206. Ideology and language games in the Greek crisis
What would Foucault have made of the Greek crisis? An important feature of his work is the claim that systems of knowledge are entangled in wider systems of power and authority, forming an ideology. Such systems produce knowledge, but new knowledge, once established, spawns its own institutions, vested with power and authority. Issues of truth become issues of morality. Neo-liberal market ideology is an example.
Wittgenstein proposed the notion of language games. According to his view of meaning as use, meaning is not given outside action but is formed
and legitimized in it, in a context that constitutes a form of life. Having been
brought up in that, one takes the rules of the language game for granted, as
elf-evident. Non-adherence to the rules is cause of rejection and retribution,
and severe punishment when persevered in.
The Greeks and the EU are playing different language
games, in different forms of life.
With the EU it is the game of mainstream economics,
with the Greeks it is a game of social justice.
The problem is worsened by the fact that the different
language games are played in different national settings and cultures (Germany,
Netherlands, … versus Greece), so that parochial
altruism also kicks in (see the preceding item in this blog), with internal
Greek solidarity and outside suspicion increasing together.
As I have argued elsewhere in this blog (item 180),
mainstream economics is not value free, as it claims. It is rooted in a
utilitarian ethic, adopted form the English philosophers J.S. Mill and Jeremy
Bentham. It looks only at outcomes of utility/prosperity, not at the quality of
motives or at processes, and assumes that different dimensions of value can be
brought together under a single, joint measure (utility). It appeals to
liberals because it does not meddle in processes and intentions.
This stands in contrast with a virtue ethic, going
back to the Greek philosopher Aristotle, which looks at outcomes but also
intentions and processes, and recognizes multiple dimensions of value, which
are not necessarily measurable and commensurable. That requires debate beyond
measurement. Could it be that this is the perspective of the Greeks, going back
to their own philosopher?
Is some compromise or unification possible?
In my work (see items 31, 35 in this blog) I have
developed a theory (if it can be called that) of how invention arises, in a
cycle of moving away from established, institutionalized knowledge, into novel
contexts of application, adapting it to new demands and opportunities there,
adopting elements from the novel context, experimenting with hybrids, to arrive
at a more fundamental re-orientation of structures or logics with novel and old
elements.
When mainstream economic thought moves into Greece,
could it transform itself along such lines? The assumption in the logic is that
in order to survive in the new context, the incoming perspective has to meet
and accept its limitations or failures there, to be forced to adapt and absorb
local elements, as a step towards transformation. But if its power is so large
that it can impose the full force of its views, and need not adapt, that will
not happen, and learning and discovery will not take place. That is what seems
to be happening. Even the resounding ‘no’ from the Greek plebiscite could not
sway that power.
Earlier in this blog (item 180), and in a recent book[i], I pleaded for a shift
from utilitarian ethics to virtue ethics as the basis for a new economics. But
even the Greek crisis appears not to be able to force that issue. Perhaps that
will require a revolution.
[i] Bart Nooteboom, 2014, How markets work and fail, and what to make
of them, Edward Elgar.
No comments:
Post a Comment