Bad People, Egoism, a Free Market, and Hermeneutics
A weakness in my personal study of texts, biblical and otherwise, has always been my reluctance to rely on secondary sources for interpretation. I’m not sure whether my motive is noble in the sense of relying on self-discipline or arrogant in the sense of rejecting any reading other than my own. But either way, or more likely somewhere in between, there my commitment has lain.
And either as a result of that commitment or in spite of it, I have been blessed to learn from texts some interesting things apparently often overlooked.
As a high-schooler, my argument for my approach was simply that it was not my responsibility to find out what everyone else thought—that it was my responsibility actually to think. My experiences and personal characteristics would create a unique intersection with each text I encountered. Why, I reasoned, would it be worth existing just to think other people’s thoughts? (My vocabulary was not the same then, but my argument was.)
The only serious problem with that line of reasoning is that it presumes there would be some intrinsic value to the thoughts unique to me. But if I hold to the belief that people are not basically good, that they are instead basically bad, then what possible benefit could there be to adding one more bad person’s ideas to the mound of human debris collecting since the fall of humanity?
Actually, there is a significant one, and it is the point of this post. But it will take two or three brief paragraphs about economics, the free market in particular, to make the analogy clear.
Adam Smith is normally (and appropriately) credited with making clear several things about economics, not the least of which can be referred to as economic egoism. That is, because people inherently act in self-interest, the level of prosperity in any economy is directly proportional to the ability of its agents to benefit from their productivity. The more product there is, the more everyone in the economy has available to them—productivity grows the economy for everyone. Since people act self-interestedly, the more reward there is to a producer, the more productive the producer will be. Barriers between a producers and rewards (profits) hurt the economy, and hence hurt everyone. Barriers between producers and their involvement in whatever they produce best hurt productivity, the economy, and hence everyone. So the freer the marketplace, the more prosperity available to everyone. (It would take another day and post to make the point that regulations maintaining that freedom for both producers and consumers contribute to prosperity while regulations restricting that freedom for either group diminishes it.)
What the market naturally provides then is a mechanism whereby productivity and consumption are beautifully tied together by the natural mechanism of price to bring balance to the whole economy. Individuals act in self-interest (not the same as “selfishly”) but inherently end up doing so for the benefit of the whole economy—that’s why one man’s profit is evidence of just how much his productivity was worth to those who purchased his product.
Most interestingly, a free market works in a world of bad people, the nature of the market automatically maximizing at the end what is most beneficial to everyone (productivity) by using what is naturally at the beginning most interesting to each one (profit). It relies on the goodness neither of each participant nor of a special group of economic overseers.
Hopefully the point regarding hermeneutics will be if not perfectly clear at least slightly more accessible now. Since the fall, people always have and always will bring their prejudices and preferences to every text they read. (Again there’s no space to broach the broader topic of subjectivity in general here, but it is not difficult to see some steps toward ameliorating radical subjectivism using this approach to hermeneutics.) No matter how hard I try not to have those selfish desires, they will still shape (I did not say “determine”) my interpretation of texts. So why not rely more heavily on secondary sources for interpretations less twisted by my personality? Because those interpreters, the commentators and others, have the same nature I do. And I have no reason to commit to their view any more than to commit to mine (assuming I’m doing legitimate work to access the content of the text and not just passing over it like a diner at a buffet).
To go to a commentator in order to interpret a text before I have done my own work to understand it is to put myself in the same position as a person trusting 32 czars to direct the economy for me. (Forgive, please, the direct reference to contemporary American culture.) Similarly, to fail to explain that text based on the work I myself have done in the text is to rob the “hermeneutical economy” of the productivity which comes from the inquisitive and rational nature God put in me. The inquisitive part in me as an interpreter is like the profit-motivated part in me as a member of the economy. The rational part in me as an interpreter is like the productive part in me as a member of the economy. So accessing my interpretation of a text is not just a benefit to me, but a benefit to everyone who now, after contributing to interpretive environment, benefit from everyone’s inquisitive and rational work to understand what a text has said. No one’s inquisitiveness or rationality is perfect or self-sufficient. But both in each person contribute to the overall interpretive community. It’s not hermeneutical solipsism or selfishness that produces something worth knowing; rather, the interaction of “hermeneutical egoism” within the broader marketplace of ideas benefits everyone.
