“We long for a transformation, a metamorphosis, a change to the change, if you will. If we were like animals the change would not affect us, only specific fears and bodily pain. Indeed we are transcendental beings, not quite at home with animals and nature.”
Ken
In the essay, A SOCIO-ECONOMIC MYTH OF THE FALL, Ken adds meaning to last week’s post on MAKING SENSE OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR. Although brief, in this essay Ken searches for the causes of inequality that exist between humans and the results of that inequality. My notes are intended to further clarify what Ken means in this essay and preface the direction of Ken’s thought that will come in future posts.
A poem and photo follow the notes.
Tim Olson
A SOCIO-ECONOMIC MYTH OF THE FALL
A possible socio-economic myth of the Fall as narrated in 
Genesis can be found in Michael Ignatieff’s Strangers in Need. Ignatieff cites Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments and Rousseau’s Discourse On Inequality. He quotes Rousseau:
“The savage lives in himself; the man of society always out of himself; cannot live but in the opinion of others, and it is, if I may say so, from their judgment alone that he derives the sentiment of his own existence.”
Ignatieff continues:
“Men’s inner enslavement to the opinions of others grew out of their emerging historical dependence upon each other for subsistence in the division of labor. The pathology of this interdependence was that each man was seized by an insatiable ambition, an ardor to raise his relative fortune, not so much from any real necessity as to set himself above others. Market relations were thus a theatre of duplicity in which men served each other’s needs only to satisfy their desire of superiority over each other:
‘To be and to appear to be, became two things entirely different; and from this distinction arose imposing ostentation, deceitful guile and all the vices which attend them’
“Adam Smith agrees with Rousseau that ‘nothing tends so much to corrupt and enervate and debase the mind as dependency, and nothing gives such generous notions of probity as freedom and independency . . . “ p.121*
Rousseau’s theory that there could be such an autarkic (self-sufficient) “savage” or aboriginal is highly unlikely. That such epoch shaping minds as Rousseau and Smith agree about the central point is what carries weight. The question is why should man want more than he needs? Their answer is because of the opinions of others, to set himself above others. And this wanting more than is needed is said to arise out of but not be caused by the occurrence of the division of labor. If the evolutionist model is valid for answering why one would set a high value upon the opinions of others (in the life of the mind), then one would have to say that nutrition (meeting of bodily needs) holds precedence; that those other instincts would fade or disappear where there is just enough or scarcity; that only abundant supply gives one an opportunity to set himself above others. But in communist and under developed countries this is not the case. Rather than rule by the wealthy as in capitalist countries, rule by the powerful in government evolved. It appears rather that the situation of surplus and even more clearly superabundance (as in North America) serves rather to isolate what is distinctive about this wanting more than is needed. An individual’s inordinate imagination, aroused desire out of lost solidarity, false consciousness and individualism, real desperation, feed an “upward” spiral to gain superiority over others by accumulating more money, property, goods or power.. Notwithstanding Rousseau’s claims that citizen restraint may take place with an “infinite supply”; Smith’s “invisible hand” guiding the free market place; Marx’s ideological necessity; they are utopian all. What is traded in goods seems more in the way of meeting ethically elated needs—inward and spiritual—or what might be construed as an individual’s metaphysical and existential claims upon others, even God.
*(1) Michael Ignatieff The Needs of Strangers, (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1984) p.121
NOTES ON “WHY SHOULD MAN WANT MORE THAN HE NEEDS?”
In this essay, Ken is trying to find an answer to the question, “. . . why should man want more than he needs?” He passes over development that could have followed his question. He doesn’t mention our struggles with climate change, racism, sexism, and unequal access to the abundance of the earth. As in last week’s post, what interests Ken is what’s inside of us collectively and as individuals that inevitably has brought us to where we find ourselves and the earth in serious jeopardy.
After a brief reference to the myth of the “Fall” in Genesis and a possible myth of the “Fall” in socio-economics, Ken turns to Michael Ignatieff’s book, THE NEEDS OF STRANGERS. and his chapter on the philosopher, Jean-Jaques Rousseau, and the economist, Adam Smith. Rousseau influenced the belief in a political community that assured equality for all its citizens. Adam Smith influenced the growth of capitalism and the rise of a wealthy class. We have struggled with those two systems of thought to this very day.
While Smith and Rousseau had disagreements about how to govern a human society, they agreed on one point: Humans want more than they need because of the opinion of others. Rousseau wrote, “The savage (historical man prior to the division of labor) lives in himself: the man of society always out of himself; cannot live but in opinion of others.” Smith wrote, “. . . nothing tends so much to corrupt and enervate and debase the mind as dependency, and nothing gives such generous notions of probity as freedom and independency . . .”
Given that agreement, Ken turns his attention to evolution. If an individual’s basic needs of nutrition, shelter, and love are met, why does he want more? What purpose does it serve in an evolutionary sense to want more? Isn’t enough, enough? Why does an individual want more and even more than his peers. The capitalist answer has never promised equal access to the goods, status and power in a society, but it has promised that the surplus of abundance in a rich country like the United States will satisfy the basic needs of all. This has not happened in the United States with either the Democrat or Republican party’s administrations. In less wealthy and impoverished countries, the Communist party has similarly promised to provide for the needs of all citizens. This also has not happened. The rule of powerful men in the government replaces the wealthy of a capitalist government.
At the end of the essay Ken turns to “ An individual’s inordinate imagination, aroused desire out of lost solidarity, false consciousness and individualism . . feed an “upward” spiral to gain superiority over others by accumulating more money, property, goods or power . . .What is traded in goods seems more in the way of meeting ethically elated needs – inward and spiritual – or what might be construed as an individual’s metaphysical and existential claims on others, even God.” In summary, some societies and individuals feel ethically justified to appropriate the basic needs of others for themselves.
To close, Ignatieff in 1984 wrote in NEEDS OF STRANGERS, “The . . . forces of need, labour, and science which are pulling us together as a species are counter-balanced by . . .forces, the claims of tribe, race, class-action, religion, and nation, pulling us a part.”
To paraphrase: Will our feelings of belonging to a species with a common identity and future overcome our feelings of identity based on differences?
SEA MOTION
up up up
profound swells follow
storms rising regal
heights sinking somber
depths smooth distances
lengthening slowing surging
pulsing never ceasing
down. down. down
To read previous SALMON JOURNEY II post – click here
Thanks, Tim. Your additions and explanations of Ken’s ongoing writing until his passing helps to clarify. What I find frustrating in our present times, is that the current people in power in our country can or will not even begin to comprehend the ideas behind what you or Ken are saying..Is it lack of ability or lack of willingness to accept. ?or because of just what you explain..the need for power. ?