Warning--tendentious discussion ahead.
We most often associate "prejudice" with antagonims towards individuals of a particular and/or different race or class, but, in fact, prejudice is an intellectual act--the formation of a conclusion before any hard evidence is at hand. Most often, prejudice is based on assumptions, many of them actually false or contrary to fact, which are transmitted from individual to individual for the purpose (very often) of creating social cohesion. In other words, prejudice performs a positive function.
This process is evident in many groups, including those people who concern themselves with how and why human societies produce and exchange their material assets--i.e. economists. Economists, even though they profess to have developed a "hard" science, based on the measurement and calculation of material realities, actually proceed from a number of shared assumptions or prejudices, which then color, as all pre-judgements tend to do, how they interpret what they actually observe in the real world.
This is what makes prejudice so pernicious. Once a prejudice becomes embedded in the human brain, any subsequent information that comes in consistent with the prejudice is categorized as affirmative or reinforcing, while any subsequent information which contradicts or disputes the prejudice tends to be categorized as "the exception that proves the rule." That's why prejudice is so hard to dislodge.
In economics, the primary assumption or prejudice is that man "prefers leisure and must be forced to work." Consequently, having accepted that premise, it follows that any relaxation of force or coercion (such as a promise of adequate sustenance in old age) is seen as an invitation to economic collapse. If no-one will work unless their survival is threatened, it is obviously not only prudent but good to make sure that any surplus that happens to be produced is secured by those who know how to use it wisely.
Based on this understanding of the prejudices shared by economists, what I would argue is that the economic mayhem we are witnessing is not a consequence of class antagonism or prejudice. Rather it is the logical result of the application of a theory of how the economic sector SHOULD work, regardless of the fact that its premises are probably false. Much tinkering with the various aspects of the economy is just an effort to make it come out "right"--i.e. consistent with economists' expectations.
One other point I would make is that the failure to provide adequate sustenance (adequate meaning sufficient to support the reproduction and training of the next generation) to the present generation won't just result in the next being less affluent or capable to support themselves. Rather, all humans have the option of sustaining themselves either by engaging in the trade and exchange of goods and services with others of their kind (economic behavior) or of resorting to simply taking whatever they happen to need--i.e. the predatory mode.
Although humans have evolved language and a system of social organization based on the exchange of goods and services, that does not mean they have left the more primitive system of predation behind. If one strategy doesn't work, the other is always available. Indeed, if we consider predatory capitalists, it seems that predatory behavior can flourish even when human survival is not stressed.
If this hypothesis has merit, then what we need to recognize is that the predatory instinct is at work among the most affluent and that we have to implement some strategies to counteract it. When humans resort to predation in order to survive, that behavior can be countered by giving them enough to eat. When humans resort to predation because they have been improperly socialized, it's a little more difficult to get them to stop. Letting them have more of whatever they are after won't do it.
When you come right down to it, what the "free marketers" are really after is the license to roam through the world, taking whatever strikes their fancy and giving nothing in return. It's what we used to call theft.
Posted by Hannah at June 10, 2005 06:41 AM