Enoughness

From P2P Foundation
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Description

By Gabriela Edlinger, Bernhard Ungericht, and Daniel Deimling:

"Enoughness denotes a state or condition of having and being enough, thereby negating the need for an external reference point and avoiding comparability, as we will show in this note. When enoughness is the focus, standards and ideals are replaced by questions concerning characteristics, circumstances and reasons for something being enough. We first came across this phenomenon in interviews with business leaders who avoided growing the size of their businesses to protect certain qualities of their business’s status quo that they considered of higher value than an increase in profits. Essentially, they did not want more (or different, for that matter) simply because they experienced contentment with what they had. The specific qualities these business leaders did not want to jeopardize were close personal connections with various stakeholders, connectedness to place and nature and a feeling of personal integrity.

Appearing in texts that offer perspectives on a sustainable, post-growth economy (Dietz and O’Neill, 2013; Princen, 2005; Reichel, 2017), the term enoughness is usually seen as one of the necessary conditions for ‘a post-growth economy: an economy beyond the growth imperative, beyond scarcity, and beyond consumerism’ (Reichel, 2017: 109). Similarly, Alexander calls for a ‘philosophy of enoughism’ to depart from a culture of always more and ask questions about what and how much we actually need (Read et al., 2019). With this text, we seek to contribute to this line of thought."

(http://www.ephemerajournal.org/contribution/enoughness-exploring-potentialities-having-and-being-enough)


Characteristics

What enoughness is

By Gabriela Edlinger, Bernhard Ungericht, and Daniel Deimling:


"Enoughness resides in a good enough, which according to John Lachs covers a range from ‘the upper reaches of what will do’ to things being truly good or ‘even great, in fact so good that they do not need to be better’ (Lachs, 2009: 2). Enoughness describes one’s experience of a situation as being perfectly fine at a given moment in time, an experience that does not depend on that situation’s objective degree of perfection. Rather, the experience of enoughness is rooted in the absence of a desire for something bigger, better or more.

A feeling of enoughness, of having and being enough, is based on the subjective perception of a moment as adequate. In a sense, this means to view it independently from alternatives and potential, simply for what it is. In a moment of enoughness, what or how something was before or what it could be is irrelevant. Something that is experienced as good enough is independent from favorable comparisons and trajectories. It is context-bound, subjective and momentary, drawing its validity from an intrinsic assuredness and not from any external reference point. A home-cooked meal that is plenty good and thus good enough might not compare favorably to a dish prepared by someone else or at a restaurant, but in a condition of enoughness this is irrelevant. If anything, the experiencing of enoughness is confirmed by a lack of desire to be in a different place (a restaurant) or eating a different meal. Enjoying a home-cooked meal does not depend on its quality reaching professional standards, or on it tasting better than the food you had the day before. Indeed, even a less good meal might be gloriously satisfying, for instance if it comes close to the taste you associate with childhood experiences in your grandma’s kitchen or if you share it with those close to you.

A sense of enoughness thus stems from a situation’s intrinsic value, which can be based on perceived comfort, on the sensuality of touch, on the smell and taste of ingredients, on fond memories, on a feeling of self-efficacy and on an indeterminable range of other subjective elements that contribute to a moment’s integrity. Here, it is important to emphasize again that enoughness is neither bound to objectively identifiable features, nor to outshining an earlier point in time. Enoughness celebrates singularity: it is what it is, simply for what it is – not for what it is not, nor for what it could be. This is the acknowledgement of an intrinsic value that is not subject to any standard but its own. It is a value that arises from within a subject rather than being created and assigned to an object. Intrinsic value is not the outcome of measurement. It is not an outcome at all; it is inherent to a situation. A situation’s intrinsic value is both a singularity (hence incomparable) and a plurality (hence immeasurable). Intrinsic value does not lend itself to comparison and measurement; it is never an object to anything. As a subject it can be acknowledged or ignored, but neither action affects its substance in the least.

