Thaís do CARMO ARANTES
Author
Talk of sufficiency often urges expansion and dissemination. This would imply that many have not heard of this concept. That is indeed true of the current academic use of the term, that of avoiding demand for energy, materials, water, land and other natural resources while providing wellbeing for all within the planetary boundaries". However, is the essence of sufficiency really a novel concept? And can it be useful to the Global South?
I would argue, first, that sufficiency is a reimagining of philosophies that have since been colonised by Western powers. Sufficiency-adjacent ideals have existed since time immemorial, in cosmovisions such as Sumak Kawsay or Ubuntu. In a way, sufficiency is the pinnacle of White Man's Dilemma, and his search for that which he has destroyed.
Certainly, this "discovery" is greatly marked by the colonialidad del saber (coloniality of knowledge), in which Eurocentric capitalist society is assumed to represent all forms of living. This presumed universalism creates an opaque representation of the world that brings no true liberation to the Global South. As posited by Latin American critical thought, one must always speak in relation to where one is situated, and as such sufficiency does not acknowledge marginalised voices in its grounding structure. Here, we talk not of the applications of sufficiency, such as restructuring cities around soft mobility or the redistribution of resources, but the principles that ground sufficiency as a philosophical and political concept.
When Princen talks of relational sufficiency, he speaks of community as a combination of individuals. But for the peasants of the Mayan Chiapas, who subsist through agroecology and maize production, there is only the plural whole. Their "we" is a completely different entity. For them, a relational sufficiency of the sum of many individualities serves no purpose.
Moreover, the Thai example, regarded as the one notable real-life utilisation of the concept, shows how different foundational features can be across cultures. The Thai Sufficiency Economy Philosophy (SEP) is heavily influenced by Buddhist ideals. For that reason, it places a strong emphasis on self-reliance, moderation, and communal resilience. In contrast, Western sufficiency emphasises systemic change, distributive justice, and ecological sustainability. Western sufficiency could not serve Thai society in the same way as SEP could not serve the Northern countries. After we acknowledge these grounding differences, we must ask: do we seek dialogue with the other around sufficiency? Or do we propose to bring them knowledge in a unidirectional manner, and expect them to simply apply sufficiency as we have told them it should be applied?
One may argue that critiquing sufficiency is a disservice to the discussion of North-South inequalities in ecology. And yet, even under sufficiency, the South still struggles to be heard. Max-Neef is a prime example of this struggle, adding plural existential modes in his model of human needs despite criticism, and pushing for the development of the Latin American World Model. Yet, he is still one of the few Southern voices present in this discussion.
The Global South must be able to speak for itself, and sufficiency needs to be constructed upon local cultures and habits. Otherwise, it serves no purpose other than becoming another exported knowledge good.