Simplicity, humility and serenity
A number of remarks were made on simplicity and the meaning of a simple life-style. Simplicity is a.sophisticated concept. It is not the same as poverty and material deprivation. A simple life requires a minimum amount of money, this amount varying with places and circumstances. But frugality demands generosity and liberality, for a simple life ought not to be tense and self-centered. So much so that, for instance in the Quaker tradition, simplicity is the condition for and the equivalent of generosity and respect for the other. It means attention to the needs of other human beings, especially the weakest. It also means rejection of violence. It is the opposite of selfishness, self-assertion, and self-centeredness.
Thus, simplicity is not a state, but a process, a continuous search conducted with humility and serenity. There is no ready-made guide or recipe for this attitude of the mind and heart. It demands efforts and leads to a joyful communion with others and with the world. It is a virtue that is never lived as such, for the simple heart has no incline to superiority and judgment. A simple life is a healthy and harmonious life. Simplicity is, par excellence, holistic and inclusive, as love and respect for nature is also love and respect for humanity. A life is lived simply not only in relation to the material world, but also in relation to the arts and cultures. There, simplicity means openness and capacities to appreciate and to wonder.
Simplicity as a social and relative notion
Perhaps because the idea of the retired and ascetic anchorite is resolutely alien to the modern mind, a simple life was never conceived, during this discussion, as implying some withdrawal from society and from public affairs. The monastic life was not evoked, even though there is seemingly a renewal of interest for it in different regions of the world. Simplicity, a life not burdened by the “things,” it was said, leaves time and energy for interesting and important pursuits, notably politics and the serving of the common good. And, going several steps further in the “socialization” of the notion of simplicity, it was argued that possession and consumption are social statements. They vary with societies and social classes, or strata. Sometimes, the seemingly superfluous is socially essential and takes therefore priority over basic necessities.
Then, in this perspective, simplicity becomes an essentially relative notion, unless it is identified simply with a certain distance and detachment vis-à-vis riches, however abundant or scarce these are. A simple life would be a life liberated from the tyranny of materialism which affect, notably perhaps in the West, rich and poor alike.
Still in the logic of this socio-economic insertion of the notion of simplicity, it was further argued that a type of production and consumption consistent with local traditions and practices should be considered as responding to the requirements of a simple life. Hence the frequent association of the simple with the local and the rural (the “terroir”). Such an idea of linking simplicity with the use of local products and local ways of living is very much in line with the “décroissance” movement (of which more later) and very much at odds with the tenets of the globalization process and project. It is also an idea that runs against the perception of development as a linear process, with stages and clearly defined objectives (essentially “catching-up” with the affluent countries). Thus there is justification in calls for national and regional autonomy in development strategies and policies. Further, simplicity, so defined as faithfulness to one’s roots and conditions ought to be part of the reflection on multiple modernities.( see below, meeting in Beijing).
Voluntary simplicity and forced austerity
Simplicity should be of a voluntary nature. If a simple life is not chosen but imposed by circumstances beyond the control of an individual, or a group, resentment, anger and envy for those with more may ensue, and these sentiments are incompatible with the serenity that accompanies simplicity. If however, a life-style reduced to the bare necessities is imposed by external forces but accepted with equanimity, common sense would suggest that simplicity retains the virtue emphasized by the Stoics. Hence the confirmation that simplicity is closely related to moderation, steadiness, and wisdom.
There is no doubt that simplicity, so conceived, is practiced throughout the world by a significant number of individuals and families. More so than twenty or a hundred years ago? More in the affluent countries of the North than in the struggling or “emerging” economies of the South? More in societies marked by Buddhism and Confucianism than in regions that were or are under the influence of monotheist religions? The meeting did not address those questions. It had no reason to do so, because the focus of the Agenda was on the political feasibility and likelihood of a movement towards a simpler life than the one embodied in the dominant capitalist and materialistic culture.
Simplicity remains an individual quest
Has the search for simplicity a political expression in today’s world? Some “green” parties, notably in Western Europe, used “simplicity” in their platforms. Also in Europe, there are sometimes references in conservative and/or Christian democratic political circles to the desire of peoples for a simple life, away from the noise and agitation of large cities. And there are intellectual movements and groups rejecting both global capitalism and planned socialism that are trying to influence the mainstream political debate. An example is the “décroissance” movement, which emphasizes local and organic modes of production, consumption and living and has linked with unions of small peasants fighting the attempts of large multi-national corporations to dominate the agricultural sector of the economy. One of the points made by this movement is that the availability of all products at all seasons in the supermarkets of the Western world is not only costly in environmental and other terms, but is source of unhappiness for the consumers. Abundance leads to satiety and indifference. The meeting, however, did not dispose of a serious study or survey, even limited to Europe, on the political relevance of the idea of simplicity in the current political debate.
