Browsing through books: ‘Doughnut economics – Seven ways to think like a 21st century economist’ by Kate Raworth

I had come across Kate Raworths’ doughnut economics in a couple of instances, which for me is a sign to read a book in question. In addition, I had gathered that the book deals with the role and nature of economics, which in turn relate to my postdoc project on post-growth work. After all, the need for continuous economic growth stems from the institutions, such as economics departments, practicing economists, and political decision-makers.

What really kicked me into finally reading the book was the fact that Kate Raworth visited Helsinki in May. The organisers of the events encouraged people to familiarise with her thoughts, for example via a recent TED talk. I took the advice quite literally and browsed through her book, finally reading most of it.

The book is well written, flows beautifully, and has a compelling argument. It is organised around the idea that images have a lot of power. The simple supply-demand curve has influenced a countless number of people in universities’ economics basic courses. In fact, I have been influenced myself as a business school graduate in international business (for my undergraduate studies). So she knows what she is talking about. Moreover, that curve is not the only image that affects students, but many other uncontested “truths” are taught over and over again, although they were developed in the 19th or the 20th century and can be criticised heavily.

The power of images

She points out that we live in the 21st century so we have 21st century issues, which I shortcut here in words ‘wicked socio-ecological problems.’ So why should we rely on old thinking that was not developed knowing contemporary issues and, moreover, has proven to be flawed in many ways? In the spirit of powerful images, Raworth introduces the doughnut: when keeping on the ring of a doughnut, we respect the social needs and the ecological ceiling.

The doughnut

Sadly, the ‘selfie of our time’, as she refers to it in her recent TED talk linked above, is not flattering.

The unflattering selfie of our times

Most of the book is devoted to providing evidence for her argument on why we need to shift our thinking to become more doughnut-like, instead of previously developed (neoclassical) economics. This is understandable, since the dominant thinking in many public institutions support economics that is not suitable for the 21st century. She backs up her arguments by examples that already try to respect the doughnut and bring on change. Some of the examples I know from before, and it was fascinating to see how she links them to the idea of 21st economics.

The book gets really interesting in the end, when she talks about regenerative economics and being agnostic about growth. As an avid reader of post-growth and degrowth literature, I was challenged by her idea to invite economic growth back to the negotiation table after we have cleared the hurdle of making socio-ecological well-being our top priority. She argues that growth could be possible and needed in some places, but it would need to respect the priority of keeping within the doughnut and not causing to fall to the empty centre nor to rise above its outer ring. This type of message seems wise, when engaging in dialogues with decision-makers in power at the moment. Any message is easier to communicate when not seeming too fundamental.

In Helsinki, she mentioned a couple if interesting things that I want to share. First, she said has no time to knock on shut doors. In short, she follows good energies. Not surprisingly economics departments have not been keen to invite her. Yet, critical (economics) students have been in touch with her. In addition, cities and urban planners have contacted her. Also designers have been interested in her ideas as well as some businesses and (progressive) business schools. Finally, political parties hungry for new economics have engaged in a dialogue with her, which is very promising.

Second, someone always comments to her that “this is nothing new”. She replies that yes, this is right. In fact, usually this is the case beyond this book or idea. But it is not enough to say things once, when we want change, here end the dominance of continuous economic growth. Indeed, her work is to serve as a communicator of ideas that resonate widely. For some this may seem like a celebrity cult, which is emphasised in our times by TED talks and alike. However, she (and many others) use the medium available to reach people so that she can reach open doors and follow good energies.

Third, Kate Raworth emphasised that the book may seem like an easy thing to write, but it was a struggle. She was about to give up before she came up with the leading idea of the power of images. I appreciate her honesty, since many books seem effortless, although they are a result of sweat and tears, sometimes even facing one’s deepest fears. But perhaps that is why they are so compelling.

Browsing through books: ‘Another science is possible: A manifesto for slow science’ by Isabelle Stengers

Isabelle Stengers’ Another science is possible: A manifesto for slow science is an important book for anyone doing research or dealing with research. It identifies problems in science and research today and suggest ways to overcome these. Although I’m not a natural scientist, I found this book useful and resonating. In fact, using examples from a different field helped me to see the issues slightly from the outside. The first 4 chapters are about describing ‘fast’ science and the remaining 2 chapters focus on slow science.

