No subject
Sun Nov 8 20:45:29 CET 2015
ac.uk</a>><br>
<br>
-------------------------------------------------------<br>
=E2=80=9CEconomists=E2=80=94the prophets and priests of this new religion=
=E2=80=94preach about and have a major impact on public policy and our inst=
itutional arrangements. Economics therefore provides an alternative faith t=
radition, complete with values, ideas of welfare and of progress=E2=80=94us=
ually defined in terms of quantitative economic indicators, which dominate =
public discourse and which seek to reshape our institutions and organisatio=
ns. With their influence on government, economists are the new theocracy, t=
he contemporary manifestation of Plato=E2=80=99s guardians.... In ancient t=
imes, seers entered a trance and informed anxious seekers of the mood of th=
e gods and whether the time was auspicious for particular enterprises. Toda=
y, the financial media are the diviners and seers of THE MARKET=E2=80=99s m=
oods, the high priests of its mysteries. THE MARKET has become the most for=
midable rival to traditional religions, not least because it is rarely reco=
gnised as a religion.=E2=80=9D (Boldeman, 2007: 279).<br>
<br>
Norgaard's timely essay follows nicely from some of the previous essays=
this year - from Kallis, Daly and Bellamy Foster for example - in offering=
another critical perspective on the ideological dimensions of dominant eco=
nomic thinking. While I agree 100% with the analysis offered by Norgaard, I=
feel he pulls his punches. Everything he describes as 'economism' =
can be easily and equally described as 'capitalist economics' or - =
to give its more usual nomme de guerre - neoclassical economics. 'Econo=
mism' is, after all, simply the ideology of capitalist economics, the c=
apitalist economic imaginary that has now achieved almost full spectrum ide=
ological and imaginative domination in how we define and describe the econo=
my and this how we conceptualise 'economics'.<br>
<br>
Thus it is not the =E2=80=98Anthropocene=E2=80=99 we now live in (which con=
veniently elides and deliberately obscured issues of class, power, global a=
nd national inequality, and injustices between peoples and places), nor is =
it the =E2=80=98Ecocene=E2=80=99 as Norgaard suggests. No, rather than eith=
er of these terms, a more accurate description for the current age is the =
=E2=80=98Capitalocene=E2=80=99 (Moore, 2014). After all, what we witness is=
not the 'humanisation the world', nor has our planet been =E2=80=
=98economised=E2=80=99, but rather the earth has been 'capitalised'=
. And it has been capitalised, rendered into commodities, monetised, and va=
lued right from the micro-level of DNA through biotechnology to the macro-l=
evel of the entire planet becoming negatively affected through climate chan=
ge by capitalism and its addiction fossil fueled endless orthodox economic =
growth.<br>
<br>
Similarly, when Norgaard talks of 'economists', I do not think he i=
s talking about feminist economists, ecological economists, Marxist or hete=
rodox economists, or green political economists such as myself. No, he is c=
orrectly talking about those who are members of the dominant economic ortho=
doxy, capitalist, that is, neoclassical economists, so let's call a spa=
de a spade. And, of course, it is economics as doxa that enables it to be i=
nterpreted as form of religious thinking.<br>
<br>
In everything from the nonsense of a 'value-free', objective 's=
cience' of the human economy to myths of endless economic growth on a f=
inite planet, we can correctly ascertain the ideological and mythic charact=
eristics of modern capitalist/neoclassical economics. So I ask if it looks =
like a pig, smells and walks like a pig, why not simply state that what we&=
#39;re talking about is capitalism, its ideological power and inherent tend=
encies to ecological irrationality and social injustice? Why be coy?<br>
<br>
On this issue, I've been always struck with the reticent of American sc=
holars from invoking the C word, in a way we in Europe find odd given how c=
