Excalibur
03-29-06, - 10:41 PM
The profit motive that underlies and informs capitalism involves the promotion of individual interests rather than those of society as a whole. As such, a debate has been constructed between those who feel that social considerations should be the focal point of the economy and those who feel that the interests of society is promoted through the quest for profit through exchange. The thesis being argued here addresses these issues competing. On the one hand, the drive for revenue maximization and the current structure of the capitalist market has eroded our social fibre as we knew it; yet, on the other hand, a return to an economy that encourages social rather than profit motives represents both an opportunity to advance society but a threat to the progress of the individual. These issues will be articulated according to the viewpoints provided in two texts, one a work of fiction and another of social science; these are Ursula K. LeGuin’s The Dispossessed (1974) and Karl Polanyi’s Societies and Economic Systems (1958). While the latter indicates that socially motivated economies are viable and indeed aligned with human motivation as constructed in many historical societies, the former considers this alternative closely and recognizes that there are problems that are associated with both the socially embedded economy as well as capitalism.
Polanyi presents a convincing argument in favour of a socially embedded economy, demonstrating that the theory put forward by Adam Smith in terms of humankind’s natural propensity towards market economies is flawed. In fact, he states that in previous eras of human civilization dating back to the stone age, the “natural” construction of society is one in which individuals were motivated by social status rather than economic status. As such, to promote the interests of society through diligent labour was the means of promoting one’s own self interest, which was measured not in dollars but rather in the way that one was viewed by one’s neighbours. As such, the idea of status determined by material wealth was illogical, since this meant that resources were being hoarded for the benefit of one rather than distributed for the benefit of those in the community, “so-called economic motives spring from the context of social life… [characterized by] the absence of the motive of gain; the absence of the principle of labouring for remuneration; the absence of the principle of least effort; and, especially, the absence of any separate and distinct institution based on economic motives” (Polanyi 1994).
LeGuin considers this idealized society in her representation of two very different planets, one based on a communal economy and the other based on a profit-driven economy. On the one hand, the communal economy is presented as logical and essential from the perspective of social survival, demonstrating some of the paradoxes inherent to the capitalist system and its focus on individual interests at the expense of others, “What is idealistic about social cooperation, mutual aid, when it is the only means of staying alive?” (LeGuin 1974). We see that the original planet Anarres is one in which society is structured in ways that reflect Polanyi’s emphasis on social status rather than personal wealth as the most favourable ideology a society can construct, “There is no other reward on Anarres, no other law. One’s own pleasure, and the respect of one’s fellows, that is all. When that is so, then you see the opinion of the neighbours becomes a very mighty force” (LeGuin 1974). This ‘force’ is not without problems, however, and Shevek is motivated to leave his planet for the profit-based Urras due to the fact that his life work was stifled at home as part of that society’s resistance to individual accomplishment. Simply stating that the interests of collective need to be maintained above those of the individual is therefore problematized by LeGuin: “I don’t suppose you have successful men on Anarres” (LeGuin 1974). The tension between the interests of the few versus the interests of many is further articulated in other writing by the author, “If we Americans hated injustice and inequality as passionately as we say we do, would any person in this country lack enough to eat?” (LeGuin 2004).
Polanyi effectively demonstrates that success is measured differently in an economy where social considerations and personal considerations are synonymous with one another. He writes:
The outstanding discovery of recent historical and anthropological research is that man's economy, as a rule, is submerged in his social relationships. He does not act so as to safeguard his individual interest in the possession of material goods; he acts so as to safeguard his social standing, his social claims, his social assets. He values material goods only in so far as they serve this end. (Polanyi 1958)
In this way, Polanyi works towards reconciling the paradox provided by LeGuin in his demonstration that “success” is something that is still defined personally in socially embedded economies; however, this is not measured in terms of personal assets or capital, but rather according to the appreciation of the individual by those whom they serve. In fact, the experience of Shevek in LeGuin’s novel is perfectly articulated by Polanyi by a reference to traditional ceremonial societies, “publicly bestowed praise is the due of the industrious, skillful, or otherwise successful gardener (unless he be too successful, in which case he may deservedly be allowed to wither away under the delusion of being the victim of black magic)” (Polanyi 1958). Certainly, Shevek’s only fault was being “too successful,” and the result was self-exile as a means of avoiding the social condemnation described by Polanyi.
Max Weber wrote of Ptolemaic Egypt, “capitalism was not particularly important as a basic element of the economic structure… even though the Ptolemites had colossal hoards of precious metals… and their economy was thoroughly monetarized” (Weber 1976). As such, we come to conclude that even advanced societies such as Egyptian civilization were able to put social considerations of status ahead of monetary ones as the central concern and the central measure of worth. These two examples demonstrate how the tension between individual and collective interests has been constructed and the paradoxes, dilemmas and debates that arise from these tensions.
