By Rana Zein

Introduction

In this second part of my reflective journey through the “Life After Growth” summer school, I explore the complexities of post-growth concepts and principles, particularly through the lens of a Global South citizen and researcher. This blog delves into critical debates surrounding sociocracy, the commons, capitalism, and the relevance of post-growth ideals across diverse political landscapes, especially in the Global South. By examining the interplay between political systems, social structures, and post-growth ideals, I reflect on how these concepts resonate within local, real-world contexts. Additionally, I consider the challenges posed by traditional higher education systems, particularly their rigidity and disconnection from local realities. Grounding learning experiences in local environments not only contextualizes academic discussions but also fosters relaxed and memorable educational moments. Such an approach opens the door to reimagining academic spaces, embracing spontaneity, and integrating local culture into the learning process. By doing so, we can bridge the gap between theory and practice while enriching the overall learning experience.

Exploring the Controversies and Challenges of Post-Growth

Sociocracy and Matters of Scale and Governance in Post-growth

From the photo hanging on the wall at Tzoumakers, depicting local villagers performing a traditional Greek dance near the main church, to the various activities within the summer school, the circle structure was a recurring motif that cultivated connections and mutual support. The circle, a geometrical and sociological archetype, symbolizes egalitarianism—signifying equal standing and shared focus, without any single point exerting dominance over others. This principle aligns closely with the foundations of sociocracy, a governance model that prioritizes equivalence, transparency, and inclusivity (Owen & Buck, 2020). In our practical exploration of a sociocratic decision-making mock-up during the final day of the summer school, we encountered a remarkably fluid process. Decisions were made through structured rounds of dialogue where each voice was heard, enabling a collective sense of ownership over the outcomes, and reflecting reflection of the circle’s capacity to foster psychological safety among its participants.

Yet, while the structure proved effective in this microcosmic setting, its scalability provoked some questions. Could such a model, with its reliance on clear communication and small, cohesive circles, retain its clarity and efficacy when expanded to the complexities of local or municipal governance? Sociocracy’s reliance on interlinked circles—each connected but autonomous—offers a theoretical pathway to manage this challenge. Each circle addresses specific issues while remaining accountable to a broader structure through double linking, where representatives participate in both their own circle and a higher-level one (Boeke, 2023; Owen & Buck, 2020). However, there remains a potential risk of fragmentation—a risk that post-growth initiatives are always subject to. In scaling up, the model might face dilution as circles proliferate to accommodate diverse issues and stakeholders. Specialized circles could drift into silos, eroding the coherence of the system. Additionally, the reliance on consent-based decision-making could encounter bottlenecks in larger, more diverse groups where conflicting priorities might emerge.

Post-growth between public good and common good

Although a public good is defined as a universal welfare resource or service that is non-excludable and non-rivalrous (Anomaly, 2015)—available to all without restriction and unaffected by individual use—this concept has also taken on some negative associations. Often, the notion of public good is misused by governments to justify interventions that, under the guise of public benefit, perpetuate injustices. These interventions can include land expropriations, speculative developments, or costly infrastructure and real estate projects that, overtly or covertly, reinforce social inequalities and free-market dominance. On the other hand, the concept of common good operates differently: it can be somehow excludable as it is not universal in nature.

Common goods are services and resources collectively owned, accessed, and managed by a particular community that shares aligned values and interests (Mazzucato, 2023). This approach fosters a sense of solidarity and stewardship but also carries an exclusivity that raises questions of equity and access. So, where does post-growth stand between these two models? If it focuses exclusively on the common good, can it truly uphold ideals of justice and equity? Is there a way for post-growth frameworks to bridge the inclusivity of public goods with the shared stewardship of commons, or does it risk marginalizing those outside the shared community, no matter how intentionally inclusive? This tension raises critical questions about how post-growth ideologies might navigate inclusivity without compromising the values that define them.

Is post-growth harming capitalism?

Is the post-growth approach aiming to co-exist with a tamed version of capitalism as some argue for the possibility of post growth capitalism (Murphy, 2018)? Or does it seek to dismantle and replace the capitalist model completely? If post-growth is designed to counter capitalism, how much ground and agency does it have to achieve this goal? One major weakness of post-growth initiatives in challenging capitalism is their often fragmented and localized nature. These initiatives mostly emerge in peripheral and rural spaces (Tschumi et al., 2021), away from urban centers—the strongholds of corporate capitalism. By operating outside the direct oversight of governing bodies and surveillance, they gain more freedom to address the unmet needs of left behind areas. However, this independence often comes at the cost of reduced visibility and diminished potential to exert broader influence. This underscores the urgency for post-growth initiatives to upscale, interconnect, and spatially agglomerate. Only through such consolidation can they strengthen their societal influence and build the capacity to radically transform the capitalist model—or create parallel structures resilient enough to counter it.