riticism of capitalism and suggestions for possible post-capitalist politic=
al economies and social orders has long been a perfectly legitimate form of=
scholarly inquiry. It is almost as if some people can accept the end of th=
e world more readily than the end of capitalism....Here, economism as used =
by Norgaard is closer to the way it was defined by Lenin (quoted in the ess=
ay) as a reformist rather than transformative political project in its unwi=
llingness to explicitly propose the replacing of capitalism...but this is p=
erhaps a minor quibble (but one perhaps worthy of a future Great Transition=
discussion).<br>
<br>
I have myself long been convinced of the ideological character of modern ec=
onomics. Here, I make two related points. The first is that there is no ide=
ology-free conceptualisation of the economy and economics: all forms of eco=
nomic thinking are at root forms of 'political economy' a fusion of=
ethical, political, and normative prescriptions and principles with empiri=
cal economic proposals in terms of policies or suggestions for public polic=
y. Political economy is of course what Adam Smith and the great classical e=
conomists practiced, fully aware of the political and ethical dimensions of=
their ideas and proposals. It's a pity most modern economics students =
have very little idea of the political economy roots of the discipline they=
study . Instead, modern students of neoclassical/capitalist economics (sin=
ce there is little to no pluralism in modern economics teaching) are comple=
tely ignorant of either the normative or historical foundations of discipli=
ne. In this context, what we in<br>
the universities churn our year after year in our economics programmes are =
nothing short of 'technically competent barbarians' (Barry, 2012).<=
br>
<br>
The second point relates more to the religious invocation used by Norgaard =
to describe modern capitalist economics. Here, viewing this religious dimen=
sion as essentially ideological in another sense - that is masking and occl=
uding power relations or hidden normative assumptions conveniently smuggled=
in as 'axioms' for example - is a really important starting point =
for the dethroning of this false religion of 'economism'. Here we n=
eed to ask ourselves, in whose interest is this form of 'knowledge/powe=
r' deployed and inscribed in university curricula, and what does it hid=
e and why?<br>
<br>
How fragile as the assumptions behind market economics? asks Norgaard right=
ly. Here are some more suggestions to add to the ones he outlines.<br>
<br>
=E2=80=98Twelve Theses on Neo-Classical Economics=E2=80=99.<br>
<br>
1. the fact that the =E2=80=98economy=E2=80=99 is the material/metabolic fo=
undation/bridge/link between the human and non-human worlds also affects re=
lations of power within human societies;<br>
<br>
2. neo-classical economics=E2=80=99 purported objectivity, =E2=80=98scienti=
fic=E2=80=99 status, or =E2=80=98value neutrality=E2=80=99 is false since i=
t is as value-laden and based on ethical and political judgements, as other=
ethical or political position and prescriptions;<br>
<br>
3. related to that, this lends economics the illusion of being able to defi=
nitively establish the =E2=80=98truth=E2=80=99, mostly through its use of q=
uantitative and numeric methods, what Stephen Marglin (2008: 136) calls the=
algorithmic =E2=80=98ideology of knowledge=E2=80=99 of economics;<br>
<br>
4. modern capitalist economics regards itself as defined by its methodology=
and approach, which has (almost) universal application to all human affair=
s, rather than a subject matter, =E2=80=98the economy=E2=80=99 per se ;<br>
<br>
5. the =E2=80=98naturalising=E2=80=99 of the institutions of the modern mar=
ket economy =E2=80=93 such as =E2=80=98the market=E2=80=99, =E2=80=98privat=
e property=E2=80=99, =E2=80=98competition=E2=80=99, =E2=80=98efficiency=E2=
=80=99 etc. =E2=80=93 in such a way that these are both =E2=80=98natural=E2=
=80=99 (beyond the capacity of humans to alter) and also =E2=80=98good=E2=
=80=99, if we want economic growth and material well-being;<br>
<br>
