Growth Fetish by Clive Hamilton

Growth Fetish Reviews

• 
  Anna

  I found this book satisfying for a number of reasons. Firstly, it was lucidly written and clearly explained, with the structure but not the jargon of academia. An excellent combination. Secondly, it brought together a great many thoughts I’d seen articulated elsewhere and/or thought myself in a cohesive whole. Thirdly, I agreed with basically everything in it. The discussions of feminism could have been more nuanced, otherwise I think Hamilton got it right. It is incredibly unusual for a book about economics and politics to induce so little criticism on my part. How refreshing! I can’t believe that I hadn’t read this book before, as clearly I should have. It was first published in 2004, after all.
  
  Although the ideas within ‘Growth Fetish’ weren’t new to me, the book synthesised them particularly well. The critique of neoliberal capitalism is a strong, evidence-based one grounded in measures of wellbeing and detriments to the environment and social fabric. As a synthesis, it fits neatly between books that have come before and after it, such as
  No LOGO,
  Feral: Rewilding the Land, the Sea, and Human Life,
  Combined and Uneven Apocalypse, and
  Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. The element that shows its age is the detailed dissection of Third Way politics, all mention of which seemed to vanish during the financial crisis. Austerity politics has dispensed with the platitudes of the Third Way, instead dismissing all considerations except The Markets and the great idol Growth. As such, the main thesis of the book has become more critical in the past six years.
  
  As well as macroeconomic critique of economic growth as a government’s main policy aim, ‘Growth Fetish’ has much to say on the micro level. In particular, that neoclassical economics has no concept of ‘enough’. In order for firms to continue to grow, new wants must continually be created by marketing and consumers must never be satiated. As well as being ecologically destructive, this imperative is incredibly depressing for individuals. The world is so steeped in advertising for new things that it is very difficult to say, “I have enough”. It is nonetheless essential.
  
  The last few chapters of the book try to set out the pathway to a new post-growth politics and steady state economy, based on individuals freeing their minds from the tyranny of compulsory consumption. This pathway is no detailed blueprint and wouldn’t be sufficient for a political party manifesto, but still provides a more useful outline than almost any other book I’ve read on the topic. There remain many difficult questions, of course. In particular, how to dislodge the massive companies enforcing this cycle of overconsumption. From a climate change perspective, the elephants in the room are energy companies. To avoid catastrophic climate change, such that human civilisation would be fundamentally undermined, these companies will have to abandon billions of pounds worth of coal and oil. Obviously, this goes against their legal duty to maximise stockholder value, as well as their business plans, management ethos, and basic reason to exist. So does climate change require a revision of the basic legal structure of private companies? I wonder. This book doesn’t discuss this specific point, although it does suggest very strict regulation of advertising.
  
  In short, I highly recommend ‘Growth Fetish’ as a thorough, reasoned critique of neoliberal economic ideology and its political manifestations. Not only does the book challenge the tedious rhetoric of political parties, it also inspires self-reflection on our own habits of consumption and whether they actually make us happy. I spend quite a bit of time contemplating my own consumption habits anyway, so reading this encouraged a more detailed analysis. I also like the concept of eudemonism, although I am uncertain how to pronounce it correctly. I wish I could sent this book back in time to my undergraduate self of ten years ago, she would have found it so useful.
• 
  Baldur/Eli

  I'm utilising the review space this one time to let everyone getting the notification I finished a book called 'Growth Fetish' know that's it's about the economic concept of commodity fetishism, not anything Strange that I shouldn't be sharing with the Goodreads followers.
• 
  Sir Readalot

  Agree almost entirely with the thesis of this robin. The pursuit of economic growth by governments and the public's blind pursuit of happiness via consumption is a grave problem that will need to be reformed if our species is to carry on a meaningful existence.
  
  Only gave it three stars because it is at times repetitive and often very dry.
  
  
• 
  Elizabeth

  Very convincing in his argument for the personal and social benefits of simplifying life, but does not address the larger question of how we are to achieve a scaled-down society without creating a lot of problems in the meantime. It is, perhaps, significant that the author is Australian and thus does not have to deal with the US problem of health care being tied to a 40-hour/week job with a large corporation. Personal fulfillment in the USA is a luxury open only to those with the financial ability to escape the corporate health-care treadmill.
• 
  F.

  Having read Affluenza, I was already familiar with much of the arguments in this book, though this one is more of a overall survey rather than a detailed analysis, unlike the former. I agree with Hamilton's main points in that too much focus on growth can negatively impact on the environment and that consumerism does breed discontent. But what really let down this book was his reasoning for these points, as well as his solutions. I'll try and sum it up:
  
  1. Employment - For a start, Hamilton's view that switching from paid to voluntary work is somehow better for lifestyles in general. I agree that doing a job you are passionate about rather than one you slave over is better for your mental health, but how is this sustainable long term? Of course one can live on government welfare but to get that, you need a paid workforce to pay those taxes for welfare to exist. Money really doesn't grown on trees.
  
  2. Feminism - His view on Feminism is rather misinformed, and quoting an extremist like Germaine Greer really did not do his argument any favours. He basically states that women are tricked into thinking they are liberated by being able to work, yet become wage slaves of capitalism like men. He states that house work needs to be prioritised more over a career. So how then is being an incubator, chained to a stove more liberating? This completely undermines what I think he is trying to say, which was that both men and women need to focus on house work.
  
