Dick Norgaard, himself a graduate of the Chicago School in economics, has become one of 'economism's' - the reduction of all social relations to market logic - most articulate critics. He justifiably claims:
"Economists themselves have acknowledged the ultimately religious nature of their discipline. In 1932, Frank Knight, the most scholarly and broad-thinking of the founders of the influential market-oriented Chicago school of economics, literally argued that economics, at a fundamental level, had to be a religion, the basic tenets of which must be hidden from all but a few.."
His argument is that:
Economism [is] a widely held system of faith. This modern “religion” is essential for the maintenance of the global market economy, for justifying personal decisions, and for explaining and rationalizing the cosmos we have created. This uncritical economic creed has colonized other disciplines, including ecology, as ecologists increasingly rely on economistic logic to rationalize the protection of ecosystems."
Economists
themselves have acknowledged the ultimately religious nature of their
discipline. In 1932, Frank Knight, the most scholarly and broad-thinking
of the founders of the influential market-oriented Chicago school of
economics, literally argued that economics, at a fundamental level, had
to be a religion, the basic tenets of which must be hidden from all but a
few: - See more at:
http://www.greattransition.org/publication/the-church-of-economism-and-its-discontents#sthash.FnT89crd.dpuf
omists
themselves have acknowledged the ultimately religious nature of their
discipline. In 1932, Frank Knight, the most scholarly and broad-thinking
of the founders of the influential market-oriented Chicago school of
economics, literally argued that economics, at a fundamental level, had
to be a religion, the basic tenets of which must be hidden from all but a
few:
- See more at: http://www.greattransition.org/publication/the-church-of-economism-and-its-discontents#sthash.FnT89crd.dpuf
The point is that the “principles” by which a
society or a group lives in tolerable harmony are essentially religious.
The essential nature of a religious principle is that not merely is it
immoral to oppose it, but to ask what it is, is morally identical with
denial and attack.
There must be ultimates, and they must be religious, in economics as anywhere else, if one has anything to say touching conduct or social policy in a practical way. Man is a believing animal and to few, if any, is it given to criticize the foundations of belief “intelligently.”
To inquire into the ultimates behind accepted group values is obscene and sacrilegious: objective inquiry is an attempt to uncover the nakedness of man, his soul as well as his body, his deeds, his culture, and his very gods.
Certainly the large general [economics] courses should be prevented from raising any question about objectivity, but should assume the objectivity of the slogans they inculcate, as a sacred feature of the system.8
When I show students these passages in my lectures, they gasp,
finally understanding why economics is taught so differently from the
other social sciences, why it is presented so uncritically, as if it
were a science when it obviously is not.There must be ultimates, and they must be religious, in economics as anywhere else, if one has anything to say touching conduct or social policy in a practical way. Man is a believing animal and to few, if any, is it given to criticize the foundations of belief “intelligently.”
To inquire into the ultimates behind accepted group values is obscene and sacrilegious: objective inquiry is an attempt to uncover the nakedness of man, his soul as well as his body, his deeds, his culture, and his very gods.
Certainly the large general [economics] courses should be prevented from raising any question about objectivity, but should assume the objectivity of the slogans they inculcate, as a sacred feature of the system.8
- See more at: http://www.greattransition.org/publication/the-church-of-economism-and-its-discontents#sthash.FnT89crd.dpuf
Economists
themselves have acknowledged the ultimately religious nature of their
discipline. In 1932, Frank Knight, the most scholarly and broad-thinking
of the founders of the influential market-oriented Chicago school of
economics, literally argued that economics, at a fundamental level, had
to be a religion, the basic tenets of which must be hidden from all but a
few:
- See more at: http://www.greattransition.org/publication/the-church-of-economism-and-its-discontents#sthash.FnT89crd.dpuf
The point is that the “principles” by which a
society or a group lives in tolerable harmony are essentially religious.
The essential nature of a religious principle is that not merely is it
immoral to oppose it, but to ask what it is, is morally identical with
denial and attack.
There must be ultimates, and they must be religious, in economics as anywhere else, if one has anything to say touching conduct or social policy in a practical way. Man is a believing animal and to few, if any, is it given to criticize the foundations of belief “intelligently.”
To inquire into the ultimates behind accepted group values is obscene and sacrilegious: objective inquiry is an attempt to uncover the nakedness of man, his soul as well as his body, his deeds, his culture, and his very gods.
Certainly the large general [economics] courses should be prevented from raising any question about objectivity, but should assume the objectivity of the slogans they inculcate, as a sacred feature of the system.8
When I show students these passages in my lectures, they gasp,
finally understanding why economics is taught so differently from the
other social sciences, why it is presented so uncritically, as if it
were a science when it obviously is not.There must be ultimates, and they must be religious, in economics as anywhere else, if one has anything to say touching conduct or social policy in a practical way. Man is a believing animal and to few, if any, is it given to criticize the foundations of belief “intelligently.”
