Seemingly in response to a parenthetical remark of mine ("One thing we
can do is to stop imagining the literary criticism can say _much_
about economics or that economic thinking can say _much_ about
literature" [emphasis added]) in an off-list message to him,
Sandwichman wrote:
> A "lit critter" named Kenneth Burke made the following footnote remark in a
> 1937 book:
>
> "Among the sciences, there is one little fellow named Ecology, and in time
> we shall pay him more attention. He teaches us that the total economy of
> this planet cannot be guided by an efficient rationale of exploitation
> alone, but that the exploiting part must itself eventually suffer if it too
> greatly disturbs the balance of the whole (as big beasts would starve, if
> they succeeded in catching all the little beasts that are their prey their
> very lack of efficiency in the exploitation of their ability as hunters thus
> acting as efficiency on a higher level, where considerations of balance
> count for more than consideration of one tracked purposiveness)."
FWIW, Goodwin developed a very good model of economic growth based on
the predator/prey story, a phenomenon which biologists have known
about for a very long time.
By the way, Burke must not have thought that the passage above was
important. Why else would he have put it in a footnote?
> How many economists were building "good" economic models in 1937 that
> incorporated ecological balance as part of their perceived reality?
I don't know. Maybe Tom will know. Back then, Institutionalism was the
dominant school of economics, at least in the US. Neoclassical
economics was playing second fiddle. Unfortunately, even Institutional
economics was likely ignorant of ecological issues, since the
ecological constraints that are currently obvious were not clear back
then. (I'd bet that Institutionalists like Veblen and Commons didn't
have much respect for Nature, just as someone as progressive as Leo
Huberman praised the conquest of the native Americans.)
How many "lit critters" were conscious of ecological constraints back
then? Again, maybe Tom will know. I do know that Romanticism has
played a role in poetry since the Industrial Revolution in the UK.
William Blake's "Jerusalem" is a salient example. But there were a lot
of other poets and "lit critters" who ignored ecology (such as the
Futurists). It would be interesting to see which group was better back
in 1937, economists or "lit critters." That sounds like a lot of
research, though, just to prove that one profession is better than
another. Who cares about such pissing matches?
> To what
> extent do mainstream economists do so today?
NB: even though Tom's missive seems aimed at a comment I made, I have
made it very clear that I make no brief for "mainstream economics."
Nor do I defend the use of real GDP as a measure of human welfare or
economic sustainability or what's good for nature. Nor do I worship
"economic growth."
> The same lit critter Burke also
> said the following in a 1935 speech to the American Writers Congress:
>
> "'Myths' may be wrong, or they may be used to bad ends but they cannot be
> dispensed with. In the last analysis, they are our basic psychological tools
> for working together.
Right. Without "myths" (abstractions), not only can people not think,
but we cannot live and work together.
> A hammer is a carpenter's tool-, a wrench is a
> mechanic's tool; and a "myth" is the social tool for welding the sense of
> interrelationship by which the carpenter and the mechanic, though
> differently occupied, can work together for common social ends. In this
> sense a myth that works well is as real as food, tools, and shelter are. As
> compared with the reality of material objects, however, we might say that
> the myth deals with a secondary order of reality: Totem, race, godhead,
> nationality, class, lodge, guild all such are the "myths" that have made
> various ranges and kinds of social cooperation possible. They are not
> "illusions," since they perform a very real and necessary social function in
> the organizing of the mind. But they may look illusory when they survive as
> fossils from the situations for which they were adapted into changed
> situations for which they are not adapted."
In passing, we should remember Marx's concept of fetishism, i.e., that
a lot of these myths that help people work and live together in
society obscure the true nature of the system.
> I want to call attention especially to the last sentence in which Burke
> talks about what happens when the myths "survive as fossils" in changed
> circumstances. When Tim Jackson refers to the "myth of economic growth" in
> the Sustainable Development Commission report, "Prosperity without Growth?",
> he mainly is calling attention to the failure of growth to deliver the goods
> in terms of social equity, economic stability and environmental
> sustainability.
That hardly suggests that the concept of "economic growth" should be
totally flushed down the loo.
> All I'm trying to do is call attention to a deeper analysis of myth in which
> it can be seen that the status of the constituent terms (economy, growth,
> measurement) themselves is in question. Even Burke concedes that myths can
> function as social tools. The point is, however, that just because they did
> once serve as tools doesn't mean they still do or that they are necessarily
> the best social tools under the circumstances. If new social tools are
> required, there is nothing in the constitution of reality that requires
> those new tools to necessarily be designed in some one-to-one correspondence
> with an analogy of the old tools.
I don't see how one can simultaneously see "economic growth" as a
fossilized category to be rejected and also criticize the economy for
emphasizing it too much (and so call for "de-growth"). If one thinks
that "economic growth is bad for the ecology," then one has to define
the key terms ("economic growth," "ecology").
Why isn't "ecology" a myth? it seems to be a mental construct held by
humans that is pretty abstract. After all, the many interconnections
amongst the elements of the "ecology" cannot be perceived directly
with the senses. But even if "ecology" is a myth, it is clearly a
useful one, for understanding the problems with the human condition
(another "mythical" concept) in the 21st century, among other things.
My bottom line: rejecting "economic growth" as a concept that's useful
for describing the world (as Tom seems to do) only makes sense if
there's some sort of alternative conception ("myth" if you will) to
replace it. Ptolemaic astronomy was bogus, yes, but it made sense to
reject it only when Copernican astronomy was available. After all,
Ptolemaic astronomy served some useful purposes, even if it was
relatively cumbersome in its formulations.
(As noted above, I reject "economic growth" as a normative concept.)
--
Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own
way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
