I'm taking a course in macroeconomics this semester, and, surprisingly to me, I find it interesting. So I finally picked up the book What Matters? Economics for a Renewed Commonwealth, by Wendell Berry. In the Foreword to the book, Herman E. Daly discusses the fact that we actually use the wrong word when discussing economics. The word economics comes from the Greek word oikonomia, which Daly defines as "the science or art of efficiently producing, distributing, and maintaining concrete use values for the household and community over the long run," that is, what we mean when we say "home economics" which is actually a redundant term. This word has been appropriated refer to (I'm quoting the OED's secondary definition of economics here) "the branch of knowledge that deals with the production, distribution, consumption and transfer of wealth."
Ok, I get it, we appropriate words all the time, that's great, there obviously wasn't another available word to use for what we refer to as economics. I guess we could have made one up, but, whatever, we didn't. Except, WAIT, there IS another word, and it is also Greek, just like oikonomia. The word is chrematistics, and it means "the art of maximizing the accumulation by individuals of abstract exchange value in the form of money in the short run" according to Daly and "of, pertaining to or engaged in the acquisition of wealth" according to the OED.
Now, this puts me in a bit of a tizzy. To me, assigning the incorrect definition to economics is a bit like putting a wolf in sheep's clothing. Economics is a noble pursuit. The care and management of our households' and our communities' resources is something we should all pursue. It should just be part of what we do as humans. Chrematistics, on the other hand, is not noble. It goes against the call of God to care for our neighbours and the earth, and it is just plain greedy and unjust. And this is what we teach as economics. I happen to think that the world would be a lot better off if, instead of being taught to accumulate everything we can and to get ahead of everybody else, we were taught to care for each other, the earth, and the resources we have been given. And we can start by calling things by their proper names.
Ok, I get it, we appropriate words all the time, that's great, there obviously wasn't another available word to use for what we refer to as economics. I guess we could have made one up, but, whatever, we didn't. Except, WAIT, there IS another word, and it is also Greek, just like oikonomia. The word is chrematistics, and it means "the art of maximizing the accumulation by individuals of abstract exchange value in the form of money in the short run" according to Daly and "of, pertaining to or engaged in the acquisition of wealth" according to the OED.
Now, this puts me in a bit of a tizzy. To me, assigning the incorrect definition to economics is a bit like putting a wolf in sheep's clothing. Economics is a noble pursuit. The care and management of our households' and our communities' resources is something we should all pursue. It should just be part of what we do as humans. Chrematistics, on the other hand, is not noble. It goes against the call of God to care for our neighbours and the earth, and it is just plain greedy and unjust. And this is what we teach as economics. I happen to think that the world would be a lot better off if, instead of being taught to accumulate everything we can and to get ahead of everybody else, we were taught to care for each other, the earth, and the resources we have been given. And we can start by calling things by their proper names.
Comments
Post a Comment