Degrowth requires a combination of top-down and bottom-up action

For degrowth as a political project to come to shape transformations on the various planes, a comprehensive coalition of social forces would be needed to promote degrowth at the plane of [b] social interactions. This coalition could employ various methods such as organising bottom- up initiatives, networks and teamwork and manifest on different scales. The thousands of degrowth-compatible micro-level civil society and business initiatives that are mushrooming these years may, together with various social movements (Burkhart et al., 2020), come to provide the basis for a mobilisation of such a coalition. Such initiatives, e.g., eco- communities, may indeed facilitate the practice and culture of solidar- ity, care and respect for others (see ‘more’ in Table 1), as well as improve material transactions with nature. Yet at the same time it should be kept in mind that people are different, meaning that community living in for example an eco-community can be an unpleasant experience if it does not resonate with one's inner being (plane [d]). In this context it is worth keeping in mind that solitary living does not necessarily inflict more harm on nature than does communal living, as can for instance be seen with the tiny house movement and individuals practising voluntary simplicity. Moreover, some bottom-up initiatives can become isola- tionist and even exclude wider participation, thus not maximising their potential to make change on the plane of [c] social structure, or they can even alienate others from the cause. Again, this underscores the need to recognise that no mode of living or initiative is all good or all bad. As a political project, degrowth is different from traditional political projects in that it cuts across/transcends traditional classes. Inevitably, those advocating degrowth are rooted in classes (on plane [c]) – most of them probably in the middle classes – yet degrowth is not a project aspiring to promote the interests of this or other classes – or for that matter only the interests of human beings. In other words, those pro- moting degrowth do it not because they themselves stand to gain more from its realisation than would others, but because they believe that it is necessary if the needs of human and other beings are to be met now and in the future. The absence of support for degrowth from powerful social forces, for example, business associations, governments, labour unions or international organisations, has been identified as “the weakest spot in the degrowth project” (Barca et al., 2019: 6). In Barca's analysis, attracting support from “ecologically minded” members of the global middle class who are willing to consume and work less does not suffice if the degrowth project is to shape overall societal developments. In her words, the project will “remain politically weak unless it manages to enter into dialogue with a broadly defined global working class – including both wage labor and the myriad forms of work that support it – and its organizations” (Barca, 2019: 214). While this analysis is undoubtedly true, it is also necessary to tran- scend the class-based perspective of (historical materialist) critical po- litical economy if we are to imagine a coalition that could enabledegrowth as a political project to shape societal developments. And certainly, it is necessary to transcend such a perspective if degrowth is thought of not merely as a political project in the abovementioned sense but also more broadly as transformation processes unfolding on all four planes of being. No single type of actor, acting on the basis of one particular identity (such as class), is powerful enough to make it happen. In a different context, feminist diverse economies scholars Gibson-Gra- ham and Dombroski (2020) place hope in the movements and activism that young people, women and indigenous peoples engage in globally. They for instance note that “[b]ecause women are everywhere and therefore always somewhere, change can be enacted in all those many somewheres” (2020: 20). In a similar vein, degrowth transformations can only materialise through the combined actions of people (irre- spective of their gender and race) positioned everywhere, including on various scales (local, national, transnational) and in the sites of civil society, businesses and state apparatuses. Naturally, these sites should be seen as interrelated and there is no clear boundary between them. For instance, a member of the civil society can be a businessperson, whereas the state is a structure which imposes constraining (as well as empow- ering) structures onto both civil society and business. Moreover, participation in transformations on plane [b] may have implications for the inner being of the members of civil society. Indeed, as Archer (2010: 274) notes, “actors themselves change in the very process of actively pursuing changes in the social order”. In each of the sites (civil society, state, business), transformations would entail processes of reducing and if possible absenting the ‘less items’ and nurturing growth of the ‘more items’ (Table 1) on the four planes of social being. In terms of business, for instance, transformations mean improving material transactions with nature (plane [a]) via focusing on production for needs in a place-sensitive manner, enhancing social relations (plane [b]) via creating closer and more genuine ties with consumers, activists, (sustainability-minded) local governments and communities, participation in the transformation in the structures of production and establishing formal and informal networks with other businesses (plane [c]). Transformations on plane [d] necessitate nurturing by the businesspersons the attitude of gentleness and the practice of care towards humans, non-humans and nature. Business practices, as practices more generally, always unfold in particular con- texts (Ha ̈gerstrand, 2012). Degrowth practices would for example un- fold under the constellations of political, economic, cultural, educational, and other social structures existing in different places. This context would significantly impact transformation processes as a result of which they would differ from one place to the next. Practices would also unfold differently depending on the constellation of the natural structures with which human societies transact. By natural structures we mean topographies, climates, landscapes, ecosystems, bioregions, and their change. Moreover, the process of unfolding is emerging, non- linear, most likely characterised by setbacks. While actions by actors positioned everywhere (i.e., civil society, businesses and state apparatuses) are needed for degrowth trans- formations, such transformations are more likely to be initiated by some actors than others. Specifically, it is difficult to imagine governments coming out in support of degrowth and adopting eco-social policies in the current ideological climate. Alexander and Gleeson (2022) are cor- rect to note that doing so would be political suicide. For degrowth transformations to be initiated on planes [a], [b] and [c], then, a massive civil society mobilisation, combined with a surge in degrowth- compatible business (Nesterova, 2020, 2021), would be required. If such a mobilisation of growth-critical and socio-ecological social forces were to gain a decisive momentum it could make it attractive, or at least feasible, for political parties and states to pursue degrowth policies. The outcome could be “a combination of bottom-up mobilisations and action and top-down regulation, resulting in a new mix of property forms including communal, state, and individual property and a new division of labour between market, state, and ‘commons’” (Koch, 2020: 127). Indeed, given the depth of change that degrowth transformations entail, and the speed with which they would need to happen, it is just as improbable that they can materialise solely through bottom-up, grass- roots initiatives, as it is improbable that they can emerge solely via top- down policies. And just as degrowth cannot be realised without policies implemented by state apparatuses at the local, national and trans- national scales, so it cannot come about without the involvement of businesses and large groups of citizens.