Economy vs. the Gift?

As I have already written a little bit about the Gift on here before, I figured I would try again in a slightly different context.  On my blog, I recently wrote:

In Peter Leithart’s post “Gift and Economy,” after clarifying that in reality, the gift and economy are not actually opposed, he concludes with the following question: “If I am right about classical economic theory (and I might stand corrected), the question arises of why it should have developed this way.  Why would gift/gratitude/relationship be left out of economic consideration? And, how would economic theory be different if it’s included?”

I am no economist, but my first inclination is to say that the reason that gift/gratitude/relationship is left out of economic consideration is because modern economics itself it predicated upon an economy of lack.  The gift is one of surplus, one that in divine terms as D.B. Hart puts it in regards to Anselm, one that “exceeds every debt.”  In the gift, there is always a ‘more’ that exceeds the violence of exchange, which is also why Milbank is right to argue for the gift before the contract in our society (see his essay “Liberality versus Liberalism”).  Economic theory, if it assumed an economy of abundance (jubilee economics), would be very much more distributive, I think!

I was able to generate some discussion, but now I wanted to seek further comments from the crowd over here who may know some more about theology & economics than I do (which probably isn't saying much about myself). 

I made a feeble attempt to point in the direction of an economy based on the right desire, and I in no way intend to discredit 'production' in any meaningful sense, I just want to go toward a rightly ordered production that isn't predicated upon meeting the consumptive desires of everybody.

Let me know what you think! (Please direct your comments here instead of my blog, thank you.)

Comments

[John Médaille]

Just a few rather random comments. Any sane economy has to rest in an exchange of gifts. This keeps both the exchange economy and the gift economy in their proper relation. It is a gift economy because we wish to support the people who support us, and both are supported at an appropriate level. It is an exchange economy because we must "economize" on scarce resources to produce abundance. But the gift economy must have priority, otherwise the economy has no real purpose and becomes a war of all against all.

An economy of "scarcity" assumes infinite desire which the earth, in all her abundance, can never fulfill. As Ghandi put it, "The earth gives enough for each man's needs, but not enough for even one man's avarice." Since humans in a fallen world tend to be avaricious, price systems are necessary as an allocation method; shortages relative to desires force us to "economize." But as a purely technical matter, an economy which lacks justice will never be able to balance supply and demand, will never be able to achieve a relative equilibrium. For example, the current credit crises traces itself, in my analysis, to an imbalance in the rewards of capital vs. labor. When this happens, too much capital gathers and must seek returns by taking greater and greater risks, until the whole thing collapses.

There are vast technical reasons for this, which I won't go into. But suffice it to say that your intuition is correct. Without distributed property, there will be an imbalance that de-stabilizes any economy.

[Geoff Holsclaw]

eric,
it seems a couple of distinctions might help.

first, 'exchange' is not necessarily evil. of course I don't think you were saying that, but it still needed to be said.

second, we should probably called the economy the "market economy" as distinguished from 'bartering' or a feudal system of exchange. The market economy could be distinguished by the enclosure of common lands, the creation of a working class, the circulation of money and commodities for the sole purpose of making more money (otherwise known as capital), spanning from somewhere between 15th-19th centuries from primitive accumulation to the industrial revolution.

With that in mind, I will hazard a an answer to the question. Yes, the market economy is generally opposed to gift/gratitude/relationship.

First, it is predicated on self-interest. Thomas Hobbes politically theorized self-interest in his understanding of 'state of nature.' John Locke tried to take the edge off the 'perpetual war of all against all' by adding a humane perspective via 'private property' based on one's own labor. And then of course Adam Smith took both ideas (self-interest and private property) and created his economic theory that if everyone pursues his own interest it will somehow create a common good. That's the theoretical basis why gift/gratitude/relationship is excluded from the market economy.

Second, practically, through the enclosure of common lands, displacing a multitude of peasants with not means of supporting themselves, with the old bond of lord/serf broken (which had elements of gift/gratitude/relationship, even if also violence) replaced by land/factory owners and laborer who only related via wages (usually in conflict). Also, competition is considered the norm (also from Hobbes).

Third, in all of this the impersonal figure of 'money' mediates to reserve the impersonal forces of the market. We could say the entire social system of the 'market economy' is meant to destory the old feudal system and theological system that came before.

[Geoff Holsclaw]

john,
i think you are right that technically every 'exchange' (or market) economy rest in the 'exchange of gifts,' but most try to forget this fact. A wife or husband receives a wage from working, buys the necessities of life and them gifts them to their family (spouse and children) and all of this comes from the Great Economy (as Wendell Berry calls it) of nature which works on the gifts of life and death.

