An OurKingdom conversation. [History: Thomas Ash > David Marquand > Thomas Ash > this post > Thomas Ash > George Gabriel > Thomas Ash > George Gabriel]
Does the current popular political rage owe its existence to the ravagings of neoliberalism? Corruption in Parliament should always be cause for outcry but given the dull thuds made by the cash-for-questions, cash-for-honours, and party funding "scandals" in comparison with the resounding "crack" from British legitimacy caused by the expenses crisis we must recognise that the scandal is situational. This "context" is that of economic collapse: high unemployment, home repossessions, the demolition of pension savings, and a future of public spending cuts; in other words a context of consequents of neo-liberalism.
David Marquand expands the debate: neo-liberalism like most ideologies is not only an economic, but a moral philosophy that claims "the unhindered, rationally calculated pursuit of individual self interest in free, competitive markets was not just economically efficient, but also morally right." As such, no political reform will succeed without addressing the "real culprit", the "hyper-individualistic, materialistic hedonism of the entire culture".
OurKingdom's Thomas Ash suggests that in fact public anger stems from violations of free market norms, and when the idea of "too big to fail" effectively nationalises the risk of the banking sector without nationalising its profits we must recognise that he has a point. But Ash's suggestion does not actually clash with Marquand's call to consider the moral economy, it points deeper, to a contradiction at the heart of neo-liberalism.
The congregation believes in neo-liberalism as a social vision, that fair and free competition will allow those who deserve it to advance in the market in the pursuit of happiness by the sweat of their brows. Yet in a bizarre twist of fate the money-lenders have become the priests, and they believe in a different God. Of course they proclaim the market's social value, but what really answers their prayers is the unlimited sanction of the pursuit of self-interest.
This is not a moral vision, it is nothing short of neo-liberal nihilism. Marquand suggests that this pursuit is deemed "morally right" by neoliberalism. Though this may be the case for the congregation, the neo-liberalism of the priests deems this pursuit inevitable. They follow what is known as "psychological egoism", believing that though self-interest is a complex beast it is one we all and exclusively hunt. This is an amoral philosophy, if all we can do is pursue our self-interest it is meaningless to talk of obligations to do otherwise, such as play fair or respect Human Rights, this is neo-liberal nihilism. It's true that the fig leaf remains, self interest pursuit is called good, but when this is all one can do how significant is the claim?
The rational man of economic models is a psychological egoist, he is only motivated by his self interest, though as Ash points out he may err in this pursuit. To prove their point bankers must render Robinson Crusoe(pdf) real, they must become the "rational man". It is this that drives the fanatical, collegiate pursuit of ever-greater pay in the banks. It is also this drive that wrecked global capitalism, as bankers ran incredibly high social risks on ever-increasing bets that generated an ever-increasing commission.
Any ideological response to neo-liberalism must not only advance institutional alterations, it must offer an alternate conception of man, the unit upon which these new institutions are to be built. Such a response need not call for the birth of a "new man" to bring us back from the brink of neo-liberal nihilism. In raging against corrupt MPs ordinary men and women the length and breadth of the country espouse an ethic of honesty and integrity that goes beyond their self-interest. They focus on the relatively small damage to each of our self-interest done by the public purchase of a duck island rather than the public and private bankruptcy. Neoliberal nihilists will call this a mistaken pursuit of self-interest, to the rest of us it is basic decency, clear as day.
Comments
Very interesting, and I agree with much of this, George.
I would tell a different story in parts.
1. Hyper-individualist man is not rational and nor is Robinson Crusoe, but is defined by Will. We know---and they know---that reason alone takes you nowhere, determines nothing. Reason is in a subtle relationship with passion, history, identity, interest to produce action. This was the power of Hegel's critique of Kant's categorical imperative---Reason as formalism determines no direction. The hyper-individualist reduces action to its minimal statement, and so becomes "Will" rather than "Reason". This is why the defining figure of finance is Ayan Rand. There is something rather remarkable---almost incredible---in the fact that the descendants of German romanticism should now be the hedge-funders...
