What do you think?
Rate this book
The Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for an Age of Commerce
For a century and a half, the artists and intellectuals of Europe have scorned the bourgeoisie. And for a millennium and a half, the philosophers and theologians of Europe have scorned the marketplace. The bourgeois life, capitalism, Mencken’s “booboisie” and David Brooks’s “bobos”—all have been, and still are, framed as being responsible for everything from financial to moral poverty, world wars, and spiritual desuetude. Countering these centuries of assumptions and unexamined thinking is Deirdre McCloskey’s The Bourgeois Virtues , a magnum opus that offers a radical capitalism is good for us.
McCloskey’s sweeping, charming, and even humorous survey of ethical thought and economic realities—from Plato to Barbara Ehrenreich—overturns every assumption we have about being bourgeois. Can you be virtuous and bourgeois? Do markets improve ethics? Has capitalism made us better as well as richer? Yes, yes, and yes, argues McCloskey, who takes on centuries of capitalism’s critics with her erudition and sheer scope of knowledge. Applying a new tradition of “virtue ethics” to our lives in modern economies, she affirms American capitalism without ignoring its faults and celebrates the bourgeois lives we actually live, without supposing that they must be lives without ethical foundations.
High Noon , Kant, Bill Murray, the modern novel, van Gogh, and of course economics and the economy all come into play in a book that can only be described as a monumental project and a life’s work. The Bourgeois Virtues is nothing less than a dazzling reinterpretation of Western intellectual history, a dead-serious reply to the critics of capitalism—and a surprising page-turner.
McCloskey’s sweeping, charming, and even humorous survey of ethical thought and economic realities—from Plato to Barbara Ehrenreich—overturns every assumption we have about being bourgeois. Can you be virtuous and bourgeois? Do markets improve ethics? Has capitalism made us better as well as richer? Yes, yes, and yes, argues McCloskey, who takes on centuries of capitalism’s critics with her erudition and sheer scope of knowledge. Applying a new tradition of “virtue ethics” to our lives in modern economies, she affirms American capitalism without ignoring its faults and celebrates the bourgeois lives we actually live, without supposing that they must be lives without ethical foundations.
High Noon , Kant, Bill Murray, the modern novel, van Gogh, and of course economics and the economy all come into play in a book that can only be described as a monumental project and a life’s work. The Bourgeois Virtues is nothing less than a dazzling reinterpretation of Western intellectual history, a dead-serious reply to the critics of capitalism—and a surprising page-turner.
634 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2006
About the author
Deirdre Nansen McCloskey
59 books275 followersDeirdre Nansen McCloskey has been distinguished professor of economics and history and professor of English and communications at the University of Illinois at Chicago. She is the author of numerous books, including Bourgeois Equality: How Ideas, Not Capital or Institutions, Enriched the World.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews
Read
August 24, 2013So I've got to be honest, I got about 53% through the kindle version of this book (I'm guessing there are a lot of footnotes so I'm probably more like 75%) and then got distracted by things like, oh... a life, my job, etc. Its been sitting on my shelf (well, in my kindle) 1/2 read for about 2 years and every time I turn towards it with the intent of finishing it I just can't see the point. I kind of feel like I already have a good sense of where she's going with this and am not in the mood for another X# of pages of her patting herself on the back for how erudite she is, no matter how much fun. And there are so many other books I need to read first... So this review is really based on a 1/2 read of the thing...that said...
If you, like me, are an unabashed member of the intelligentsia, you will enjoy this book; if you're not, odds are you'll get bogged down in the text, loose track of the discussion and ultimately just give it up as a disorganized mess... which it essentially is (but then again so is a delicious plate of spaghetti with meatballs). I'm not speaking to whether you'll agree or disagree with her arguments, just whether or not you'll enjoy the ride.
A student once approached Hillel, one of the greatest Rabbi's of the Jewish tradition, and asked him to explain the essential meaning of the Torah while standing on leg. He, standing on one leg, responded, "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn" and then walked away. In the case of this book, it comes down the Gordon Gekko quote, "Greed, for a lack of a better word, is good; Greed works."....
This essential message is, however, delivered by the author in an over 500 page stream of consciousness, with high-fa-luting language, and an elitist discussion of the title topic with a boatload of detail (historically and cross culturally), with some tongue in cheek sardonic (we're all in this club together so we can make fun of it) humor thrown in for good measure. (I.e., with about as much brevity as the Talmud itself.) --
It really isn't until about chapter 3 that she starts getting into some hard discussion of of the different values and the roles they play in capitalist culture, but she does from time to time get into some substantive stuff
And you GOT to love the name dropping she does in the first chapter of who all her famous friends are (verification of her intelligentsia, membership in the in-crowd so she has the right to comment on them, status).
The author --in her stream of consciousness style -- references most of the major works of anthropology, social economics, philosophy, popular historians, and great British writers ... running on the assumption that you the reader (as a well read westerner and a fellow member of the Bourgeois -- as only they have the time or interest to read such a book) -- of an English speaking country --- have read all the same works she has, to the extent of her referencing the actions of Emma Woodhouse by name (a Jane Austin character) and assuming you know the story -- with the same neighborliness you might reference something a mutual friend did without bothering to explain the details because of course as friends and peers you already know what she's talking about.
As such, if you are NOT highly educated in the sense of a traditional classical education (and most Americans these days really aren't... I've actually had fellow educators look at me as some kind of freak for getting a high score on a E.D. Hirsch cultural literacy test that the reset of them bombed, which they therefore jokingly referred to as idiosyncratic and not relevant to the America of today), you're kind of screwed when it comes to having ANY idea what the author is talking about...
As such, this book is essentially preaching to the choir. The only folks who would be able to make it through her prose are the same folks who already belong to not only the Bourgeois social group -- but in fact a subgroup of that group which she herself refers to as the intelligentsia/eggheads, etc, and hence, because this is our group, we will of course agree with most of what she has to say.
Granted I'm one of them (and I'm getting a perverse joy from the book for that reason), but I'm fully aware in reading it that there's something wonderfully masturbatory about it. As such, I'm not sure if agree with her or not, but I'm enjoying the ride.
If you, like me, are an unabashed member of the intelligentsia, you will enjoy this book; if you're not, odds are you'll get bogged down in the text, loose track of the discussion and ultimately just give it up as a disorganized mess... which it essentially is (but then again so is a delicious plate of spaghetti with meatballs). I'm not speaking to whether you'll agree or disagree with her arguments, just whether or not you'll enjoy the ride.
A student once approached Hillel, one of the greatest Rabbi's of the Jewish tradition, and asked him to explain the essential meaning of the Torah while standing on leg. He, standing on one leg, responded, "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn" and then walked away. In the case of this book, it comes down the Gordon Gekko quote, "Greed, for a lack of a better word, is good; Greed works."....