The most important take-away for me was Stengers’ ability to verbalise how contemporary mainstream ways of thinking marginalise other ways of being. In the case of academia, the symptoms relate to rankings, measuring, efficiency, expectations for delivering results, commodification, among other things. While these are annoying practices, together they create a sense of fastness. Still, they are the symptoms and the root causes are elsewhere.

What are the root causes? But briefly, the argument is that science is put to serve knowledge economy. She argues that many contemporary socio-ecological problems are known and shared by scholars but they are affected by ‘fastness’ and thus scientists and researchers cannot focus on ‘matters of concern’ (Latour). The tricky part is that no one has the right to decide on their own what is a matter of concern but it should be a dialogue among many people, and not only scientists, but also non-human others. In her analysis, such dialogue is not encouraged at the moment but circumvented or even denied.

In truth, the whole book is about articulating the root causes since it is a book about the philosophy of science. Thus, it would require more work from me to cristalise her analysis. While the same goes for her suggestions how to bring about slow science, I will still try.

I read that her proposals include researchers facing the question ‘You knew what you had to know; what did you do?’ (Chapter 5. p. 106). In her opinion, research institutions are not equipped to handle this and to admit that science is messy and not controllable. Moreover, facing the question requires negotiations (or reclaiming, p. 141), which always happens in a specific context – not in general or in abstractions. From the perspective of fast science, this seems like a terrible idea since negotiations require time. Still, time and negotiations are required for formulating answers to the question she poses: ‘You knew; what did you do?’ Moreover, engaging in negotiations as an academic results in need for diplomats who do negotiating. Sometimes scientists can be those diplomats, while sometimes the diplomat is someone else.

This is not a book to digest easily. Yet, it is definitely an inspiring and important one. So I’m happy that I did more than browse and spent time with this one. I have a feeling that I will return to this book later and compare the underlined parts and my notes to new highlights that I make. (And yes, I scribble in my books, but usually with a pencil.)

Browsing through books: Farewell to growth by Serge Latouche

Serge Latouche’s book Farewell to growth (translated by David Macey, orig. Petit traité de la décroissance sereine) is a classic in degrowth literature. I first familiarised with it in 2010, when I attended my first degrowth conference in Finland entitled Alternatives to the growth economy. It was a high-profile meeting organised by The Finnish Association for Nature Conservation. One of the keynotes was delivered by Serge Latouche, so I have had a chance to hear his thoughts.

dav
Latouche, S. (2010). Farewell to growth. Polity.

The book is organised in three sections: (1) The territory of de-growth; (2) A concrete utopia; and (3) A political programme. The first section focuses on the critique of continuous economic growth, while the other two sections describe and map how growth and development could be challenged in practice.

The number of pages is a bit over 100, so it is a compact book. Latouche refers to many relevant debates but explains them only in passing. After 8 years of dwelling in the degrowth movement and thinking, my ability to interpret the book has definitely improved. Thus, re-reading it felt easier, but not at all less radical or inspiring.

Basically, Latouche suggests a complete change of paradigm(s), i.e. the way we think about living on planet Earth. The ultimate precondition is a better treatment of everyone and everything living on this planet. The destruction of life in the name of economic gains has stop because it makes no sense. Latouche wisely notes that actually many agree on this point, but few are able to imagine what paradigm changes mean or if they can manage to do that, how such paradigm changes could ever be obtained. However, the tone of the book seems hopeful. He puts trust in people’s movements beyond political parties and maps the role of the degrowth movement as a watchdog that encourages different institutions and actors to carry out the paradigm change.

Throughout the book he addresses questions asked from degrowth proponents, such as what the role of localism is, how do we feed everyone, and is degrowth humanist. Some of the answers are based on pragmatic solutions, while other answers tackle the actual questions and show how the question itself is coloured by the ideology of growth, development, and modernism.

Finally, Farewell to growth is truly “a pleasure to read”, as the book’s back cover text promises. That’s not only because I sympathise with the message, but because of the way Latouche has written the book. In short, this condensed manifesto is a must for anyone interested in degrowth debates.

A new series of posts: “Browsing through books”

Reading is a skill. In her excellent book about writing academic journal articles Wendy Belcher describes how some successful academics read. A revelation: they don’t! Well, they do but strategically and not from cover to cover. This is because there’s too much to read and not enough time. Belcher (2009, pp. 140–141) writes that

“Even a good reader, someone who manages to read five books a week, week in and week out, will only read 250 books a year or about 10,000 books over a career, Since most read more like one book a week, or 2,000 books total, our ability to read even a fraction of what is published in our discipline is limited.”