  3. Solution (or lack thereof) - Hamilton raises the point that we can have a stationary economy and to do this we can turn inwards to our creativity by no longer being motivated by money to do so. He did not go into depth on this, so it is unclear as to how this might happen. Many sectors, such as the arts, does require a lot of funding to survive. Human creativity alone might not sustain museums or cultural institutions, although it is highly important.
  
  I could go on, but this book was written in 2003 so I understand it is out of date. Overall, Hamilton's way of backing up his decent argument was too radical and in turn undermined it. It would be interesting to perhaps see an updated version of these ideas and whether they would hold the same resonance 20 years later.
• 
  Nancy

  Clive Hamilton is one of my favourite intellectuals - he is cogent, forward thinking and writes incredibly well. Although this book was written almost 20 years ago, long before social media really took hold and the world descended into the shit storm it is currently, it is just as relevant now as it was back then.
  
  Hamilton's thesis is that the myth of perpetual growth is an illusion. All it is doing is very rapidly destroying everything and, even according to the theory of entropy, it will necessarily have to come to an end. His outline of the damage that occurs because of our obsession with it is pretty chilling - perhaps even more so when it is read so long after he first wrote it. But the final chapter, with his possibilities for a post-growth or stable economy was so positive and so utterly achievable, it does seem amazing we haven't already started down that path. Although, I have to admit, there are probably far more people nowadays than there were in 2003 who not just believe in an alternative, but are actively trying to live it.
• 
  Greg Robinson

  an important contribution to the debate of the era; readable for anyone, even without an Economics degree
• 
  Radiantflux

  27th book for 2016.
  
  I was quite disappointed with this book. There are certainly some interesting ideas here, but most seem pretty woolly.
  
  The book conflates 'growth' and 'consumption'. While a growth society may imply ever greater consumption; a set-state economy doesn't imply that consumer consumption should cease or for that matter that it is bad. Just from a practical point of view it would be far easier to convince people of the virtues of a post-growth economy if at the same time you don't unnecessarily criticise them for living inauthentic lives.
  
  His belief that mass marketing brainwashes people into consumer drones seems at least questionable to me. Sure advertising works at some level, but are people really so stupid/passive? His statement that housework is imbued with "female qualities" made me almost want to throw the book across the room.
  
  The discussion how consumption/wealth related to a happy contented life was more interesting, and how societies should be trying maximize life-satisfaction vs GDP was good, although it feels dated now. It would have been great to have a much larger discussion about Japan. There was no mention of the Scandinavian countries, which seems a shame as there seems to be a lot of relevance to issues raised in the book.
  
  There should have been much more discussion of the potential difficulties in transitioning to a post-growth society. Reading the book you get the impression that his is already well under way (which seems seems strange from the perspective of a reader 12 years later - what happened?), and all people need to do is demand shorter working hours.
  
  Interesting, if flawed, book.
  
• 
  John

  Across the mainstream political spectrum, from "liberal" to "conservative", by Republicans and Democrats, it is accepted without question that "growth" (economic growth) is a good, indeed that it is *the* good - the measure of the success of a social or political system. Clive Hamilton dares to question, and indeed dismantle, this assumption in "Growth Fetish". Not only will endless "growth" inevitably collide with the constraints of a finite world; Hamilton adduces evidence that it has not been very effective in delivering well-being. It hasn't made us any happier. Indeed, continued growth requires the artificial generation of unhappiness and dissatisfaction, in order to persuade "consumers" to invest themselves in "new" products which seem to offer the possibility of a creating a new identity.
  
  "The greatest danger for consumer capitalism", writes Hamilton, "is the possibility that people in wealthy countries will decide that they have more or less everything that they need". If that decision became widely shared, society itself would be radically reshaped - "downshifted", with the economic sphere occupying a much smaller portion of the whole of life. Hamilton argues that such a society would in fact be a richer one in every way that matters.
• 
  Paul Fleckney

  This is an extremely important book that I think everyone should read. The first 4 chapters provide a very effective demolition of the current capitalist-consumerist growth obsession that pervades every inch of our lives. The book as a whole is highly readable, insightful and engaging. There's very little here that I don't agree with or does not make sense to me apart from some of the feminism discussion which could have been more nuanced I feel.
  
  I only gave it 4 stars because I feel at times Hamilton is really cherrypicking his evidence to fit his ideas and while I understand that this is perhaps necessary because so little research has been conducted 'outside the mainstream' on this issue, it is patently and awkwardly obvious at times. I also feel, like so much non-fiction, the book tapers off towards the end and the last few chapters did not match the intensity and power of the first ones.
  
  As with all books on this topic, the challenge is how to convert such seemingly self-evident wisdom into real world action. Hamilton makes a reasonable attempt at this in the final chapter but it reads too much like an afterthought and is not particularly convincing.
• 
  Scott

  Put the review up on hubpages here
  
  
  http://hubpages.com/hub/Growth-Fetish...
• 
  Mark Stevens

  brilliant!
• 
  Jason

  It is making a lot of sense so far.
• 
  Sean Finn

  An interesting analysis of the the ills in consumption with a sprinkling of neoliberalism shortcomings. Unfortunately, no real credence is paid to free market structures. What it misses is a proper discussion around the alternative economy which features no growth as is mentioned strangely sporadically throughout.
  It finishes by offering an alternative that is based on a heavily regulated economy which strips choice and rights from the people it seeks to equalise. I am concerned for anyone who takes the paltry and damaging recommendations seriously.