6. which in turn establishes =E2=80=98economics=E2=80=99 and =E2=80=98econo=
mists=E2=80=99 as the professional =E2=80=98experts=E2=80=99 on how the eco=
nomy works, thus =E2=80=98crowding out=E2=80=99 or marginalising =E2=80=98n=
on-economic=E2=80=99 and thus =E2=80=98non-expert=E2=80=99 commentary on or=
views about the economy;<br>
<br>
7. allowing its analyses and aims =E2=80=93 most crucially the concept and =
objective of orthodox =E2=80=98economic growth=E2=80=99 =E2=80=93 to be acc=
epted within a pluralist social context, i.e., it is something almost all v=
alue/normative and political positions can accept, endorse, and support as =
a self-evident =E2=80=98common good=E2=80=99 (think of how both left and ri=
ght promote orthodox undifferentiated economic growth uncritically);<br>
<br>
8. its capacity to deliver (albeit unequally) material benefits to enough p=
eople often comes via hiding, externalizing, or sequestering the social and=
environmental costs of economic growth, but nevertheless it is regarded an=
d promoted as a form of knowledge that =E2=80=98works=E2=80=99;<br>
<br>
9. its supposed =E2=80=98non-political=E2=80=99 character =E2=80=93related =
to 2 above, which;<br>
<br>
10. supports powerful interests, groups, forms of thinking, and institution=
s within society, and allows the by-passing of ethical, political debate, a=
nd perhaps more crucially of all;<br>
<br>
11. its position as the =E2=80=98master discipline=E2=80=99 or form of know=
ledge within policy-making and political decision-making by the state such =
that all discourse and debate must ultimately be translated into a form acc=
eptable to neo-classical economics.<br>
<br>
12. which means that as well as =E2=80=98crowding out=E2=80=99 rival accoun=
ts of the economy, as well as political and ethical debate, neo-classical e=
conomics =E2=80=98colonises=E2=80=99 non-economic areas of life, such as he=
alth, family, the domestic sphere, community, and politics, i.e. , it moves=
outside its own subject area.<br>
<br>
While all of these =E2=80=98theses=E2=80=99 are interlinked, it is the impu=
ted =E2=80=98value-free=E2=80=99 (and therefore supposedly non-ethical and =
non-political) character of modern neo-classical economics that I particula=
rly wish to focus on here. Simply put, the study of the economy is not, and=
never can be, either a politics- or ethics-free zone.<br>
<br>
My own work on critically examining orthodox, undifferentiated GDP-measured=
economic growth as a permanent feature of the economy has led me to analys=
e not just growth but neoclassical/capitalist economics as by turns a form =
of ideology, myth, religion, and cultural meme (Barry, 2015). Revealing the=
ideological core of capitalist/neoclassical economics is of course central=
to Norgaard=E2=80=99s essay.<br>
<br>
The ideological power of capitalist economics cannot and should not be unde=
restimated. Its comprehensive failure to predict the current global economi=
c crisis has led neither to its displacing as a useful paradigm nor to the =
reforming and reformulating of the paradigm (Barry, 2012). Rather, we have =
witnessed what John Quiggin provocatively but correctly denotes as 'Zom=
bie economics' (Quiggin, 2010). That is, dead, analytically useless (bu=
t politically and ideologically powerful) ideas and nostrums that still rei=
gn over us in terms of informing everything from 'commonsense' and =
everyday understandings of the economy, to state economic policy, to the po=
litical platforms of political parties (Barry, 2012). This entails recogniz=
ing the =E2=80=98commonsense=E2=80=99 and =E2=80=98taken for granted=E2=80=
=99 nature of capitalist economics and its emphasis on growth, i.e. that al=
most everyone seems to at least tacitly, if not explicitly, accept it. Thom=
as Homer-Dixon captures this well in his statement that:<br>
<br>
=E2=80=9CThe tacit arrangement among our elites, our experts, and the rest =
of us is essentially symbiotic - a mutually gratifying and self-sustaining =
cycle of denial and delusion. Through our acquiescence in and often active =
