Social Inequality, Analytical Egalitarianism and the March Towards Eugenic Explanations in the Social Sciences (AJES - Studies in Economic Reform and Social Justice)

136 Pages·2008·0.82 MB·English

by  Laurence S. Moss

S I ,
OCIAL NEQUALITY
A E ,
NALYTICAL GALITARIANISM
M T
AND THE ARCH OWARDS
E E
UGENIC XPLANATIONS IN
S S
THE OCIAL CIENCES
Edited by
Laurence S. Moss
Social Inequality, Analytical Egalitarianism, and th e March Towards Eugenic Explanations in the Social Sciences
Edited by Laurence S. Moss
© 2008 American Journal of Economics and So ciology, Inc. ISBN: 978-1-405-19125-8
This edition fi rst published 2008
© 2008 American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Inc.
Blackwell Publishing was acquired by John Wiley & Sons in February 2007. Blackwell’s publishing
program has been merged with Wiley’s global Scientifi c, Technical, and Medical business to form
Wiley-Blackwell.
Registered Offi ce
John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, United
Kingdom
Editorial Offi ces
350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK
The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
For details of our global editorial offi ces, for customer services, and for information about how to
apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.
wiley.com/wiley-blackwell.
The right of Laurence S. Moss to be identifi ed as the author of the editorial material in this work
has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the
prior permission of the publisher.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in
print may not be available in electronic books.
Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All
brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks
or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any
product or vendor mentioned in this book. This publication is designed to provide accurate and
authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold on the understanding
that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice or other
expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Social inequality, analytical egalitarianism and the march towards eugenic explanations in the
social sciences / edited by Laurence Moss.
p. cm.—(Studies in economic reform and social justice)
ISBN 978-1-4051-9124-1 (softcover)—ISBN 978-1-4051-9125-8 (cased) 1. Peart, Sandra. “Vanity
of the philosopher”. 2. Economics—History—19th century. 3. Economics—History—20th
century. 4. Classical school of economics. 5. Neoclassical school of economics. 6. Equality—
Economic aspects. 7. Eugenics—Economic aspects. I. Moss, Laurence S., 1944-
HB85.P43S63 2008
330.15′3—dc22
2008024790
A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
Set in 10 on 13pt Garamond Light by SNP Best-set Typesetter Ltd.
Printed in Singapore by KHL Printing Co Pte Ltd.
01—2008
Contents
I. Editor’s Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. ON THE PEART AND LEVY THESIS
Observations on The “Vanity of the Philosopher”—
Charles R. McCann, Jr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
The “Vanity of the Philosopher”: Analytical Egalitarianism,
Associationist Psychology, and Eugenic Remaking?—
Andrew Farrant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
In the Shadows of Vanity: Religion and the Debate Over
Hierarchy—J. Daniel Hammond. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
The Vanity of the Economist: A Comment on Peart and Levy’s
The “Vanity of the Philosopher”—Kevin D. Hoover. . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Classical Equality: On the Content of Analytical Egalitarianism—
Joseph Persky. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Thinking About Analytical Egalitarianism—David M. Levy and
Sandra J. Peart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
III. ANTHROPOSOCIOLOGY
Social Anthropology in Economic Literature at the End of the
19th Century: Eugenic and Racial Explanations of
Inequality—Terenzio Maccabelli. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Editor’s Introduction
This collection is a tribute to the ingenuity and labors of Sandra J.
Peart and David M. Levy. In a series of books and articles, this
researchteam(hereafter“PL”)hasofferedtheprofessionsomethingin
the nature of a central organizing idea about 19th century economic
thought(Levy2001;PeartandLevy2005a,2005b).AccordingtothePL
thesis, for most of that century, a clearly identified group of econo-
mists adhered to analytical egalitarianism (AE). AE holds that all
individualsareequallycapableofmakingeconomicdecisions,despite
the fact that the contexts and environments in which these decisions
are made vary depending on luck and fortune.