But as is shown by both the dwindling birth rates in the West (i.e. people don't want to gift to a family and would rather spend on themselves) and the environmental crisis, the 'market economy' is perfectly content to mortgage the relational future (environmental destruction, enormous debt, etc) and pretend the gift economy is derivative of the market.

For these reasons I'm not sure that 'prices' will re-balance the equation.

[John Médaille]

Geoff,
You are absolutely correct, but note that I was describing a sane economy. They current economy is insane precisely because it is based on a multiplication of desires, which is to say, it is based on creating unhappiness. Hence, it consumes not only the present moment, but the future as well.

In order for anything to be sane, it must have a sane purpose, and its sanity can be judged only by how well it fulfills that purpose. This is the foundational principle for all practical reason, and the economy falls into the realm of practical reason. The sane purpose for an economy is to provide the material basis for life for all persons. Without a proper material basis, the practice of virtue is impossible (St. Thomas).

Priority goes to the gift economy, with the exchange economy merely a convenient way to implement the gift economy. There is, of course, an exchange that occurs between husband and wife, parent and child, person and community. And without this level of exchange, marriage, the family, and the nation are impossible. But equally important is that exchange itself must be transcended by an essential "gift" quality. Without this, everything becomes egotism and utilitarianism and scarcity. When this happens, the economy is well on its way to collapse, but nobody can measure the degree of progress towards collapse because we measure the wrong things.

Without a consideration of the purpose, no judgment can be made about whether anything is useful, and all systems will be perverted.

[Eric Lee]

John and Geoff,

Thanks for the comments. And who knew that the author of the book I linked to above would show up and offer his helpful input? Thanks John. I would have more to say, but I just got finished with my semester and my thought needs some rest. So, perhaps more later.

Peace,

Eric

[michael o'neill]

is modern economics really predicated on an economy of lack?

[Billy Daniel]

Just to add something into the mix:

Reciprocity names the gift-exchange economy, which must have as its paridigm the Trinity. The Triune God names the procession and return of God to himself. The Divine Economy, then, is mediated to humanity through the liturgical exchange--our worship. Through the eucharistic feast we participate in this procession and return of God to himself. We are not giving God anything in this exchange, for we have nothing to give: "All things come of Thee O God, and of Thine own have we given Thee" (1Chronicles 29:14). What we are doing, then, is participating in the gift-exchange that is Father-Son-Spirit. This verse is quoted in most liturgies at the offertory, which is the key point in our worship when we begin thinking of how this economy shapes out.

Many churches make a big deal out of the money in the plate that is collected at the offertory, but it is the bread and wine of communion that is to be most emphasized. For instance, prior to the Middle Ages, the bread destined for communion was brought in by everyone and collected on the eucharistic table or a side table. Later on, only the priest were able to prepare the bread to be consecrated. This began to heighten the emphasis placed on the monetary donations and eventually the liturgy becomes commodified. You see this most clearly in the mass stipends of the Middle Ages, where people were paying for masses to be said without actually receiving the consecrated bread and wine. The double effect of this process was that the people no longer participated in the "work of the people," fashioning the bread, and so forth, and were then kept from receiving the gifts of the Spirit. (The best person to read on all this is Nathan Mitchell).

For a true gift-exchange, then, the liturgical exchanged must be highly participatory by all involved in the act. We no longer withhold communion these days, but go into most any church and you will see that there are just a few that are really "working."

That said, in order to have an economy of gift, we must begin to articulate that a Christian economy knows only one gift: Jesus. Jesus is the liturgy of God, and our liturgy--our economic infrastructure, if you will--is not a gift or sacrifice, but rather is a participation in the gift-exchange of the Trinity.

[Tim McGee]

I also think Michale's question is a good one: is capitalism really predicated on scarcity? Do we not already see in many places an abundance that is not shared? I'm not denying that there is often an ethics of scarcity, but I am questioning whether this is the base of capitalist economics. Anti-Oedipus goes to great lengths (from what I understand of it) to show that the heart of capitalism isn't a lack that drives desire but the liberation (decoding) of desire. Whether you think his project is in any way desirable, the question still remains as to whether scarcity is at the core of the development of capitalism.

This brings me to Geoff's comment, about capitalism and the collapse of feudalism (and the theology based on it): are you bemoaning the collapse of feudalism? it's hard to tell, especially with the unclear "is meant to" destroy comment (meant to by whom?).

Billy,
It's unfortunate that your Christocentric ending (we know only one gift, Jesus) misses the person of the Trinity who is frequently named Gift (Augustine), the Spirit.

Also, if the Eucharist liturgy is truly participation in God's giving and return, then we must really have something to offer, even if everything we have is already God's. Otherwise, one could say we witness or observe or even receive, but not that we participate in the giving. This was precisely Luther's issue with the understanding of the Eucharist as a sacrifice: we have nothing to offer.

