“Austerity” was recently called the word of the decade in the Wall Street Journal. From the perspective of business the primary deficits to be tamed are those in public spending, but the truth is that our economy and consumer culture are as over-extended as our public purse. In fact, we face multiple deficits simultaneously.

In The Sustainability Revolution, systems-learning pioneer Peter Senge explains that stabilizing “CO2 in the atmosphere at levels that minimize catastrophic consequences will require 60 percent to 80 percent reduction in emissions in the next two decades.” Michael Pollan, who writes about the culture and the environmental costs of food, has observed that our eating habits enfold us in three interrelated crises: the energy crisis, since food production and transportation account for consumption of 20 percent of the world’s yearly oil output; the health crisis, because processed and fast foods contribute to the obesity and type-2 diabetes epidemics that are bankrupting healthcare systems; and the environmental crisis, as deforestation proceeds to accommodate cattle grazing, and fisheries are vacuumed to the point of species extinction. Fiscal austerity is prudent, but to only focus restraint on spending misses the larger, structural deficits that will become even more destabilizing and dangerous in the not too distant future.

We have usually adopted austerity as a corrective – a short-term measure to reduce debts and restore balance. Just as weight-loss diets rarely work for human beings, instant cuts in spending – no matter how deep – rarely inspire the lasting change in attitude, lifestyle and culture needed to secure social and fiscal health. In effect, we take our medicine rather than eschew the practices the led to the malady. While such tactical austerity may have been feasible in the past, the unsustainable environmental and social deficits that underpin the unsustainable economic deficit require a far-more systematic and comprehensive frugality. As only a remedial measure, austerity paradoxically only re-enables the status quo of over-extension. Only as a virtue does austerity become truly transformative.

In fact, the notion of virtue inheres in austerity’s etymology. Derived from the Latin austeritas, this was one of the disciplines, comparable to piety, which Romans embraced as a virtue. Only later, in mid-14^th century French usage, did “austerity” assume its more commonly understood notions of “sternness” or “harshness.” Interestingly, while the meaning has continued to imply “severe self-discipline,” from the mid-17^th century the word also related to “severe simplicity.” It seems as if our modern usage emphasizes much more the stern and harsh remedies, without giving due consideration to the capacities for self-discipline, and values for simplicity, that would facilitate authentic and enduring sustainability.

It strikes me then that we have options in our public discourse and policies in relation to two quite distinct modes of austerity: on the one hand, the “utilitarian austerity” that attempts to balance the fiscal books, and on the other the “humanistic austerity” that develops the inner resources and sensibilities for that indispensible moral balance based on wisdom.

UTILITARIAN AUSTERITY	HUMANISTIC AUSTERITY
• Correct past excesses • Live within means • Balance budgets • Tactic to restore consumption • Cut-backs imposed by economic laws • Short-term intervention • Emergency response • Driven by “What to do.” • Cognitive skills focused on  ‘calculation’ • A practical remedy for the ‘effect’	• Preserve sustainable balance • Live with more meaning • Balance rights and responsibilities • Virtue to embed moderation • Discipline required for creative flourishing • Long-term capacity • Emergent core-competence • Motivated by “How to do it.” • Relational skills co-developed from  ‘interdependence’ • A prudent transforming of the ‘cause’

Obviously, there is value to both modalities, yet focusing on utility alone actually undermines the more valuable and far-reaching humanistic restraint. Already politicians and business leaders are arguing that curtailing public spending needs corresponding cuts in the regulations on environmental, consumer and social protections. By pursuing this one-dimensional utility, balancing the economic books risks simply transferring heavier costs onto our other unsustainable deficits. The mistake of insisting on a single intervention to deal with a systemic problem is quintessentially self-defeating. Just this week the OECD has warned the UK policy-makers that the harsh programs of austerity may have gone to far, too fast, to the point of actually strangling the prospects of recovery. The lesson that we need to take to heart is that we need to be prudent even about our prudence, moderate and balanced even when trying to recover from excess.

The credit crisis took years to simmer and come to a boil: carbon emissions have built up over decades. It is naïve folly to presume to correct such systemic problems in one fell swoop. And it is purposefully irresponsible to see these systems of excess and not begin the long-term attitudinal and structural adjustments necessary to secure a more sustainable society within a more sustainable economy.

Tags: austerity, austerity ethics, humanistic austerity, multiple deficits, utilitarian austerity

This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 1st, 2011 at 3:19 pm and is filed under Ethics Lab. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.