support of modern capitalism, we legitimize our elites' and experts'=
; status and power, while those elites and experts give us an overarching i=
deology of permanence, order, and purpose that lends our lives a sense of p=
lace and meaning. According to this ideology, economic growth is a panacea =
for all our social and personal problems. Growth equals health. Unfortunate=
ly when we=E2=80=99re in denial, we can't think about the various paths=
that we might take into the future. Nor can we prepare to choose the best =
path when the opportunity arises. Radically different futures become litera=
lly inconceivable - they are =E2=80=98beyond imagining=E2=80=99 in the same=
way the heliocentric cosmos was inconceivable to many people prior to the =
Copernican revolution.=E2=80=9D (Homer-Dixon, 2006: 219)<br>
<br>
And we need to always remember that orthodox, capitalist economists are cal=
led up to comment on the media not because what they say is correct or true=
, but because they are asked, because they are presumed to be and present t=
hemselves as the authority on =E2=80=98the economy=E2=80=99. That is, it is=
from the fact that orthodox economists have privileged access to some obje=
ctively verifiable truth that their power and authority stems. Rather, it i=
s because ideologically we all accept that they so possess this power: the =
power to discern whether the =E2=80=98market fundamentals=E2=80=99 are soun=
d, to detect the prevailing or anticipated moods of the Gods of the market.=
How different is this from shamanism? Indeed, how different is the dogma o=
f austerity as cure for our current economic woes from other societies that=
sacrificed their children to assuage the Gods and ensure the harvest?<br>
<br>
I see Norgaard's article as an important contribution to the project of=
dethroning and delegitimising capitalist/neoclassical economics - similar =
to the view of scholars such as Princen who have advocated the effective de=
legitimisation of fossil fuels as an indispensable element in decarbonising=
the economy and combatting climate change (Princen et al, 2015). We need t=
o see neoclassical economics /economism for what it is=E2=80=94a form of gr=
oupthink=E2=80=94and we need more like Norgaard to point to the emperor and=
say he has no clothes. And as for what new clothes we need, what new '=
ism' as Norgaard put it, we need, my own suggestion (and in keeping wit=
h Norgaard) is that we need an old/new political economy of sustainability =
based on pluralism. We need context-specific not one-size-fits-all logic, a=
nd one in which the myth of endless economic growth is replaced with suffic=
iency, a sense of =E2=80=98enoughness=E2=80=99, and (as the degrowth positi=
on has it) a focus on redistribution of resources,<br>
economic wealth and opportunities. And perhaps above all else, a new model =
of progress and prosperity beyond orthodox economic growth which has done i=
ts job in the overdeveloped world (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2009), and now pa=
ssed the point where it is causing more costs than benefits.<br>
<br>
It is high time we call a spade a spade and move on from not just the dange=
rous myth of perpetual economic growth, but the entire dominant economic sy=
stem of thinking (which can be viewed as form of religious, ideological and=
indeed mythic thinking) and practices behind it - namely, carbon-fueled, c=
onsumerist-dependent capitalism. To paraphrase, 'It=E2=80=99s capitalis=
m stupid'. And to invoke religious language, =E2=80=98the truth will se=
t us free=E2=80=99. And here we might best begin by recognising that the en=
emy of truth is not falsehood but myth and fantasy. As JF Kennedy noted:<br=
>
<br>
=E2=80=9CThe great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie - deliberat=
e, contrived and dishonest - but the myth - persistent, persuasive, and unr=
ealistic. Too often we hold fast to the clich=C3=A9s of our forebears. We s=
ubject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the co=
mfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. Mythology distracts us =
