INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
Beyond Growth: Technology, Work, and Time in the Construction of  
a Social-Ecological Rationality. A Dialogue between Gorz, Latouche,  
Illich, Sennett, and Winner  
Marcelo Fabiàn Amante  
National University of Tres de Febrero (UNTREF), Province of Buenos Aires, Argentina.  
DOI: https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.91200010  
Received: 11 December 2025; Accepted: 19 December 2025; Published: 30 December 2025  
ABSTRACT  
This article proposes a critical and integrated analysis of the perspectives of André Gorz, Serge Latouche, Ivan  
Illich, Richard Sennett, and Langdon Winner to examine the profound contradictions of capitalist economic  
rationality and outline the foundations of an alternative social-ecological rationality oriented towards  
sustainability and autonomy. These thinkers, stemming from distinct intellectual traditions (social philosophy,  
ecological economics, institutional critique, craftsmanship anthropology, and philosophy of technology),  
converge on a shared diagnosis: contemporary societies are shaped by a productivist rationality that subordinates  
human autonomy, ecological sustainability, and cooperative practices to economic accumulation and  
technological determinism [1, 2].  
We argue that the logic of unlimited growth, central to this paradigm and fundamentally critiqued by Gorz and  
the degrowth movement, colonizes lifetime, instrumentalizes technology in its "closed" form, and empties public  
discourse of concrete ethical content, as Winner points out [1, 3]. In response, we propose that the notions of  
"open" and "convivial" technologies [11], craftsmanship as a reflective dialogue between hand and  
intelligence [13], and the pursuit of "liberated time" [2] for self-realization constitute the interconnected pillars  
of a necessary socio-ecological emancipation project [2]. Gorz's proposal for a liberated time society, integrated  
with the degrowth platform, offers a coherent framework for emancipation, demanding not just a reduction in  
working time but a cultural, technological, and practical reorientation that revalues autonomy, reflective  
craftsmanship, and political action over the inertia of economic growth [1]. Overcoming the profound confusion  
in values, diagnosed by Winner [15], requires transcending abstract discussion and anchoring our proposals in  
concrete material and organizational practices that prefigure a post-growth society, where well-being,  
cooperation, and sustainability replace accumulation and market efficiency as the organizing axes of social life  
[2].  
Keywords: Degrowth, Economic Rationality, Open Technologies, Convivial Tools, Craftsmanship, Liberated  
Time, Social Critique, André Gorz, Serge Latouche, Ivan Illich, Richard Sennett, Langdon Winner, Social-  
Ecological Rationality.  
INTRODUCTION  
The Critique of Growth Rationality and the Pursuit of Autonomy  
The 21st century faces a multifaceted crisis—ecological, social, and existential—whose roots intertwine in the  
paradigm of unlimited economic growth, the core of capitalist rationality [1, 16]. This paradigm, based on profit  
maximization and productive efficiency, has generated persistent inequalities and an accelerating depletion of  
natural resources, promoting a total commodification of life that undermines community bonds and individual  
autonomy [16, 1]. Contemporary societies are marked by the dominance of a productivist and economic  
rationality that measures social success primarily through unlimited economic growth, labor output, and  
technological expansion [2]. This system’s structural unsustainability is established by Nicholas Georgescu-  
Roegen’s Entropy Law [1], which provides an undeniable scientific foundation for the critique: perpetual  
physical growth is thermodynamically impossible on a finite planet [1].  
Page 103  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
Faced with this multidimensional crisis, fragmented or purely technocratic responses prove insufficient [1].  
There is a need to articulate an integrative framework of thought that, starting from a solid critique, can outline  
the contours of an alternative rationality: a social-ecological rationality [1]. This article seeks to weave a  
constructive dialogue between five key thinkers—Gorz, Latouche, Illich, Sennett, and Winner—whose works,  
while stemming from related intellectual traditions, are rarely brought into direct conversation [1, 2]. These  
thinkers share a suspicion toward the assumption that technological and economic expansion inherently signals  
progress [2]. The objective is synthetic: to identify and connect the fundamental components of a coherent  
alternative to the prevailing model, demanding a radical re-evaluation of fundamental concepts: work, leisure  
time, and technology [2].  
