Originally to Ottawa Dissenters, but may be of broader interest.

Ed

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Ed Weick 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Cc: David Delaney 
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 4:04 PM
Subject: Not all economists are tools of the system


I've recently heard comments about work done by economists.  The basic thrust 
of these comments is that economists do little more than rationalize and 
support what the market system, already in a state of overshoot, is doing by 
continuing to grow.  Yes indeed many economists do that and thus help promote 
the notion that growth is good and can continue forever.  

However, not all economists fall into line and do that.  I've recently been 
reviewing a diary I've now kept for some thirty years and have found reviews I 
wrote on things I read.  Ivan Illich is an economist who, instead of supporting 
the growth of the market economy, tried very hard to understand how it 
conflicted with and tended to eradicate possible alternatives to it.

Here is my 1985 review of one of Illich's essays.

Ed


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 30, 1985

I’ve just read, "Shadow Work" by Ivan Illich (Marion Boyars. Boston. London, 
1981). This is a series of essays. I had not read Illich before and was 
impressed with power of his ideas. The first essay, "Three Dimensions of Public 
Choice" introduces concepts which are central to Illich’s thinking, namely the 
"shadow" economy and the "vernacular" or "subsistence" economy. 

Both the market economy and the shadow economy serve the industrial system, but 
the product of the shadow economy does not enter the market, is not paid for 
and does not appear in conventional measures of output such as GNP. Examples 
are the housewife whose economic role is, in effect, that of an unpaid servant 
to her industrial worker husband, and volunteer workers who provide help to 
people who have fallen out of the industrial economy. 

The vernacular or subsistence economy is an alternative economy which follows a 
different, non-growth oriented mode of production from that of the industrial 
economy. It should not be identified only with remnants of cultures which 
pursue a subsistence way of life, although these would certainly be a part of 
it. Illich seems to be trying to establish the legitimacy of a genuine, modern 
alternative to the industrial economy, perhaps like the communal system Mao Tse 
Tung tried to establish in China after the revolution (and which he tried to 
re-establish with the ill-fated Cultural Revolution). 

Illich argues that along with choices about the political form people want 
their society to take (democratic, authoritarian. etc. which is not typically 
something that people have much choice in), and the production function they 
wish to employ (hard vs. soft), they can also choose whether they want to 
remain in the "having" consumption oriented industrial economy or opt for a 
"doing" production oriented subsistence economy.

Such choices do not imply the independence which Illich suggests. The choice of 
a subsistence mode would seem to imply also the choice of soft technology and 
an open, relatively unstructured political system. As well, a highly 
industrialized consumer society does not really imply a choice people 
deliberately or consciously make, but the erosion, destruction and foreclosure 
of alternatives. It implies a high level of organization, bureaucratization and 
the centralization of power, which the bulk of the population would find 
difficult to counter even if it wanted to. Thus, in a society such as the US or 
Canada. you can see some people able to effectively implement a subsistence 
mode of production using soft technology, but certainly not the vast majority 
of people, who are too firmly enmeshed in the consumer system as is.

Illich argues that the modern variant of the subsistence economy is a reaction 
to the consumerism and mass processes of the industrial economy. A 
characteristic of the industrial economy is its tendency to overwhelm and 
destroy the subsistence form, which it has been doing in western civilization 
since medieval times. He believes that this destructive process is rooted in 
the ancient tendency of western culture to view non-western cultures as "being 
wanting" -- as having needs only western cultures can fulfill. The missionary 
has tended to see other cultures as in need of civilization, the educator as in 
need of letters, the merchant as in need of trade goods, the agriculturalist as 
in need of farm plots, and the industrialist as in need of employment.

Because non-western cultures are perceived to have these needs, there is a 
burden to be taken up -- i.e... "the Whiteman’s burden". Taking up this burden 
requires the development of appropriate institutional forms (for example, a 
market for western trade goods) where none existed before. The resultant 
institutions become, to use Hugh Brody’s term "totally intrusive" into the host 
society. Most often they complement each other even if that is not the primary 
intent. For example, the church teaches industrially useful values about work, 
the education system industrially useful perceptions of life, the factories, 
supermarkets and offices provides the work places and social constructs in 
which those values and teachings can be realized. (To be taught to work and 
think in English not only opens a whole world to an individual whose mother 
tongue is not English, but opens that individual to all of the influences 
emanating from the English speaking world.)

Illich argues against the inclusion of the subsistence economy in measures like 
GNP. The subsistence economy is an alternative to the industrial economy, and 
in no way intends to contribute to it. It is the individual or the community 
asserting his or their independence from the industrialized state, and his or 
their desire to be excluded. Shadow prices based on pricing systems operative 
in the industrial economy cannot therefore legitimately be applied to 
subsistence pursuits, even though this would be enormously bothersome to the 
bureaucrat concerned with social measurement. On the other hand it is 
completely legitimate to assign shadow prices to shadow work which by its 
nature supports the industrial economy, such as that done by the industrial 
worker’s housewife.
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Reply via email to