This essential message is, however, delivered by the author in an over 500 page stream of consciousness, with high-fa-luting language, and an elitist discussion of the title topic with a boatload of detail (historically and cross culturally), with some tongue in cheek sardonic (we're all in this club together so we can make fun of it) humor thrown in for good measure. (I.e., with about as much brevity as the Talmud itself.) --
It really isn't until about chapter 3 that she starts getting into some hard discussion of of the different values and the roles they play in capitalist culture, but she does from time to time get into some substantive stuff
And you GOT to love the name dropping she does in the first chapter of who all her famous friends are (verification of her intelligentsia, membership in the in-crowd so she has the right to comment on them, status).
The author --in her stream of consciousness style -- references most of the major works of anthropology, social economics, philosophy, popular historians, and great British writers ... running on the assumption that you the reader (as a well read westerner and a fellow member of the Bourgeois -- as only they have the time or interest to read such a book) -- of an English speaking country --- have read all the same works she has, to the extent of her referencing the actions of Emma Woodhouse by name (a Jane Austin character) and assuming you know the story -- with the same neighborliness you might reference something a mutual friend did without bothering to explain the details because of course as friends and peers you already know what she's talking about.
As such, if you are NOT highly educated in the sense of a traditional classical education (and most Americans these days really aren't... I've actually had fellow educators look at me as some kind of freak for getting a high score on a E.D. Hirsch cultural literacy test that the reset of them bombed, which they therefore jokingly referred to as idiosyncratic and not relevant to the America of today), you're kind of screwed when it comes to having ANY idea what the author is talking about...
As such, this book is essentially preaching to the choir. The only folks who would be able to make it through her prose are the same folks who already belong to not only the Bourgeois social group -- but in fact a subgroup of that group which she herself refers to as the intelligentsia/eggheads, etc, and hence, because this is our group, we will of course agree with most of what she has to say.
Granted I'm one of them (and I'm getting a perverse joy from the book for that reason), but I'm fully aware in reading it that there's something wonderfully masturbatory about it. As such, I'm not sure if agree with her or not, but I'm enjoying the ride.
March 10, 2018
It has taken me a very long time to finish reading this book, because this book is very long, and parts of it is rather long winded. McCloskey is a polymath: professor of Economics, History, English, Communications and Philosophy in University of Illinois. It shows in her writing: she was able to talk about philosophies, economics, and historical developments of the views of Commerce and the Bourgeois. This is a book about the bourgeoisie. That is, not he proletariats or the aristocrats. There are often romantic views of the proletariats, because they earn an honest living by the work of their hands. The aristocrats were the rulers and soldiers of the past ages, and had enough paintings, busts and palaces to commentate them. That left the bourgeoisie. That was the ‘middle class’, roughly people who were the professionals, business owners and managers. Can those people have virtues? McCloskey said yes. And she also defended capitalism since a lot of the bourgeoisies were capitalists, and because professionals and managers generally were less attacked as capitalists.
She explained that the bourgeoisies were just normal human beings, having virtues and sins. Unfortunately more recently capitalism has focused on only one of the virtue: prudence. So capitalism became only interested in maximising shareholder value. It was therefore more and more justifiably attacked by the left and the religious. Indeed, to run a business, one needs courage to overcome the risks, integrity to customers and suppliers, love of the staff, on top of the prudence in spending and doing the accounts.
This book was a great counterbalance to the increasing backlash against capitalism and capitalists. Sure capitalism is a flawed system, but the alternatives are much worse. Corruption ensues when only a small group of elites are empowered to distribute wealth, as in Communism. In ancient China, merchants were ranked lowly, just like in Medieval Europe. However, merchants were important for the economy. It is a great book!
She explained that the bourgeoisies were just normal human beings, having virtues and sins. Unfortunately more recently capitalism has focused on only one of the virtue: prudence. So capitalism became only interested in maximising shareholder value. It was therefore more and more justifiably attacked by the left and the religious. Indeed, to run a business, one needs courage to overcome the risks, integrity to customers and suppliers, love of the staff, on top of the prudence in spending and doing the accounts.
This book was a great counterbalance to the increasing backlash against capitalism and capitalists. Sure capitalism is a flawed system, but the alternatives are much worse. Corruption ensues when only a small group of elites are empowered to distribute wealth, as in Communism. In ancient China, merchants were ranked lowly, just like in Medieval Europe. However, merchants were important for the economy. It is a great book!
March 25, 2024
This book had a lot of potential, but it is essentially a very long blog post. McCloskey's understanding of ethics is egregious, which is unsurprising because she continually cites some of the worst moral philosophers of the past few centuries and attacks some of the best.
March 13, 2015
McCloskey writes an apology for capitalism. Not an argument that capitalists are without vice (the world is fallen, and no one is without vice), but that capitalism is not, as it has too often been defined, greed incarnate, an inherent vice. Capitalism, on the whole, is supportive of virtue. Virtue is, in the long-term, “smart business.” Ethically speaking, “dealing” (capitalism) is better than “stealing” (communism, socialism, imperialism, bribe-soaked bureaucracy). As Churchill said of democracy, capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the others that have been tried.
But it isn’t just the left that gets capitalism wrong. It’s the right too: “They believe that capitalism and profit are good for business but have nothing to do with ethics, that the poor should shut up and settle for what they get…They think Jesus got it all wrong in the Sermon on the Mount.” Those in the middle don’t quite have it right either: they believe in the “laughably nonethical character of capitalism.” Even McCloskey’s publisher laughed out loud at his suggested title, “Bourgeois Virtue.” It’s time to treat the bourgeois more fairly, McCloskey thinks, time to examine how capitalism works, and works “pretty well,” not just as an economic system, but as a system that makes the practice of virtue possible, and, indeed, often preferable. The primary bourgeois virtues, according to McCloskey, are love, faith, hope, courage, temperance, prudence, and justice. (Sounds more like the fruits of the spirit than the fruits of any economic system to me…but her point is that capitalism does not discourage these virtues and more often rewards them than not.)
I stopped reading the book partway through, not because it is particularly poorly written, but because I don’t really need to be convinced of her argument, and her work isn't clearly organized enough to enable me to use it to convince others of her argument. She throws in a few too many names that may cause the eyes of some readers to glaze over, and she relies too heavily on the work of and direct quotes from others. The length alone may make the tome tedious for almost anyone (and this is but the first of four planned volumes!). Her tone is moderate, almost friendly. Because I haven’t finished it, it wouldn’t be fair of me to say that she does not support her argument well enough, but so far I get the impression she does not. I suspect Adam Smith did a much better job in “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” (of intellectually defending his position, that is, not of writing; his prose is beyond tedious).
