New Lights for Old Stars
Francis Neilson
[Reprinted from the American Journal of Economics
and Sociology,
Vol. 2, No. 1 (October, 1942), pp. 125-129]
IT WAS A GREAT DAY for the American laboratories when someone
discovered that which is called "technology" or, to give it
a more resounding title, instrumentalism. The effect it had upon
institutions of learning reminded me of the sensation caused by the
publication of "The Origin of Species." The scientists --
most of them - -many of the philosophers, and great numbers of the
sociologists accepted instrumentalism just as warmly as the leading
thinkers of England accepted the findings of Darwin. But I noticed
that the agricultural laborer, the man at the lathe, the miner at the
face of the coal, and the railroad porter were not at all moved by the
great discovery. In England the agricultural laborer did not give the
toss of a brass farthing about his descent; certainly not any more
than his fellow in this country did about the value of instrumentalism
to him. Perhaps, for all we know, men who have to work whenever they
can get a job, realize somehow that things are not as new as certain
people imagine.
When the rage for "technology" was at its height, I was
considered by my friends to be a "pre-Darwinian"; I had not
moved with the times, and there was something wrong with my
intelligence. They had reason to think so, for the more I read about
the wonders of the new science, or whatever it was called, the more
certain I became that there was nothing new about it, that it was as
old as the hills. I remember one night, when I was entertained at
dinner at a university club by some enthusiastic supporters of the new
ideas in connection with finance, industry, and social amelioration,
that I asked whether Archimedes deserved a niche in the Pantheon of
the technologians, for it seemed to me that he was a great inventor,
so great, indeed, that even to this our time his name is given to a
machine for raising water. A reputation for an inventor which extends
over a period of 2,154 years is one that might be envied by any
technologian. But the one thing that interested me particularly about
the great Syracusan was that he didn't think much about his ingenious
devices, although they made him famous in his own day. It is on record
that he considered them beneath the dignity of pure science.
My friends were somewhat disturbed and reminded me that we were
living in another age. New values, new concepts had taken the place of
those of all the periods prior to, and including that of
laissez-faire. Then I thought I would mention a few others whom I had
learned about when I was at school. I made no impression at all upon
my hosts by bringing to their notice men of the Dark Ages. They wiped
them out with a gesture, so I jumped to Leonardo da Vinci and, strange
to say, there was one man in the group who seemed to be impressed.
Leonardo, he said, was quite a different person and had to be
considered. Then I thought I was making progress so, after mentioning
several others, I came to Richard Arkwright and asked if he would be
considered a technologian, an instrumentalists Strangely enough, there
was not one man in the group who could place Arkwright. So, quickly I
passed to Isambard Brunel, the English engineer, and pleaded for a
place for him in the inventors' Pantheon. Perhaps I should draw a veil
upon this conversazione by recording the words of one of my friends
when I left for home. "'Old man," he said, tapping me on the
shoulder, "wake up! You don't know you're living."
I quite appreciate the difficulties of the up-to-date economist in
trying to define the word value, but I must admit that I have never
had to encounter the difficulties which beset them in halls of
learning. Mine have been purely empirical. Years ago Joseph Duveen
(Lord Duveen) brought me a picture by Van Ostade, and in considering
its sale and purchase I discovered that there were three different
notions of price and value. There was (1) the value of the picture to
the owner and the price he put upon it with the assistance of Duveen;
(2) then there was the value of the picture to Duveen and the price he
put upon it when he wished me to purchase it; (3) there was the value
of it to me and the price that I was willing to pay. Some years
afterwards, the owner of the picture asked me the price Duveen wanted
for it when it was offered to me. When I told him, his eves opened
wide, his eyebrows took on a conical shape, and he blurted out, "Good
Lord! He would have made over two hundred percent on the price he
intended to pay me for it."
There it is. But it is an entirely different matter when you go into
the grocery store and ask for a pound of tea. This is an
over-the-counter transaction. Most of the brands of this article are
sold in packages which have a fixed price for the time being. I want
tea, the shopkeeper wants to sell it. The question of value enters in
because of my need for tea. It is the same with meat, with potatoes,
with nearly all the commodities that are in daily use, When, however,
you get back to the wholesale market, certain elements of speculation
enter, and these so often complicate the price structure and the
matter of value to the consumer that, in times of plenty, some
commodities are known to reach as high a price as that which they bore
in times of comparative dearth. I mention these merely to indicate
what a troublesome business it is for the modern economist to get down
to brass tacks in simple economics.
But their woes in this branch of the science of political economy are
nothing compared with those they have in attempting to deride the
findings of what are called the classical economists. Dr. C. E. Ayres,
in an article, "Economic Value and Scientific Synthesis,"'
has, in a most entertaining way, opened up the question of the
validity of the findings of the classical economists. He has rendered
a great service to the fundamental economists by emphasizing the fact
that the sociologists of today and the technologians of tomorrow will
bring to us an entirely new conception of man, the economic animal. I
should not be at all surprised, if I live long enough, to find that
man can dispense with the means of subsistence and carry on the
industrial machine on an empty stomach, price or value not-
withstanding. Dr. Ayres says: "This theory (price theory)
appeared only when the pricing mechanism was seized upon by Adam Smith
and the founders of political economy as the vehicle of pursuit of
happiness."[2]
The whole trouble that Dr. Ayres finds with this notion is that the
word "happiness," is not defined according to the
satisfaction of the author, and one reason for this is "the
social philosophers of the eighteenth century were unable to profit by
the social studies of the twentieth."[3]
I am only a simple man who must have a certain amount of food to
digest each day; and all through my adult life, I have been under the
impression that the price of a commodity determines whether I shall be
happy or sad. Probably Adam Smith, when he was in France and
afterwards in England and Scotland, noticed that a full belly, a
well-clothed back, feet properly shod, and a decent shelter were clear
indications of happiness for the man who knew nothing at all about
technology and instrumentalism. Indeed, I can quite understand how
those "silly old classical economists" came to the
conclusion that "consumption is the 'end' of all economic
activity." But again "end," according to the modern
economist is not defined, and, therefore, it can have no meaning.[4]
How true it is-that we live not for the day alone but for the month,
for the year; indeed, for our lifetime, which is the end for us! And.
