I had a sort of epiphany a while ago now related to what people might have in mind when they discuss “ideology” in the context of neoclassical welfare economics. I love it when that happens. Probably something everyone else figured out long ago. Took me a bit longer to get there, but you know my motto, or one of my many mottos anyway: better late than never. I’m never really satisfied with an idea unless and until it makes some sort of sense to me, personally. Maybe I can take a little break from more theoretical concerns and discuss ideology today?
I’m thinking now there seems an interesting gray area in discussions about what economics is all about that ostensibly involves “understanding” the economy and that seems confined neither to the purely scientific method of evaluating a positive theory by successful prediction of empirical phenomena nor to the philosophical method of evaluating a normative theory by investigating the plausibility and controversy associated with normative input and conclusions and by evaluating any factual premises and logic used to get from the inputs to the conclusions. A third way of theory evaluation, so to speak. This “understanding” may incidentally generate empirical predictions and normative or ethical propositions, but the actual evaluation of those intellectual artifacts seems curiously unimportant, irrelevant, secondary. I wonder now if this mysterious additional dimension of “understanding” may related in some way to the worlds of story telling.
To appreciate the significance for me, it may help to realize I’ve long wondered what people have in mind when then discuss “ideology” in the context of neoclassical welfare economics. For some time, I thought they must be referring to the typically opaque normative content or to a sort of internal wellspring of positive and normative theorizing. At the same time, I’ve long puzzled over this notion of “understanding” that seems to crop up along side of the perfectly sensible notion of predictive ability in the context of evaluating ostensibly scientific or positive economics in general. So it was a bit of a discovery to me to realize the concept of ideology may involve something rather more pervasive, powerful, and impenetrable than opaque ethics or a wellspring of ideas. What I have in mind is an entirely different mode of evaluating intellectual artifacts based not on the normal methods of evaluation proper to positive or normative theories but based on psychological criteria instead. An evaluative scheme in which it doesn’t necessarily matter if predictions turn out to be correct or normative arguments make any sense or are normatively plausible or acceptable or controversial because the important thing is achieving a mentally and emotionally appealing and coherent story or “understanding” of the economy. The power of myth.
Might the enduring power and influence of normative neoclassical welfare economic derive simply from the fact some or perhaps a great many people enjoy contemplating what I call the Fairy Land of Economic Theory? A beautiful realm where everything is simple, everyone is rational, everyone knows everything, there are no ethical controversies, and matters of interpersonal conflict and relative power are never an issue? Might it be that all or a good part of the problem of bad economics is simply that some people’s heads inhabit this lovely Fairy Land of the conservative imagination, but their bodies unfortunately inhabit this mundane, messy, and rather less than entirely beautiful world of interpersonal conflict, economic power, human diversity, suffering, and ethical controversy? That they much prefer to think about the one but perforce interact with the other? When it comes to bad economics are we talking about just a confused mix of science and ethics, or a confused mix of science, ethics, and myth?
Well, I suppose it’s really neither here nor there for me and my personal project anyway. My primary concern is straightening out bad economics by discussing the obscure and opaque normative content of neoclassical welfare economics in both theoretical and applied contexts. I’m concerned and indeed driven to establish the truth and to respect it. I’m not concerned at the moment if others can’t be bothered or don’t care or are not in an emotional or psychological state to contemplate the truth. I suppose I have a sort of faith that truth is important and always prevails in the long run. That truth will out. Vincit omnia veritas. But I think now I might understand and have a bit more respect for people who look at the issue from a different perspective, one focused less on what’s rational, logical, scientific, true, and more attuned to unconscious dreams, unstated desires, fundamental psychological needs. It’s all good. Seems plenty of room for different approaches when it comes to confronting the baleful influence of bad economics.