What she seems to be defending is not an unregulated capitalism, but the mostly unhampered freedom to trade, make an honest living, and, for the most part, to enjoy the fruits of one’s own labor—without being criticized or demeaned for doing so. She is defending the bourgeois from those who paint them as greedy or vapid, by showing capitalism to be a system that actually more readily encourages virtue than socialism, communism, or any other economic system. She does not seem to be doing this in any systematic way, however, and there isn’t enough economics in the book for my taste. It is really more philosophy than economics.
But it isn’t just the left that gets capitalism wrong. It’s the right too: “They believe that capitalism and profit are good for business but have nothing to do with ethics, that the poor should shut up and settle for what they get…They think Jesus got it all wrong in the Sermon on the Mount.” Those in the middle don’t quite have it right either: they believe in the “laughably nonethical character of capitalism.” Even McCloskey’s publisher laughed out loud at his suggested title, “Bourgeois Virtue.” It’s time to treat the bourgeois more fairly, McCloskey thinks, time to examine how capitalism works, and works “pretty well,” not just as an economic system, but as a system that makes the practice of virtue possible, and, indeed, often preferable. The primary bourgeois virtues, according to McCloskey, are love, faith, hope, courage, temperance, prudence, and justice. (Sounds more like the fruits of the spirit than the fruits of any economic system to me…but her point is that capitalism does not discourage these virtues and more often rewards them than not.)
I stopped reading the book partway through, not because it is particularly poorly written, but because I don’t really need to be convinced of her argument, and her work isn't clearly organized enough to enable me to use it to convince others of her argument. She throws in a few too many names that may cause the eyes of some readers to glaze over, and she relies too heavily on the work of and direct quotes from others. The length alone may make the tome tedious for almost anyone (and this is but the first of four planned volumes!). Her tone is moderate, almost friendly. Because I haven’t finished it, it wouldn’t be fair of me to say that she does not support her argument well enough, but so far I get the impression she does not. I suspect Adam Smith did a much better job in “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” (of intellectually defending his position, that is, not of writing; his prose is beyond tedious).
What she seems to be defending is not an unregulated capitalism, but the mostly unhampered freedom to trade, make an honest living, and, for the most part, to enjoy the fruits of one’s own labor—without being criticized or demeaned for doing so. She is defending the bourgeois from those who paint them as greedy or vapid, by showing capitalism to be a system that actually more readily encourages virtue than socialism, communism, or any other economic system. She does not seem to be doing this in any systematic way, however, and there isn’t enough economics in the book for my taste. It is really more philosophy than economics.
May 12, 2024
Many people think that capitalism breeds vice, especially greed. Others, though ultimately supportive of capitalism, concede that capitalism breeds vice, but suggest in tempered response that capitalist institutions can channel such vice, ultimately harnessing it for the public good. Deirdre McCloskey defends an oft-overlooked third position: far from breeding vice, capitalism breeds virtue. Indeed, capitalism works in part because of virtue. This is an interesting and important thesis, one that deserves to be taken seriously. And it is one that deserves to be articulated carefully and clearly.
At times, this is a brilliant book. McCloskey's opening Apology is charming and witty and expresses some important truths. The final section of the book, Part 6, is also worth reading. Admittedly, the arguments contained in these sections are unlikely to persuade anybody not already sympathetic to views like McCloskey's. But they at least forcefully express what is supposed to be the book's central thesis.
The rest of the book, however, is a complete slog. It is tedious and meandering. It contains endless digressions. It is light on argument and heavy on question-begging, repetitive assertion. Frustratingly, the book is advertised as defending the above thesis, but most of it is instead devoted to discussing various issues regarding the virtues (courage, temperance, prudence, etc.). Such discussion could have been worthwhile to those interested in virtue ethics and moral philosophy more broadly. But there are at least two serious issues with McCloskey's treatment of the subject.
First, her understanding of the relevant philosophical issues is at times amateurish. Much of the discussion of utilitarianism and Kantianism betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of both. Her chapter on ethical realism is almost entirely backwards and incorrect. And for a book that spends so much time (too much time) focusing on aspects of virtue ethics, she doesn't do a good job of making its commitments clear or defending it from possible objections.
Second, these discussions could easily have been hundreds of pages shorter. The book in general is terribly overwrought, repeating itself time and time again. A short, simple account of some classic virtues is likely all she needed to make her case. That's not what you will get. Be prepared to take several detours into completely unnecessary terrain.
The most succinct way I can convey my opinion of this book is this: most of it is bad philosophy instead of good economics.
At times, this is a brilliant book. McCloskey's opening Apology is charming and witty and expresses some important truths. The final section of the book, Part 6, is also worth reading. Admittedly, the arguments contained in these sections are unlikely to persuade anybody not already sympathetic to views like McCloskey's. But they at least forcefully express what is supposed to be the book's central thesis.
The rest of the book, however, is a complete slog. It is tedious and meandering. It contains endless digressions. It is light on argument and heavy on question-begging, repetitive assertion. Frustratingly, the book is advertised as defending the above thesis, but most of it is instead devoted to discussing various issues regarding the virtues (courage, temperance, prudence, etc.). Such discussion could have been worthwhile to those interested in virtue ethics and moral philosophy more broadly. But there are at least two serious issues with McCloskey's treatment of the subject.
First, her understanding of the relevant philosophical issues is at times amateurish. Much of the discussion of utilitarianism and Kantianism betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of both. Her chapter on ethical realism is almost entirely backwards and incorrect. And for a book that spends so much time (too much time) focusing on aspects of virtue ethics, she doesn't do a good job of making its commitments clear or defending it from possible objections.
Second, these discussions could easily have been hundreds of pages shorter. The book in general is terribly overwrought, repeating itself time and time again. A short, simple account of some classic virtues is likely all she needed to make her case. That's not what you will get. Be prepared to take several detours into completely unnecessary terrain.
The most succinct way I can convey my opinion of this book is this: most of it is bad philosophy instead of good economics.
July 14, 2018
I've been most things in my life: a positivist social engineer, a Joan Baez socialist, a man. Now I'm a free-market feminist, a quantitative postmodernist, a woman. I'm not ashamed of these changes of mind.
In one sentence: The obscured origins of the modern world and its heart, as built by the hated bourgeoisie.
To be read when: depressed about the modern world; locked into an ideology which doesn't people's lives better, esp. your own life; if you are like most middle-class people, vaguely self-hating.
It is good to be a contrarian teen. Decorous even. I was straight-edge, socialist, feminist, a poetaster, an inverse snob, and a shunner of TV.* Call this sort of thing one level up, one contrarian step past received opinion (which defaults to boozing, family-level rather than species-level communitarianism, gendering, ignoring poetry, passively respecting fine art, and watching 4 hours a day).
