In the medieval period economics was a subset of ethics. In other words, economics came under the broad discipline of how we ought to live. Commerce—trade, production and sale of goods—was not an independent activity. Trade was regulated by moral considerations. It was, for example, considered wrong to charge interest on money lent to someone. Why should you get a return for doing nothing? That didn't seem fair.
The modern period changed all that. Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations in 1776 presented to the world a new way of looking at economics. The notion of a free market was born. The market was free from moral considerations, and ought to be free from interference. Free markets would produce great good. Free markets are guided by an invisible hand. I am not going to provide here a critique of free market economics, though Marx and Engels The Communist Manifesto is a very good place to start. (For interested readers I would recommend both Smith and Marx. In economics terms, everything written after them is merely a footnote.) Even after Smith's magnum opus economics was still a bounded discipline. The market was restrained by the moral considerations of workers (who formed unions) and by law as the worst excesses of markets were moderated by fair dealings. In the last 30 years we have begun to see something different. Workers are now more than ever simply cogs in the machine of the market. Did anyone notice the change from "personnel" to "human resources"? We all serve the market as it works its magic. Even more, the idea of the market has broken away from its moorings and has begun to encroach on every aspect of life. Every facet of life is now seen in terms of markets. People in hospitals are now consumers of products and not patients in need of help and care. Students have now become consumers of the product of education; teachers the deliverers of the product. The classroom is now a point of sales. It has become so pervasive that I suspect some readers of this blog will wonder why I am making a fuss. It is self-evident that everything is marketing. That is part of the problem. Our culture has been taken over to such a degree that we hardly notice it. All is now seen in terms of money, costs, profits, losses.
Why the fuss? In giving in to the market we are in danger of losing (perhaps already have lost) important values. The Beatles were right (as they often were): "Money can't buy me love ..." Money can't buy me goodness, or truth, or beauty. Money can't measure the value of a person. Money can't measure the change of the seasons; the consciousness of well-being; the "oceanic feeling" of wonder (Freud) at the greatness of reality. If money is truly "the bottom line" then as a culture we lose.
I was chatting recently with a couple of recent PhDs who are looking for jobs. It's a tough market for new professors. (See, the language is everywhere.) With a heavy heart I advised that in framing their CVs and "cover letters" and research agendas they needed to "market themselves." The dear friends I was talking to were repulsed by the idea. Their work and learning and commitments had led them to a place where, in true Socratic fashion, they think they know less now than ever. Yet, to get a job polish your image, make yourself marketable, and sell yourself.
Jesus told a parable about a self-satisfied religious man who marketed himself to God when he prayed. He displayed his achievements. Another man, a tax collector, simply looked down and asked for mercy. The punch-line was "Those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted."
I wonder how far my younger colleagues would get if, instead of marketing themselves, they followed the way of humility? I could not advise them to take that way. It made me sad. The ancient wisdom is a higher truth. A deeper magic.
+Ab. Andy