THE ROLE OF COMMUNITY VALUES IN MODERN CLASSICAL LIBERAL ECONOMIC THOUGHT
| Author | Jerry Evensky |
| Date | 01 February 1992 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9485.1992.tb00602.x |
| Published date | 01 February 1992 |
Siorrish
Journal
o/
Polirical
Economy.
Vol.
39.
No.
I.
February 1992
1992
Scomh
Economic
Society
THE ROLE
OF
COMMUNITY VALUES IN
MODERN CLASSICAL LIBERAL ECONOMIC
THOUGHT
JERRY
EVENSKY
Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York
1
INTRODUCTION
Modern classical liberal economic thought represents ‘community’ as
determined by the actions of autonomous individuals, motivated by self-
interest
(homo economicus),
interacting in an interdependent environment.
‘The ‘individual’ is taken to be more real than any other social formation, be
it the family, the firm, the nation-state, and
so
on’ (Mirowski,
1988,
p.
141).
I
argue that it is equally plausible and more fruitful to represent individuals and
communities simultaneously coevolving; the nexus being values and beliefs.
’
My case is drawn from the work
of
Adam Smith. Smith believed that the
emergence
of
a
classical liberal commercial society was predicated on a
coevolution
of
individual and society that led
to
a
conception
of
and adherence
to
duty. In Smith’s moral philosophy, commerce and values were the woof and
warp
of
the social fabric in this final stage
of
human development.
To
study
the former while abstracting from the latter was
to
lose all sense
of
the pattern
of
human events. Recapturing the Smithian perspective on the role
of
community values in modern classical liberal thought can improve the quality
of
economic analysis by placing the threads we study in the context
of
the
fabric into which they are woven.
LANGUAGE
AND THE COEVOLUTION
OF
INDIVIDUAL AND COMMUNITY
Individuals exist in the context
of
a multiplicity
of
communities. Any
individual may be a member of multiple communities and any community may
share an individual’s loyalty with other communities. As
a
given community’s
’
My analysis is somewhat different, but my conclusion is similar
to
that expressed by
Amitai Etzioni when he writes:
‘The individual and the community make each other and
require each other.
The society is not a “constraint,” not even an “opportunity,”
it
is
us.’
(Etzioni, 1988, p.
9).
Date
of
receipt
of
final manuscript: 17th May 1991.
31
22
JERRY EVENSKY
values act on the emerging consciousness
of
an individual;
so
too that
individual, drawing from experience that transcends that particular
community, acts on the evolving values
of
that community.
The store
of
value, unit
of
account, and medium
of
exchange in this evolving
society is language. It is language that gives the individual the ability to
conceptualize and to communicate.
It
is community that is the source
of
an
individual’s language. By defining the terms
of
discourse, the community
frames the consciousness
of
the individual.
To
the degree that
a
community’s
language constrains discourse it limits the ‘vision’ (Schumpeter,
1954,
p.
41)
of
the observer. These limits form the ideology
of
the observer, and it is because
of
such limits that ‘vision is ideological almost by definition.’ (Schumpeter,
1954,
p.
42).
To
the degree that an individual can act on
a
community’s language, that
individual can reshape the community. Indeed two major movers in the
evolution
of
the economic community were very self conscious about the role
of
language as a constraint and the necessity
of
acting on language if they were
to move the community in
a
new direction. Karl Marx saw old terms as
mystifications
of
the underlying reality and created
a
whole new vocabulary in
order to redefine the subject. He rejected the extant community discourse and
formed an alternative discourse community. John Maynard Keynes also acted
on language. His objective was
not
wholesale rejection, but rather the
preservation
of
the credibility
of
the mainstream community. Writing to his
‘fellow economists’ (Keynes,
1964,
v) he cites ‘deep divergences
of
opinion
between fellow economists which have for the time being almost destroyed the
practical influence
of
economic theory, and will, until they are resolved,
continue
to
do
so’
(Keynes,
1964,
vi). Noting that
‘I
myself held with
conviction for many years the theories which
I
now attack, and
...
am not,
I
think, ignorant
of
their strong points’, he asks the reader to join in what for
him was ‘a struggle
of
escape from habitual modes
of
thought and expression’
(Keynes,
1964,
v-vi,
viii).
After a Book 1, ‘Introduction’, he gets to the heart
of
the matter in Book 11: ‘Definitions and Ideas.’ He starts the presentation
here because he must reframe the reader’s conceptual framework by acting on
the reader’s language.
My objective here is not
so
grand as that
of
Marx or Keynes, but my method
is the same. I hope that by convincing my fellow economists to re-examine their
use of the
homo economicus
concept that
I
can contribute
to
bridge building
between our community and those
of
our fellow social scientists.
The Neoclassical economic community, the mainstream
of
modern classical
liberal economic thought, has elevated
homo
economicus
to a central position
in the discourse about human behavior, simultaneously relegating ‘community’
to
a
marginal role. This use
of
language constrains the discourse and isolates
the ‘Econ tribe’ from its ‘neighbors, such as the Polscis and the Sociogs.
Despite a common genetical heritage, relations with these tribes are strained-
the distrust and contempt that the average Econ feels for these neighbors being
heartily reciprocated by the latter-and social intercourse with them inhibited
by numerous taboos.’ (Leijonhufvud,
1977,
p.
327).
Elevating the role
To continue reading
Request your trial