However, at some point the observant contrarian will disagree with someone and find themselves unable to write them off - as they usually do - as prejudiced, anti-intellectual, or ignorant. Worst-case, they will meet a deadly meta-contrarian, someone who once held their view but stepped past it on considering some missing crucial consideration.
(For instance: it is common sense, or at least common practice, that it's fine to not give any money to charity. One step beyond is altruism: 'we have a duty to help the wretched of the earth'. But then consider that one of the first things people who rise out of poverty do is increase their meat intake, and so to industrialise - that is, torture - their animals. If, as the scientists strongly agree we should, we take this seriously, then poverty alleviation might not be good at all! But then, consider that wild animals also suffer, millions of times more of them than even factory farmed animals, and that human industrialisation plausibly decreases this by removing habitat (...) )
Meta-contrarianism is vital is because philosophy, politics and economics are littered with crucial consideration landmines like these, single premises that can fully transform our conception of good action.
Our problem is not socialism or theism or atheism or conservativism: the problem is irrational, reflexive views with no connection to the balance of evidence: i.e. ideologies and not philosophies.
Anyway: I was pretty good-hearted, but neither clear nor honest. An ideologue. McCloskey, a Christian libertarian(!) and much else besides, got to even me via our shared contempt for neoclassical macroeconomics and null-hypothesis significance testing, two things she critiqued twenty years before the Great Recession and the replication crisis.
Then she shocked me with the meta-contrary title of this, the first volume in her epic economic history of moral development: a reclamation of a slur on the creators of this good modern world we all increasingly enjoy.
I don't know how many iterations of contrarianism ("dialectic") I'm on; it's not important, as long as I hold my views lightly enough to do one more when the evidence demands it.
Besides long meditations on the pagan and Christian virtues, she holds a serious discussion on Groundhog Day, Thomas Mann, and much other art, and is the best telling of the maligned, vital Great Transformation story. Triumphant and funny and trembling with erudition.
* At the time I thought being an atheist was really contrarian, but in Britain it really isn't. (Outside an RME classroom.) The formal stats are only now showing a majority for stated nonbelief, but church attendance has been a minority practice since the early C20th.
Galef type:
Data 3 - highlight patterns in the world, &
Theory 2 - models of what makes something succeed or fail , &
Values 1 - an explicit argument about values, &
Style 2 - learn a style of thinking by studying the author’s approach to the world.
August 2, 2014
Interesting Quotes:
"I am puzzled when my friends on the right preach freedom for the owner of an assault weapon loaded with dum-dum shells hung on a rack in his Hummer, but then preach, too, intrusions by the government into that same man's sexual practices or his taste in recreational drugs or the care of his brain-damaged wife. But I am also puzzled when my friends on the left preach still more power for a government that has in its time shot Kentucky strikers and electrocuted Italian anarchists and jailed Muslim radicals without trial."
-Deirdre McCloskey
"The exclusively public, social, altruistic definitions of 'virtue'...leaves out privately self-interested prudence as a virtue, and so lets...moral saints behave badly toward themselves...
"This is not good...It's the Jewish-mother version of goodness: 'Oh, don't bother to replace the bulb, I'll just sit here in the dark.' But the mother, after all, is God's creature, too, and benevolence therefore should include a just benevolence toward herself. Being wholly altruistic, and disregarding the claims of that person also in the room called Self, about whose needs the very Self is ordinarily best informed, is making the same mistake as being wholly selfish, disregarding the claims of that person called Other. In both cases the mistake is to ignore someone."
-Deirdre McCloskey, the Bourgeois Virtues
"A socialist came to [Andrew Carnegie's] office and argued to him that the wealthy should redistribute their wealth to the poor of the earth. Carnegie asked an assistant to go get him a rough estimate of his current wealth and of the population of the earth. The assistant returned shortly with the figures, and according to the anecdote Carnegie performed a calculation then turned to the assistant and said, 'Give this gentleman sixteen cents. That's his share of the wealth.'...
"The problem [of poverty] is really solved by the education of the workers and the entrepreneurship of the bosses, many of the bosses being, like Carnegie himself, former workers. That is, it is solved by the accumulation of real capital, not by the redistribution of sixteen cents worth of paper wealth."
-Deirdre McCloskey, the Bourgeois Virtues
In general, this was the first book I have read in a while that every few pages I thought "hmm, I hadn't thought of that," "what an interesting way of looking at things," "what a strong point I had never considered."
It is up there with the Discovery of Freedom and Human Action, the Law and Anarchy State & Utopia as fascinating, paradigm changing books I would recommend to interested people.
"I am puzzled when my friends on the right preach freedom for the owner of an assault weapon loaded with dum-dum shells hung on a rack in his Hummer, but then preach, too, intrusions by the government into that same man's sexual practices or his taste in recreational drugs or the care of his brain-damaged wife. But I am also puzzled when my friends on the left preach still more power for a government that has in its time shot Kentucky strikers and electrocuted Italian anarchists and jailed Muslim radicals without trial."
-Deirdre McCloskey
"The exclusively public, social, altruistic definitions of 'virtue'...leaves out privately self-interested prudence as a virtue, and so lets...moral saints behave badly toward themselves...
"This is not good...It's the Jewish-mother version of goodness: 'Oh, don't bother to replace the bulb, I'll just sit here in the dark.' But the mother, after all, is God's creature, too, and benevolence therefore should include a just benevolence toward herself. Being wholly altruistic, and disregarding the claims of that person also in the room called Self, about whose needs the very Self is ordinarily best informed, is making the same mistake as being wholly selfish, disregarding the claims of that person called Other. In both cases the mistake is to ignore someone."
-Deirdre McCloskey, the Bourgeois Virtues
"A socialist came to [Andrew Carnegie's] office and argued to him that the wealthy should redistribute their wealth to the poor of the earth. Carnegie asked an assistant to go get him a rough estimate of his current wealth and of the population of the earth. The assistant returned shortly with the figures, and according to the anecdote Carnegie performed a calculation then turned to the assistant and said, 'Give this gentleman sixteen cents. That's his share of the wealth.'...
"The problem [of poverty] is really solved by the education of the workers and the entrepreneurship of the bosses, many of the bosses being, like Carnegie himself, former workers. That is, it is solved by the accumulation of real capital, not by the redistribution of sixteen cents worth of paper wealth."
-Deirdre McCloskey, the Bourgeois Virtues
In general, this was the first book I have read in a while that every few pages I thought "hmm, I hadn't thought of that," "what an interesting way of looking at things," "what a strong point I had never considered."
