Browsing by Subject "critique"
Now showing items 1-3 of 3
-
(2013)In this master's thesis, I examine 21st century criticism of economic growth. The aim of the study is to understand what economic growth represents to growth critics. The research question is: what are the central themes of contemporary growth critique? The research material consists of three books: Tim Jackson's Prosperity without growth – economics for a finite planet (2009), Peter Victor's Managing without growth – slower by design, not disaster (2008) and the Finnish translation of Serge Latouche's Petit traité de la décroissance sereine (2007, Finnish translation Jäähyväiset talouskasvulle published in 2010). A qualitative content analysis was conducted on the material. In this method, manifest and latent meanings of the text are condensed and categorized in order to identify the key themes of the text. The analysis reveals three central themes in the criticism of economic growth. Each offers a different perspective to economic growth, to the proposed alternatives and to the opposition between growth protagonists and antagonists. First theme is growth as a phenomenon, which focuses on concrete ecological and social impacts of economic growth. The main argument of the growth critics is that the social and ecological costs of growth exceed its benefits in the western countries. In addition, they argue that economic growth cannot be viably combined with reducing ecological impact of human activities. The second theme is growth as an institution, which focuses on the institutional dependence on growth as well as institutional structures supporting growth. The critics' opinion is that these institutions now form a vicious circle in which people serve the economic growth and not vice versa. Also the proposed institutional change for disentangling society from growth is relevant to this theme. The third theme is growth as an ideology, which focuses on economic growth as a hegemonic belief and value system as well as a political goal above other goals. Under this theme, the growth critics promote emancipation and outline an alternative ideology. One main conclusion of the study is that the growth critics are not in favour of the opposite of economic growth, i.e. they do not promote a diminishing economy as an end in itself. Instead, their critique opens up a discussion on an alternative society which does not revolve around the economy and its size. However, this alternative is not pictured very clearly in the research material. It seems that the growth antagonists are able to describe what they oppose more elaborately than what they support. Another conclusion is that there is an internal tension within current growth critique. When examining economic growth as a concrete phenomenon the critics suggest indifference towards economic growth. Yet, under the other two themes the approach is everything but nonchalant since dismantling the institutions and ideology of growth will hardly be achieved without intentional resistance. Since the three books analyzed lean on and draw from earlier and contemporary references critical to economic growth, the three themes might be utilized in analyzing and understanding growth critique in general. However, this should be verified in further studies. What is more, when applied to other texts one might discover new themes not covered in this study. Because this study concentrates on the aspects that the three books representing growth critique have in common, in the future one should examine whether there are different schools of thought within the 21st century growth critique. Another interesting subject for further studies would be to apply the three themes to analyzing degrowth visions and possible degrowth experiments.
-
(2022)Herbert Marcuse’s work One-Dimensional Man (1964) provides an important and exemplary account of the reasons why even today our advanced industrial capitalist society, beneath its surface of great achievements, is in fact exceptionally repressive and destructive. Marcuse’s description shows us how the tranquilising abundances and comforts provided by this society, work and how despite them, or rather as a result of them, society is as repressive and destructive as ever. This society is dominated by the so-called technological rationality, which refers to a mode of thought and behaviour; as advanced, efficient technology progresses and spreads everywhere in society, it creates a corresponding demand for individuals to achieve a similar, unattainable level of efficiency. Individuals must force themselves to adjust to this absurd, efficient domination. Thus the acceptance of this demand means that this constant progress then leads to repression and destruction. The current, worsening climate crisis has given Marcuse’s analysis a renewed relevance as the spread of this technological capitalism does not take place only at the expense of humans but also on that of nature. Then again Marcuse importantly acknowledged that things could be turned around. Marcuse calls for the Great Refusal, a collective negation of the current repressive and destructive social order. As part of this resistance, the highly advanced technology could importantly be vested for the amelioration of existence and true human needs instead. The fact is however that Marcuse remains too much under the influence of Hegel’s philosophical system in the sense that if the former does not perceive dialectical movement is society, he is quick to conclude that the repressive and destructive one-dimensional society is perhaps more stagnant than it really is. Therefore we can incorporate to such an analysis of modern society the genealogical critique founded by Friedrich Nietzsche and centrally developed by Michel Foucault. Genealogy underlines and evinces the constant contingency and haphazardness of sociohistorical formations and thus continuous malleability. Through Nietzsche and Foucault we come to see that the one-dimensional society and its values are never final but part of an aimless sociohistorical development. Society is always open for change.
-
(2022)Herbert Marcuse’s work One-Dimensional Man (1964) provides an important and exemplary account of the reasons why even today our advanced industrial capitalist society, beneath its surface of great achievements, is in fact exceptionally repressive and destructive. Marcuse’s description shows us how the tranquilising abundances and comforts provided by this society, work and how despite them, or rather as a result of them, society is as repressive and destructive as ever. This society is dominated by the so-called technological rationality, which refers to a mode of thought and behaviour; as advanced, efficient technology progresses and spreads everywhere in society, it creates a corresponding demand for individuals to achieve a similar, unattainable level of efficiency. Individuals must force themselves to adjust to this absurd, efficient domination. Thus the acceptance of this demand means that this constant progress then leads to repression and destruction. The current, worsening climate crisis has given Marcuse’s analysis a renewed relevance as the spread of this technological capitalism does not take place only at the expense of humans but also on that of nature. Then again Marcuse importantly acknowledged that things could be turned around. Marcuse calls for the Great Refusal, a collective negation of the current repressive and destructive social order. As part of this resistance, the highly advanced technology could importantly be vested for the amelioration of existence and true human needs instead. The fact is however that Marcuse remains too much under the influence of Hegel’s philosophical system in the sense that if the former does not perceive dialectical movement is society, he is quick to conclude that the repressive and destructive one-dimensional society is perhaps more stagnant than it really is. Therefore we can incorporate to such an analysis of modern society the genealogical critique founded by Friedrich Nietzsche and centrally developed by Michel Foucault. Genealogy underlines and evinces the constant contingency and haphazardness of sociohistorical formations and thus continuous malleability. Through Nietzsche and Foucault we come to see that the one-dimensional society and its values are never final but part of an aimless sociohistorical development. Society is always open for change.
Now showing items 1-3 of 3