Since the most important text we have is from God, it would probably be good if all of us got to work interpreting it.
—————–
I am aware of Don Lavoie’s “Economics and Hermeneutics”, but am not familiar with a written form of this analogy in this direction. That book is more about how the discipline of hermeneutics provides insights for economics. Perhaps a reader can enlighten me with someone who has made the comparison in the opposite direction, i.e., the direction intended by this post.
Interesting blog. The weakness of the ‘market’ is indeed that it is made up of flawed human beings. The market has a place but must be kept in its place by the constraints we set based on our values. There is a market for slavery, drugs, child prostitution and other reprehensible things that we prohibit because of our values. However, the market does not care about these things. It is amoral. We cannot cede our country to the market because it is still simply a tool, not god, used by sinful beings. When you talk about the market you must also talk about power. The greed of people will always seek to block others from acting in their self interest. The very wealthy have used their power in this country to bust unions, decrease their taxes, erode banking regulations, and slow the rise of the minimum wage. This was done even though from 1947-1972 when we had strong unions, sensible regulation, a minimum wage nearly indexed to the cost of living, and the highest marginal tax rate in history, productivity and family income rose hand in hand in the most proserous time for the middle class in this nation. Reversing all of those things was supposed to create more prosperity but instead, even though productivity has increased for the last 30 years albeit more slowly, wealthy has steadily flowed from the middle to the top and families have actually lost ground. Even with women entering the workforce en masse, the vast majority of families are making less than they were in 1972 with one person working. This is not a market problem. It is a policy problem and a power problem. THe wealthy have used their power to change laws to their benefit and have convinced people that the blame for their shrinking bank accounts lies with unions, high taxes, and welfare. There’s more but I don’t have time to write everything.
Also, fyi, no mixed black/white person gets to choose their race. In America, if you have 1 drop of black blood, you are black. Society does not allow you to be white. Passing, the name for passing for white, is frowned upon by African Americans because you have to deny your African American heritage to make it work. You can have no connection to being black as that would diminish you in this country. The president’s race was defined for him at birth just as that of every other mixed race person I know, no matter how we or they might wish to the contrary.
I believe that the words “free market” have become taboo in this country, along with words like discrimination and morality. I agree that a free market is the only economy that can work with human beings, but without morality and discrimination, it is doomed. When we replace the words discrimination and morality with the word tolerance, we get the mess in which we now live. If we do not discriminate between good and bad, right and wrong we are left with no morality at all. Some billboards lately have stated that Jesus did not discriminate. I believe he did. It is quite clear he didn’t look at the exterior being, but he certainly was concerned with the interior! When confronted with sin he didn’t reject the person, but he did reject their behavior. (I digress…please be tolerant)
And yes, I’m sure many wealthy people have been able to move the government in their direction, but I don’t believe they are the cause of shrinking bank accounts. Have they been any more successful in moving the government than unions and special interest groups? I doubt it. I would also have to disagree that high taxes have not been a cause. But the real cause, I beleive, is what the bible calls a “fool”. Mr. Carter is a fool to foment hatred for those who disagree with a foolish idea that socialism will ever work. Mr. Obama is a fool for thinking that socialism works. And all those who seem to believe that Pres. Obama’s plans will create anything but an “Obamanation” (slightly different spelling..same meaning) are fools. Wow, that was a pretty harsh word, wasn’t it?
Great argument. You presented the case for individual interpretation in our preaching classes, but never used this analogy. I simply trusted that you knew best, and felt it better to do my own work rather than rely on others… this definitely is an encouragement as well as clarification for studying scripture on my own.