Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
I am a regular subscriber to the website WhoWhatWhy written by investigative journalist Russ Baker. Recently he ran a response by one of his readers, Dave Parker, to a video Russ posted of Nick Hanuer, a billionaire venture capitalist who gave a talk at TED, which is an acronym for the non-profit, Technology, Entertainment and Design, TED holds conferences around the world on business/societal issues that relate to its theme. In his talk Mr. Hanuer dispelled the idea that the Rich create wealth and instead said it was really the middle-classes that drove the economy. He disparaged the idea that it is the entrepreneurs who are the “job creators”. Although the talk was well received by the conference attendees, TED curiously chose not to publicize it as it usually does with other such talks. Perhaps their decision was because Mr. Hanuer’s thesis goes against the current widely accepted mythology regarding job creation and entrepreneurship. Here is a video of his talk:
In his comment on this video, Dave Parker used the writings of Joseph Campbell. Joseph Campbell was:
“an American mythologist, writer and lecturer, best known for his work in comparative mythology and comparative religion. His work is vast, covering many aspects of the human experience.”
My reading Dave’s article was the type of moment where you can imagine me slapping my head and exclaiming: “Damn, why didn’t I think of that”. Indeed, I’ve read all of Campbell’s books and seen all of his famed PBS series of interviews, done with Bill Moyers. What follows is my jumping off from Mr. Parker’s excellent comments and any credit for what I’m writing here goes to him for his perception. In applying Campbell to Mr. Hanuer’s comments, Dave solidified a concept for me that’s been playing in my head for years about the 1%’s need to increase the disparity between themselves and everyone else . The Rich are trying to create a new kind of feudalism where Lordships are won not on battlefields, but in corporate boardrooms. The rest of us need to be impoverished because without serfs to worship them, having everything ultimately becomes boring. Some of the 1% no doubt are less ego-driven and have empathy for those not on their level, but even they are beneficiaries of a mythology in creation. I believe that this mythology is the result of a campaign waged since the supporters of Barry Goldwater went down to an inglorious defeat.
Joseph Campbell spent his life studying and teaching about mythology. This is a word that usually evokes images of the Hindu, Greek, Roman and Norse Gods. In a way, for some, mythology has become conflated with paganism. To Christians, Muslims and Jews of fundamentalist beliefs mythology is the other guys religion, when in fact it is also true of their own. However, Campbell did not stop with religion as mythology, he saw it as a driving force shaping human behavior and thus also studied the effects of cultural and political beliefs on human societies. Below is his sense of the role mythology plays in shaping ourselves and our societies via what Campbell calls the “Four Functions of Myth” taken from Campbell’s: “Pathways to Bliss (Novato, CA: New World Library), pp 6-10.”, I will discuss how these functions play out today to shape our collective views of the world.
One salient piece of Campbell’s history should be looked at before showing how these elements of mythological creation have been used in America, to lay the groundwork for a Corporate Feudalism, that will leave enthrone 1% as our Nobility. Dave Parker gives a side of Campbell that I was not aware of and I feel explains much:
“Campbell himself lectured for the State Department’s Foreign Service Institute for Decades, beginning 1956.……………That tells me that ever since the greed heads and warmongers at State and elsewhere have been steeped in a perverse reading of Campbell’s work. They read it for its utilitarian value in pursuing “National Security”. And the “successes” of the Feds are envied and emulated in the world of corporate propagandizing”
My suspicions are that we are being led via popular culture and the redefinition of celebrity, into a mindset that opens the door for Corporate Feudalism and indeed shapes the attitudes of most people. These are Campbell’s Four Functions of Mythology (.pdf):
1. …the first function of mythology [is] to evoke in the individual a sense of grateful, affirmative awe before the monstrous mystery that is existence
2. The second function of mythology is to present an image of the cosmos, an image of the universe round about, that will maintain and elicit this experience of awe. [or] …to present an image of the cosmos that will maintain your sense of mystical awe and explain everything that you come into contact with in the universe around you.