The concept of “equality” that is most vividly portrayed is best
broughtoutbyaquotationfromthefounderoftheclassicalschoolof
economics, Adam Smith. According to Smith, the intellectual differ-
ences between a lowly street porter and a philosopher are more the
result of custom, chance, and accident than they are the result of any
inborn special quality that some might claim to be the result of
biologicalinheritance.TheoppositeofAEisanalyticalhierarchy(AH).
According to AH, our capacities to experience “utility” vary from
individual to individual. Some individuals should (therefore) be pre-
ferredortreatedbetterthanotherindividualsbecausetheaggregation
of good or intense feelings points us in this direction. As socially
minded policy experts, we do not blush about our centrally planned
objective of maximizing some measure(s) of overall social welfare.
According to PL, AH caught the attention of mainstream economics
and gradually took center stage among mainstream economists (Peart
and Levy 2005b).
Eventually, economists touched shoulders with the eugenics move-
ments as they unfolded both in Europe and the United States (Moss
2002; Selden 1999). Eugenics is a discipline designed to uncover the
causes and conditions under which the local population can be made
better or “improved.” If certain races of people are desired but are
scarce relative to other races, then perhaps a tax rebate is needed for
children born to families of the favored race. Singapore has imple-
mented such a tax subsidy to encourage the growth of the Chinese
Social Inequality, Analytical Egalitarianism, and th e March Towards Eugenic Explanations in the Social Sciences
Edited by Laurence S. Moss
© 2008 American Journal of Economics and So ciology, Inc. ISBN: 978-1-405-19125-8
2 The American Journal of Economics and Sociology
cohort of the population. If certain ethnic groups are better noted for
their honesty in commerce relative to others, then perhaps a tough
immigrationpolicyfavoringthatethnicgroupandtough-mindedsteps
to deport the other, less desired, ethnic group(s) is what is needed.
When inspiring public policy, eugenics has a horrific tendency to slip
into ideas about euthanasia and ethnic cleansing (Moss 2006). PL
underscore the tendency among adherents of AH to slide into the
National Socialism of the Hitler period of the 20th century.
Thesestrandsofthoughtareamongthemostoriginalandstimulating
ofthelastdecadeorso.Certainly,PL’sresearchhasattractedcommen-
tary and analysis from this current generation of economic scholars.
Most notably, an entire roundtable was devoted to PL’s work at the
History of Economics Society’s Annual Conference held at Grinnell
CollegeinJuneof2006.Theseessaysareincludedinthisvolume,along
withashortresponsebyPL.Thelastessayinthisvolume,byTerenzio
Maccabelli,wasnotpartofthisroundtable.TheMaccabelliessayserves
the much-needed purpose of helping us understand the linkages
between the English-language sources and the eugenics literature on
theEuropeancontinent.Itispublishedhereforthefirsttimeandbrings
us to that complicated “transition period” at the tail end of the 19th
century when (according to PL) AE gave way to AH.
Ourfirstessay,byCharlesR.McCann,Jr.,reviewsthepreconditions
of a moral order in which hierarchical thinking paves the ground for
the racial politics of the 19th century and after. McCann agrees with PL
that 19th century economic thought is characterized by a split in
thinking about the nature of man. Next, Andrew Farrant provides a
moredetailedexaminationoftheconnectingtissuelinkingeconomics
andeugenics.Farrantidentifiessomeofwhattheyhadincommon;for
instance, both embraced central planning that aimed to produce
measurable demographic results.
Historians of economic thought have done a remarkably good job
of carving out of the complex tapestry of 19th century intellectual
thought a literature called “economic thought.” If discussions about
economic phenomena have a tendency toward racial politics, then
historianswouldbecompelledtotakeasecondlookatwhichstrands
of thinking in related areas need to reexamined in order for the story
about how economics developed to have greater coherence. PL have
Editor’s Introduction 3
not nor cannot ignore the role that religious ideas have played and
continue to play in these debates. In his essay, J. Daniel Hammond
offers us such a gloss.