Article Thesis  
We argue that Gorz's proposal for a liberated time society, integrated with the degrowth platform articulated by  
Latouche and Illich, offers a coherent framework for emancipation. This emancipation not only requires a  
reduction in working time but a cultural, technological, and practical reorientation that revalues autonomy,  
reflective craftsmanship, and political action over the inertia of economic growth [1, 2]. We seek to answer:  
How does the radical critique of growth relate to a new conception of work, technology, and public ethics? ¿In  
what way can concrete practices and the tools we use prefigure a different world? [2].  
We structure the argument in four main movements: Gorz’s critique of economic rationality and the project of  
degrowth, integrated with Latouche and Illich; the political dimension of technology (closed vs. open and  
convivial); Sennett’s revaluation of craftsmanship as prefigurative practice; and Winner’s essential corrective  
regarding the confusion in ethical discourse and the need for a material ethics.  
While the present article is primarily theoretical, its framework is not detached from contemporary  
transformations. Phenomena such as digital platform labor, the rhetoric of “green growth,” and the increasing  
automation of work illustrate how economic rationality continues to colonize time, technology, and subjectivity  
under new guises. These developments reinforce the relevance of the conceptual dialogue proposed here, even  
though a detailed empirical analysis of such cases exceeds the scope of the present contribution.  
Economic Rationality and Its Dissolution: Gorz, Time, and Degrowth  
The starting point is André Gorz’s critique of economic rationality, a logic that subordinates all human purposes  
to profit maximization and unlimited growth [1]. This rationality colonizes lifetime [5], transforming waged  
work into the gravitational center of existence and reducing "free time" to a mere functional appendage: a time  
for consumption and recovery, with the sole aim of restoring productive capacity for the next labor cycle [1, 2].  
Gorz exposes the perversion of this system by pointing out that "the existence of millions of workers cannot be  
secured except through the systematic waste of the wealth they produce" [5]. Work thus ceases to be a  
meaningful activity to become an abstract economic obligation [1]. This logic is not only ecologically  
unsustainable but profoundly alienating, devaluing leisure and leading to individual alienation [1].  
The Devaluation of Leisure Time  
Gorz criticizes the ideology of work, where it is presented not only as a means but as an end in itself [1]. Under  
this logic, leisure is not a space for fulfillment but a period of compulsory consumption necessary to reactivate  
production [1]. To understand the magnitude of this alienation, it is useful to reference Hannah Arendt’s classical  
distinction in The Human Condition [7] between:  
Labor: The activity tied to biological necessity and survival (consumption and reproduction).  
Work: The creation of durable objects, the artificial world.  
Action: The free and political interaction among individuals.  
The critique asserts that consumption capitalism reduces the majority of human existence to Labor, limiting the  
space for meaningful Work and, crucially, for free Action, which is relegated to devalued "free time" [1].  
Page 104  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
Towards the Society of Liberated Time: The Degrowth Framework  
The logical consequence of this critique is the radical reduction of waged work time and the consequent  
liberation of time [1]. Gorz thus postulates the "society of liberated time" [4], where "work is not, nor should it  
be, the essential thing in life" [5], advocating for the adoption of the "norm of sufficiency" [2]. This reclaimed  
time is not passive leisure but "socially productive time" dedicated to self-renewal, cooperation, and personal  
development outside the instrumental logic of the market [1]. In terms of Jürgen Habermas [8], this liberated  
time is essential for Communicative Action, allowing the construction of social and political relationships not  
mediated by capitalist Instrumental Action [1].  
This perspective aligns directly with the degrowth movement, which proposes the necessary socio-political and  
ecological framework [1]. The degrowth movement—articulated most prominently by Serge Latouche [9]—  
emerges as a direct political and ecological critique of the ideology of development and the belief in unlimited  
economic expansion [2]. Degrowth is not recession but a project of "orderly withdrawal from the opulent  
consumer society" [6] that redefines prosperity, decoupling well-being from material accumulation [1, 2]. It  
finds its ineludible basis in the ecological economics through Georgescu-Roegen’s Entropy Law [1], establishing  
physical economic growth as impossible and unsustainable in the long term [1].  
Latouche provides a pragmatic program for change, summarized as the "eight R’s" (Re-evaluate,  
Reconceptualize, Restructure, Redistribute, Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Relocalize) that guide the transition [9, 1].  
