Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Economism
In his essay The Disadvantages of Being Educated, Albert Jay Nock makes the following observation about the character of American civilization:
Is our nation really obsessed with money? Nock thinks so. He found it so distasteful that he spent much of his time in Europe.
Nock traveled and wrote in the early twentieth century, before the industrial revolution had thoroughly taken hold in all of Europe. Much of rural France was still only marginally industrialized, and Portugal was the same. Nock watched how the process of industrialization not only increased the prosperity of a populace, but also changed the cultures of these countries.
As he watched the process of industrialization and traveled back and forth between America and Europe, he noted and lamented the obsession of the American populace with money and goods. He felt that industrialization was a driving force, but it is also likely that the unique characteristics of America, the open culture, more-or-less free economy, and huge amounts of unclaimed natural resources, disproportionately attracted individuals with this mindset. I am not certain that he developed the term, but he called it economism.
In contrast, Nock observed that the pre-industrial people of rural Europe led simple happy lives, taking real joy in food, music, art, and companionship. Significant elements of this culture remained even in the urban areas. Later in life, Nock felt more at home in Brussels than in America. However, as industrialization took hold, this simple virtuous life that he felt to be so noble slowly became displaced by economism.
Another quote from Nock, this time from Memoirs of a Superfluous Man:
As Nock points out, economism does have it’s benefits. It is good to be rich, prosperous, and powerful, in that these things allow for self-determination on the world stage. A wide-diffusion of material well-being reduces hardship on an individual level, with less hunger, better health, and more leisure time.
However, Nock sees it as a losing proposition, in that society becomes too ugly to stand even itself. There is ample evidence for this in our modern society. Increasing wealth for the masses means competition to sell things to the masses, with the corresponding race to the lowest common denominator of taste. Quality music, art, and literature are all but eliminated, replaced by the Spice Girls, abstract meaningless garbage, and trash novels. The joy of good food is replaced by the convenience of the microwave. Conversation devolves to mindless sitcoms and football games, with intellectual discourse being rare. Internal anti-Americanism is rampant, self-destructive policies are proposed daily, and our welfare state has been set on a course doomed to spectacular failure.
This time from Basic Economics: A Citizen’s Guide to the Economy, by Thomas Sowell:
What lofty talk about “non-economic values” usually boils down to is that some people do not want their own particular values weighed against anything. If they are for saving Mono Lake or preserving some historic building, then they do not want that weighted against the cost - which is to say, ultimately, against all other things that might be done instead with the same resources. For such people, there is no point considering how many Third World children could be vaccinated against fatal diseases with the money that is spent saving Mono Lake or preserving a historic building. We should vaccinate those children and save Mono Lake and preserve the historic building - as well as doing innumerable good things, according to this way of looking at the world.
To people who think (or rather, react) in this way, economics is at best a nuisance that stands in the way of doing what they have their hearts sat on doing. At worst, economics is seen as a needlessly narrow, if not morally warped, way of looking at the world.
It is clear in reading this passage that Sowell is referring to those among us who would make policy without an understanding of economics. We are all familiar with the activist mindset, where refusing to throw money at every problem is labeled as insensitive cold-hearted greed, when frequently is it merely an insistence on money being used wisely to solve problems in efficient and effective ways.
However, this passage struck me as interesting in the context of Nock’s view on economism. Nock doesn’t disapprove of economics in the sense of ignoring economic principles while pursing some goal, but he most certainly does disapprove of the cultural implications of Sowell’s world. Sowell’s entire book is an exposition on free markets, maximizing efficiency, and increasing material well-being. Not once in the three-hundred and some pages I have read are any cultural implications of this philosophy considered. It is entirely possible that Sowell has opinions on this subject and considered them to be outside the scope of the book. However, the tone of the book leads me to think that Sowell advocates a completely dispassionate maximization of efficiency and income, cultural implications be damned.
I suspect that Sowell would see Nock’s view of the economy as needlessly constrained by “non-economic values”, and Nock would see Sowell’s view as a true but sadly out-of-context picture of a free economy.
