Suffering? Well, You Deserve It
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/03/03-6
People wait in line to enter the Northern Brooklyn Food Stamp and DeKalb Job Center in New York City in 2012. (Photo: AP/Mark Lennihan)
OXFORD, EnglandThe morning after my Feb. 20 debate at the Oxford Union, I walked from my hotel along Oxfords narrow cobblestone streets, past its storied colleges with resplendent lawns and Gothic stone spires, to meet Avner Offer, an economic historian and Chichele Professor Emeritus of Economic History.
Offer, the author of The Challenge of Affluence: Self-Control and Well-Being in the United States and Britain Since 1950, for 25 years has explored the cavernous gap between our economic and social reality and our ruling economic ideology. Neoclassical economics, he says, is a just-world theory, one that posits that not only do good people get what they deserve but those who suffer deserve to suffer. He says this model is a warrant for inflicting pain. If we continue down a path of mounting scarcities, along with economic stagnation or decline, this neoclassical model is ominous. It could be used to justify repression in an effort to sustain a vision that does not correspond to the real world.
Offer, who has studied the rationing systems set up in countries that took part in World War I, suggests we examine how past societies coped successfully with scarcity. In an age of scarcity it would be imperative to set up new, more egalitarian models of distribution, he says. Clinging to the old neoclassical model could, he argues, erode and perhaps destroy social cohesion and require the state to engage in greater forms of coercion.
The basic conventions of public discourse are those of the Enlightenment, in which the use of reason [enabled] us to achieve human objectives, Offer said as we sat amid piles of books in his cluttered office. Reason should be tempered by reality, by the facts. So underlining this is a notion of science that confronts reality and is revised by reference to reality. This is the model for how we talk. It is the model for the things we assume. But the reality that has emerged around us has not come out of this process. So our basic conventions only serve to justify existing relationships, structures and hierarchies. Plausible arguments are made for principles that are incompatible with each other.