This project has a profound dimension of social justice. Joan Martínez Alier [10] introduces the concept of  
"ecologism of the poor," showing that the environmental costs of unlimited growth (e.g., resource extraction)  
are unequally distributed, affecting the most vulnerable communities [1]. Degrowth is thus an imperative for  
both ecological sustainability and social equity [6].  
Ivan Illich complements these ideas through his critique of industrial society’s institutionalization of basic  
human needs [2]. The convergence between Gorz, Latouche, and Illich lies in their shared recognition that  
alternative social models require both ecological limits—a bio-physical imperative—and a profound cultural  
transformation, resulting in a reorganization of everyday life, work, and technology towards post-opulence [1].  
TECHNOLOGY AND AUTONOMY  
The Distinction Between Closed and Open/Convivial Tools  
The transition to a liberated time society and the degrowth model is unviable without a profound reconfiguration  
of the technologies we use [1]. Technology is, in this analysis, a political and social battleground [1].  
Closed vs. Open Technologies (Gorz)  
Gorz distinguishes two clear technological models [3]:  
Closed Technologies: These are the instrumental arm of economic rationality [3]. Designed and  
controlled by large corporations, their internal logic is one of profit maximization, planned obsolescence,  
and creating user dependency [1]. They are inherently political, as their material architecture configures  
power relations and consolidates centralized control, perpetuating the control necessary for the growth  
paradigm [1, 2].  
Open Technologies: These are accessible, sustainable, repairable, adaptable, and promote autonomy and  
self-management [1, 2]. They are designed to serve the community, not capital accumulation [1]. Gorz  
is categorical that there can be no political autonomy without a technical base that enables it [3].  
Conviviality and Technological Democratization  
The notion of open technology is amplified by Ivan Illich’s concept of "Convivial Tools" [11]. A tool is  
convivial when "it is at the service of the person integrated into the collectivity, and not the other way around"  
[11]. Convivial tools are characteristically appropriable, sustainable, and decentralizing. They avoid the need for  
Page 105  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
monopolies of knowledge or production, aligning closely with both Latouche’s political project and Gorz’s  
distinction between autonomous and heteronomous spheres [1, 2].  
The choice between technologies is fundamentally political [1]. Andrew Feenberg [12] argues that technology  
possesses a "Double Character": although its initial design may be shaped by capitalist rationality (closed  
technologies), it can be democratized and re-signified through social participation [1]. The challenge is not to  
reject technology per se but to transform it to reflect values of autonomy and sustainability, converting it into an  
instrument for liberated time and conviviality, in line with contemporary concepts like "design for conviviality"  
[17]. A socio-ecological rationality requires a technological transition towards the open and convivial, where  
tools empower rather than create dependency [2].  
CRAFTSMANSHIP AS PREFIGURATIVE PRACTICE  
The Thinking Hand and the Ethics of Care (Sennett)  
If capitalism alienates the individual through instrumentalized labor, the proposal for emancipation must redefine  
work as an intrinsically meaningful activity [1]. Richard Sennett’s philosophy provides a fundamental piece by  
recovering the figure of the craftsman not as a romantic ideal, but as an epistemological and ethical model of  
engagement with the world [13, 2].  
The Indivisible Unity: Hand and Intelligence  
Sennett’s central contribution is revealing the dialectical unity between the hand and intelligence [13, 2].  
Opposing the Cartesian dichotomy that separates thought from action, Sennett demonstrates that the deepest  
knowledge is embodied and material [1, 2]. The "intelligent hand" solves problems, experiments, and learns  
through tactile and reflective interaction with materials, a process he terms "reflection-in-action" [1, 2]. He  
argues that the hand not only executes but "thinks," forging human intelligence through sustained dialogue  
between the craftsman and their work [13]. This process requires "learning to distance oneself from a problem...  
to better appreciate what it is about and then return to it with a new attitude" [13]. Craftsmanship is, therefore, a  
constant source of adaptive, practical reflection [1].  
Craftsmanship and Liberated Time  
This conception makes craftsmanship the living antithesis of alienated labor [1, 2]. The craftsman maintains  
control and comprehensive understanding of the entire process, with motivation stemming from the "simple  
pleasure of doing something well" and the pursuit of quality [14, 2]. The relevance of Sennett in the context of  
Gorz and Degrowth is multifaceted:  
Meaningful vs. Alienated Work: Craftsmanship serves as the ideal model of work for liberated time,  
providing self-realization outside the economic sphere. It is the paradigmatic meaningful activity for  
Gorz’s "liberated time" [1, 2].  