I find it hard to pass judgement on our culture as Nock has, and I suspect the truth is somewhere in between Nock and Sowell. Nock saw industrialization and the subsequent slide of a culture into economism as unambiguously harmful in that the soul of a culture is destroyed and replaced with frivolity and meaninglessness. Sowell implies that maximized efficiency in an economy is an unambiguous good, in that higher standards of living result in better, longer, more comfortable lives. Really, they are both right.
As a culture, I think that the change from Nock’s quiet, peaceful, beautiful world to Sowell’s driving, efficient, industrial world is inevitable. A culture is made up of individuals, and each individual, given an opportunity to acquire more material wealth and thus an easier life, is likely to make that choice. It is only when large numbers of individuals make that choice, and simultaneously make the choice to leave behind the ideals that Nock espouses, that the slide from Nock’s world to Sowell’s world happens.
However, regardless of the choices of the rest of our society and culture, we as individuals have a choice of where on that spectrum of Nock to Sowell to place ourselves. As the rest of society forgets about real literature, art, and music, we should make a choice to slow down, recapture these things, and preserve them for the future.
Sowell’s world is not all bad, just as Nock’s world is not all good. By intelligent thoughtful living and meaningful choices, we can get the best of both worlds.
Comments
-
pre-industrial people of rural Europe led simple happy lives, taking real joy in food, music, art, and companionship
If that were the case I think there would have been a lot less migration to the US.
The elite of any society will value art, music and literature but they require both money and more importantly leisure time to enjoy. The idea of a serf or peasant farmer in pre industrial Europe sitting down to read a “classic” or enjoying fine music (how is the first question that leaps to mind) is a bit confusing.
Dbltap | 10/31/2007 04:49 PM CDT -
Nock traveled in the area in the early 1900s and reported a pleasant rural population of middle and lower-middle class people. Industrialization came pretty late to some areas of Europe.
American Farmer | 10/31/2007 05:49 PM CDT -
The early 20th is a rather flexible use of the “pre industrial Europe”. Having spent some time in pre-industrial societies, or as close as one can come to them today, I would have to say that their love of fine art,music and food were not the things that stick out in my mind.
I need to read more (any) Nock as I am far more familiar with TS’s work.
Dbltap | 11/1/2007 12:01 PM CDT -
The fact is, America is ugly from the perspective of city planning. Yes, we have some planned cities, but very few. Our major cities are embarrassing, sans Chicago.
Most of our cities are just butt ugly… we have glass cube monstrosities that are heartless, soulless, and styleless. Then we have the other extreme, in places like Austin Texas, that are so horrible I actually get angry (and my blood pressure rises) when I drive around the place. The locals have taken to making ugly quaint or chic (in some twisted reality in their own minds). The reality is that it is UGLY with quainterized 1950s stucco, and people have convinced themselves that by painting ugly an uglier and grotesque color it makes it something besides ugly/hideous. No! It simply makes ugly STAND OUT MORE. The pretentiousness and parochialism of that place infuriates me… and don’t get me started on the other towns in Texas. Egads, they’re dreadful.
European cities are gorgeous. Their buildings are lovely and the people dress a hell of a lot better. That was true in Nock’s time and more true today. Style and grace go hand in hand. You can’t have a polite society in an ugly place. Europeans ARE more polite and demonstrate old world manners. When confronted with rude Americans who bark questions without the formality of niceties first, they are rude x 2 in response.
(The latter has been confirmed by traveling and working all over the world. Emails from people not in America ALWAYS begin with a nice greeting and end with a polite closing.)
Americas are, on a whole, loud and brash, and we dress like ditch diggers with the manners of hooligans. Our cities replicate that, in every respect. You can’t find a restaurant to visit where the people aren’t shouting!
There is a balance to be struck between the Nock and Sowell positions. We haven’t found it, but I hope some future society does.