Challenging political environments in the Global South and post-growth

If post-growth initiatives face significant challenges even in democratic contexts, navigating legal and political resistance (Kostakis et al., 2023; Tomaselli et al., 2021), then how can they survive or even emerge within authoritarian contexts that are predominant in the Global South? In such settings, supportive legal frameworks for cooperatives—as conceptualized in post-growth discourse—are often absent. From a post-growth perspective, cooperatives are envisioned as autonomous organizations owned and democratically governed by their members (Robra et al., 2023). However, in many Global South regions, existing legal frameworks for agricultural or housing cooperatives fall short of providing the political empowerment necessary for true democratic ownership and self-management.

In Egypt, laws such as the Cooperative Societies Law (Law No. 317 of 1956) provide the general framework for the establishment and management of cooperatives, while others, like the Consumer Cooperatives Law (Law No. 109 of 1975), offer subsidies and tax exemptions for production and service provision (CHC (General Authority for Construction & Housing Cooperatives), 2024). Yet, these laws do not promote autonomous governance or shared ownership, in the way postgrowth articulate them, as they are still centrally governed by ministries. Bureaucratic obstacles further discourage communities from establishing cooperatives, undermining their potential to operate effectively. How, then, can cooperatives be legally empowered and protected? One idea discussed during the summer school is the establishment of independent legal arms that is integrated in the ecosystem of cooperatives—ensuring their autonomy and safeguarding their operations. However, this hinges on community activism and the capacity of communities to form strong legal coalitions. Additionally, there is a possibility and a need for combining legal and extra-legal practices—actions outside formal legal boundaries that are not governed or sanctioned by law, nor are they illegal like informal negotiations—to support cooperatives in navigating hostile political environments.

The post-growth academic controversy

Is post-growth a new addition to critical social theory, or is it merely a reconfiguration of pre-existing frameworks like communism, and self-organization? Is it a patchwork of other movements like the foundational economy, circular economy, and others?  These questions have fueled ongoing debates about the movement’s coherence and its ability to translate its principles into practice. Critics argue that the post-growth discourse often seems fragmented, as there is no consensus on what post-growth should entail, despite widespread agreement on what it should not be (Savini et al., 2022). This lack of clarity, sometimes, limits its practical impact. Not to mention, the backlash post-growth receives from pro-growth or green-growth advocates (Tomaselli et al., 2021). The controversy perhaps stems from its mis-framing as an anti-growth movement; however, the essence of the movement, at least from my perspective, lies in finding a balance between growth and de-growth—advocating for selective de-growth or shrinkage in resource-intensive and market-driven activities, and controlled growth in eco-friendly, localized initiatives that prioritize community wellbeing and ecological regeneration.

Politics, geopolitics, and receptiveness of post-growth

Is protecting the environment incompatible with political realities?… Anti-post-growth politicians often depict post-growth as synonymous with a neo-primitivism movement, advocating a return to primitive living (Hickel, 2023; Kostakis et al., 2023). However, this misrepresents the core tenet of post-growth regarding technological use. Rather than rejecting technology, post-growth calls for conscious, contextual, ecologically regenerative, and open-resource technological innovations—contrasting sharply with the expensive, extractive tools monopolized by transnational technological capitalist firms (Kostakis et al., 2023; Robra et al., 2023). Unsurprisingly, such a vision faces strong resistance from corporations and mainstream politicians, possibly due to shared interests or fears of the uncertainties and backlashes that progressive post-growth approaches could provoke in planning and governance frameworks.

Yet, isn`t it even scarier to continue in that dead-ended path of growth rather than daring to experiment with an approach that can possibly lead to different, though not utopian, results? Another crucial question is how well post-growth narratives resonate with the public. Too often, the literature and rhetoric surrounding post-growth appear niche or elitist, disconnected from the everyday language of ordinary people. Additionally, a recent study highlights that the acceptance of post-growth values and interests varies significantly based on political affiliation, with right-wing proponents being the most opposed to post-growth initiatives (Paulson & Büchs, 2022). Consequently, a significant part of post-growth’s battle lies in addressing information asymmetry by making its principles accessible and understandable before expecting people to advocate and adopt something they don`t clearly grasp (Tomaselli et al., 2021).

Shifting the debate to the Global South, the opposition to or perceived irrelevance of the post-growth movement becomes even more pronounced. In a recent interview on the geopolitics beyond growth, Herrington stated, “But I want to emphasise that green growth is definitely useful for poor countries. There, growth still contributes directly to people’s wellbeing. In Europe, this has long ceased to be the case – in fact, the drive for growth makes us unhappier because it fuels pollution and inequality. The policy agenda of the degrowth movement is very suitable for Europe.” (Herrington & Wouters, 2023)

This highlights the critical role of geographical context in shaping the desirability and applicability of post-growth strategies. However, such framings of the post-growth movement often overemphasize economic narratives while detaching them from social and ecological dimensions. This approach reinforces the perception of post-growth as a concept relevant only to affluent countries, rendering it ineffective in addressing poverty in less developed nations. It also perpetuates the idea that poverty stems from insufficient growth, rather than from growing inequalities. Furthermore, how can we ensure that affluent countries in the Global North will not exploit the post-growth narrative to continue pursuing growth through offshoring, while presenting themselves as shifting toward post-growth? Wouldn’t this ultimately entrench these inequalities, leaving the Global South to bear the consequences of the North’s resource-intensive models disguised under the guise of post-growth?

Learning pedagogies takeaways from the summer school

Human-friendly learning environment and a lax concept of time

Being able to stay focused during a two-hour lecture was unusual for me, particularly given that this was an outdoor lecture with various sources of distraction. While some participants were engaged in the lecture, others were cooking, rearranging parts of the setting, and more guests continued to arrive. Toddlers were playing nearby, and one participant’s dog wandered freely. Remarkably, none of these activities disrupted the flow of the lecture or the discussion that followed. Instead, the spontaneity of these movements was beautifully interwoven into the session, creating a relaxed atmosphere that allowed us to complete all scheduled activities without feeling overwhelmed or stressed. The unexpected sounds of kids laughing, dogs barking, and the occasional clatter of objects added cosiness and moments of humour, providing natural mental breaks. Even the shifting of chairs and umbrellas as we adjusted to the sun’s position infused the session with a sense of dynamism and encouraged stretching and movement.

Interestingly, that change of scenery and the good use of the setting`s specificities, in terms of physical setting and also the changes in the composition of attendees, wasn’t limited to that initial lecture. Throughout the summer school, each setting—whether an old classroom in Kalentzi, an outdoor theatre near Habibi.Works or Tzumakers, or a garden or backyard—offered its own distinct character. Participatory workshops might be held in the school’s amphitheatre one day and a shaded garden the next. These varied learning spaces allowed the natural rhythms and characteristics of each location to shape the sessions, resulting in an organic flow that was both grounding and energizing.

Reflecting on this experience, I found myself questioning the conventional obsession with formal, isolated learning spaces where every aspect is meticulously controlled, and activities are perfectly timed, especially in my home country. This rigidity may contribute to our collective anxiety when technology fails or things don’t go as planned, as we’re conditioned to expect predictability and control in learning environments. Perhaps there’s a need to rethink this rigidity and embrace a more flexible approach that allows space for human spontaneity and errors, unexpected occurrences, and a more natural pace of learning.

Another notable aspect of the program was the seamless balance between theory and practice, thoughtfully designed and skillfully delivered. While a strong theoretical foundation was integral to the summer school, it was complemented by hands-on workshops, discussions, and interactions with representatives from Kalentzi cooperatives. These encounters offered a practical lens into both the achievements and challenges involved in implementing postgrowth concepts across social, financial, environmental, and political dimensions. This integration of practice with theory fostered a richer, multidimensional understanding, grounding abstract ideas in real-world contexts. As such, these experiences challenged my notions of learning spaces, timing, and structure, inviting a reconsideration of how learning might be enriched by embracing openness, adaptability, and a greater harmony between structured content and spontaneous experience.

Embedding Greek culture and art in the learning process

Although the summer school was brief, it placed considerable emphasis on integrating Greek culture and artistic practices into various aspects of our experience. One particularly creative and immersive approach was the use of a tablecloth as a narrative and commemorative tool. This tablecloth accompanied us at every communal meal, becoming a canvas for documenting our reflections, sharing ideas, developing new recipes, or simply capturing the emotions and visuals that stayed with us. This unique artifact allowed participants to collectively create an evolving visual story, blending personal insights with shared experiences.