Thekeytounravelingtheinteraction(s)withreligiousideasistobe
found in the discussion of the role sympathy plays in human interac-
tion (see Peart and Levy 2005a). It turns out that Catholic doctrine has
alsomadeapositivecontribution,especiallyinitspromulgationofthe
doctrine of the brotherhood of the entire human race. The idea that
we are close relatives, made in the image of God, damages the
foundations of hierarchical thinking in economics. The expert policy
maker is not superior to those who are subject to his or her policy
decisions and pronouncements.
Hammond criticizes PL when they claim a sharp contrast between
evangelical thinking and Papal dicta. Hammond points to the many
variationsofProtestantismthatcompetedfortheloyaltyoftheEnglish
in the centuries following the break with Rome in the 16th century.
They may have all been “English” in spirit, but in the application of
religious thinking they have had vastly different impacts on how they
received biological thinking in policy-making circles. There is no
evidence to support the claim that Protestant variants insulated the
moral order from racial politics any better than did Catholic thought.
Hammond questions the claim that an important alliance existed
between classical economics and the mid-19th evangelicals (see also
Persky’s essay).
Kevin D. Hoover and Joseph Persky criticize PL from different
although complementary directions. Hoover documents the several
key places where PL confuse the important distinction between ana-
lytic egalitarianism and substantive egalitarianism. This “equivocation
between analytical and substantive egalitarianism does much of the
work”ingeneratingthesharpconclusionsPLreach(see,forexample,
Peart and Levy 2005a). According to Hoover, the logical connections
that PL offer are not convincing and must be strengthened.
Persky questions the credibility of PL’s claim that classical econom-
ics “lost its soul” when it dropped the absolute equality ideas of AE
andacceptedAHinitspolicy-makingstrictures.Fromastrictlylogical
or analytic point of view, AH leads to a policy-making stand favoring
the redistribution of wealth and income to raise social welfare. The
4 The American Journal of Economics and Sociology
march to eugenic thinking may just have been a bizarre sideshow
event.
Next, PL offer a short rebuttal to their several critics. While gra-
ciously acknowledging the value and quality of the arguments pre-
sented, PL hold to their claim that “eugenics is the oldest form of
central planning” and that in the 19th century, AE failed to protect
economics from the ravages of racial politics. Here, they place their
emphasis on the importance of the idea that the one who models
society is at the same time a member of that same society that he or
she models. Such an insight holds the key to a variant of equality that
may protect the wealthy from the anger and envy of the poor
expressedbywayofthepoliticsofredistribution.Italsoholdsthekey
to a variant of equality that flies in the face of the racial politics and
ethnic cleansings of the 20th and now 21st centuries.
In his contribution, Farrant reminds us of the connections that exist
not only between John Stuart Mill and AE but also those that were
established by Mill’s father, James Mill. While British associationist
psychology may be consistent with AE methods for explaining social
phenomena, this approach cannot be held solely responsible for the
rise of AH and the eugenics literature at the end of the 19th century.
Theterm“eugenics”aswellastheclaimthatpopulationpolicycanbe
rooted in science can both be attributed to the English polymath
Francis Galton. Galton noted how selective breeding could improve
the moral character of the (average) British citizen. This idea is what
sparkedideasintherestofEurope,especiallyinFranceandGermany.
InTerenzioMaccabelli’sessay,GeorgesVacherdeLapougeandOtto
Ammon founded a school of thought that they termed “social anthro-
pology”or“anthropo-sociology.”Initsstarkesttermsitheldthatsocial
inequalityis(mostly)causedbyracialmechanisms.Translatedportions
oftheirwritingsreachedthepagesoftheQuarterlyJournalofEconom-
icsandtheJournalofPoliticalEconomythroughtheactionsofayoung
UniversityofChicagoeconomist,CarlosC.Closson.Clossontranslated
portions of Lapouge’s and Ammon’s writings into English. After 1900,
Closson’s name “suddenly vanished from any social and economic
debates.” He seems to have lost interest in economics and sociology.