Durable Creation and Ethics of Care: Craftsmanship focuses on the creation of durable objects,  
embodying Work (according to Arendt [7]), which aligns with the degrowth goal of reducing  
consumption and promoting reuse and repair [1]. Furthermore, the craftsman is the quintessential user of  
open/convivial technologies, engaging in an ethics of care and deep understanding antithetical to the "use  
and discard" logic [2].  
Community Formation: Sennett emphasizes that craftsmanship requires and fosters cooperation and  
the exchange of skills [14]. This supports Gorz’s vision of a society that values self-organization and  
human development [1].  
Sennett thus provides the model for a way of being in the world that combines material autonomy, critical  
reflection, and an ethics of quality, prefiguring the relationships and reflective forms of practice of a post-growth  
society [2].  
Page 106  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
WINNER’S WARNING  
Beyond the Confusion in "Values," Towards a Material Ethics  
The construction of an alternative rationality faces a formidable obstacle in the very language of contemporary  
public debate [1]. Langdon Winner [15] acutely diagnoses that discussion about "values" has become "a  
symptom of profound confusion" [15]. According to his analysis in The Whale and the Reactor (1986), the term  
has degenerated into an abstract, subjectivized, and depoliticized concept that replaces more robust moral  
categories such as "justice," "rights," or "common good" [1, 2].  
The “Values” as Evasion of Reality  
Winner states that "The longer this talk goes on, the emptier it is and the more removed from any solid ground"  
[15]. This language becomes a smokescreen that allows structures of power to avoid direct confrontation with  
the real, negative effects of technological and economic development [1]. The focus on abstract "values"  
prevents one from asking: Who truly benefits from this economic model? and What kind of society are we  
building? [1]. This conceptual confusion leads to the atrophy of ethical argumentation and the evasion of  
concrete political responsibility [1, 2].  
Reestablishing the Political Discourse  
Winner's critique is an essential corrective: it alerts us against the temptation to present degrowth, open  
technologies, and craftsmanship merely as a new set of abstract "values" in the marketplace of ideas [1, 2]. The  
strength of the Gorz-Sennett proposal lies in its foundation in concrete material practices and social structures  
[1]. The "norm of sufficiency" is not a slogan but a principle that emerges from the reorganization of production  
and time; the "dialogue with materials" is a corporeal experience [2]. Winner's critique thus urges us to anchor  
ethics in materiality [1].  
Social-ecological rationality is not promoted primarily through manifestos of values, but through the creation of  
institutions (such as cooperatives managing open technologies), the enabling of time (the reduced workday), and  
the fostering of practices (craft and repair workshops) that, in their very functioning, embody and teach a  
different relationship with the world, work, and others [1, 2]. Winner’s critique reinforces the need to ground  
the ethical discourse of transformation in concrete arguments of ecological and social justice, conviviality, and  
autonomy [1].  
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION  
Weaving the Framework of a Strategic and Convivial Shift  
By gathering the threads of this five-voiced dialogue, a coherent and synergistic framework for a social-  
ecological rationality is revealed [1, 2]. This is not the sum of independent parts but an ecosystem of ideas where  
each component potentiates and requires the others [2]. The current crisis is fundamentally a crisis of rationality  
and priorities: the hegemony of the economic logic is not only bio-physically unsustainable (Georgescu-Roegen  
[1]) but also alienates the individual and generates social injustice (Martínez Alier [10]) [2].  
The convergence of these five authors contributes to a robust, multidimensional theoretical model that challenges  
productivism and outlines the interconnected pillars of an alternative social-ecological rationality [2, 3]. The  
society of liberated time emerges as a project of emancipation that demands a strategic shift [6] across four  
interconnected axes:  
1. Time and Production: The radical reduction of waged labor to foster Communicative Action and self-  
realization (Gorz [2], Habermas [8]). This aligns with Degrowth’s political-ecological project of "orderly  
withdrawal" from post-opulence (Latouche [9]) [1].  
Page 107  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
2. Technology: The adoption of Convivial Tools (Illich [11]) and open technologies that promote self-  
management and decentralize power (Gorz [3], Feenberg [12]), providing the material infrastructure for  
autonomy and making liberated time meaningful [2].  