Food was another significant cultural element woven into our activities, encompassing the philosophy of postgrowth by prioritizing local, organic, and sustainable choices. Meals were carefully crafted to highlight Greek culinary traditions, whether through dishes prepared by the organizers, collaborative cooking sessions at Habibi.Works, or meals enjoyed at local tavernas and the village panigiri. The emphasis on sourcing food locally and supporting eco-friendly practices—such as minimal plastic use and the inclusion of organic or up-cycled ingredients—was consistently reinforced. Many ingredients, such as artisanal drinks, jams, and cheeses, came from the agricultural cooperatives in Kalentzi, enhancing the sense of community support and ecological consciousness in our food practices.

Attending the local panigiri—a traditional Greek festival—provided an authentic immersion into the cultural heart of the region. Panigiris, vibrant with music, dance, and community spirit, allowed us to experience firsthand the timeless customs and social bonds that characterize Greek celebrations. The panigiri was a place to engage with locals, share stories, and gain a deeper appreciation for Greek traditions through an informal, celebratory lens. Local tavernas also offered a vital connection to Greek culture. Each meal in a taverna was an invitation to taste authentic flavors, experience the hospitality that defines Greek dining, and enjoy friendly conversations.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the “Life After Growth” summer school was more than an academic exercise; it was a living experiment in applying post-growth principles to learning, community building, and cultural exchange. It left me questioning: Can post-growth ideas truly transcend localized contexts to reshape global systems? How do we balance inclusivity and equity while respecting the unique needs of different communities in a post-growth manner? And most importantly, can we rethink our relationships with time, space, learning, and resources to envision a world that flourishes beyond growth, as we navigate the pervasive manifestations of capitalism in our daily lives?

Resources

Anomaly, J. (2015). Public goods and government action. Politics, Philosophy and Economics, 14(2), 109–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X13505414

Boeke, K. (2023). Sociocracy in co-operative organisations. https://www.uk.coop/resources/sociocracy-co-operative-organisations

CHC (General Authority for Construction & Housing Cooperatives). (2024). Cooperative Legislation. https://chc-egypt.com/en/cooperative-legislation/

Herrington, G., & Wouters, R. (2023). Geopolitics Beyond Growth. https://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/geopolitics-beyond-growth/

Hickel, J. (2023). On Technology and Degrowth. https://monthlyreview.org/2023/07/01/on-technology-and-degrowth/

Kostakis, V., Niaros, V., & Giotitsas, C. (2023). Beyond global versus local: illuminating a cosmolocal framework for convivial technology development. Sustainability Science, 18(5), 2309–2322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01378-1

Mazzucato, M. (2023). Governing the economics of the common good: from correcting market failures to shaping collective goals.

Murphy, R. (2018). Is post-growth capitalism possible? https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2018/02/27/is-post-growth-capitalism-possible/

Owen, R. L., & Buck, J. A. (2020). Creating the conditions for reflective team practices: examining sociocracy as a self-organizing governance model that promotes transformative learning. Reflective Practice, 21(6), 786–802. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2020.1821630

Paulson, L., & Büchs, M. (2022). Public acceptance of post-growth: Factors and implications for post-growth strategy. Futures, 143(December 2020), 103020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2022.103020

Robra, B., Pazaitis, A., Giotitsas, C., & Pansera, M. (2023). From creative destruction to convivial innovation – A post-growth perspective. Technovation, 125(March 2022), 102760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102760

Savini, F., Ferreira, A., & von Schönfeld, K. C. (2022). Uncoupling planning and economic growth: Towards post-growth urban principles: An introduction. In Post-Growth Planning: Cities Beyond the Market Economy (pp. 3–18). Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003160984-2

Tomaselli, M. F., Kozak, R., Gifford, R., & Sheppard, S. R. J. (2021). Degrowth or Not Degrowth: The Importance of Message Frames for Characterizing the New Economy. Ecological Economics, 183(August 2020), 106952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.106952

Tschumi, P., Winiger, A., Wirth, S., Mayer, H., & Seidl, I. (2021). Growth independence through social innovations? An analysis of potential growth effects of social innovations in a Swiss mountain region. In B. Lange, M. Hülz, B. Schmid, & C. Schulz (Eds.), Post-Growth Geohraphies (Vol. 49, pp. 115–136). transcript Verlag. https://doi.org/10.14361/9783839457337