Of course, this is not at all to say that each situation is, or can be perceived as, adequate: if someone’s true needs are not met due to genuine lack, this is simply and unquestionably a situation of not having enough. But what we would like to draw attention to is that in a condition of affluence – beyond the threshold of an enough – feelings of having and being enough are purely subjective, situational and momentary. They result from personal judgement based on occurrences, actors and their values (Lachs, 2009: 4). However, these individual values are themselves contextual (Daoud, 2010: 1222) and people are constantly both exposed to and subjected to logics of quantification and measurement. Rather than having enough and being enough, the dominant paradigm of growth and a culture of individualization rely on striving for more and being better, as well as idealizing maximization and perfection. This begs the question: what can give rise to experiences of enoughness – even in the face of a doctrine of ‘moreness’ (Princen, 2005)?"

(http://www.ephemerajournal.org/contribution/enoughness-exploring-potentialities-having-and-being-enough)

Discussion

The Franciscan notion of enoughness

Fr. Richard Rohr, OFM:

"The Franciscan alternative orthodoxy asks us to let go, to recognize that there is enough to go around and meet everyone’s need but not everyone’s greed. A worldview of enoughness will predictably emerge in a person as they move to the level of naked being instead of thinking that more of anything or more frenetic doing can fill up our basic restlessness. Francis did not just tolerate or endure such simplicity, he actually loved it and called it poverty—a word which we often view as a bad thing. Francis dove into poverty and found his freedom there. This is hard for most of us to even comprehend. Thank God, people like Dorothy Day and Wendell Berry have illustrated how this is still possible even in our modern world.

Francis was known in his lifetime as the joyful beggar. He communicated happiness, freedom, humor, and joy to everyone around him. Francis and his followers wore ropes for belts to indicate they had no money (at the time, leather belts were used to carry money). Francis wanted people to see that humans could be happy even without money. I have met some poor people and some homeless people who prove to me that this can still be true, although I don’t think we need to make it our goal as Francis and Clare did. But we can indeed be happy in mutual interdependence with nature, with the kindness of others, and with our own hard work and creativity, while living in the natural rhythms of life.

Francis knew that just climbing ladders to nowhere would never make us happy nor create peace and justice on this earth. Too many have to stay at the bottom of the ladder so I can be at the top. It is a zero sum victory. I suspect simplicity and a worldview of enoughness will forever be an alternative orthodoxy, if not downright heretical, in most of the “developing” world."

(https://cac.org/enoughness-instead-of-never-enough-2016-02-19/)


Why enoughness matters

By Gabriela Edlinger, Bernhard Ungericht, and Daniel Deimling:

Enoughness undermines the tendency to limitlessly and meaninglessly want more; therefore, it is a remedy for excess. As such, enoughness is desirable on a personal level because a mentality of never (good) enough diminishes one’s life satisfaction (Hamilton and Denniss, 2005). It is also important on a global level because of the problematic ecological and social consequences of unbridled growth (Alexander, 2015). In conditions of abundance, ‘more’ does not correspond to improvements – neither with regard to personal life satisfaction (Naish, 2009), nor in terms of ecological sustainability, public wealth and social equality (Galbraith, 1958). In the richest nations, economic growth has become ‘uneconomic’ in the sense that, overall, it is more detrimental than beneficial (Daly, 1999).

Calls for limits, for a reduction and a slow-down in consumption and production (D’Alisa et al., 2015; Korten, 2010; van den Bergh and Kallis, 2012) are indispensable in response to present and impending individual, social and ecological problems that are induced by an insatiable thirst for more in private lives, in consumption and in business (Sekulova et al., 2013). In this context, sufficiency relates to the quantifiable biophysical limits of the planet. However, while sufficiency is a necessary response, critical alternatives to moreness, growth and measurement must not stop here. There is a need for visions that contribute to ‘shifting the minds and the imaginaries […] from one that sees ever-present scarcity and is constantly preoccupied with things running out to one of “we already have enough”’ (Chertkovskaya et al., 2017: 193). This is to say that rich nations should leave room for growth in poor nations, where the benefits of growth are evident (Meadows et al., 2004). But it seems unlikely that this objective can be achieved within a paradigm of quantities, because the inherent doctrine of moreness in measurement is a reality that is neither to be neglected nor ignored. Within the confines of a doctrine of ‘more’ concepts of sufficiency are stigmatized with notions of sacrifice and deprivation. In the context of a culture in which having more equates with being more (Daoud, 2011) such claims easily resonate negatively with those ‘looking enviously at those above them and anxiously at those beneath them’ (Riesman, 1981: 287) and sabotages any quest for ‘less and different’ (Kallis, 2011; Kallis et al., 2012).

