As millions of words are written in the pursuit of election outcomes in Australia (on July 2nd) and the future of the UK in Europe, it is a pity that so little of it is relevant to our current (human) circumstances. Intelligence, as an emergent property of what is being written, is in short supply! In contrast, essays such as "The Church of Economism and its Discontents" by Richard Norgaard, point to deep, important 'truths' about our situation that deserve attention.
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:
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.
- 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:
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.
- 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:
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.
- 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:
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.
- See more at: http://www.greattransition.org/publication/the-church-of-economism-and-its-discontents#sthash.FnT89crd.dpuf