I seriously doubt that Jefferson, who bankrupted himself by continually improving the beauty and grace of his home, would have agreed with Sowell’s position. The Founders were well-read and well-styled men and they hoped that economic and political freedom would allow the masses to be similarly advanced in arts and culture. It had little to do with the desire for wealth, for wealth’s sake, but for what it could afford you… that is, to surround yourself with beauty.
That, unfortunately, has not been the result.
Mrs. du Toit | 11/2/2007 12:46 AM CDT -
To call Seattle or Portland ugly is to redefine the meaning of the word. I am open to the suggestion that they are not major cities however.
My real bone to pick it the politeness issue. As rude as Americans can be they have not decided in recent memory to stuff large numbers of their neighbors into ovens or to kill large numbers of neighbors while fellow continent mates stood by with their thumbs in their third point of contact.
To be a bit less euro centric about it the Japanese could teach the whole world manners if we could just over look the fact that they descended from Gods while we are just a bunch of animals who somehow acquired speech.
dbltap | 11/2/2007 08:02 AM CDT -
Portland? You’re kidding right? That’s right up there with hideous. It practically defines the problem I’m describing. Seattle has a few nice streets, but over all it too is awful.
The rest of your comment, dbltap, is just silly. The two issues have nothing to do with each other. It would be like saying that we can only be as polite as the Japanese if we a diet mainly of rice and fish.
Mrs. du Toit | 11/2/2007 08:10 AM CDT -
Hey you like Europe, I happen think it is an overrated lost cause and my ancestors left there for good reason. To each his own.
To me politeness goes far beyond the silly Kabuki like formalities that one culture or another decided are “polite” and actually extends to things like not killing people for sport. The Euros while they may ace the quality footwear awards and send off friendly emails still have that deep socialist need to thin the herd.
My comments about Japan were intended in humor, as I think they have a much more vibrant and polite culture than anything Europe has produced or is likely to in my lifetime.
dbltap | 11/2/2007 09:14 AM CDT -
Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder, and my eyes haven’t seen a city anywhere in the world that could hold a candle to a quarter of turning wheat waving in the breeze under a turquoise blue sky..........
...... you can take the boy out of the country, but you can’t the country out of the boy......
jimbob86 | 11/2/2007 11:56 AM CDT -
I wasn’t talking about natural beauty, Jim.... focusing solely on man’s touch on the world.
Mrs. du Toit | 11/2/2007 10:23 PM CDT -
The quater section I was thinking of is a work of man, as was the weedy fencerow between it and the dirt driveway up to the weathered white frame house....... The wide open spaces in a perfectly natural state hold no beauty for me. Endless shortgrass prairie is pretty bleak with no souls to people it. They were as empty as the huge fields tended by similarly scaled machinery are today.......
jimbob86 | 11/4/2007 09:07 PM CDT -
[disjointed comments]
My library, alas, has no Nock and precious little Sowell. It seems to me, though, that they are talking apples and oranges.Nock seems to be describing a loss of taste and beauty that came from a single-minded pursuit of money. Sowell seems to be describing opportunity costs as a mechanism and ignoring them as a danger. I didn’t get that he was proposing economic efficiency as the be all end all.
Historically speaking, we have a pretty young culture here in the US. Especially given that the people who came here for opportunity are still coming. While I lament crassness, I can understand where it may come from.
I, too, lament the results of economism. I work in an old, refurbished building (ca 1870) because I like old stuff. I live in an old house. I like the way older items were crafted. I like milsurps better than shiny new guns.
The benefit to economism is probably a better average standard of living and a longer life span. That doesn’t mean I’m willing to give up on manners, quality, or family. I just have to preach harder to win others to my view.
Good post.
Weetabix | 11/5/2007 04:18 PM CDT -
Weetabix,
Could you please stop putting things like “disjointed comments” in front of comments that are far more “jointed” than mine and carry no such warning?
My ego would appreciate it.
Best
Tap
dbltap | 11/5/2007 04:58 PM CDT -
Will comply.
Weetabix | 11/6/2007 11:59 AM CDT
