I often discuss the more or less explicit normative or ethical content of economics, and sometimes I delve into the positive, simple but false engineering models / “science” / math parts, but I rarely talk about the fabled “storytelling” bit. Let’s do that now.
I mentioned before there seems a split in economics between those engaged in an intellectual pursuit about variously ethics, empirical prediction, optimization problems, and those engaged in storytelling, convincing people of things via appealing stories. Life coach storytellers, for example, seem prevalent among academic economists in a business school context, who seem often to take as their objective more preparing and encouraging suits to do battle for profit in the marketplace than any more serious intellectual endeavor. The function of economic storytellers in a business school context seems to involve encouraging their charges to see business, markets, in a favorable light, play up the normative arguments in favor of their quest for profits and economic power. Other academic economists may also engage in storytelling simply as a means of transmitting or promoting personal normative or ethical views or biases, as a way to make their views appear intuitive to students, under the guise of serious academics. As ostensible scientists, engineers, mathematicians, ethical philosophers, one may suppose academic economists would strongly rebuff or refute any storytelling function, but I think you’ll find a great many embrace it, accept it as legitimate.
It’s interesting to me because flaws in the reasoning of anti-democracy bad economics in the conservative style may appear as problems to those with serious intellectual objectives, but not necessarily to the storytellers, who may have rather different objectives, goals. When it comes to storytelling, life coaching, cheerleading, entertaining, proselytizing, that sort of thing, one may naturally prefer a ripping yarn, a false or simplistic self-serving fable to complicated, troubling reality; one may value rhetoric over substance.
In some way, this seems related to the oft-heard but cultish objective of getting students to “think like economists.” Economists should have some awareness of economic theory, of course, but normal thinking is still meant to apply. The goal of economics should be to have people thinking normally, logically, rationally, being concerned about errors in reasoning, definitions, and so on, while addressing economic theory and economic issues. It’s not about having them think in some special way unlike others. This risible notion economists think in a special way that transcends how others think can be a rhetorical tool conservative economists use to dismiss often very relevant, if not always perfectly phrased, criticisms of economics, particularly the normative component.
Much is said on the normative versus positive distinction in economics in the context of the positive or logical structure and analysis of normative arguments and normative influences on positive models, theories, but one important context seems often ignored: storytelling. Economics may seem to present an incomprehensible stew of positive and normative, an arcane mix of science, engineering, math, ethics, and storytelling, but careful analysis may distinguish the various elements and unravel the web of rhetoric and nonsense it weaves. It’s more important now than ever to address these issues, as recent years bear testimony to the damage false, misleading interpretations of neoclassical welfare economics, interpretation for which it seems purpose built, can do to our democratic society. Learn about it.
