One of the most commonly discussed degrowth policies, which is currently being trialled around the world, is work time reductions. Proposals such as a four-day work week seek to reduce time in paid work without any reduction in pay. Much has been written on the topic by degrowth scholars, and there is growing momentum to adopt these policies in other industries. Yet among academics, and especially those advocating for degrowth, there appears little talk of reducing their own working hours.
This post explores the tension I feel as an academic studying degrowth, especially when it comes to competing demands on one’s time, and the inherent paradox of an accelerating academic project that is itself advocating for downscaling and reductions. Despite the pressures to ‘publish or perish’ in academia and the increasingly urgent climate crisis more generally, I argue that academics should reflect on how we spend our time. While those in positions of precarity may not be able to, prominent scholars in the field with job security should consider whether they can work less. Such reflection serves firstly to improve well-being and promote slow science.
Moreover, I see this as an exercise to connect degrowth more concretely to our everyday lives, in order to move it beyond a merely intellectual pursuit and instead to promote change more directly.