2. I agree that hyper-individualism leads to nihilism, but I would underline the reality of the nihilism---value anchored solely in Will ends up with nothing, and that terrifying nothing gets filled by paltry millions of dollars. It is not just others that are denied by Will, it is any rich notion of the self also. So if the self can't be rich, the lifestyle had better be, to compensate, you see.
Addressing the root cause of the nihilism will be hard, but is essential --- because the nihilists are in power. I agree that it needs transformation of more than society---not just a different conception of man, but different men.
tony
Nice article George,
I would agree, growth led progress is pants (too many reasons to list in this little box).
A surprise anti-capitalist has sprung up in Sarkozy and he's commissioned Stiglitz, Sen and various other economist and academic super brains to come up with a quantative system to measure progress in society, realising that our over-dependance on using GDP as a marker for the last 60 years has led us into a spot of pother, especially as it fails to account climate change, wellbeing and sustainability.
http://www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr/en/index.htm
New economics and political participation can't fail to bring more to our lives if we use this opportunity to adapt the current system so that it's more people focused, more long term, more chilled.
Money becomes the ultimate value, I suppose, when we no longer believe in THE ultimate value: Mammon replacing God. Can we reinstate and reintroduce credible, transforming moral values into our civic life - such as George Gabriel's 'basic decency' - without involving faith of some sort?New Labour, led by a leader who did not have the courage of his Christian convictions because he thought they might make him look like a nutter, made a stab at this through its now fading gospel of 'British values'. But aren't all of these statements of social values and civic virtues all destined to wither away after only a momentary flowering in the absence of any true belief in absolutes beyond and greater than ourselves, upon which moral life is properly grounded: because we commit ourselves to actions, ways of life and doctrines that truly transcend self-interest?Put differently, can we enact liberal values without nihilism if we don't believe in moral and existential absolutes?
But why think moral and existential absolutes depend upon religion?
Some interresting comments. Britology, I agree with Thomas's response. Though religion can clearly, not to mention easily, endow one with an absolute moral foundation this does not render all atheists relativists, nor nihilists. I believe we share a common moral sense, though in different degrees, developed by loving interpersonal relationships. In these relationships we learn that certain things are obviously and certainly wrong, though our field of such intuitions is broader than that merited by my understanding of the "absolute" moral core - human compassion, and thus we must always remain critical, as to whether our moral impulses have become divorced from that which rendered them valid, that which rendered them real.Tony - Rand's "means to ends" rationality (which I gather you subscribe to too?) is indeed a rudderless ship, as it says on the tin it is just about plotting the most efficient course to an end regardless of whether we call it "reason" or "Will" - it simply being a logical extension of Nietzschean Will to Power. She however was an "ethical egoist", claiming bounded self service was good. The "rational man" of economics goes further, removing any bounds not forced upon him, with self interest built into the "means to ends" as the only possible end. This, in your terminology, i believe redefines a Hegelian or Nietzschean Will to Power to a Will to Self Interest as the sole unifying characteristic of man. Confronting the root of Nihilism, the driving winds of reason and a disgust with hypocritical bourgeois institutions, is difficult as you note. Hume however plotted a course that to me makes sense as I wrote to Britology - we find a moral root and a moral drive in our interpersonal relationships that sees the vast majority of human kind, despite our systematic brutalisation, behave in a way that is recognisably moral to almost everyone. The role for reason is to criticise deviance from this root, but not the root itself. Why? Precisely because it is unreasonable! Tom - I wasnt so much trying to say "growth led progress" is pants, as much as a redherring - that the argument is essentially irrelevant to those who make it. Great news about Sarkozy though!
George, I didn't actually say that a true moral sense needs to be founded on religious faith, just 'faith of some sort', i.e. belief in something 'higher', better or more valuable than oneself and self-interest. In your example of loving inter-personal relationships, this is love, and the associated senses of compassion and of duty towards those one loves. The difference, in religious faith, is of course that this love is meant to extend beyond those with whom one has a close personal connection to the whole of humanity - the degree of one's personal realisation of this ideal forming a measure of the degree to which one has become united with God himself. But in reality, atheists are often further advanced down this road than believers, even though they perceive their ultimate destination and the surroundings of the road itself in a different light.
