Photo courtesy of My 2nd Heartbeat
With all the talk of polarization in our current climate, there are innumerable conversations focused around the most effective tactics to persuade others. Roughly, they can be divided into two camps, though such dividing is of course problematic but this is only a blog post. Namely, those two camps are “emotional stories” and “statistical analysis.” The best communicators can mix-and-match these two streams together in order to engage people from multiple directions. Everyone from politicians, to ministers, to people sitting in the coffeeshop are in some fashion engaging these topics from the perspective of coaxing emotional responses or trying to logically refute arguments. I would like to focus on the logical side, which seems to engage economic reasoning and data to support the necessity of serving the disadvantaged (around healthcare, taxes, social services, race/ethnicity, and poverty) in our society.
In such conversations, the discipline of economics has become a major rhetorical device. Economic analysis is used to support social safety net programs, healthcare reform, foreign policy, personal decisions, racial reconciliation, LGBTQ anti-discrimination policies, education, and just about every other social conversation taking place in the public sphere. The influence of economic rationales are seeping into every facet of our lives as try to find a rigidly analytical way to respond to the obstacles of our daily existence. Using podcast “Freakonomics” as an example, we are creating for ourselves a market society. One in which every discussion and decision must be measured by market impacts and rationales.
Part of the reason for this comes from an understanding that economics are a “values neutral” systems. For generations, the study of economics has been explained as an extension of hard science. It’s reliance upon modeling and equations is used as justification and support for its impartiality.
Economics doesn’t care about your race.
Economics doesn’t care about your politics.
Economics doesn’t consider your religion.
Economics doesn’t take into account your personality.
However, this isn’t true. Over the past few years there has been an explosion in the number of economists and philosophers who have started to push back against this ascension of our understanding of economics. People like Michael Sandel are beginning to question this “values neutral” assumption and question whether creating a market society is a good thing. According to Sandel, it’s one thing to have a market economy, which sees the market as a tool, and another to create a market society where every component of culture is given a value. It’s interesting reading if for no other reason than it asks questions of our current debates around the effectiveness of market thinking. There are also great discussions about the history of economics and how it comes from philosophy, not natural science. (But that is something a historian or a philosopher should write about.)
I tend to agree with Sandel that there are limits to where economic thought should impact our moral judgments. I can not assent to the idea that everything has a monetary value fixed to it. For instance, education. As education increasingly becomes seen as nothing more than a vehicle to financial gain, disciplines are then valued on their ability to get you a good paying job. Then a business degree becomes more “valuable” than a degree in the humanities. I must say that technically, religion degrees are part of the humanities, and I have two of those, so I am biased for the humanities. But I don’t think it is a stretch to say that we have come to a point in our collective experience where we focus on the worth of education to get your employment more than we value education for enrichment.
But this conversation needs to extend into our response to social issues. The Rev. William Barber, of whom I am an unabashed fan-boy, uses economic data in sermons to support the need for expanded social engagement. When you hear it, it is extremely compelling, but there is a question in the back of my mind.
Why do numbers count more than the fact that they are people?
As a Christian, and especially as a Baptist who says, “there is no creed buy Scripture,” shouldn’t the teachings of my faith spur my action?
Though the verse is used so much, and misapplied so often, John 3:16 should have some sway. “For God so loved the world…” The Gospels tell us that the main impetus for Jesus’ teaching, and his mere presence, is because God was moved by love for the world.
It says nothing about the economic data of 1st century Palestine.
Nothing of the benefits of healthcare on impoverished Jewish populations.
No numbers for those who would benefit the most from God’s action.
Just that God loves the world, and thus sends Jesus to save the world. (John 3:17)
I believe it says something about us that we need the numbers and evidence to spur our social responses. The need for hard data suggests that we do not recognize the inherent humanity of suffering people, and therefore are not moved to action because of our love. I hear you though.
“Of course we don’t love like God. Just look at the world we live in with all of its suffering.”
And to that I respond. “Instead, as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in all your conduct; for it is written, ‘you shall be holy, for I AM holy.’” 1 Peter 1:15-16
We may not be God, but we are supposed to try. That means we should be moved not because we have hard mathematical evidence of what we are doing, but because we are called of God to do as God has done. It may be a little idealistic, or very idealistic, but the Scripture itself is an ideal. One that we are supposed to live up to.
My last thought, don’t think of this as trying to shame you into responding. After years of the ASPCA playing that same add with Sarah McLachlan’s song in the background. I don’t think we have any shame left. It’s all been pulled out.
Instead, be filled with love.
Look into the eyes of another, and see the humanity staring back at you.
No comments:
Post a Comment