It heard nevertheless an informed judgment from one of the participants who, referring to France, was rather dismissive of the significance of the indeed frequent references to simpler life-styles in the political discourse or in the conversations of socialites. “Pretence”, “hypocrisy”, “snobbism” were the qualifiers for this kind of talk. Peoples are not ready to change their styles of life and aspirations for their children, not more in France than in the United States. And yet, said the same participant, it is imperative that a dramatic change in mindsets should take place because the Western culture is running into an impasse with its excessive focus on the “having” and neglect of the “being.” But, again in political and collective terms, this will happen only when imposed by circumstances leaving no room for escape and excuse. Out of necessity, and only out of necessity, will emerge different attitudes and different policies. This is so because, most unfortunately, Western democracies have lost the capacity to identify, legislate upon and implement the common good of the time with a clear vision of a desirable future. Political debates and processes are replete with corporatist and short-term issues and interests. Pressure-groups and lobbies do not create informed citizens and responsible leaders.
With many nuances on the respective roles of necessity and choice (including through the power of education and the influence of public intellectuals and benevolent organizations of the civil society) several participants shared this judgment on the desirability and unavoidability of transforming the private virtue of simplicity into a collective political project. Other participants, while being rather critical of global capitalism in its present raw form, were not convinced of the necessity, or, for that matter merits of transforming the virtue of simplicity into a political motto for the future of humankind. They were not persuaded by the three “plausible” set of reasons given in the Agenda for this gathering.
“Material” reasons for simpler life-styles are not convincing enough
As to the ecological reasons- global warming, exhaustion of oil resources and other man-made or natural phenomena may indeed impose changes in patterns of development, modes of consumption and life-styles- but there is nothing to suggest that such changes will necessarily be in the direction of greater simplicity. If a family trades its two “sports utility vehicles” for two “hybrids” does it mean that this family has adopted a simpler life-style? New and environmentally “friendly” technologies are not “simpler” than traditional technologies. It is simpler to throw out waste than to recycle it. One should not confuse a new form of modernity with simplicity.
Regarding the economic and political reasons also evoked in the Agenda it is true that the dominant model of development is based on the “relentless creation of needs and the rapid obsolescence of goods which once upon a time were made to last” and also true that the “rules of the market are spreading into domains of social life previously governed by non-mercantilist and even altruistic principles,” but correctives to these defects are to be found in public regulations, incentives, and disincentives rather than in a radical change of course for which there is little theoretical basis. Growing inequalities will not be reversed through a call for less production of consumer goods. And, above all, there are still hundred of millions of people throughout the world who have the right to aspire to the goods and amenities currently enjoyed by a few.
Thirdly, the philosophical and religious, or spiritual reasons for seeking simpler life-styles are perfectly valid and convincing. It is true that great philosophers, moralists and prophets have consistently linked wisdom, happiness and simplicity. It is also true, to quote the agenda, and as already stated above, that “there are many individual examples of deliberate rejection of the omnipresent competition that characterizes modern economies and societies” and that “it is not absurd to imagine that traditional forms of wisdom remain hidden behind the agitated surface of the contemporary world.” It can even be granted that there is probably a link between the many forms of violence that plague the world and the excessive materialism of the dominant political culture.
But these observations, which are to be debated and researched, and which are at the roots of utterly legitimate individual choices, cannot without major risks, be transformed into political projects. To preserve freedom, including the freedom to accumulate wealth and enjoy it selfishly, or the freedom to live a solitary and ascetic life, the domain of public affairs should be carefully circumscribed. If the need for simplicity were to become a coherent political programme, self righteous politicians and ideologues will loom on the horizon, as they presently do on issues of morality and social mores.
Summarizing this position of the prudent and the skeptical, one of the participants asked repeatedly the following question: “If the material reasons (meaning ecological and economic reasons) for simpler life-styles did not exist (and at this point they are far from being obvious), what would be the other reasons for advocating simplicity?” Implicit in this question was the conviction that such “other reasons” were respectable but certainly subjective, debatable and culturally and politically rooted. One can hope to reach a political agreement – even eventually at the international and global level – on, for example, the need to develop such or such type of energy, but one should be very hesitant to have the same ambition with regard to the dissemination of the virtue of simplicity.
On this question of simplicity, as on other aspects of a “renaissance of the spirit,” the debate, within and outside the Triglav Circle, between idealists and realists, or between liberal humanism and spiritual humanism, is still in need of considerable elaboration and sophistication. It remains very difficult, and very necessary, to effectively mobilize and use different sources of knowledge and different sensibilities. At this particular meeting, an observer from planet Sirius might have concluded that instrumental rationality was not subjected to a big enough challenge.