Indeed, on a socio-economic level, a doctrine of moreness seems to be associated with inequality, resource conflicts, competition and a mentality of plundering. Meanwhile, societies that keep their needs modest are said to be more peaceful (Schumacher, 1993). The indigenous peoples’ activist Rebecca Adamson uses the term enoughness to describe indigenous philosophy and advocates for a sufficiency economy consistent with this culture (Adamson, 2016; First Peoples Worldwide, 2013). Paralleling this indigenous account, photographer Cristina Mittermeier also describes an inherent orientation toward sustainability in traditional indigenous societies that stems from a culture of enoughness (Mittermeier, 2013). A philosophy of enoughness – as the essential reference point in these accounts – is deeply rooted in the experience of connectedness with nature and humanity. It therefore nurtures compassion and solidarity and elicits socially and ecologically sensible behavior.

We encountered responsible conduct based on the concept of enoughness in an empirical study we recently conducted on business policies related to growth (Edlinger et al., 2020; Raith et al., 2020). We met several business owners whose entrepreneurial strategies are informed by a sense of enoughness. These individuals regard running a business as a means to contribute to a well-lived life, and their understanding of a well-lived life extends beyond the quality of their own and their co-workers’ personal and professional lives to supporting the well-being of other stakeholders (e.g., suppliers, residents, customers and competitors) and preserving the natural environment. From this perspective, a business is fundamentally connected to its immediate environment and limits are regarded as thresholds to a loss in quality of life. For example, the owner and manager of a timber business considered it essential to only use timber that could be locally and sustainably harvested, not mainly because of global ecological concerns but simply because of his personal connection to the place. This individual’s deep appreciation of nature and attribution of noneconomic value to trees led him to use medium quality timber for his business, because this kind of timber is normally used as firewood and is thus unnecessarily wasted. When the owner of a small sawmill in a neighboring village wanted to copy this idea, our interview partner encouraged him to do so. The timber business owner believed that supporting another business owner in the local community was of higher value than market shares. Indeed, several entrepreneurs in our study consistently and unwaveringly transferred their personal values, such as fairness and frugality, to the business sphere. These individuals’ sense of enoughness leads them to naturally accept confined markets and cooperatively share markets with other businesses. They are persistently oriented toward successful stagnation in terms of their company sizes because their understanding of success extends beyond economic viability to personal integrity, purpose, solidarity, loyalty, reciprocity and respect. The business owners’ perspectives illustrate that the cultivation of enoughness can induce changes that align with aims of the degrowth movement. Our empirical data reflects this alignment in the context of business; however, a similar relationship between enoughness and degrowth can be found in the sphere of consumption, where enoughness facilitates a departure from consumerism.

The freedom of positive passions is akin to a quiet, unspoiled confidence in having and being enough. Meanwhile, what lies beyond enoughness changes the essence of our passions from a vantage point to a quest. In this sense, enoughness can be seen as liberation, because ‘ethical behaviour confirms, facilitates and enhances the subject’s potentia, as the capacity to express his/her freedom’ (Braidotti, 2006: 134). It counters the lure of opportunity, which can otherwise ‘ruin our satisfaction with what is clearly excellent and therefore good enough’ (Lachs, 2009: 4). Enoughness can lead to a lifestyle of voluntary material simplicity, an ‘individual political choice’ (Zamwel et al., 2014) that is an alternative to consumer culture (Alexander, 2009, 2011; Alexander and Ussher, 2012). According to Elgin (1993: 93), it is the main goal of voluntary material simplifiers ‘to unburden ourselves […], to establish a more direct, unpretentious, and unencumbered relationship with all aspects of our lives […], to live with balance in order to realize a life of greater purpose, fulfilment, and satisfaction’ and to pursue ‘a manner of living that is outwardly simple and inwardly rich.’ This agenda is sometimes critically perceived as a feel-good movement for the materially well-off. But while some choose to live simply to escape moreness for the sake of their own well-being, some cultivate this way of living in accordance with their social and ecological conscience (Etzioni, 1998). Regardless of motive, voluntary material simplicity is associated with a reduction of material wants and needs, and it therefore contributes to a reduction of material throughput. The cultivation of a sense of enoughness supports sufficiency as a new sociopolitical paradigm because it provides access to the qualitative and immaterial dimensions of the good life. It simultaneously opposes the stigma of scarcity or forced abstinence that are associated with being content with a material ‘enough’.