3. Work and Practice: The revaluation of work through Craftsmanship as a model of reflective,  
meaningful, and durable activity (Sennett [13], Arendt [7]), providing the qualitative content for liberated  
time and an ethics of care and quality [2].  
4. Ethics/Politics: The overcoming of the confusion of values (Winner [15]) to ground Degrowth and  
technological transformation in concrete arguments of ecological and social justice, conviviality, and  
autonomy, enabling effective transformative political action [1].  
Although the convergence among Gorz, Latouche, Illich, Sennett, and Winner reveals a powerful shared critique  
of productivist rationality, important tensions remain. Illich’s radical skepticism toward large-scale institutions  
contrasts with Gorz’s willingness to engage policy mechanisms such as work-time reduction and income  
guarantees. Similarly, Winner’s emphasis on technological politics introduces a more cautious stance toward  
democratization than some convivial or degrowth approaches. Rather than weakening the framework, these  
tensions underscore its richness and prevent its reduction to a unified doctrine.  
Final Implication  
True prosperity does not reside in unlimited material accumulation but in the wealth of liberated time and  
individual and collective autonomy [1]. The path towards conviviality and post-opulence is the only one that  
guarantees the essential balance between human well-being, social equity, and the health of the planet [1]. A  
synthesis of these traditions contributes to contemporary debates on post-capitalist futures, ecological transition,  
and democratic governance of technology, forming the pillars of an alternative social-ecological rationality [2].  
This strategic shift is essential to building a future that values a full life over the quantity of goods consumed.  
Limitations and Directions for Future Research  
This article is intentionally conceptual and synthetic in scope. As such, it does not provide detailed empirical  
case studies of contemporary socio-technical configurations such as digital capitalism, platform labor, or green-  
growth policy frameworks. Further research would be necessary to test and refine the hypotheses advanced here  
through comparative empirical analysis, institutional case studies, or ethnographic approaches to work,  
technology, and time use.  
Additionally, a more systematic examination of the divergences among the thinkers discussed—particularly  
regarding institutional design, political strategy, and technological governance—would enrich future theoretical  
developments. Addressing these dimensions would allow a more fine-grained assessment of how a social-  
ecological rationality might be operationalized under diverse historical and political conditions.  
REFERENCES  
1. Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1971). The Entropy Law and the Economic Process. Harvard University Press.  
2. Gorz, A. (1997). Misères du présent, richesse du possible: Pour une civilisation du temps libre. Galilée.  
3. Gorz, A. (2016). Critique of Economic Reason. Verso.  
4. Gorz, A. (2001). Paths to Paradise: On the Liberation from Work. Pluto Press.  
5. Tula Molina, F. (2017). La crítica de la razón económica y la sociedad del tiempo liberado. El caso de  
André Gorz. Revista de Sociología, 32(1).  
6. Tula Molina, F. (2019). El decrecimiento: Un viraje estratégico hacia la post-opulencia. Revista  
Internacional de Sociología (RIS), 77(4).  
7. Arendt, H. (1958). The Human Condition. University of Chicago Press.  
8. Habermas, J. (1981). The Theory of Communicative Action. Beacon Press.  
9. Latouche, S. (2010). Farewell to Growth. Polity Press.  
Page 108  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
10. Martínez Alier, J. (2004). The Environmentalism of the Poor: A Study of Ecological Conflicts and  
Valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing.  
11. Illich, I. (1973). Tools for Conviviality. Harper & Row.  
12. Feenberg, A. (2002). Transforming Technology: A Critical Theory Revisited. Oxford University Press.  
13. Sennett, R. (2009). The Craftsman. Yale University Press.  
14. Sennett, R. (2012). Together: The Rituals, Pleasures and Politics of Cooperation. Yale University Press.  
15. Winner, L. (2008). The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology.  
University of Chicago Press.  
16. Hickel, J. (2020). Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World. Windmill Books.  
17. Tironi, M., & Hermansen, F. (2022). Designing for conviviality: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and Political  
Possibilities. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 47(1).  
Ethical Considerations  
The research conducted did not involve human subjects (patients) as the object of investigation.  
Conflict of Interest  
The authors declare no conflicts of interest related to the research, the data collection, or the publication of the  
findings.  
Data Availability Statement  
All data necessary to support the findings of this study are contained within the article text itself. No additional  
data are available in external repositories.  
Page 109  
www.rsisinternational.org