It is up there with the Discovery of Freedom and Human Action, the Law and Anarchy State & Utopia as fascinating, paradigm changing books I would recommend to interested people.
April 2, 2019
No se halla uno muchas defensas abiertas al capitalismo que se alejen de la visión unidimensional de la prudencia o el cálculo egoísta. Es el gran mérito de McCloskey. Creo que tiene serias limitaciones empíricas, como decir que nuestro sistema de producción no ha dañado al medio ambiente, así, sin más. Además deja de lado temas vitales para el inicio de siglo en las economías capitalistas menos desarrolladas.
October 18, 2022
The Bourgeois Virtues — Ethics for an Age of Commerce
Deirdre N. McCloskey
©2006
634 pages
a short BOOK REPORT by Ron Housley (10.17.2022)
]
“The Bourgeois Virtues” is about virtues. And God only knows, McCloskey has a lot to say about virtues. For her, virtues are the front-and-center issue; she considers virtues as critical in making life’s important choices. And her contention is that certain virtues align with and support Capitalism; and that the virtues supporting Capitalism just happen also to be “bourgeois values.” The book then tries to flesh it all out for us.
But her approach is so compellingly religious and committed to embracing some deity that it is hard to take seriously her intellectual attempt to identify a secular (non-religious) derivation of virtues in her writing. She is so committed to the religious orientation that she cannot escape concluding that each and every virtue has an origin connected with some God or with some religious doctrine.
RANGE EXPANSIVELY
One on-line review said that McCloskey’s book “rambled.” In a certain sense that is so, but not literally so. What happens here is an academic over-trying to range expansively on nearly every aspect of every question. She opines about the shades of meaning of what she deems to be pivotal terms — and she does so in such a way that the reader often experiences a complete departure from the main point being made. And this is easily construed to be a type of “rambling,” but not in the sense of being a totally unrelated tangent. Her 600+ pages are riddled with this type of “rambling” — easily accounting for over 20% of the entire text.
It was already enough of a challenge for me to be questioning and trying to sort out her contentions about the gender origin of the virtues she sites; and trying to sort out whether she was making a good case that the virtues she does cite can qualify as standing in alignment with Capitalism; or trying to sort out whether her contentions about Capitalism’s supposed ethical underpinnings make any sense at all.
PRETENTIONS?
One of the first things I noticed was an inordinate degree of name dropping: names, places, literary references, biblical references, abstruse historical references, philosophic references — obscure thoughts authored by semi-famous authors, even bona fide philosophers.
For example, instead of saying “Karl Marx said this or that,” she frames it as: “Since 1848 the critics of capitalism say this or that.” And in her references to 1848, over and over, it’s not always clear whether she’s referring to the revolutions in Europe or whether she’s pointing to Marx’s famous work also published in that year; one way or the other, she strives to flaunt her vast store of facts and to splash them onto her pages. I did not formally count the instances, but it seems as if one per page is not an exaggeration.
In one example of drowning us with gratuitous obscure references, McCloskey discusses several large corporations and then gives us, not a succinct statement describing what they have in common, but instead says that these corporations are “one with Nineveh and Tyre.” She hands us an obscure reference from a Kipling poem, instead of just clearly making her point about corporations. She does that sort of thing non-stop.
Either we must have Wikipedia at the ready for each page, or we must be prepared to miss much of what she is trying to say to us. I found it less than charming; and possibly a manifestation of literary pretentiousness.
But the primary obstacle that slowed me down in my journey through these pages was not her style; it was not her endless litany of references — literary, academic and otherwise; it was not her asides to speculate on shades of meaning; rather, it was the need to constantly untangle the connections that McCloskey tried to make among all the many various virtues — and supposed virtues.
CATEGORIES OF VIRTUE
I have long been suspect of the Church’s Seven Deadly Sins, and also of any Virtue lists which appear in contrast. There are always non-virtues on the Virtue lists; and there are always non-sins on the Deadly Sins lists. That is the case here with McCloskey, too.
The categorizations of the virtues have always seemed non-hierarchical, if not arbitrary. It always felt to me the same as how psychologists try to categorize various emotions: they never seem grouped together properly.
In McCloskey’s line-up of virtues, there is a dividing line: virtues benefiting the self, which she calls “the pegan virtues” (such as justice, prudence, courage, temperance); and virtues benefiting others to the exclusion of self, which she calls “the Christian virtues” — there didn’t seem to be any overlap.
Further, I could never wrap my mind around McCloskey’s presumption that faith and hope are virtues at all, rather than being emotions or the deliberate abandonment of reason, in the case of faith.
But what did ring true for me was: “virtues are drawn on for a full life.” (p. 307) Yes, virtues in practice lead to a full life. The problem I have with McCloskey’s virtue list is that it includes the assumption that a “full life” in part requires sacrifice of the self. She gives little treatment of the many ways we can virtuously help others in a non-sacrificial way.
IS-OUGHT
McCloskey weighs in on the “is/ought” debate which has plagued philosophers for centuries. In the lead-up to her assessment, she pokes fun at how philosophers have never agreed on the meaning of “the Truth” all these years, and of the relationship between a word and the concept the word names. When McCloskey shares with us “In the fall of 1997 as a New Christian I….” she is telling us that the very foundation of her world-view includes accepting things in defiance of reason, which faith would require. That explains to me why she only frets and hypothesizes around the “is/ought” question, and why she is CERTAIN that there is no CERTAINTY around it.
Why all this effort to tease out issues surrounding the famous “is/ought” controversy? Well, because the entire book is about Virtues, and virtues name what we “ought” to do. It is a question deserving better discussion.
THE MORAL FOUNDATION OF CAPITALISM
Several times in this massive volume does McClosley acknowledge the cross-purposes of capitalism and Christianity: that capitalism is on the premise of self-interest, while Christianity embraces self-sacrifice. Once having made the jarring juxtaposition, one would expect an author to not pass over the contrast casually, but to drill down to explore the depths of such a difference — McCloskey has so much to say about so many other disparities throughout history. Once she stumbles on a disparity as big and bold as self-interest v. self-sacrifice, the expectation would be thorough explication. But alas, all we get is commentary about spending habits and what the intellectuals (she calls them “the clerisy”) think about what people spend their money on. Instead, I was hoping for a drawing out of what are the moral requirements that capitalism must embrace if it is to survive. The stage was set; but the drama never played out in these pages.
OVERVIEW
“The Bourgeois Virtues” turns out to be the first installment of a massive trilogy tracing what McCloskey considers to be the second most important event in human history: The Great Enrichment, the explosion of wealth which began in the early 19th century and continues into the present.
She contends that The Great Enrichment resulted from the emancipation of human ingenuity, which in turn was unleashed when certain Virtues conspired to define a new relationship between the individual and the state. In the end, the individual had been emboldened by Liberalism — by which she meant the free individual not shackled by the state.