Within a paradigm of moreness, which manifests as a cultural and economic obsession with growth, measurement, maximization and optimization, enoughness has a liberating potential on the individual level and a subversive potential on the collective level, as it questions and potentially undermines the dominant view that more is better and opens up possibilities for the political agenda of degrowth to unfold. Enoughness puts good measure in the place of right measure and herewith stimulates an ethical reflection of what we value. In this way, Princen (2005: 18) identifies ‘a sense of “enoughness”’ as an essential precondition for sufficiency. The reduction of want, slowing down and producing and consuming less are the likely effects of enoughness, which shifts our focus from scarcity and wanting to abundance and being. This focus on qualitative wealth supports individual sovereignty in evaluating one’s needs from a place of confidence and connectedness, not from a place of restlessness and isolation."

(http://www.ephemerajournal.org/contribution/enoughness-exploring-potentialities-having-and-being-enough)


Source

* Article: Enoughness: Exploring the potentialities of having and being enough. Gabriela Edlinger Bernhard Ungericht Daniel Deimling. Ephemera, volume 21(3), 2021. Special issue: Modes of organization.

URL = http://www.ephemerajournal.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/contribution/Enoughness.pdf


More information

Daly H.E. (1999) ‘Uneconomic growth: In theory, in fact, in history, and in relation to globalization’, Clemens Lecture Series, 10: 1-15.

First Peoples Worldwide (2013) Enoughness: Restoring balance to the economy. Fredericksbrug, VA: First Peoples Worldwide.

Lachs J. (2009) ‘Good enough’, Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 23(1): p 1-7.

Mittermeier C. (2013) ‘Enoughness and the wisdom of indigenous people: How to develop an internal yardstick for contentment’ [1].

Naish J. (2009) Enough: Breaking free from the world of more. London: Hodder Paperback.

Princen T. (2005) The logic of sufficiency. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.


Bibliography on Voluntary Simplicity

Alexander S. (ed.) (2009) Voluntary simplicity: The poetic alternative to consumer culture. Whanganui, NZ: Stead & Daughters, Ltd.

Alexander S. (2011) ‘The voluntary simplicity movement: Reimagining the good life beyond consumer culture’, The International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic & Social Sustainability, 7: 4-20.

Alexander S. (2015) Prosperous descent: Crisis as opportunity in an age of limits. Melbourne: Simplicity Institute.

Alexander S. and S. Ussher (2012) ‘The voluntary simplicity movement: A multi-national survey analysis in theoretical context’, Journal of Consumer Culture, 12(1): 66-86.

Burch M.A. (2013) The hidden door: Mindful sufficiency as an alternative to extinction. Melbourne: Simplicity Institute.

Daoud A. (2011) ‘The modus vivendi of material simplicity: Counteracting scarcity via the deflation of wants’, Review of Social Economy, 69(3): 275-305.

Elgin D. (1993) Voluntary simplicity: Toward a way of life that is outwardly simple, inwardly rich, 2nd edition. New York: Harper.

Etzioni A. (1998) ‘Voluntary simplicity: Characterization, select psychological implications, and societal consequences’,Journal of Economic Psychology, 19: 619-643.

Zamwel E., O. Sasson-Levy and G. Ben-Porat (2014) ‘Voluntary simplifiers as political consumers: Individuals practicing politics through reduced consumption’, Journal of Consumer Culture, 14(2): 199-217.