3. The third function of a mythological order is to validate and maintain a certain sociological system: a shared set of rights and wrongs, proprieties or improprieties, on which your particular social unit depends for its existence.
4. …the fourth function of myth is psychological. That myth must carry the individual through the stages of his life, from birth through maturity through senility to death. The mythology must do so in accords with the social order of his group, the cosmos as understood by his group”
As sentient beings, self-involved, the fear of our inevitable demise is primary to our existence. This gives rise in us to yearnings for meaning in our lives and purpose to our lives. Most of us need the comfort that when our inevitable end comes, we will continue to exist in some form. Beyond religion though, we are essentially social beings, who have learned the benefit of co-existence with other members of our species. In shaping our society it is essential that we have some over-arching concept that something exists around us to keep us safe from the terrors that are the legacy of our predatory past. We develop words like Republic, Democracy, Islamism, Libertarianism, Fascism and others of that ilk that provide individuals with a sense of something larger than themselves that provide protection for us and give meaning to our lives. In tandem to those words connoting societal structure are conflated words relating to the economic systems we live under such as Capitalism, Liberalism, Socialism, Communism etc. In truth all of these words meanings varies with each individuals perception of their meanings.
Most Americans have been inculcated with a set of mythological buzzwords if you will, that connote our Country’s notion of “exceptionalism“. We have been taught that America is a “Republican Democracy” thriving under a “Capitalist” economic system that provides us “Freedom”. We use symbols such as our Flag, our Anthem, and our Constitution to invoke the “grateful, affirmative awe” that Campbell describes. We are proud to be Americans and most importantly we feel protected by our mythology.
These mythological symbols have been translated by our government beginning in WWII and throughout the “Cold War” into awe inspiring emotions within us. Even as I try maintain a skeptical distance between myself and the myth of America’s Dream, I am also emotionally stirred by the evocation of this mythology, that approaches the “grateful awe” of which Campbell speaks. My sense of that awe is limned by my understanding that America’s Constitution nowhere mentions Capitalism, or even sets up a national economic system, so when I see this economic theory conflated with the notion of Freedom my hackles rise. I imagine this is not true for the majority of Americans and this has led to the widespread belief in the “American Dream” and our viewpoint that even the least among us can achieve untold success. People seem to not want to vote in their own self interest. It is this notion of the “American Dream” that has allowed taxation to become inequitable to the point where the rich pay a lesser percentage of their income than the rest of the people, yet many of those shouldering this burden are lured by the siren call of “no more taxes” for fear that they will be burdened once their own success is achieved.
This matches well with another piece of the American mythological order in that there is the widespread concept of a “free market” being the apex of economic freedom. Thus all economic problems can be solved by ensuring that the “free market” is allowed to reign undisturbed by selfish manipulations of the government. The argument about whether there even is such a thing as a “free market” I’ll leave for another day. It is incontrovertible though, that this is a belief of a large majority of Americans and certainly has fared well in the political context. In the notion though of a “free market” comes a further notion that those who partake in the market’s freedom, indeed the movers and shakers of the market itself, are the “real heroes” of the “American Dream”. The Entrepreneur is held up as the most meritorious among us, because it is the Entrepreneur whose efforts create all of the blessings we share in common. The definition of entrepreneur of course is quite stretchable and leads from people of modest birth like Buffett/Gates, to those whose fortunes have been inherited like the Koch Brothers/Walton’s/Trump’s.
