Two themes for discussion are proposed:

• What are the contours and characteristics of the global civil society?

• What is a simpler life style and what type of economy(ies) would it imply?

First Theme: Why looking for simpler life-styles?
Three sets of plausible reasons are most frequently invoked:

First are ecological reasons. The concern for the protection of the environment stemmed in the second part of the 20th century from the characteristics and consequences of the industrial revolution. It led to three types of actions: education of consumers and citizens to modify their behavior; limitation or prohibition of the use of harmful products and technologies; and, promotion of clean sources of energy.

Such actions are not necessarily motivated by a desire for simpler life-styles. And “clean” sources of energy, technologies and products for consumption are not necessarily cheaper than traditional “dirty” ones. But it seems that a number of “green” doctrines and movements are making an explicit link between the protection of the environment and the adoption of frugal living conditions. And it is probably not illegitimate to assume that more respect for nature and its many wonders would progressively lead to a culture more focused on conservation and moderation than on the acquisition of riches.

Then are economic and political reasons. The dominant economic model is criticized not only for its predatory effects on nature but also for transforming human beings into consumers whose permanent state of dissatisfaction, fed by omnipresent advertising, is necessary to the functioning of a system of production and distribution based on the relentless creation of “needs” and the rapid obsolescence of goods which, once upon a time, were made to last. It is observed that the “rules of the market” are spreading into domains of social life previously governed by non-mercantilist or even altruistic principles. And, as money is increasingly the main determinant of status, prestige and social stratification, inequalities in the distribution of income and wealth tend to become more pronounced and to undermine the equality of rights – including the equality of opportunities – which constitute the foundation of Western democratic regimes. This problem is compounded by the concentration of financial and economic assets that appears to characterize the present phase of global capitalism and by the related weakening of the distinction between the private and the public spheres of influence and power.

This dominant economic model is seen by some (many?) as morally and politically questionable. It has generated various forms of protest from movements and organizations of the civil society and it seems that a significant number of “ordinary” citizens feel powerless and dread a future shaped by forces that are pursuing their own goals and are not politically accountable. Not to be in the “movement”, which is symbolized by globalization, is synonymous of marginalization. Then, as socialist and communist models of planned and state-controlled economy have lost their appeal and credibility, it would seem that a new or renewed way of conceiving the economy, the well-being of people and the concepts of development and progress ought to be explored. And it would also seem that the notions of simplicity and frugality might provide useful guideposts to this search.

Thirdly, there are philosophical and religious, or spiritual reasons for seeking simpler life-styles. According to many traditions (could we say for most cultures of the past and for some cultures of the present?) wisdom requires simplicity of life, control over one’s emotions and desires, and a level of serenity or inner peace that is only possible if the self is sufficiently detached from the many calls that are offered by life in society. In this line, wisdom implies a fair amount of stoicism. And happiness, said to have been “invented” in 18th century’s Europe, was seen by moralists as the cultivated fruit of wise moderation and serene search for simplicity. Even Epicureanism was all but an unrestrained submission to one’s appetites. Such link between wisdom, happiness and simplicity also involves generosity and altruism. Except perhaps in currents of thought that flourish amongst the tragedies and horrors of the 20th century, wisdom and happiness never cohabitated with selfishness and a frantic quest for riches. Spirituality was synonymous with simplicity and purity of the soul. It related to the Being rather than to the Having.

Such entanglement of wisdom, happiness and simplicity is seemingly alien to the acquisitive, agitated and noisy modern culture. Common perceptions of what constitute a good life and a successful society are antithetic to traditional religious and moral teaching. The United Nations speaks about peace, prosperity, development and elimination of poverty, but the words simplicity and wisdom are not part of the international language. Non-Governmental Organizations are much more preoccupied by the skewed distribution of wealth and power among nations than they are concerned with excessive consumption in the affluent countries. And religious authorities are very vocal about issues of morality while being discreet on the need for wisdom and simplicity.

Indeed, the quest for simplicity is far from being a mass phenomenon. Yet, there are many individual examples of deliberate rejection of the omnipresent competition that characterizes modern economies and societies. And it is probably not absurd to imagine that traditional forms of wisdom remain hidden behind the agitated surface of the contemporary world. Nor is it farfetched to believe that of the many forms of violence that plague this world there are some that reveal non-material needs and problems.

Some of the questions suggested by this first theme are the following:

• Are the reasons mentioned above, and others that might have been omitted, justifying a political project of search for simpler life-styles?

• Are there examples that can be given, in this or other parts of the world, of political parties or movements having embraced such project? Quid of the “alter-mondialist” or anti-globalization movement? Do the established religions say something in this regard?

• Assuming that the search for greater simplicity is indeed real, is it a manifestation of “over-development” in affluent countries? Is the “South” implicated? And should it be ?

• In fact, is, today as yesterday, the quest or dream for a simpler life-style a matter of individual choice? And, is simplicity a matter of concern for intellectuals, artists and spiritually minded persons? And only for them? Is the appreciation and taste for simplicity a privilege of those who have too much of everything?

• It might be so, but could it be that for once those intellectuals and other privileged people would be right? Could it be that the choice humanity is facing is between chaos and a radical change of values and perspective?