everywhere - in government as in business, in politics as in economics, in =
foreign affairs as in domestic affairs.=E2=80=9D<br>
<br>
And so Norgaard=E2=80=99s essay helps us see past the beguiling and comfort=
ing myths of capitalist economics and to recognise both the painful truth o=
f economic mythic thinking (allied to a powerful myth of techno-optimism an=
d the capacity of human beings to control the world). And thus begin to liv=
e in sustainability as a consequence of recognising the multiple dangers an=
d risks of such false mythic thinking. But he also rightly points out in hi=
s essay that we need alternatives to the latter=E2=80=99s religious mythic =
doxa. After all, without vision the people perish.<br>
<br>
In this way, I think the task before us is to 'live in truth', as V=
aclav Havel wisely put it, and equally importantly to co-create and co-imag=
ine new visions for how we want to live in truth, justice, sustainability a=
nd solidarity with one another in our particular places and storied residen=
ces, as well as our more collective species story of living in peace on and=
with our planet, our 'common home' as Pope Francis has recently pu=
t it. Capitalism or our =E2=80=98common home=E2=80=99? (Pope Francis, 2015)=
. That is our choice.<br>
<br>
References<br>
<br>
Barry, J. (2012), The Politics of Actually Existing Unsustainability: Human=
Flourishing in a Climate Changed, Carbon Constrained World (Oxford: Oxford=
University Press).<br>
<br>
Barry, J. (2015), What's the Story with Growth?: Economic Growth as Ide=
ology, Myth, Cultural Meme and Religion<br>
available at: <a href=3D"http://www.researchgate.net/publication/280489369_=
Whats_the_Story_with_Unsustainable_Economic_Growth_Understanding_Economic_G=
rowth_as_Ideology_Myth_Religion_and_Cultural_Meme" rel=3D"noreferrer" targe=
t=3D"_blank">www.researchgate.net/publication/280489369_Whats_the_Story_wit=
h_Unsustainable_Economic_Growth_Understanding_Economic_Growth_as_Ideology_M=
yth_Religion_and_Cultural_Meme</a><br>
<br>
Boldeman, L (2007), The Cult of the Market: Economic Fundamentalism and its=
Discontents (Canberra: ANU)<br>
<br>
Homer-Dixon, T, (2006), The Upside of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity and the=
Renewal of Civilization, (Toronto: Alfred A. Knopf).<br>
<br>
Marglin, S. (2008), The Dismal Science: How Thinking Like an Economists und=
ermines Community, Harvard: Harvard University Press.<br>
<br>
Moore, J.W. (2014), =E2=80=98The Capitalocene Part I: On the Nature & O=
rigins of Our Ecological Crisis=E2=80=99, available at:<br>
<a href=3D"http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jason_Moore3/publication/264=
457281_The_Capitalocene_Part_II_Abstract_Social_Nature_and_the_Limits_to_Ca=
pital/links/53dfe3520cf27a7b830748fb.pdf" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_bla=
nk">www.researchgate.net/profile/Jason_Moore3/publication/264457281_The_Cap=
italocene_Part_II_Abstract_Social_Nature_and_the_Limits_to_Capital/links/53=
dfe3520cf27a7b830748fb.pdf</a><br>
<br>
Pope Francis (2015), Encyclical Letter Laudato Si=E2=80=99 of the Holy Fath=
er Francis on Care for Our Common Home, available at:<br>
<a href=3D"http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/=
papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html" rel=3D"noreferrer" targe=
t=3D"_blank">w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-=
francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html</a><br>
<br>
Princen, T. Manno, J. and Martin, P. (eds), (2015), Ending the Fossil Fuel =
Era (Boston: MIT Press).<br>
<br>
Quiggin, J (2010), Zombie Economics: How Dead Ideas Still Walk among Us, (P=
rinceton: Princeton University Press).<br>
<br>
Wilkinson, R. and Pickett, K (2009) The Spirit Level: Why more Equal Societ=
ies Almost Always do Better, (London: Allen Lane).<br>
<br>
--John Barry--<br>
Queen's University Belfast<br>
<br>
*********************************************************************<br>
<br>
Friday, October 30, 2015<br>
<br>
More information about the P2P-Foundation
mailing list