To inquire into the ultimates behind accepted group values is obscene and sacrilegious: objective inquiry is an attempt to uncover the nakedness of man, his soul as well as his body, his deeds, his culture, and his very gods.
Certainly the large general [economics] courses should be prevented from raising any question about objectivity, but should assume the objectivity of the slogans they inculcate, as a sacred feature of the system.8
- See more at: http://www.greattransition.org/publication/the-church-of-economism-and-its-discontents#sthash.FnT89crd.dpuf
Economists
themselves have acknowledged the ultimately religious nature of their
discipline. In 1932, Frank Knight, the most scholarly and broad-thinking
of the founders of the influential market-oriented Chicago school of
economics, literally argued that economics, at a fundamental level, had
to be a religion, the basic tenets of which must be hidden from all but a
few:
- See more at: http://www.greattransition.org/publication/the-church-of-economism-and-its-discontents#sthash.FnT89crd.dpuf
The point is that the “principles” by which a
society or a group lives in tolerable harmony are essentially religious.
The essential nature of a religious principle is that not merely is it
immoral to oppose it, but to ask what it is, is morally identical with
denial and attack.
There must be ultimates, and they must be religious, in economics as anywhere else, if one has anything to say touching conduct or social policy in a practical way. Man is a believing animal and to few, if any, is it given to criticize the foundations of belief “intelligently.”
To inquire into the ultimates behind accepted group values is obscene and sacrilegious: objective inquiry is an attempt to uncover the nakedness of man, his soul as well as his body, his deeds, his culture, and his very gods.
Certainly the large general [economics] courses should be prevented from raising any question about objectivity, but should assume the objectivity of the slogans they inculcate, as a sacred feature of the system.8
When I show students these passages in my lectures, they gasp,
finally understanding why economics is taught so differently from the
other social sciences, why it is presented so uncritically, as if it
were a science when it obviously is not.There must be ultimates, and they must be religious, in economics as anywhere else, if one has anything to say touching conduct or social policy in a practical way. Man is a believing animal and to few, if any, is it given to criticize the foundations of belief “intelligently.”
To inquire into the ultimates behind accepted group values is obscene and sacrilegious: objective inquiry is an attempt to uncover the nakedness of man, his soul as well as his body, his deeds, his culture, and his very gods.
Certainly the large general [economics] courses should be prevented from raising any question about objectivity, but should assume the objectivity of the slogans they inculcate, as a sacred feature of the system.8
- See more at: http://www.greattransition.org/publication/the-church-of-economism-and-its-discontents#sthash.FnT89crd.dpuf
Economists
themselves have acknowledged the ultimately religious nature of their
discipline. In 1932, Frank Knight, the most scholarly and broad-thinking
of the founders of the influential market-oriented Chicago school of
economics, literally argued that economics, at a fundamental level, had
to be a religion, the basic tenets of which must be hidden from all but a
few:
- See more at: http://www.greattransition.org/publication/the-church-of-economism-and-its-discontents#sthash.FnT89crd.dpuf
The point is that the “principles” by which a
society or a group lives in tolerable harmony are essentially religious.
The essential nature of a religious principle is that not merely is it
immoral to oppose it, but to ask what it is, is morally identical with
denial and attack.
There must be ultimates, and they must be religious, in economics as anywhere else, if one has anything to say touching conduct or social policy in a practical way. Man is a believing animal and to few, if any, is it given to criticize the foundations of belief “intelligently.”
To inquire into the ultimates behind accepted group values is obscene and sacrilegious: objective inquiry is an attempt to uncover the nakedness of man, his soul as well as his body, his deeds, his culture, and his very gods.
Certainly the large general [economics] courses should be prevented from raising any question about objectivity, but should assume the objectivity of the slogans they inculcate, as a sacred feature of the system.8
When I show students these passages in my lectures, they gasp,
finally understanding why economics is taught so differently from the
other social sciences, why it is presented so uncritically, as if it
were a science when it obviously is not.There must be ultimates, and they must be religious, in economics as anywhere else, if one has anything to say touching conduct or social policy in a practical way. Man is a believing animal and to few, if any, is it given to criticize the foundations of belief “intelligently.”
To inquire into the ultimates behind accepted group values is obscene and sacrilegious: objective inquiry is an attempt to uncover the nakedness of man, his soul as well as his body, his deeds, his culture, and his very gods.
Certainly the large general [economics] courses should be prevented from raising any question about objectivity, but should assume the objectivity of the slogans they inculcate, as a sacred feature of the system.8
- See more at: http://www.greattransition.org/publication/the-church-of-economism-and-its-discontents#sthash.FnT89crd.dpuf
No comments:
Post a Comment