She points out that this embrace of liberty is the same movement that finally put an end to slavery after thousands of years.
This volume focused on the Virtues which fueled The Great Enrichment. But other “virtues” acted against the Enrichment, establishing battle lines in the war against liberty and reason, a war which fought against the Enrichment every step of the way.
I suspect that it must have been McCloskey’s religious embrace of the Christian self-sacrifice ethics which restrained her from indicting the anti-Enrichment side of the intellectual battle: she seems to indict Immanuel Kant, but her indictment is lukewarm, at most.
When I first set out to plough through McCloskey’s volume, I was inspired by her expression, “The Great Enrichment,” but in the end I was disappointed that her unpacking of the intellectual conflict behind the scenes didn’t reveal more clearly the essences of the struggle.
It looks from this plebian vantage point in Buxton that more clarity is needed before we fully understand how the Enlightenment ideas embraced by America’s Founding Fathers were unable to withstand the intellectual assault, one launched just after the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
McCloskey’s book contains keys to help us understand why the attacks on reason and liberty have mystified so many for so long.
Deirdre N. McCloskey
©2006
634 pages
a short BOOK REPORT by Ron Housley (10.17.2022)
]
“The Bourgeois Virtues” is about virtues. And God only knows, McCloskey has a lot to say about virtues. For her, virtues are the front-and-center issue; she considers virtues as critical in making life’s important choices. And her contention is that certain virtues align with and support Capitalism; and that the virtues supporting Capitalism just happen also to be “bourgeois values.” The book then tries to flesh it all out for us.
But her approach is so compellingly religious and committed to embracing some deity that it is hard to take seriously her intellectual attempt to identify a secular (non-religious) derivation of virtues in her writing. She is so committed to the religious orientation that she cannot escape concluding that each and every virtue has an origin connected with some God or with some religious doctrine.
RANGE EXPANSIVELY
One on-line review said that McCloskey’s book “rambled.” In a certain sense that is so, but not literally so. What happens here is an academic over-trying to range expansively on nearly every aspect of every question. She opines about the shades of meaning of what she deems to be pivotal terms — and she does so in such a way that the reader often experiences a complete departure from the main point being made. And this is easily construed to be a type of “rambling,” but not in the sense of being a totally unrelated tangent. Her 600+ pages are riddled with this type of “rambling” — easily accounting for over 20% of the entire text.
It was already enough of a challenge for me to be questioning and trying to sort out her contentions about the gender origin of the virtues she sites; and trying to sort out whether she was making a good case that the virtues she does cite can qualify as standing in alignment with Capitalism; or trying to sort out whether her contentions about Capitalism’s supposed ethical underpinnings make any sense at all.
PRETENTIONS?
One of the first things I noticed was an inordinate degree of name dropping: names, places, literary references, biblical references, abstruse historical references, philosophic references — obscure thoughts authored by semi-famous authors, even bona fide philosophers.
For example, instead of saying “Karl Marx said this or that,” she frames it as: “Since 1848 the critics of capitalism say this or that.” And in her references to 1848, over and over, it’s not always clear whether she’s referring to the revolutions in Europe or whether she’s pointing to Marx’s famous work also published in that year; one way or the other, she strives to flaunt her vast store of facts and to splash them onto her pages. I did not formally count the instances, but it seems as if one per page is not an exaggeration.
In one example of drowning us with gratuitous obscure references, McCloskey discusses several large corporations and then gives us, not a succinct statement describing what they have in common, but instead says that these corporations are “one with Nineveh and Tyre.” She hands us an obscure reference from a Kipling poem, instead of just clearly making her point about corporations. She does that sort of thing non-stop.
Either we must have Wikipedia at the ready for each page, or we must be prepared to miss much of what she is trying to say to us. I found it less than charming; and possibly a manifestation of literary pretentiousness.
But the primary obstacle that slowed me down in my journey through these pages was not her style; it was not her endless litany of references — literary, academic and otherwise; it was not her asides to speculate on shades of meaning; rather, it was the need to constantly untangle the connections that McCloskey tried to make among all the many various virtues — and supposed virtues.
CATEGORIES OF VIRTUE
I have long been suspect of the Church’s Seven Deadly Sins, and also of any Virtue lists which appear in contrast. There are always non-virtues on the Virtue lists; and there are always non-sins on the Deadly Sins lists. That is the case here with McCloskey, too.
The categorizations of the virtues have always seemed non-hierarchical, if not arbitrary. It always felt to me the same as how psychologists try to categorize various emotions: they never seem grouped together properly.
In McCloskey’s line-up of virtues, there is a dividing line: virtues benefiting the self, which she calls “the pegan virtues” (such as justice, prudence, courage, temperance); and virtues benefiting others to the exclusion of self, which she calls “the Christian virtues” — there didn’t seem to be any overlap.
Further, I could never wrap my mind around McCloskey’s presumption that faith and hope are virtues at all, rather than being emotions or the deliberate abandonment of reason, in the case of faith.
But what did ring true for me was: “virtues are drawn on for a full life.” (p. 307) Yes, virtues in practice lead to a full life. The problem I have with McCloskey’s virtue list is that it includes the assumption that a “full life” in part requires sacrifice of the self. She gives little treatment of the many ways we can virtuously help others in a non-sacrificial way.
IS-OUGHT
McCloskey weighs in on the “is/ought” debate which has plagued philosophers for centuries. In the lead-up to her assessment, she pokes fun at how philosophers have never agreed on the meaning of “the Truth” all these years, and of the relationship between a word and the concept the word names. When McCloskey shares with us “In the fall of 1997 as a New Christian I….” she is telling us that the very foundation of her world-view includes accepting things in defiance of reason, which faith would require. That explains to me why she only frets and hypothesizes around the “is/ought” question, and why she is CERTAIN that there is no CERTAINTY around it.
Why all this effort to tease out issues surrounding the famous “is/ought” controversy? Well, because the entire book is about Virtues, and virtues name what we “ought” to do. It is a question deserving better discussion.
THE MORAL FOUNDATION OF CAPITALISM
Several times in this massive volume does McClosley acknowledge the cross-purposes of capitalism and Christianity: that capitalism is on the premise of self-interest, while Christianity embraces self-sacrifice. Once having made the jarring juxtaposition, one would expect an author to not pass over the contrast casually, but to drill down to explore the depths of such a difference — McCloskey has so much to say about so many other disparities throughout history. Once she stumbles on a disparity as big and bold as self-interest v. self-sacrifice, the expectation would be thorough explication. But alas, all we get is commentary about spending habits and what the intellectuals (she calls them “the clerisy”) think about what people spend their money on. Instead, I was hoping for a drawing out of what are the moral requirements that capitalism must embrace if it is to survive. The stage was set; but the drama never played out in these pages.
