Institutionalized: A Response to Public Theologian
Public Theologian responded to my most recent entry regarding the term "bourgeois." Of particular interest was the following comment: "Of [course] I don't share your unabashed love of capitalism. I have read enough of Reinhold Niebuhr to be suspicious of markets as simply innocent progenitors of prosperity. Being a theological descendant of Calvin, I think that libertarians aren't very realistic about the evil that unchecked institutions can inflict on the rest [of] us."
On the contrary, libertarians probably have the most realistic view of institutional abuse. Libertarian distrust of the state stems from both theoretical recognition of—and empirical evidence regarding—the abuses (both intellectual and moral) that stem from the state's monopoly on "legitimate violence."
And what about the "institution" of the market? First of all, a truly free market would least likely resemble an "institution," since at their heart, free markets are merely voluntary associations — dispersed, varied, and difficult to homogenize.
Second, allowing for the nomenclature at hand, the market as an institution does a remarkable job of channelling (not eliminating) self-interested behavior, one of the evils that would concern Public Theologian. People are sinful and will remain so until the Eschaton, and sin is usually manifested in self-interest. The market, if one will forgive the anthropomorphism, "recognizes" this reality and channels self-interest into productive and relative beneficial activities.
Finally, an honest libertarian would readily admit that free markets are not perfect. People remain sinful, poverty still exists. I would not say that I have an "unabashed love of capitalism," but I recognize that free markets do a relatively good job of facilitating productivity, distributing goods and services, and increasing standards of living globally — better than any socialist or "Third Way" system could.
Besides, if Public Theologian is concerned with unchecked institutions, then how does he propose that we check the institution of the state? Is not the market, with its propensity for decentralization and innovation, the most effective method of countering the homogenizing, authoritarian tendency of government?
posted by Kevin O'Donovan @ 23:03
1 comments
1 Comments:
I like the idea of reclaiming bourgeois! It's about time people questioned the blind derision we seem to accept of it.
I think the purpose of the state should be to promote the happiness and well-being of citizens. That begs the question of who defines happiness and well-being. The traditional libertarian response is that individuals should determine for themselves what makes them happy while the implicit modern liberal response has been that the state should.
There's been a lot of interesting research on happiness (some of which can be found here: http://www.brookings.edu/comm/events/20040603.pdf), but a lot of it argues against a bourgeois mentality. In my mind (and I have to admit this post drove me to dust off my western civ textbook), bourgeois is fixated on aspiration. The aristocracy originally used it as a term of derision for the wannabes. Aspiration is great if people aspire to things that will make them happier. And there is empirical evidence that people who make more money and acquire more things are happier. However, beyond a fairly low threshhold, this is only true in a relative sense. Then people are only happier if they get more and those around them stand still. So the dramatic rise in wealth in the US over the past 30 years has not made people happier.
I would argue that the bourgeois drive is one that (at a societal level), even acknowledging ripple effects of greater economic growth, does not yield any greater happiness. But then, neither do most other human drives, so I guess I would suggest that bourgeois deserves no special place of praise or blame.
Post a Comment
<< Home