I do, however, think that an inability or unwillingness to acknowledge and express the absolute character of moral duty and commands logically results in - or perhaps emanates from - a cultural relativism that bases 'morality' (i.e. practical moral behaviour, as opposed to moral truth) in things like 'common sense' (your "common moral sense") and "reasonableness" (your word), which involves an ambiguous combination of the meanings of 'reason' and 'socially acceptable'. On this basis, the moral sense is assimilated increasingly to 'what society / culture regards as good and / or merely acceptable'; or, indeed, the 'common good', you could say, as opposed to pure goodness. A negative ethics, in other words, that is able only to describe and proscribe what is 'not good', but not prescribe and pursue what is good in itself.
Do you really think many people are this sort of pure egoist George? (Incidentally, I've always seen 'ethical egoist' defined in terms of regarding self-interest as the only good.)
I think made explicit it is rare, only while studying ethics at Oxford (an investment banker making machine) did meet self professed egoists, all of whom subsequently went to work in the city. Still, I think one's behaviour can imply one's underlying moral considerations or the lack thereof - they do not need to be explicit, a criteria by which I see much nihilistic egoism. This is not to say that having seen egoists I believe the egoist claim - that we are all so, in fact I am repulsed by it and utterly unconvinced.My point is mostly about the moral logic of neo-liberalism, and the way it drags individuals towards greater egoism, particularly as a group where one finds confirmation of egoism's dominion in those around you. This logic is best seen in robinson crusoe, but it is a short slide from understanding others as egoists to becoming one yourself.
Do you think many people are implicit egoists then? If they privately give to charity (or wipe down toilet seats, or whatever) are they not? Or do you think some significant proportion of people do these things only to avoid feeling bad, without concern with their ends?For what it's worth, during five years of philosophy, and more discussing meta-ethics, I've met at most one self-professed egoist (plenty of nihilists though).Could you make the moral logic you mention clear? As I said in my latest post, I don't think neo-liberalism concerns itself with any sort of behaviour outside of lawful, voluntary dealing in markets. Also, as I mentioned in the post which began this exchange, a neo-liberal society involves people pursuing what they value, not limited to their self-interest.
Dear Thomas,I'm going to write a response to your questions and subsequent post in the next couple of days. As to the moral logic, almost all modern micro economics is premised on an idea of "rational man" who is a psychological egoist, this is the logic. Even behavioural economics only dares to suggest that individuals may pursue wheir self interest badly, or that that interest is more complex than some people assume.
I look forward to it. I've always assumed that this was just a simplifying assumption for the purpose of modeling a certain restricted sorts of behaviour, partly on the grounds that no one could seriously think it reflected reality, but I'll save this for the next post...
George, I agree with your characterisation of bankers as being in the grip of Will to Power. However, I am not sure where you picked up any notion that I support Randianism. I think Randianism is dangerous and, utlimately, nihilistic----any ethical element is slipped into it through a model of society and man which is woefully incorrect. When I said "you must not deny the reality of the nihilism", what I meant to point to is that egoism---even of the inethical kind---is not a nihilism: it preserves sympathy for self.
(I do not think Hume "works" --- he thinks that "primitive virtues" and the construction of the social self ("articificial virtues") will automatically deliver a good-enough society. But we know that there are, in the language of game theory, too many equilibria to this game---this under-determines society.
I think Levinas is a more likely foundation for a transformed view of man: rather than dance around the fact/value distinction and try to get fact to do the work for you, Levinas recognises the primacy and autonomy of the ethical and its demands; he chases "totalisation" because of its ethical implications, and not, like Foucault, for some epistemological fun.)
tony
Dear Tony,I never meant to imply you were a Randian! My most sincere apologies. I meant that the means ends conception of rationality you talked of looked like the one Rand analyses in vain for an end. As you rightly point out such a reason is not directional, hence I deemed its deification nothing more than the Will to Power.
Post new comment