Review of
America in Midpassage
by Charles A. and Mary R. Beard
Sidney J. Abelson
[Reprinted from The Freeman, July, 1939]
Everything that any reasonable person could want to know about what
was what, who was who, the when, where and why of all significant
events in America these past ten years is summed up most agreeably In
America in Midpassage, by the famous Beards, Charles A. and
Mary R. (Macmillan Company, $3.50). Nine hundred and forty-nine pages
of solid text, every one thoroughly readable, comprise an achievement
in reporting that deserves a very special citation. If I were writing
the advertisements for this book I would picture it as an engrossing
post-graduate course in the important popular facts of science, the
arts, entertainment, political movements, labor organization, the
Supreme Court, congressional investigations, and, indeed, many other
subjects too numerous to Mention. I would call it a work that is
encyclopedic in scope but not in style. I would say that for numerous
practical purposes it was far better than most encyclopedias costing
many times its price. I would recommend it as a source of
self-education that could very easily prove superior to four years in
college as a means for developing the grace of informed conversation
with all the social_ advantages such an acquirement brings. But I
would not recommend it as a source of intelligent information on the
subject of economics.
In a long chapter devoted to "Frames of Social Thought" the
Beards review the dominant economic theories and theoretical
tendencies during the decade, turning back, as they do throughout the
entire volume, to sketch in contributing backgrounds. Pursuing their
task in the capacity of reporters rather than commentators or
analysts, they avoid deliberate bias; yet they cannot completely
escape revealing their prejudices. Thus I find a generous-sized
section devoted to Veblen, the professor whose engaging deviations
from economic realities served only to contribute to the fatuous
confusion in contemporary thought.*
The Beards tell us that "in all the history of American thought,
few, if any, had been ail well equipped as Veblen by acquaintance with
foreign languages, by training in philosophy, by study in cultural
anthropology, and by scientific detachment from the prestige of
office, for dealing with economics in its social affiliations as a
phase of culture, rather than as a hypothetical mechanism."
Now it may be that the law of gravity is only "a hypothetical
mechanism" and that physicists make a great mistake in dealing
with their subject as such instead of treating it "in its social
affiliations as a phase of culture"; but if this were the case, I
am afraid there would be no science of physics. Nor without, a "hypothetical
mechanism," i.e., an observable natural law, could there be a
science of economics; and if there is no such science, nature better
invent one in a hurry or mankind will soon be in a very bad way.
According to Webster's Dictionary, economics is "the science of
the material means of satisfying human desires." If this is so
then economists should look for their facts (and the framework or
mechanism into which those facts fit) in the places where men make
their livings.. Veblen, of course, was above this. He had the
advantages of knowing "philosophy, foreign languages and cultural
anthropology." His researches were done on a higher plane and
when he was through, the Beards tell us, '"little was left of the
delusion that the axioms of economic science were inescapable
deductions drawn from the observed phenomena of the twentieth-century
marketplace."
NOTE
* Veblen pointed out, and with some qualifications, rightly so, that "the
interest of modern business enterprise was essentially pecuniary, as
distinguished from the craftsman, the manager, or the directing
industrialist as owner in a strict sense." He was also on sound
factual ground when he concluded, as the Beards express it, that "a
large number of business enterprisers were not engaged in production
at all," (Holding companies, excessive stock manipulations, etc.)
But he might have said, with the same significance, that our society
suffers from many personal crimes bred by poverty; for both shady and
unnecessary business activities and a large proportion of our crime's
are the results of an economic system which deprives men of "the
material means for satisfying human desires." Veblen, the Beards,
the "trendists" and the "institutionalists" of
whom they write with subtle approval, all start their investigations
from a false vantage point. Business is not economics, though it is
one of the instruments facilitating the fulfillment of man's economic
needs. The derelictions of big business, even though they are "a
striking, persistent and persuasive characteristic," are not any
more the determinants of fundamental theory than are the innumerable
mistakes made say, in chemical research, determinants of chemical law.
We cannot prove a natural law by human mistakes, but we can utilize
those mistakes as guides in searching out natural law. The "institutionalist"
approach pursued by contemporary economists and politicians is almost
entirely divorced from fundamental theory, and in this unintegrated
state expresses itself finally in such ill-fated "noble
experiments" as the NRA.
The distortions of economic life begin not at the top, despite the
devil-theory of human action, but at the bottom; at the natural
sources of wealth, Economic frustration at the land compels a resort
to trickery, factitious business enterprises and innumerable wasteful
activities, in the same way that psychological frustrations drive
people insane. Is it all too simple? I invite the Beards to call upon
their vast historical knowledge for a single instance of involuntary
poverty (barring natural catastrophes) in a period when the land was
freely open to all the people.
Even Veblen's supporters agree that his theories defy exact
interpretation. Professor Paul Homan, a sympathetic biographer,
writes: "In proceeding to an exposition of Veblen's work one has
necessarily to protect himself with a word of warning. It is at times
very difficult to break through his curious rhetoric into the true
import of his meaning. He is for one thing, addicted to the use of
words and phrases far removed from their customary uses." (Page
239, section on Veblen in
American Masters of Social Science) And here is an example of
Veblen's writing of the type to which Homan refers:
"But what does all this signify? If we are getting
restless under the taxonomy of a monocotydledonous wage-system and
crytogamic theory of interest, with involute, loculicidal, tomentous
and monolform variants, what is the cytoplasm, centrosome, or
karyokinetic process to which we may turn, and in which we may find
surcease from the metaphysics, of normality and controlling
priaciples?"
|