Well, on the one hand it does destabilise left vs right labels, but on any particular level we are still able to make distinctions between bundles of tendencies. For example, he could be a socialist at the fed level and a self-centred asshole at the friends and family level (which is kinda like a small-scale libertarianism). The issue isn't necessarily with the idea of a political spectrum - it's the idea that the political spectrum encompasses all levels and aspects of life at once, rather than just single aspects and single levels
My experience and observation has been that here in Britain at least there has been a culture of narrowing children's expression of their own selves to a few 'acceptable' forms. Being polite, respectful and demonstrating a level of interest in the arts or the sciences or both to earn the accolade of 'polymath'. While this had importance in the social world of the middle classes and upward it seemed primarily a way of preparing you for your main life role in work. Work and social were of course more connected if you moved in the wealthier brackets. Nonetheless, this focus has had the effect of turning many of us into Homo Economicus as our primary state helped on by the focus on individualism and individual achievement.
Plutocratic sorcery captures the essence of how neoliberal policies create a system of wealth creation (particularly in the housing market), appearing to grow, almost just by the waving of its magic wand (starring debt-driven/ mark-to-market /financialization) thereby highlighting its eventual illusory nature.
Great piece! I work on a farmers market which stemmed from the transition town movement. I'd never really thought about it until now but it is an interesting place to see how homo economicus 'socialises' with other aspects of human behaviour. There's just a multitude of behaviours that don't fit neatly into one category.
It's also an interesting place then to see how viewing people as a multitude of many potentials and behaviours helps move beyond arguing there is only one form of human behaviour. This was an exciting piece for me!
Well unfortunately the models of human behaviour are built into their assumptions, and the assumptions are built into the theories and broader models, so as soon as they start dropping their view of human behaviour it starts to make the rest of the paradigm creak, so I guess they just back away and leave it as is
Great article! There is a deep truth in the existence of multi-faceted aspects to all our lives.
As much as I relate to Homo Ecologus, my preferential place is with Homo Au Natural, or Homo Web-of-Life: the literal mother of our existence. All other aspects of our being should kneel in awe at our amazing Web-of-Life.
I tend to say that if anyone is trying to tell you what human nature is, they are either trying to put one over on you, or they're a fool (or both).
The problem is, that we can only even try to think about human nature through the lens of whatever human culture it is that we hold. And, of course, it is impossible that that human culture has not been strongly conditioned by whatever human nature might be.
To make matters worse, human nature is only observable through human behaviour, and human behaviour is strongly conditioned by - human culture, of course!
This means that any attempt to be definitive about human nature must be nonsense - it's like looking into a hall of mirrors at the reflections of your back in a different hall of mirrors. You can see things that have some connection to reality, but knowing what that is is essentially impossible.
This whole essay makes valid points about individuals. But it starts off with an irretrievably bad premise: that nation-states can be described as having human personalities. The collective entity known as a state or country is a pure fiction, while what is real is a higher order dynamic system created by the choices and personalities of 8-9 billion people reacting to each other and to circumstances in a way that is both chaotic and structured.
This quote from NNT is perfect for this “I am, at the Fed level, libertarian;
at the state level, Republican;
at the local level, Democrat;
and at the family and friends level, a socialist.
If that saying doesn’t convince you of the fatuousness of left vs. right labels, nothing will.”
Well, on the one hand it does destabilise left vs right labels, but on any particular level we are still able to make distinctions between bundles of tendencies. For example, he could be a socialist at the fed level and a self-centred asshole at the friends and family level (which is kinda like a small-scale libertarianism). The issue isn't necessarily with the idea of a political spectrum - it's the idea that the political spectrum encompasses all levels and aspects of life at once, rather than just single aspects and single levels
My experience and observation has been that here in Britain at least there has been a culture of narrowing children's expression of their own selves to a few 'acceptable' forms. Being polite, respectful and demonstrating a level of interest in the arts or the sciences or both to earn the accolade of 'polymath'. While this had importance in the social world of the middle classes and upward it seemed primarily a way of preparing you for your main life role in work. Work and social were of course more connected if you moved in the wealthier brackets. Nonetheless, this focus has had the effect of turning many of us into Homo Economicus as our primary state helped on by the focus on individualism and individual achievement.
This adaptation is amazing. I like how you've rewritten it.
Besides that, everyone can now read it for free! Homo Communis!
Really glad you like the remix Johan! Horray for Homo Communis
Plutocratic sorcery captures the essence of how neoliberal policies create a system of wealth creation (particularly in the housing market), appearing to grow, almost just by the waving of its magic wand (starring debt-driven/ mark-to-market /financialization) thereby highlighting its eventual illusory nature.
Great piece! I work on a farmers market which stemmed from the transition town movement. I'd never really thought about it until now but it is an interesting place to see how homo economicus 'socialises' with other aspects of human behaviour. There's just a multitude of behaviours that don't fit neatly into one category.
It's also an interesting place then to see how viewing people as a multitude of many potentials and behaviours helps move beyond arguing there is only one form of human behaviour. This was an exciting piece for me!
Really glad it resonates with you Tim. Hope you can work with the approach
I love the discordant but absolutely appropriate linkedin dude in the mix of the photo collage.
Ha ha, he's one of my favourites
I see precisely zero evidence that mainstream economists have much interest in, let alone knowledge of, either human biology nor anthropology.
Terrible unexamined assumptions therefore pollute their reductionist models, even before their ridiculous static maths render them worse than useless.
Well unfortunately the models of human behaviour are built into their assumptions, and the assumptions are built into the theories and broader models, so as soon as they start dropping their view of human behaviour it starts to make the rest of the paradigm creak, so I guess they just back away and leave it as is
Cameron, I fear that you are in touch with the Divine :) Beautifully expressed.
Great article! There is a deep truth in the existence of multi-faceted aspects to all our lives.
As much as I relate to Homo Ecologus, my preferential place is with Homo Au Natural, or Homo Web-of-Life: the literal mother of our existence. All other aspects of our being should kneel in awe at our amazing Web-of-Life.
Glad you like it Roy. I'm with you on that
I like this article.
Short, clear, original
Glad to hear it!
I tend to say that if anyone is trying to tell you what human nature is, they are either trying to put one over on you, or they're a fool (or both).
The problem is, that we can only even try to think about human nature through the lens of whatever human culture it is that we hold. And, of course, it is impossible that that human culture has not been strongly conditioned by whatever human nature might be.
To make matters worse, human nature is only observable through human behaviour, and human behaviour is strongly conditioned by - human culture, of course!
This means that any attempt to be definitive about human nature must be nonsense - it's like looking into a hall of mirrors at the reflections of your back in a different hall of mirrors. You can see things that have some connection to reality, but knowing what that is is essentially impossible.
Beautifully expressed Dil
This whole essay makes valid points about individuals. But it starts off with an irretrievably bad premise: that nation-states can be described as having human personalities. The collective entity known as a state or country is a pure fiction, while what is real is a higher order dynamic system created by the choices and personalities of 8-9 billion people reacting to each other and to circumstances in a way that is both chaotic and structured.
The essay never makes any claim that nation states have human personalities. I'm not sure where you're seeing that