If our society is driven by these entrepreneurs then of course their status is rightfully at the top of our particular American food chain. They become sources to be venerated, copied, modeled after and of course envied. I believe they are well aware of this, luxuriate in their Alpha positions and assume the trappings suited to their status. Interestingly, many of the scions of “Old Wealth” in this country eschew the immodest lifestyle, thinking it gauche and nouveau riche. While their living standard reflects the elite into which they were born, they don’t feel the need to flaunt it like those parveneau’s such as Trump. For the masses of us we understand on some level that the Mellon’s for instance, are better than we, even though they don’t comport themselves in a way that draws publicity. Our role models for wealth come from those such as Donald Trump, who beyond his money and/or accomplishment, branded himself as the epitome of wealth and living luxuriously, even though his example is one of gaudy ostentation in the worst of taste. He is the entrepreneur as version of the Movie Star, which has been so confused with success and the “American Dream” that one became President and another the Governor of California.
Awe can be described as “a feeling of reverential respect mixed with fear or wonder”. This in truth is the way many of us view the elite of this country. This has been reinforced time and again by both media and by those in Academia who have functioned as their minions. It has also been the thrust of a massive propaganda campaign to disparage “liberalism” and turn the country towards what was redefined as a “conservative”viewpoint. I believe that viewpoint is less about political philosophy and more about solidifying the hold upon this country of a newly defined aristocracy. We are in “awe” of these our bettors, just as much as the medieval peasantry was in awe of the nobility of their day. Back then the gossip about the local Dukes latest mistress was as interesting and as titillating as Tom Cruise’s divorce, or The Kardashian’s TV show.
In medieval times entertainers were considered to be much less reputable, even while sharing relatively wide fame. Shakespeare was considered disreputable despite his fame in his day. Today entertainers are lionized as members of the elite which is mainly to conflate their fame with that of the Corporate/Inherited Elite, thus borrowing their glamour for the latter. In our society today the doings of the super-rich and other celebrities has become mainstream news. HGTV, for instance, has three programs dedicated to lovingly show the housing of the rich in New York, LA and London. The edifice homes, some costing as much as $50 million are displayed to us peasants for what reasons exactly, if not to inspire us with awe at the lives of our “betters“? Can we all remember the adulation poured out on the passing of Steve Jobs? He certainly was a man who made many contributions, but from his deification one would think he was directly transported to Valhalla. There is deification of our Armed Forces as the heroic exemplars of all that is good and true in America, yet are true gratitude is such that 50% of their families are on Food Stamps. Remember the hushed tones in which the news media portrayed General Petreus? That polls have shown many Americans to believe Ronald Reagan was our “Greatest President” is yet another example of the conflation of celebrity with supposed greatness. Neither Petreus, nor Reagan were either super-rich or super-competent, but they were treated with the deference of nobility and that is the point. We hold all these symbols in awe and the underlying message is one of gratitude to them for showing us what to aspire to and by leading us benighted fools through example. Jesus is of course the ultimate myth since in the opinion of many his decisions control our lives for eternity. “What would Jesus do” is a question asked by multitudes and many have been led to believe that if returned today he would be our ultimate entrepreneur.
This returns us full circle to Mr. Hanuer dispelling the idea that the “rich” create wealth. They are not in the end the “job creators” that Mr. Romney and conservative “wisdom” would have us believe. Yet I must acknowledge that a sizable number of Americans would take exception to that assertion. I think too that the “creator” part of that meme is one fraught with connotation. Just as religion deems that God created the world, isn’t there a strong inference with the term “job creator” that would lead one to feel that the Entrepreneur created America. Doesn’t the mythological creature in that reference stand above the Founding Fathers in our current mythological reference of America being the most exceptional country in history? I believe we are blinded by this American mythology to such an extent that the problems we face as a society will not be fully recognized until it is too late and we will collapse in the shattering realization that so many of our life perceptions are mythological in origin.
Adolph Hitler took a shattered country with a hyper-inflated, impoverished economy and through the brilliance of a master of mythology, Joseph Goebbels, created a world power with the potential for empire. NAZI Germany’s destruction though came about chiefly because the mythologists began to believe, along with those they had gulled, that their mythology was absolute truth and that they the “Master Race“ would prevail against all odds. Fresh from the incredible triumph of World War II and with the evidence of the most impressive military/industrial buildup in history, our politicians and public became convinced of the “exceptional nature” of the United States. We discovered another implacable foe to oppose and fought a new kind of war on a global basis. That having ended with the USSR’s collapse the country’s elite searched for new “enemies” with which to keep our military occupied and our defense industry rich. Perhaps the culmination of the idea of our country’s exceptional nature came with the writing of the “Project For The New American Century” a design to make the United States into an Empire in the Twenty-First Century. The two main guiding architects of that manifesto were Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfield, who also were the architects of the two wars in which we are still enmeshed.
