Rosser Jr, John Barkley wrote:
>Doug,
> You are interested in analyzing capitalism aren't you?
>It's a system isn't it?
> Also, you are one of the most intrepid and capable
>data wonks in cyberspace. Why the sudden horror of data?
Look, I have nothing against analyzing society systematically, or I
wouldn't admire Marx so much. I have nothing against using numbers to
analyze social reality either, or I wouldn't make so many charts. Nor do I
have any objection to using chaos theory to talk to math-heads to argue
that simple systems can go wild or that models are exquisitely sensitive to
assumptions. What I object to in the Santa Fe research program, which has a
lot in common with a whole lot of neoclassicals and even some radicals, is
the impulse to view society as something that can or should be thought of
as something that can be represented using the same kinds of models used to
represent the physical world. As the Santa Fe statement puts it:
"Much of the work envisions the economy as composed of large numbers of
interacting agents, mutually adjusting to each other as time passes. The
agents in this economy - the 'interacting particles' of economics - decide
their actions consciously, with a view to the possible future actions and
reactions of other agents. That is, they formulate strategy and
expectations, they learn and adapt. As this learning and mutual adaptation
take place, new economic structures or patterns may emerge, and there is a
continual formation and reformation of the institutions, behaviors, and
technologies that comprise the economy."
Maybe I'm exhibiting the unsteeled romanticism of a former English major in
finding "interacting particles" a repulsive way to think about human beings
and their institutions. No longer even appendages of flesh attached to
machines, we're machines ourselves, or virtual representations of machines.
I suppose it's not far from Homo economicus to the rational calculating
machine, but it is a step. Or should I go all Donna Haraway now and embrace
the cyborg as our future?
It's not just alienation that's missing from Santa Fe picture - it's any
notion of conflict, struggle, or politics. Joan Robinson said that the
neoclassicals wanted to replace history with equilibrium; now we're
replacing it with "adaptation," which may or may not lead to equilibrium,
but which ain't no improvement.
Doug