As a result, academics skim and read only parts of texts. Also, they choose what to read from cover to cover. And that’s fine.

When I started my postdoc in 2017, I was given an advice from someone finishing their postdoc and entering the world of tenured positions: “Postdoc is the best time of your life to read books.” I start to understand that now. When doing exploratory and multidisciplinary research (that’s me), it is important to read many books that present relevant studies to learn from, than only few in depth. Therefore, as part of the remaining time of my postdoc, I have a goal of browsing through more books. This skill complements my dear hobby of reading books from cover to cover.

This post is an official start of a public series in my blog titled Browsing through Books. I will post reviews on (browsed) books that I consider important for my project. Given that I’m involved with on-going fieldwork, my goal is to post 1-4 times a month.

As Gretchen Rubin claims in her book Better than before, for some people making public commitments helps them to achieve the goals they find important. And guess what, since I started to plan this series, I’m already done with one book and halfway to another one. So, for me, sharing is really caring.

I also need your help: In case you have nice templates in mind for academic book reviews or examples of blogs featuring fun and creative reviews, please comment and recommend.

And most importantly, stay tuned for my first reviews: Latouche’s Farewell to growth and Stengers’ Another Science is Possible: A Manifesto for Slow Science.

 

References: Belcher, W. L. (2009). Writing your journal article in 12 weeks: a guide to academic publishing success. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.

DIY video editing during the postdoc project

As you might know, I’m working on a sensory ethnography during 2017-2020 funded by Nessling Foundation and Kone Foundation. The focus is on post-growth work and I use video among other things. And let me tell you, using video requires learning a whole new set of skills.

Despite some well meaning advice, I have insisted on doing video editing myself. And let me tell you another thing, it is hard. I chose Adobe Premiere Pro CC due to an access to the licence via my affiliation with Aalto University, Department of Design. It is an editing program developed for professionals. I’m a beginner, although I have taken a (short) course. As a result, I have done many imaginable and unimaginable mistakes. I’ve spent many moments just trying to figure out how to frame my problem in order to find some answers over the internet. Yes, thank you for the suggestion, I need to take another course. But I also need to to this basic work of familiarising with the program while working on an actual project. By the way, this project is my first short ethnopgraphic film for a virtual conference Displacaments 2018. Very cool and exciting!

Why I insist on doing video editing myself? For one, I don’t have a budget to hire anyone. But most improtantly, I think it is worthwhile for my postdoc project. After all, I have promised to generate public videos during my research under some of the Creative Commons licences. At this point, I feel lucky that I have time until 2020. But already by now, doing video editing has thought me already a number of important lessons.

First, considering the publicly available videos (in the future), I don’t know what kind of material I should generate unless I know what is doable to do with the chosen editing program. Mind due, that I’m also a beginner in generating video materials. What kinds of angles, framings, durations, actions etc. work? What about the sound, how is the quality of audio from a particular setting? I’ve been told that a good camera person edits while shooting. Apparently, they can produce interesting images for the editing phase so that editor’s work flows smoothly. That’s my goal, in some years. Naturally, the same goes for sound.

Second, I don’t want to gloss over my interpretations from the field. Someone with more video editing experience would most likely make choices that seem more professional. But then again would that respect what I have experienced while doing fieldwork? Perhaps another video editor would, for example, increase the tempo by cuts or the choice of music. But that might not be how I experienced and sensed the field. For example, my stay with one household was a very calm one, although I worked every day. The calmness came from staying put on the estate and focusing on tasks at hand related to gardening, animal care, and food. It was not like a movie or a music video with things happening all the time, yet there was good work being done. That’s the feeling I hope to communicate with my on-going editing project.

Third, being the only person in the production team, I do everything myself for generating video materials. I don’t have a camera person. I don’t have an audio technician. I don’t have anyone carrying my gear. And I don’t have a person who I do not even know I miss if I would be used to their expertise. So it’s me and the field. As a result, the process of generating video materials and editing is slow, but then again I feel it respects my research topic, which deals with questioning exponential ecnomic growth.

These issues dealing with shooting techniques, contenct, and process have made me realise that I’m learning a whole new set of skills. No wonder it seems slow and difficult at times! Then I remind myself that about eight years ago I started to learn how to write academic publications. I’m still learning the skills required for developing an interesting journal article or a book chapter – let alone a whole book, which I have not done yet (if a compilation doctoral dissertation is not counted).

So one step at a time, because that’s what DIY processes are about.