Joseph Campbell correctly believed that mythology serves as a glue to maintain human beings in the close relationship of society, to give meaning to our lives and to give us inspiration to progress and achieve heretofore unthought-of accomplishments. Mythology though can also be the undoing of a society, community, ethnicity and religion. I believe that in the case of our country I see the signs of our common mythology seeding the possibility of disaster. For the dream captured, however imperfectly, in our Constitution, to culminate in a feudal system dominated by Corporatism, would seem to me tragic. My hope is that this piece will initiate some creative thought in the reader, just as Dave Parker’s comments did with me and I’m interested in how others view this concept of mythology recreating the Feudal System.
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
“Austrian economists do not eschew science, they eschew the use of the “scientific method” in explaining human affairs.”
Which is exactly what eschewing science looks like, Jim.
No, Jim. By your own words, even if couched in your denial, my characterization is quite correct.
@Jim: Explicit violence is outlawed, indirect violence is not, and that is the issue. For example, Chinese plastics companies are free to expose their workers to airborne carcinogenic chemicals, and they do. They do not have to inform their employees they are being exposed to carcinogens; and the employees have no recourse if they get sick (in fact the Chinese fire the sick and replace them). There is no regulation that gives employees any inherent right to a safe working environment or any right to damages for being harmed in the course of their work; the presumption is that they accept the risks of the job (even if they do not know them) when they accept the job.
Those would be features of an unregulated market or “contract” market: If you want the job, sign a contract absolving the company of any responsbility for your health or safety; or go look somewhere else. Just like in China, somebody else in the line is hungrier than you and will sign that contract.
When a company CAN escape liability with a contract it always does; just look at any software license: No liability of any kind any where under any circumstances, you always use software products at your own risk.
If in America workplaces COULD do that, they would, if food and drug companies COULD do that, they would, if people selling any kind of product COULD absolve themselves of all product liability by contract, they would.
Almost all American business regulations exist because companies used to be engaging in what the regulation prevents. You do not get to redefine what a “free market” is; a free market is an unregulated market.
Jim,
If you are not using the scientific method, you are not doing science.
Tony C,
I liked the demotivational poster. I think that ultimately economics will be forced down the road of science and its eminently quantifiable nature will serve it well in that endeavor, but I don’t disagree with you regarding its current state…
Gene,
Eeww. I hope Jim didn’t get any of that on us…
Thanks.
Tony C,
While I agree with most of what you said about the potential of economics as a science, I take exception to the following:
Tony C said:
First off, no science produces results that are provably true (all scientific hypotheses must be able to be proven false) and every theorem in mathematics is either true or false (while everything is not provably true or false, all mathematics that nearly every person in the world will ever encounter can be proven or disproven). “Darwinism” (or “evolution” as most call it…) is not a theorem in an axiomatic system, it is a scientific theory–and it plays in the big leagues with the likes of gravity as opposed to economics which hasn’t really committed to playing peewee science yet…
Gene H.
Your characterization is incorrect. Austrian economists do not eschew science, they eschew the use of the “scientific method” in explaining human affairs. In addition, your characterization of the economic school is far off base. Hayek received the Nobel for his work “The Road To Serfdom” in his economic analysis of the transformation of socialism to dictatorship. Mises was extraordinarily well read, and solved one of the most perplexing areas in economics: the business cycle and the issuance of fiduciary media. The Austrian school also is intimately connected with the marginalist revolution. It says nothing about markets providing just and equal distribution (that’s Socialism), it makes no premises about human nature (if you stick with Mises … Rothbard does do a strong analysis of corruption).
