Degrowth: A “missile word” that backfires? Stefan Drews a , Miklós Antal b,c, ⁎ a Institute of Environmental Science and Technology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Edifici Z, UAB Campus, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain b Institute of Social Relations, Eötvös Loránd University, Pázmány Péter sétány 1, 1117 Budapest, Hungary c Austrian Institute of Economic Research (WIFO), 1030 Vienna, Arsenal, Object 20, Austria abstract article info Article history: Received 17 November 2015 Received in revised form 1 March 2016 Accepted 4 April 2016 Available online 14 April 2016 Language use and cognition are generally underappreciated topics in ecological economics, even if effective com- munication is essential for social and political impact. To challenge the economic growth paradigm, the concept and term “degrowth” has recently been embraced by various activists and scholars. Drawing on a body of evi- dence from cognitive science, psychology, and related fields, we argue that using the word degrowth might be dis- advantageous in public communications about alternatives to growth. We begin by reviewing arguments in favor of the term. Then we outline three main counterarguments: First, degrowth has a downward orientation which triggers negative initial feelings due to the basic conceptual metaphor “up is good—down is bad”. This puts advo- cates of an alternative to the growth paradigm in an unfavorable starting position, given that subsequent thought will be unconsciously biased by the initial feeling. Second, more conscious reactions are likely to be negative as well because people unfamiliar with the term will (mis)interpret it as a contraction of the economy, even though it is not always meant as such. Third, degrowth repeats and possibly strengthens the growth frame and may activate undesirable frames associated with economic recessions. To conclude, we briefly discuss alternative terms and summarize key aspects to be considered for more effective communication. © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Growth-versus-environment debate Degrowth Language Cognition Snap judgment Public understanding Ecological Economics 126 (2016) 182–187 ⁎ Corresponding author at: Institute of Social Relations, Eötvös Loránd University, Pázmány Péter sétány 1, 1117 Budapest, Hungary. E-mail addresses: stefan.drews11@gmail.com (S. Drews), antalmi@gmail.com (M. Antal). “When the language in use is inadequate to articulate what begs to be articulated, then it is time for a new vocabulary.” D'Alisa et al. (2014). 1. Introduction In the last decade, various researchers working on alternatives to the economic growth paradigm started to use the English language term “degrowth”—a supposed “missile word” that originates from the French term and activist slogan “décroissance.” The provocative word was coined in 2001 and seeks to overcome the widespread ignorance about the presumed unsustainability of endless economic growth (Demaria et al., 2013). Until 2015, four international conferences, more than 100 academic and many more newspaper articles used degrowth as a central theme. Besides initiating a research agenda and raising important questions about the way our societies are organized, proponents of degrowth seek to build a social movement (Kallis, 2011). Evidently, this entails reaching out to a wider audience and spreading the word degrowth. Several commentators, however, reacted unfavorably to this slogan. For example, the renowned linguist and activist Noam Chomsky said in a 2013 interview: “But when you say ‘degrowth’ it frightens people. It's like saying you're going to have to be poorer tomorrow than you are today, and it doesn't mean that. […] It shouldn't be called ‘degrowth.’ It should be called ‘improving your lives.’” (canadiandimension.com, 2013). Only a few studies focused on language and cognition in prior issues of this journal (e.g., Luks, 1998; Antal and Hukkinen, 2010; Shaw and Nerlich, 2015). For instance, Luks (1998) highlighted the need to con- sider rhetorical aspects in the communication with politicians and the general public if ecological economists want to increase their impact on public policy. Overall, these issues are largely underappreciated de- spite a substantial body of theoretical and empirical literature in cogni- tive science, psychology, and related applied fields documenting the power of word choice and framing. To give two illustrative examples: saying “global warming” instead of “climate change” can result in higher engagement among the general public but also raise doubt concerning the existence of the phenomenon among US Republicans (Whitmarsh, 2009; Leiserowitz et al., 2014; Schuldt et al., 2011); and calling an envi- ronmental charge a “tax” rather than an “offset” significantly reduces the willingness of Republicans to pay this charge (Hardisty et al., 2009). It is widely accepted that many decisions are not made in an an- alytic, conscious and deliberate, but rather an intuitive, quick, and un- conscious way (e.g., Kahneman, 2011). Such insights are increasingly used in political psychology to draw conclusions about the realities of opinion formation regarding public issues (e.g., Westen, 2007; Lakoff, 2008; Lodge and Taber, 2013). Because some kind of framing is http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.04.001 0921-8009/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Ecological Economics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon