A modern myth?
Sometime around last April or May, I had this thought. Mythology has basically always been a part of human life as we know it. What though, makes us think that we have somehow escaped these narratives, this longing? My senior political theory paper afforded me much time and many resources to think about the Enlightenment. Anyone who is familiar with twentieth century thought on this subject knows perfectly well that ‘rationality’ is deeply problematic, if not an illusion itself. So my thinking has gone: what if the Enlightenment is actually an elaborate construction of ideas to make us believe that we have stepped outside of myth?
That’s the background. Here’s my thought now. I was reading some front-page story in the NYTimes about the bailout as it was still being considered, or rather, the House had just rejected the initial proposal. The gist of the story made it sound like the discontent of the people prevented Congress from saving “the economy.” If only the masses understood how upset the careful balance had become, they would set aside their fulminations about Wall Street getting its come-uppins and allow good management (now in full force after a decade or more of glorified gambling) to save us.
On the surface, it would seem that the religious, the non-physical, has long been set aside for its old opposite, commerce, that most worldly calling. But note the similarity of the old social relations. “The economy” is an unwieldy force, requiring high priests to interpret its strange oracles, the priests in this case being the economists and financers (religious elites were no strangers to the benefits of having the people believe their story, though the ascetic tradition has been firmly rejected by today’s “priests”). The people’s relation to this thing is abstract, yet ubiquitous. It shapes their daily lives, yet they cannot understand it. We had not offended “the economy” recently, and many had enjoyed the dot-com and housing bubble festival of recent years. But just as this obscure power gives, it must also take away.
Unlike times of plenty, times of dearth require a certain reverence, shown in the form of sacrifice, now called a “bailout.” Enlightenment rationality’s limits have been laid bare in recent weeks without much comment. No one really knows if the sacrifice will appease the gods, but the high priests assure us there is no other choice. On what grounds can anyone question their wisdom on such matters? Our episteme is built on the “laws” of supply and demand, elasticity, economies of scale and so forth. The term “law” is crucial here, as it surreptitiously blurs the ancient categories: the physis and the nomos, nature and convention. Man can only be understood as a “rational actor,” and any metrics that tell us about his aggregate activities must bow to that altar, however unproven its main premise.
Production and distribution make up the economic system, but the thing many economists would have us forget is that the economy is also a network of social relations, i.e. it is mutable. The division of labor affects GDP, but it also determines how people spend their lives. This way of relating people to each other is a construct long in the making, it belongs in the nomos. But if we can be convinced that it is natural, ergo governed by natural “laws,” then the people will allow the system of social relations it creates to be preserved, even in times of crisis. Ayatollah Paulson of the Treasury and Cardinal Bernanke of the Fed are to be the caretakers not simply of the credit markets, but of the people’s belief in the great beyond that, when properly interpreted, instructs the natural order of the “economy,” i.e. the social structure.
That’s the background. Here’s my thought now. I was reading some front-page story in the NYTimes about the bailout as it was still being considered, or rather, the House had just rejected the initial proposal. The gist of the story made it sound like the discontent of the people prevented Congress from saving “the economy.” If only the masses understood how upset the careful balance had become, they would set aside their fulminations about Wall Street getting its come-uppins and allow good management (now in full force after a decade or more of glorified gambling) to save us.
On the surface, it would seem that the religious, the non-physical, has long been set aside for its old opposite, commerce, that most worldly calling. But note the similarity of the old social relations. “The economy” is an unwieldy force, requiring high priests to interpret its strange oracles, the priests in this case being the economists and financers (religious elites were no strangers to the benefits of having the people believe their story, though the ascetic tradition has been firmly rejected by today’s “priests”). The people’s relation to this thing is abstract, yet ubiquitous. It shapes their daily lives, yet they cannot understand it. We had not offended “the economy” recently, and many had enjoyed the dot-com and housing bubble festival of recent years. But just as this obscure power gives, it must also take away.
Unlike times of plenty, times of dearth require a certain reverence, shown in the form of sacrifice, now called a “bailout.” Enlightenment rationality’s limits have been laid bare in recent weeks without much comment. No one really knows if the sacrifice will appease the gods, but the high priests assure us there is no other choice. On what grounds can anyone question their wisdom on such matters? Our episteme is built on the “laws” of supply and demand, elasticity, economies of scale and so forth. The term “law” is crucial here, as it surreptitiously blurs the ancient categories: the physis and the nomos, nature and convention. Man can only be understood as a “rational actor,” and any metrics that tell us about his aggregate activities must bow to that altar, however unproven its main premise.
Production and distribution make up the economic system, but the thing many economists would have us forget is that the economy is also a network of social relations, i.e. it is mutable. The division of labor affects GDP, but it also determines how people spend their lives. This way of relating people to each other is a construct long in the making, it belongs in the nomos. But if we can be convinced that it is natural, ergo governed by natural “laws,” then the people will allow the system of social relations it creates to be preserved, even in times of crisis. Ayatollah Paulson of the Treasury and Cardinal Bernanke of the Fed are to be the caretakers not simply of the credit markets, but of the people’s belief in the great beyond that, when properly interpreted, instructs the natural order of the “economy,” i.e. the social structure.