And additionally, there is no such thing as “economic science” just as there are no “round triangles”. I will demonstrate the absurdity of this. Consider that my income is 1/30 trillionth of the world economy. We thus can write 30 trillion = J * 1, where the “1” is a constant. Now suppose I double my income. Does the world economy double in size? Because that is what the “equation” says. Clearly the equals sign means something different in different contexts. Here it means next to nothing. To say that we can use that symbol as meaning something scientifically, is just balderdash. Yet that is what Keynesianism (and monetarianism, and Neo-Keynesianism) does assert. It is foolishness, which has been demonstrated, logically (and empirically! if that does it for you) over and over.
Take care,
— Jim.
“Gene H. 1, July 7, 2012 at 3:30 pm
Dredd,
You are an expert on being a know-nothing posing as know-it-all.
===================================
In your world perhaps, but not in the real world.
You are a typical internet bully.
In your world perhaps, but not in the real world.”
If you don’t like people pointing out you’re full of crap, Dredd, stop being full of crap. And if you’re going to claim I’ve said something incorrect about genetics? Be specific and provide proof – not some of your fringer stereo evolution garbage either, but actual science that shows a proper understanding of natural selection (which you manifestly and repeatedly don’t have). I have never made a claim that behaviors were solely genetic in basis. The other side of the evolution debate – the strict genetic determinism camp – is just as wrong as your camp of the stereo “symbiosis rules!” gang and I’ve said so explicitly before. I will not censor myself to comfort your ignorance. If you thank that makes me a bully? You not only don’t know what a bully actually is, but you’ve mistaken me for someone who values your opinion about me personally.
Genetics, external biological influences on coding and environment are all inputs into natural selection just as adaptive (or maladaptive) behaviors of complex organisms is an input. No one input is dominate over the other no matter your wishful thinking to use bacterial symbiosis to explain every evil in the world.
So, again, if you don’t like people pointing out you’re full of crap, Dredd, stop being full of crap.
Mike Spindell 1, July 9, 2012 at 6:26 pm
…
Part of the problem with Marxian dialectic is that it became a matter of faith, rather than reason.
…
================================
The same with gene ideology. It is a myth which is perpetuated by faith or trust: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=36HquPzdxf4
In that video (which I can’t get to embed) various genetic experts explain the mythology, and that it resembles eugenics.
Those myths have made their way into our economics, as you posit in your post, albeit in a different light.
The mythology of gene which is associated with both eugenics and determinism is a myth perpetuated here too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=36HquPzdxf4
It boils down to holy myths and evil myths it would seem.
Mike Spindell,
Karl Marx asserted that people in a certain class had no ability to understand anything outside their frame of reference, thereby decrying the universal truth … which of course he could himself determine. The thread on “mythology” is strikingly similar.
In response to your other post, clearly “I exist” is outside of the realm of proof because any attempt at denial instead affirms it. It is the same way with subjective valuation.
— Jim.
@Slart: empirical methods are the future of economics
That is what I think, too, it currently borders on mysticism and really needs an overhaul. Here is a great Demotivator poster, it says:
Economics: The science of explaining tomorrow why the predictions you made yesterday didn’t come true today.
Tony C.
The free market is “free” because violence is specifically outlawed, by some method by which it is too costly to engage in it.
— Jim.
“Economics is outside of empirical proof or disproof”
Jim,
So is Christianity, or any other religion for that matter. So can I infer that you believe in Von Mises and Rothbard as a matter of faith? If so that seems far closer to a Marxist type of belief than other views expressed here. Part of the problem with Marxian dialectic is that it became a matter of faith, rather than reason. It’s what I hate most about it save for the fact it doesn’t work. If your thoughts resemble Von Misean dialectic, then we are dealing with a pernicious mythology, equal to that of communism.
video embed not working … here is the URL link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=36HquPzdxf4
Gene H. 1, July 7, 2012 at 3:30 pm
Dredd,
You are an expert on being a know-nothing posing as know-it-all.