MaccabellidoeshisbesttogatherwhatlittleisknownaboutClosson’s
life and his efforts to promote eugenics in scholarly circles.
Editor’s Introduction 5
Maccabelli also points to the influence of Lapouge and Ammon on
Vilfredo Pareto. Pareto’s concept of social hierarchies was indebted to
eugenic ideas about social heterogeneity. Ultimately, Pareto did not
support eugenic explanations of the shape of income distributions.
Ammon and Lapouge advocated state intervention to eliminate the
“unfit,” and thus paved the road to National Socialism in Europe. In
the United States, Thorstein Veblen seems to have adopted some of
the racial ideas of Lapouge and Ammon. (Veblen was Closson’s
colleague at the University of Chicago). The story is complex, and we
aregratefultoPLforopeningthisareaofresearchtostudentsofsocial
science. This volume of essays extends our discussion of PL’s pio-
neering work linking the history of economics to the central state
planning programs of the last century.
References
Levy, David. (2001). How the Dismal Science Got Its Name. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan.
Moss, Laurence S. (2002). “Film Note of Peter Cohen’s Homo Sapiens 1900.”
American Journal of Economics and Sociology 61 (October): 863–867.
——. (2006). “Ethnic Conflict and the Economics of Social Cooperation:
Reflections on a Difficult Problem.” In Money and Markets: Essays in
Honor of Leland B. Yeager. Ed. R. Koppl. London: Routledge.
Peart, Sandra J., and David M. Levy. (2005a). The ‘Vanity of the Philosopher’:
From Equality to Hierarchy in Postclassical Economics. Ann Arbor: Uni-
versity of Michigan Press.
——. (2005b). “From Cardinal to Ordinal Utility Theory: Darwin and Differ-
ential Capacity for Happiness.” American Journal of Economics and
Sociology 64 (July): 851–879.
Selden,Steven.(1999).InheritingShame:TheStoryofEugenicsandRacismin
America. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
II. ON THE PEART AND LEVY THESIS
Observations on The “Vanity of
the Philosopher”
By CHARLES R. MCCANN, JR.*
ABSTRACT. The purpose of this essay is to identify certain points at
which the presentation in Vanity appears incomplete or in error,
especially as regards the interpretations of Mill and Spencer. It is
shown that, while the authors have stated their case well, certain
mischaracterizations, misstatements, and omissions seem to allow an
alternativeoverallinterpretation.However,anotherlooksuggeststhat,
despite these discrepancies, the given interpretation is quite valid.
I
Introduction
SANDRA PEART AND DAVID LEVY’S The “Vanity of the Philosopher” is a
book long overdue. It is telling that the story presented will be
considered by some to be controversial, and will even be challenged
as revisionist or as a piece of propaganda. Such is the nature of the
climate within which this debate is to unfold. For too long the Left (of
both the academic and coffeehouse varieties) have condemned the
market economy and the economists whom they view as its unholy
defenders as complicit in an evil endeavor that has as its goal the
subjugation of what they contend are the lower classes and the lesser
races. Yet when one dares point out the actual details of the devel-
opmentofclassicaleconomicthought,asformulatedfromthelate18th
to the mid-19th century, a story that is completely at odds with
the accepted fable, accusations are leveled of lack of scholarship,
ignorance of the material and the period, inattention to standard
*CharlesR.McCann,Jr.isattheDepartmentofEconomics,UniversityofPittsburgh.
HeistheauthorofIndividualismandtheSocialOrder:TheSocialElementinLiberal
Thought (2004).
Social Inequality, Analytical Egalitarianism, and th e March Towards Eugenic Explanations in the Social Sciences
Edited by Laurence S. Moss
© 2008 American Journal of Economics and So ciology, Inc. ISBN: 978-1-405-19125-8