Second theme: What is a simpler life-style and what sort of economy (ies) would its generalization implies?
Simplicity is not poverty, except if the latter is the result of a choice. And even in the case of chosen poverty in a religious or secular context there is always a community or “order” that ensure the basic needs of its members. To live a simple life would therefore mean to be satisfied with what is required for material subsistence and to avoid superfluities, both in possession and in consumption of goods. In the 1970s, the ILO launched the notion of “basic needs”, which has some similarity with this notion of simplicity. But there is an essential difference. The ILO and the UN were concerned with the developing countries and their widespread poverty. The objective was to lift these countries and their citizens to a level corresponding to the accepted understanding of human decency. Here, simplicity would first apply to the members of affluent societies. The objective would be to limit material needs and aspirations and, in parallel, to change the understanding and measurement of what constitute a progress in levels and styles of living. Hence numerous questions and issues on the concept of what is “necessary”, on the relativity of this notion across cultures and times, and on the approaches and policies that could render simplicity attractive beyond a small minority

Hence also the need to define simplicity in relation with abundance, wealth and the “superfluous”. As is the minimum required for sustaining life, the superfluous is relative. It might however be possible, in a given country, to identify a sort of average and common view of what could be sacrificed without hardship and even of what it would be advantageous to avoid possessing or consuming. But simplicity should not be equated with austerity. And even less with mediocrity. The luxurious and the superfluous are also often the beautiful and the non-utilitarian that enhance the quality of life and render a civilization attractive and creative. And the luxurious that is at the same time beautiful is the product of imagination, talent and efforts. It requires the use of resources. Simplicity ought not to be rooted on mediocrity, laziness, or on envy and hate for the rich and the successful.

Simplicity, or frugality, ought not to be the imposed result of equality in income and living conditions. Forced equality is always destructive of what makes the soul of a society and it always result in the emergence of new inequalities and new privileges often worst than those that existed before. Equality of rights, however, is fundamental in any decent society. Such rights are first civil and political. Their respect requires the State refraining from abuses of power. Rights are today also economic, social and cultural. Their promotion requires State intervention. To achieve for instance equality of opportunities – an objective shared by all regimes founded on democratic principles – deliberate policies are necessary. The enjoyment of fundamental freedoms, including the freedom to have an economic activity and to develop it, leads easily to inequities, excessive inequalities, violence and repression, if these freedoms are not oriented and tempered by a sense of duty and responsibility vis-à-vis the collectivity and by redistributive measures inspired by the pursuit of social justice. It would therefore seem that frugality ought not to be the intended or unintended result of extreme or “unfair” inequalities in the distribution of income and in living conditions. To day, however, in many societies, the relations between social justice and freedom are problematic.

Simpler life-styles, in terms of levels of consumption, uses of sources of energy and of durable goods and perhaps services, would have, if involving an important fraction of the population of a country (5-10% would probably be sufficient), important consequences for the economy, especially in a developed country. The demand for goods and services would not necessarily be reduced, but it would certainly have a different composition. There would presumably be an increase in the demand for public goods and services – notably those related to the protection of the environment — and a decrease in the demand for mass produced private goods. Structures of production would have to adjust. Employment opportunities may be reduced in some sectors, but possibilities for independent work would be likely to increase. Whereas the relative cost of the various factors of production and international competition are presently pushing for the development and use of labour saving technologies and methods of production, more interventionist national economic policies could lessen the weight of the interests of large and often transnational corporations and take better account of the needs of ordinary citizens. The growth of international trade, currently much faster than the growth of national economies, would ceased to be an objective in itself. Overall, it would seem that simpler styles of life would have enormous consequences for energy consumption and the choices of the sources of energy, and would restore some of the basic features of the healthy market economy that tend to be forgotten in this age of global capitalism.

It is perhaps in the realm of attitudes, aspirations, mentalities and of what is often called “system of values” that a move towards greater simplicity would imply the deepest transformations. Such transformations are normally slow, even invisible, but can be extremely rapid in case of dramatic events such as a war or a catastrophe of great magnitude. They are not easily “managed” and difficult to plan, but the role of public intellectuals and political authorities ought not to be ignored. Governments with a mandate and a willingness and capacity to act can affect rapidly and durably the values that sustain the citizenry. Which values? Can they be inspired by the Small is Beautiful that Schumacher published some thirty years ago?

Among the relevant questions:

• Is the simplicity that is evoked here a synonym of wisdom? Is such association still pertinent in the French culture of today? In other cultures? What about North- America?

• What would be the “engines” and the characteristics of the economy of a country where the adoption of simpler life-styles would be more than anecdotic? Is it possible to imagine an economy that would diversified in its types of relations with the outside world and also diversified in the choice of its technologies and methods of production and distribution?

• For most countries, what is the meaning of “outside world” and which authorities or actors of the economy are in a position to make choices regarding the relations with this external environment? What is the meaning of a search for simpler life-styles in a context of globalization? At the regional level, could for instance France adopt more frugal life-styles in the context of a European Union that would remain focused on the rate of economic growth as presently measured? What frugality would imply for the understanding of the concept of competition?

• What about the human propensity for expansion and domination, notably in the economic and financial domain? Is “gigantism” the main enemy of simplicity, as suggested by Schumacher? Would it be possible to diversify the domains where competition and the search for personal or collective excellence would be exercised? What would be the consequences for the concepts and projects of development and reduction of poverty if the ILO or the UN were to advocate the adoption of simpler and more frugal life-styles ?

• Which statistics, indicators, concepts and methods of assessment and measurement of the functioning of an economy and society would to be put in place to accommodate the search for simpler life-styles?