OVERVIEW
“The Bourgeois Virtues” turns out to be the first installment of a massive trilogy tracing what McCloskey considers to be the second most important event in human history: The Great Enrichment, the explosion of wealth which began in the early 19th century and continues into the present.
She contends that The Great Enrichment resulted from the emancipation of human ingenuity, which in turn was unleashed when certain Virtues conspired to define a new relationship between the individual and the state. In the end, the individual had been emboldened by Liberalism — by which she meant the free individual not shackled by the state.
She points out that this embrace of liberty is the same movement that finally put an end to slavery after thousands of years.
This volume focused on the Virtues which fueled The Great Enrichment. But other “virtues” acted against the Enrichment, establishing battle lines in the war against liberty and reason, a war which fought against the Enrichment every step of the way.
I suspect that it must have been McCloskey’s religious embrace of the Christian self-sacrifice ethics which restrained her from indicting the anti-Enrichment side of the intellectual battle: she seems to indict Immanuel Kant, but her indictment is lukewarm, at most.
When I first set out to plough through McCloskey’s volume, I was inspired by her expression, “The Great Enrichment,” but in the end I was disappointed that her unpacking of the intellectual conflict behind the scenes didn’t reveal more clearly the essences of the struggle.
It looks from this plebian vantage point in Buxton that more clarity is needed before we fully understand how the Enlightenment ideas embraced by America’s Founding Fathers were unable to withstand the intellectual assault, one launched just after the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
McCloskey’s book contains keys to help us understand why the attacks on reason and liberty have mystified so many for so long.
August 6, 2018
A sophisticated defense of capitalism is always welcome. It is not grating like the Ayn Rand type. But there are two serious problems. One of them is that although she cites the results of lots of studies, she does not go over them in any great detail or explain them so they just don't make the impact they should. Also, it's hard to say how carefully she has actually looked at them. I've been spoiled by "Our Better Angel's" carefully explained research results. Also, she complains that some proponents of the "sacred" don't bother to learn the tedious statistics required to understand economics. However, on a book about virtue which invites discussion of nature vs. nurture, she does not seem to have looked too carefully into the biology of our behavior. For example, on page 249, in a discussion of violence and courage among men, she only manages to write "Perhaps it's biological." She makes a few other similar statements and that's it. If she's going to knock the non-mathematicians then she should at least offer a short chapter on the biological aspects of our behavior--it is almost standard now. Most of her arguments are philosophical, historical, and literary.
Other than that it was great and I'm looking forward to the next volume.
Other than that it was great and I'm looking forward to the next volume.
July 19, 2020
Philosophy does not have to be stuffy or pretentious or unidirectional. At its best, it can resemble a serene and tipsy post-dinner soirée in the company of witty, erudite, and funny companions. Add some candle light, red wine, and anecdotes to energize the animal spirits and lift the mood. After a few hours, you will find that time has passed and it is already dawn. Oh, how the time flies!
This is the spirit I get from this book, the first entry in McCloskey's "Bourgeois" trilogy. And "sentiment" is perhaps the correct word, since McCloskey places great emphasis on the sentimental side of humanity. Another important word is "conversation." In fact, the book constitutes an endless conversation about the importance of sentiments, sacred values, and behavioural diversity in creating the spirit of capitalism. And indeed, the conversation feels endless and aimless. I wish the book was a few hundred pages shorter, since I think it is simply too long and unfocused. Not that it ever gets boring as such. Every anecdote manages to amuse or enlighten the reader. But there are simply too many forays into the biographical details of Vincent van Gogh and other marginal topics. These detract from the central thesis of the book without anything to it.
Although I could kill for a spoilsport editor to prune the overflowing narrative, I enjoyed the many playful panegyrics, spirited sojourns, and mischievous memories concerning everything under the sun. I cherished the intellectual history of virtues ethics in the pagan and Christian worlds. I could not get enough of the little details of the lives of Adam Smith, Immanuel Kant, and Ludwig Wittgenstein. I adored the in depth discussions of McCloskey's intellectual heroes, friendly rivals, and spiritual colleagues - both living and dead - from Thomas Aquinas to Frank Knight. I was entertained and awed by the sheer display of her broad ranged cosmopolitan learning, from the numerous artistic and literature references to the awesome display of academic scholarship.
Most importantly, I learned a lot about the history of bourgeois societies, cultures, and values. The central thesis of the book may be hard to pin down, since McCloskey is an avowed pluralist, pragmatist, rhetorician, and postmodernist. She counts Richard Rorty as one of her influence, next to Thomas Aquinas and Adam Smith. The pragmatist McCloskey is mostly concerned with providing new and interesting perspectives and counter-narratives that challenge established wisdom in interesting ways. She is not interested in closure with the help of a new "master narrative." Nonetheless, the central argument of the book is simple. The bourgeois society runs "not by prudence alone." In other words, the capitalist ethics is historically much richer than the mere endless pursuit of profit or utility - "Max U." The bourgeois society, as it has developed in the Netherlands and the Anglo-Saxon world, has cultivated new avenues for virtue and flourishing that in some ways exceed those of the past. It has allowed people to treat each other with respect and to value honesty and fair trading. Furthermore, it has allowed more and more people to take part in meaningful lives since it has developed new notions of individualism and egalitarianism. And lastly, it has cultivated progress with the spirit of courage, hope, and faith that goes with capitalism.
McCloskey's argument is persuasive because of its rhetorical prowess as well as the sheer substance of her claims. Nonetheless, I remain unpersuaded by some of the aspects of her work. Her argumentative techniques are all over the place. She shuns clear-cut analytical or logical argumentation in favour of moral and sentimental persuasion. This is a valid method of argumentation with a long pedigree in philosophy. It also leads to some frustrating moments and argumentative weaknesses. Firstly, she dismisses several important views and arguments with the help of rather cheap rhetorical tricks. She does not as much seriously tackle with utilitarianism or Hobbesianism as dismiss and bypass them with a simple impatient flick of a wrist and a moral wag of the finger. Secondly, it is sometimes hard to disentangle the substance of her arguments from the rhetorical flourish that surrounds them. The appeal to reason is never fully separated from the appeal to sentiment; she simply does not believe that such a disjunction is ever possible. Thirdly, she jumps from one topic to another in a non-structured and anarchic fashion that leaves little room for structured engagement with any particular theorist or theory. So, ironically enough, despite the excessively burdensome length of the book, the intellectual discussion feels hurried, disorderly, and superficial! The history lesson is brilliant, the philosophical analysis less so.
