrically opposed. That’s also why it’s so difficult to imagine it differently.
RS: So the idea of degrowth, on a macro scale at least, is still pretty radical in terms of politics. There are no serious politicians, I think, talking about things like this. So what role do you see for architecture in pushing that idea in a world where politics isn’t yet pushing it?
MS: The cynical thing to say is that politicians don’t do anything unless they think that people already want it to be done. Not necessarily as architects, but just as humans, we should be pushing for what ideas we think are worth exploring in more detail. In terms of what architecture can do, we talked about why architects are probably sympathetic candidates because we live in this weird dichotomy, but we do still shape so much of what the world is like that we are still the custodians of typology. So if we’re going to think about what this world actually looks like, how it is organized, how is it masterplanned, etc. architects are really very well equipped. When politicians do start talking about this, they’re going to want to cite examples. That’s where we come in.
PH: Take Norway, for example – the place where this Triennale will take place. They have obviously got a lot of money from oil, but they now have some quite promising movements in terms of how to move away from the oil economy. For example, they want not just electric cars but they want no growth in car use. That’s part of their transport policy: no growth in this one sector. These are encouraging signs in the political sphere. I think architects can really help with because it’s quite hard to imagine what no growth in car use might mean for urbanism, especially if you’re not an urban designer.
I actually see degrowth as an emergent movement in the sense that there are signs of it everywhere in our daily choices. A key one is the way people are choosing to live with each other—there’s a discernible shift here. After trying after decades of being told that nuclear families are the way to go, people are reaching out for more communal models, sharing not just spaces but lives. I see that as a fundamentally degrowth idea. So I think architects have a huge role to play in helping not people get the degrowth future that they already want for themselves.
RS: You’re 4 curators all from either Northern Europe or North America—do you think there’s a risk in discussing degrowth and anti-growth ideas, and the way that that’s going to be received globally and particularly in developing countries? Where do you see the role of degrowth for countries that aren’t Norway, aren’t the UK?
MS: Yeah, we’re really aware of that, and our personal provenance. But we are making sure we will be inviting contributors from the global south. There are a lot of people whose first question about degrowth is “yeah, ok, but that’s just for the North right? The North needs to stop growing and the South needs the opportunity to grow in the way that the North has had, then they’ll also be rich.” But that’s actually quite problematic to think that just because the Global North or the West grew in a particular way, and there was a particular trajectory and impetus that let that happen, that doesn’t mean that it was the best way. That doesn’t mean that is the model by which developing countries or the Global South should go forward. We want to make sure that we give voice to and give a platform to people who have those perspectives and to give voice to other options as to how you might develop or change or flourish that aren’t solely based on GDP growth.
PH: It’s an interesting question because I think it is inherently colonial, no offense. I think that the idea of saying that the West got it right for hundreds of years, and now we have an environmental problem that we have to deal with so the West has to stop but the rest of the world has to continue in the Western model is completely disrespectful to the indigenous wisdom of millions and millions of people.
The growth paradigm is a fairly modern, and very violent way of expanding Western economies. Kwame Anthony Appiah writes about how slavery can’t really be separated from economic goals, in that the whole idea of race was constructed in order to justify this enslavement of people in order to grow the economy. So growth is deeply complicit in the North-South power imbalance.
I guess the takeaway is that the idea that the South needs to grow is a Northern con, and that actually we need to learn from the South.
RS: For the architects who might be skeptical or even politically opposed to this idea of degrowth—because there are certainly still a lot of architects who are capitalist-minded—what do you consider your approach to bridging the gap and making this Triennale relevant to them, even if it’s something that initially they are very skeptical about?
PH: One thing is that even the most bullish of capitalists is not blind to some of the ways that growth affects their life. You might love the accumulation of wealth in theory but really wish you could spend more time with your kids and are sick of really long office hours.
I would prefer to be pragmatic and talk about some fundamental truths about how much stuff we’ve got. There is space within this Triennale to critique the statement that we must find a way to degrow, but I’m only really interested in those critiques when they’re coming with a pretty bold alternative such as asteroid mining because otherwise you’re just living in this fantasy where we have resources forever, which we don’t.
MS: I mean asteroid mining is a good talking point because it’s illustrative of the scale of innovation that we need if we’re going to avoid degrowth, basically. If you look at the graphs, you look at the correlation between the growth of GDP and the use of fossil fuels, these two things are so interlinked that you can’t argue with that fact at this point. And if you then project the continuing growth of GDP, we need to decouple GDP growth and the use of natural resources. The thing is, this is theoretically possible, this could be done, but the level of scientific and technological innovation and the speed at which that would have to happen in order to enable that is just so unlikely. We need to be pragmatic and look at other options.
PH: Fundamentally, degrowth is coming sooner or later. The challenge we’re putting to designers is: let’s get there by design rather than just inevitably collapsing into it.
Alongside Maria Smith and