Speaking of sacrifice: one cannot remove the sacrificial element from our liturgy (especially since that language is rooted in our scripture). As Hart argues (Beauty of the Infinite), the problem isn't with the sacrificial language, but with the particular understanding of what sacrifice entails. Thus, the language of gift should not exclude or nullify the language of sacrifice.

Finally, the comment that there are "few" really working in the Eucharist seems to imply a very narrow view of participating/working in the liturgy (as well as dismisses the role of the priest in the liturgy as representative of the church).

All that said, I find this topic quite interesting, but hard to get a firm grip on: there are so many things going on (analysis of capitalism, trinitarian theology, liturgy, notions of the gift and exchange, etc). It's hard to handle all of these without retreating into a broader (and hence more questionable) analysis of the situation.

[Geoff Holsclaw]

billy daniel,(great to hear from you)
great summary of liturgical transformations.

Tim,
I'm not lamenting the demise of feudalism (although we may have returned to it already!). Rather my point is that market capitalism was designed to destroy feudalism by breaking all the traditional relationships (albeit ones that may have been violent, but maybe not). The personal violence of feudalism is not relieve by the impersonal market (liberal economists like to think the market is the sure means of peace); rather, one type of violence is exchanged for another.

[Billy Daniel]

Tim,

Yes, difficult to say all that without parsing it out further, but I didn't want to write an essay, simply to give a little bit of interjection as to economics as grounded in liturgy... That said, your comments are well-taken, but let me respond to what you mentioned on sacrifice and Spirit as gift.

I am certianly not denying the sacrificial language or the biblical story that we have as the parameters within which we move. However, Jesus is, nonetheless, the end of temple sacrifice for atonement, is he not? There is, then, but one offering and sacrifice that is redemptive, which is Christ's gift of obedience to the will of the Father. This is why Christ must also be emphasized as gift, but it does not deny the gift of the Spirit; rather, it reinforces the giftedness we have in, by and through the Spirit.

Let me put it this way, and do allow for some linguistic leeway here: the Son is the gift of the Father to the world, whose obedience to the Father is the return gift to the Father; the Spirit is the gift of the Son to the world, whose continuous work is a continuous procession and return of God to himself--divine reciprocity now encompasses the Body of Christ, the Church.

The sacrificial nature, then, of our liturgy is our participation in the one sacrifice of Jesus, of which our lives are symbolic. That is, we are a sacrifice and do sacrifice only inasmuch as we are participants in the singular offering of Jesus to the Father, for the life of the world.

An economics that would be Christian, then, would be liken to the feudal economy. Not because the feudal economy that Geoff mentioned is paradigmatic for society, but because the feudal economy was inherently liturgical. It's festivals, guild systems, kinships, reinforced the common care for one another and an exchange based on a common need, common land, and so forth. Again, the feudal system was hardly perfect, but it does resemble in many ways the liturgical life that so permeated the people within feudal society. Guild members cared for, supported and buried their members. Within this system is a real sense of commonality rather than gains and losses.

I threw in the liturgy stuff because it seems to me that any alternative economy that would eliminate the competative nature of capitalism, whereby the almighty "me" is to be looked after, and I look after you only if there is something in it from me, must be grounded in the reciprocal gift-economy that the Trinity is.

[Tim McGee]

Thanks for your response. The question of feudalism is one that won't be settled on a board; I'm in the middle of reading up some about it, but I am skeptical of some of the critiques of modernism that end up with what strikes me as an idealization of feudalism. Violence can also be quite liturgical (I'm reminded of the ordeal), and from what I do know of the medieval feudal system, it certainly wasn't an ideal, harmonious communistic agrarianism, nor do I think that such is necessarily the direction the church ought to move.

I want to also emphasize that Christ's obedience to the Father is prepared for by the Spirit (the Spirit hovers over Mary) and done by the power of the Spirit (Christ's baptism). This helps brings together what I sometimes being separated (the language of gift from sacrifice).

[Roy Gathercoal]

If you have not yet run into the work on Power by the Quaker economist Kenneth Boulding, it might be worth a look.

The book "Three faces of Power" specifically lays out a perspective on power from the perspective of an economist. Ultimately, Boulding argues, we ought to live in a world in which power is exercised as "love power", although the best we can probably hope for is "exchange power" (which is, of course, based in economic way-of-thinking.

The third form is coercive, which is clearly (in Boulding's view) the least desirable and most destructive form of social power.

This might go a bit too far astray of your philosophical way of conceptualizing ("philosophical as in 'the manner of philosophers") but it might also help to reintroduce love and relationship, devotion and integrity via the perspective of an economist.