Sustainability as a New Word

Last week, I dropped a sentence about “sustainability,” which sparked a conversation. I wrote that “Sustainability, in reality, is not about bringing back a substantial balance — as we would like to believe — but it’s simply about reducing the damage we do” (see DM Dec. 13). Then Matthew sent me an email in which he said the following:

“Sustainability” is a very important word for the 21st century; it is a new word — we might say — for justice and balance and homeostasis. It is found in our bodies, in our minds (“all dreams come for healing,” says Jeremy Taylor), in societies that survive, and in our relationship to nature if we are to survive with it.  

How can one not appreciate Matthew Fox’s definition and the wealth of deep thought that lies behind it? So what did I mean?

Sustainability is a word that did not exist when I was in high school. It was introduced by the U.N. Brundtland Commission in 1983, which also provided the concept of “sustainable development” in 1987. Since then, both have known a great favor. As it happens with all expressions that become fashionable, their meaning and their uses have varied a lot in the last forty years. Today, there is a wide scholarly output not just on sustainability, but on what people mean when they talk about it. Years ago, a friend who worked professionally as a philosopher in the field of “sustainable studies” told me that she wanted to quit because the field itself was becoming too confusing!

Upon research, I learned that the word “sustainability” existed since 1713 in the German language as Nachhaltigkeit — still the German word for sustainability — as applied to forestry. It meant that if you want to cut trees in a forest for human use, you ought to do it in a way that the forest does not die, but keeps healthy and grows enough new trees for the use of the next generations. Forestry studies have, of course, expanded enormously since then, but this is not a bad pedigree for our word, it turns out!

The problem with “sustainability” does not reside, therefore, in the concept itself, which is instead quite noble. It expands the mind beyond the confines of the modern era of greed and anthropocentrism. It speaks about justice and balance — as Matthew says — in a way that includes bodily creatures: minerals, plants, trees, animals, and our own animal bodies. It defines in a new and accessible way the great old word homeostasis, which may sound difficult outside the circles of philosophically-minded people.

But there are problems with the use of the word and its related expressions. The most obvious problem is greenwashing: companies fill their mouths and their ads with sustainability, but it’s a lie that helps them raise their profits. This might be hard to spot by non-experts like myself, but it is a clearly defined issue.

A much more complicated issue is the distinction between weak and hard sustainability. In the first model, technology will be able to help nature recover from the damages inflicted by humans; in the second model, such trust in technology is ill-placed: while nature is able in some cases to recover by itself in suprising ways, we humans should be aware that certain functions provided by nature, once lost, cannot be recovered at all by technological means.

A major development in the use of the word has been represented by focusing on three distinct yet intertwined aspects of sustainability: ecological, economic, and social. These are included in the U.N. sustainability goals. Critics of this development underline that the ecological dimension should always be understood as the overarching dimension — both logically and practically — and not as just one of the three.

Indeed, it seems to me that even the honest uses of the word “sustainability” risk producing zero results, unless it is clear that the human economy at present is eating up the natural resources and altering the cycles of life on earth. Slowing down such processes is not enough at all.

The elephant in the room that few want to see is this: continued economic growth is not compatible with the life of biological organisms — including humans. The capitalistic economic model has been successful in the short run, but it’s suicidal in the long run. A deep reflection on sustainability should issue in a deep critique of the present triumphant economic model.

Unfortunately, when one digs a bit into the current uses of the word “sustainability” in political documents or the policies of big companies, more often than not, one finds that almost nobody takes seriously the idea of balance, which is at the root of the word itself. In most cases, what is truly meant by sustainability is “damage reduction,” which is not bad, but it is not truly honest either.

Perhaps we as spiritual people have a job specially tailored for us. Just as Matthew did in his email to me, our job is that of reminding ourselves and others of the root-meaning of the word “sustainability” and its nobility, while noticing and studying its uses and abuses.

---

Banner Image: “It Ain’t Much, But It’s Honest Work.” American farmer David Brandt, known for using, improving, and advocating for sustainable agriculture techniques, specifically no-till farming and cover crops. Outside of the agriculture field, he was known on the internet for being the face of the “Honest Work” meme. Wikimedia Commons.

---

Queries for Contemplation

Are you familiar with the debates on sustainability? Do you find this to be a spiritual matter worthy of your time?

---

Related Readings by Matthew Fox

Order of the Sacred Earth: An Intergenerational Vision of Love and Action

The Reinvention of Work: A New Vision of Livelihood For Our Time

A Spirituality Named Compassion: Uniting Mystical Awareness with Social Justice

Coming of the Cosmic Christ: The Healing of Mother Earth and the Birth of a Global Renaissance

Original Blessing: A Primer in Creation Spirituality

A Way to God: Thomas Merton’s Creation Spirituality Journey

---