===================================
In your world perhaps, but not in the real world.
You are a typical internet bully.
Recall your phony statements on gene stuff and be corrected insecure one:
Slarti,
“I’m not sure what praxeological means”
I can help with that.
Praxeological is a word von Mises coined/borrowed to make his unscientific drivel sound more erudite. It allegedly is the deductive study of human behavior through “action axioms” which usually take the form of “If A holds, then B should be done.” The problem lies in von Mises blatantly ridiculous definition of action: “Human action is purposeful behavior. Or we may say: Action is will put into operation and transformed into an agency, is aiming at ends and goals, is the ego’s meaningful response to stimuli and to the conditions of its environment, is a person’s conscious adjustment to the state of the universe that determines his life. Such paraphrases may clarify the definition given and prevent possible misinterpretations. But the definition itself is adequate and does not need complement of commentary.” Which is a very long winded way of saying action is what the actor wants put into motion as spurred by ego no matter the outcome and if you disagree my definition is not open to your interpretation. This is, of course, circular logic and an example of ego-driven ideology, not actual logic or science. In the end, praxeology is sophist window dressing to disguise the utter lack of scientific rigor, rejection of the scientific method, and the rejection of the use of empirical data by the Austrian School.
As proven on numerous occasions here, the Austrian School of “economics” doesn’t even qualify as a soft science, but rather it is a political polemic masquerading behind a mask of economics. Its premises about human nature is as naive as that of Communism (with a command economy – it is the exact opposite end of the scale from laissez-faire capitalism and its antithetical). Its assumptions that markets can provide just and equitable outcomes on a predictable basis is childishly based on the wishful thinking that all actors in a market are good actors and that the market itself isn’t capable of manipulation when history shows these premises to be the exact opposite of the reality.
I hope that helps you understand the term in context.
@Jim: … actions by thinking participants are not subject to the controls necessary by the scientific method.
On the contrary, sociologists and experimental psychologists study the actions of thinking participants all the time; and in complete concordance with the scientific method. Studying how people react to priming or various negotiation tactics may not be as straightforward as determining the conductivity of a mineral, but it can certainly be done scientifically, with falsifiable hypotheses and experiments and some degree of statistical certainty.
It may not produce results as provably true or false as mathematics, but I think it can certainly play in the same logical league as Darwinism or paleontology.
Jim B said:
@Jim: A statement of clear fact is not a basis for argumentation.
A statement that is clearly false is also not a basis for argumentation. If you want to learn more, read my post. If you want to just restate your easily disproved assertions ad infinitum, I cannot stop you, but I will continue to point out the errors in your thinking.
Speaking of which, the free market will not stop the frauds. The reason we have laws against fraud is because it was quickly seen that the free market failed to stop them. The reason the majority of laws and business regulations are on the books in the first place is because they address failures of the free market; the free market did not keep companies from putting their employees in lethal danger, it did not keep them from exposing employees to carcinogens or dangerous equipment, it also did not keep companies from poisoning water supplies and wells, and so the citizens demanded laws that would make the market a little less “free” to kill them.
We all agree there are bad laws on the books and corrupt practices within the legislature, but the majority of laws that regulate companies are there because nothing else but the threat of the law would restrain them from carelessly harming people in the name of profit.
Shano,
The subjective part is the choice. You are making an objectivist argument (perhaps without realizing it) which is false. Values are not objective, they are subjective. People have chosen death rather than slavery many times, and each time they do, they disprove your point.
As far as “reforming” the financial sector – it needs no reforming, just remove the artificial government / Federal Reserve support and let it fail. Failure has an amazing way of bringing rationality and balance back.
The reality is we live in a (near?) fascist country. The mythology is that what we’ve encountered is a “free market”. Hardly. There is no free market without failure.
— Jim.