therefore, the classical economist, when he used the word "end,"
must have been under the impression that he meant to convey the idea
that man could not subsist without food and that he went on consuming
to the end of his life, if he was lucky enough to keep out of debt and
the government did not tax him out of existence. But I am without
qualification to enter into these extraordinary controversies. My sole
object is to seek information. The productive work which is my daily
task is the means of satisfying physical desires and needs, with the
least exertion, so that I may give my bones and muscles rest after
hours and devote my leisure to the movie, bridge, or Father's Hour on
the radio.
But do these things make me happy? No, I admit it, I am not happy,
not even when my physical needs are satisfied without debt. When I
consider the turmoil in which the world is weltering today, an idea
creeps into my mind that all the science, all the modern notions of
political economy and sociology have gone awry, and I wonder if it
would not be a good idea to resurrect some of the transcendentalism to
be found in Adam Smith's "The Theory of Moral Sentiments." I
do not like to use the term because Nietzsche has somehow cast a
blight upon it, but I do wish sometimes for a revival of a little
morality, let us say the "transcendentalism which has kept
economic things in bond to price theories." It should be said,
however, that the classical economists were not aware of the
transcendentalism of their theories; that is an invention that came
only with technology and instrumentalism. The classical economists
were, to my mind, singularly practical men even in their moral
theories and habits.
Now let me turn to one of the most extraordinary ideas which has come
to my notice in this day of the utterly new. Dr. Ayres says:
. . .If we have learned anything from the study of social
evolution, it is that science invariably brings greater freedom and
individuality, not less, and that science and industry, no less than
the fine arts, can be carried on only by a community in which
education is as widely disseminated as possible and general mental
development carried to the highest possible pitch. . . [5]
May I ask what is referred to when the term "science" is
used? What science? What is science? Dr. Ayres has asked, "What
is happiness?" and he boggled at the notion that consumption was
an end in itself. Who is the scientist of any standing in the world
who prates about science in the way that some of our sciolists do?
Archimedes thought it was not worth bothering about.
Schradinger considered science too insignificant to support such
company "as art and religion." Moreover, he said, "We
get used to theories we don't understand and forget their
contradictions quite cheerfully." Planck, in one of his essays,
says:
The distinctions that we at present make amongst these activities are
entirely unreal, and men are now on the way to achieve a synthesis of
all three (art, religion and science).
But will Dr. Ayres point out where there is greater freedom and
individuality? Consider the condition of the world today so far as
freedom and individuality are exercised. There is not a country of any
importance where there is not a censorship, where the individual is
not ticketed, and where rationing cards are not in operation or soon
will be. And as for education, the reports that we have received from
the army and the navy disclose such an alarming state of affairs that
even the President was shocked to find many of our recruits had only
reached the standard of a fourth- grade education.
I fear for the happiness of Dr. Ayres. I am afraid the end of this
business is that which I glean from his conclusion. He says: ". .
. So long as consumption is conceived as 'the end,' the problem of
increased consunption is insoluble. But the moment consumption is
regarded as continuous with the uninterrupted industrial effort of the
community, it becomes perfectly clear that the consumption of the
underfed must be increased not because it is their 'right' to eat or
because feeding them would be 'just,' but because their working
capacity, and therefore their contribution to the effort of the
community, is impaired by under-feeding."[6] The end of this long
chapter of modern thought brings us to the abolition of right and
justice. These concepts must be jettisoned; and this is the marvelous
achievement of technology and instrumentalism. A farce with a tragic
end! All the thinkers of the past have been wrong. The philosophers
from Plato and Socrates to John Locke and Adam Smith did not know what
they were talking and writing about. And while the bat Ming armies are
wiping out millions, and a winter of starvation faces the wretched in
so many lands, we are asked to believe that the men of today, so
largely responsible for the present condition of the world, have
suddenly inherited a new wisdom which will keep the industrial machine
going.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
- Am. Jour. Econ. Socio., Vol.
I, No. 4 (July, 1942).
- Ib., p. 349.
- Ib., p. 348.
- Dr. Ayres writes: ". . .
What, exactly, does it mean? Clearly the word 'end' is not used
here in any chronological sense. That is, no one supposes that
economic activity 'comes to an end' with consumption. Obviously it
never comes to an end at all, but goes on continuously. Each act
of consumption is followed by other acts of a productive nature
and so by an indefinite series of successive consumptions and
productions... " Ib., p. 351.
- Ib., p. 356-7.
- He adds: "'The citizens
of industrial society must consume more abundantly not because it
is their right to do so, and not because justice or equality or
any similar shibboleth is a valid guide to economic welfare, but
because if they do not, industrial society will collapse, values
and all." lb., p. 360. Dr. Harry Gunnison Brown, in private
correspondence, has commented on this passage by asking in what
way Dr. Ayres's idea of a good distribution of income is different
from that of a slaveowner who gives his slaves enough so they can
produce.
|