---------------------
WORKS CITED
LeGuin, U.K. 1974. The Dispossessed. New York: Harper & Row.
LeGuin, U.K. 2004. The Wave of the Mind. Boston: Shambhala.
Polanyi, K. 1958. Societies and economic systems. The Great Transformation. Boston: Beacon Press: 43-55.
Weber, M. 1976. The Agrarian Sociology of Ancient Civilizations. London: NLB.
Polanyi presents a convincing argument in favour of a socially embedded economy, demonstrating that the theory put forward by Adam Smith in terms of humankind’s natural propensity towards market economies is flawed. In fact, he states that in previous eras of human civilization dating back to the stone age, the “natural” construction of society is one in which individuals were motivated by social status rather than economic status. As such, to promote the interests of society through diligent labour was the means of promoting one’s own self interest, which was measured not in dollars but rather in the way that one was viewed by one’s neighbours. As such, the idea of status determined by material wealth was illogical, since this meant that resources were being hoarded for the benefit of one rather than distributed for the benefit of those in the community, “so-called economic motives spring from the context of social life… [characterized by] the absence of the motive of gain; the absence of the principle of labouring for remuneration; the absence of the principle of least effort; and, especially, the absence of any separate and distinct institution based on economic motives” (Polanyi 1994).
LeGuin considers this idealized society in her representation of two very different planets, one based on a communal economy and the other based on a profit-driven economy. On the one hand, the communal economy is presented as logical and essential from the perspective of social survival, demonstrating some of the paradoxes inherent to the capitalist system and its focus on individual interests at the expense of others, “What is idealistic about social cooperation, mutual aid, when it is the only means of staying alive?” (LeGuin 1974). We see that the original planet Anarres is one in which society is structured in ways that reflect Polanyi’s emphasis on social status rather than personal wealth as the most favourable ideology a society can construct, “There is no other reward on Anarres, no other law. One’s own pleasure, and the respect of one’s fellows, that is all. When that is so, then you see the opinion of the neighbours becomes a very mighty force” (LeGuin 1974). This ‘force’ is not without problems, however, and Shevek is motivated to leave his planet for the profit-based Urras due to the fact that his life work was stifled at home as part of that society’s resistance to individual accomplishment. Simply stating that the interests of collective need to be maintained above those of the individual is therefore problematized by LeGuin: “I don’t suppose you have successful men on Anarres” (LeGuin 1974). The tension between the interests of the few versus the interests of many is further articulated in other writing by the author, “If we Americans hated injustice and inequality as passionately as we say we do, would any person in this country lack enough to eat?” (LeGuin 2004).
Polanyi effectively demonstrates that success is measured differently in an economy where social considerations and personal considerations are synonymous with one another. He writes:
The outstanding discovery of recent historical and anthropological research is that man's economy, as a rule, is submerged in his social relationships. He does not act so as to safeguard his individual interest in the possession of material goods; he acts so as to safeguard his social standing, his social claims, his social assets. He values material goods only in so far as they serve this end. (Polanyi 1958)
In this way, Polanyi works towards reconciling the paradox provided by LeGuin in his demonstration that “success” is something that is still defined personally in socially embedded economies; however, this is not measured in terms of personal assets or capital, but rather according to the appreciation of the individual by those whom they serve. In fact, the experience of Shevek in LeGuin’s novel is perfectly articulated by Polanyi by a reference to traditional ceremonial societies, “publicly bestowed praise is the due of the industrious, skillful, or otherwise successful gardener (unless he be too successful, in which case he may deservedly be allowed to wither away under the delusion of being the victim of black magic)” (Polanyi 1958). Certainly, Shevek’s only fault was being “too successful,” and the result was self-exile as a means of avoiding the social condemnation described by Polanyi.
Max Weber wrote of Ptolemaic Egypt, “capitalism was not particularly important as a basic element of the economic structure… even though the Ptolemites had colossal hoards of precious metals… and their economy was thoroughly monetarized” (Weber 1976). As such, we come to conclude that even advanced societies such as Egyptian civilization were able to put social considerations of status ahead of monetary ones as the central concern and the central measure of worth. These two examples demonstrate how the tension between individual and collective interests has been constructed and the paradoxes, dilemmas and debates that arise from these tensions.
---------------------
WORKS CITED
LeGuin, U.K. 1974. The Dispossessed. New York: Harper & Row.
LeGuin, U.K. 2004. The Wave of the Mind. Boston: Shambhala.
Polanyi, K. 1958. Societies and economic systems. The Great Transformation. Boston: Beacon Press: 43-55.
Weber, M. 1976. The Agrarian Sociology of Ancient Civilizations. London: NLB.