Bourgeois Virtues is very good, very spirited, and very flawed. Its two flaws, as I have already mentioned, are its excessive length and its jovial dismissal of rigorous argumentation. These are counterbalanced with a cheerful writing style, a unique perspective that adds sparkle to the whole book, and an authentic erudition that spans continents, centuries, languages, and cultures. No reader can leave away feeling that they have learned nothing from this book. In many ways, the study of bourgeois sociology in the decades to come must come to grips with Mrs. McCloskey's theory. In other ways, the open-ended invitation to the dinner table and all-night conversation should not be used as an excuse to indulge in endless anecdotes and flights of fancy. The morning after the soirée, we need to sober up and try to crystallize our scattered ruminations. This is a virtuous task that must be taken up by the remaining guests after the merciful host, whom we must now thank for her patronage, gets to enjoy some well-deserved rest after her marathon.
This is the spirit I get from this book, the first entry in McCloskey's "Bourgeois" trilogy. And "sentiment" is perhaps the correct word, since McCloskey places great emphasis on the sentimental side of humanity. Another important word is "conversation." In fact, the book constitutes an endless conversation about the importance of sentiments, sacred values, and behavioural diversity in creating the spirit of capitalism. And indeed, the conversation feels endless and aimless. I wish the book was a few hundred pages shorter, since I think it is simply too long and unfocused. Not that it ever gets boring as such. Every anecdote manages to amuse or enlighten the reader. But there are simply too many forays into the biographical details of Vincent van Gogh and other marginal topics. These detract from the central thesis of the book without anything to it.
Although I could kill for a spoilsport editor to prune the overflowing narrative, I enjoyed the many playful panegyrics, spirited sojourns, and mischievous memories concerning everything under the sun. I cherished the intellectual history of virtues ethics in the pagan and Christian worlds. I could not get enough of the little details of the lives of Adam Smith, Immanuel Kant, and Ludwig Wittgenstein. I adored the in depth discussions of McCloskey's intellectual heroes, friendly rivals, and spiritual colleagues - both living and dead - from Thomas Aquinas to Frank Knight. I was entertained and awed by the sheer display of her broad ranged cosmopolitan learning, from the numerous artistic and literature references to the awesome display of academic scholarship.
Most importantly, I learned a lot about the history of bourgeois societies, cultures, and values. The central thesis of the book may be hard to pin down, since McCloskey is an avowed pluralist, pragmatist, rhetorician, and postmodernist. She counts Richard Rorty as one of her influence, next to Thomas Aquinas and Adam Smith. The pragmatist McCloskey is mostly concerned with providing new and interesting perspectives and counter-narratives that challenge established wisdom in interesting ways. She is not interested in closure with the help of a new "master narrative." Nonetheless, the central argument of the book is simple. The bourgeois society runs "not by prudence alone." In other words, the capitalist ethics is historically much richer than the mere endless pursuit of profit or utility - "Max U." The bourgeois society, as it has developed in the Netherlands and the Anglo-Saxon world, has cultivated new avenues for virtue and flourishing that in some ways exceed those of the past. It has allowed people to treat each other with respect and to value honesty and fair trading. Furthermore, it has allowed more and more people to take part in meaningful lives since it has developed new notions of individualism and egalitarianism. And lastly, it has cultivated progress with the spirit of courage, hope, and faith that goes with capitalism.
McCloskey's argument is persuasive because of its rhetorical prowess as well as the sheer substance of her claims. Nonetheless, I remain unpersuaded by some of the aspects of her work. Her argumentative techniques are all over the place. She shuns clear-cut analytical or logical argumentation in favour of moral and sentimental persuasion. This is a valid method of argumentation with a long pedigree in philosophy. It also leads to some frustrating moments and argumentative weaknesses. Firstly, she dismisses several important views and arguments with the help of rather cheap rhetorical tricks. She does not as much seriously tackle with utilitarianism or Hobbesianism as dismiss and bypass them with a simple impatient flick of a wrist and a moral wag of the finger. Secondly, it is sometimes hard to disentangle the substance of her arguments from the rhetorical flourish that surrounds them. The appeal to reason is never fully separated from the appeal to sentiment; she simply does not believe that such a disjunction is ever possible. Thirdly, she jumps from one topic to another in a non-structured and anarchic fashion that leaves little room for structured engagement with any particular theorist or theory. So, ironically enough, despite the excessively burdensome length of the book, the intellectual discussion feels hurried, disorderly, and superficial! The history lesson is brilliant, the philosophical analysis less so.
Bourgeois Virtues is very good, very spirited, and very flawed. Its two flaws, as I have already mentioned, are its excessive length and its jovial dismissal of rigorous argumentation. These are counterbalanced with a cheerful writing style, a unique perspective that adds sparkle to the whole book, and an authentic erudition that spans continents, centuries, languages, and cultures. No reader can leave away feeling that they have learned nothing from this book. In many ways, the study of bourgeois sociology in the decades to come must come to grips with Mrs. McCloskey's theory. In other ways, the open-ended invitation to the dinner table and all-night conversation should not be used as an excuse to indulge in endless anecdotes and flights of fancy. The morning after the soirée, we need to sober up and try to crystallize our scattered ruminations. This is a virtuous task that must be taken up by the remaining guests after the merciful host, whom we must now thank for her patronage, gets to enjoy some well-deserved rest after her marathon.
April 26, 2010
This book is very interesting, and has a very good point to make - bourgeois life, which a majority of us in the U.S. live, is not the sterile, money-grubbing life portrayed by "intellectuals," (McCloskey refers to them as the "clerisy").
Unfortunately, the majority of the book wanders through a detailed and sometimes seemingly pointless ramble of the "seven virtues." Mc Closkey's point, it seems could have been made in about 1/3 the pages. And her delightful writing style cannot compensate for this organizational muddle.
Much of the book could be described as philosophy, a classification of book that's never been my favorite, so that could be another problem.
Unfortunately, the majority of the book wanders through a detailed and sometimes seemingly pointless ramble of the "seven virtues." Mc Closkey's point, it seems could have been made in about 1/3 the pages. And her delightful writing style cannot compensate for this organizational muddle.
Much of the book could be described as philosophy, a classification of book that's never been my favorite, so that could be another problem.
October 17, 2018
Tough writing style, but very interesting ideas. It pushed me to think about my own values and the broader values promoted by economic systems. Glad I read it.
Read it as part of an Honors discussion group and I don't know if I would have finished it on my own without that external motivation due to the her roundabout writing style. I would recommend it for an academic, analytical study when you have someone to discuss it with but not for a poolside read.
Read it as part of an Honors discussion group and I don't know if I would have finished it on my own without that external motivation due to the her roundabout writing style. I would recommend it for an academic, analytical study when you have someone to discuss it with but not for a poolside read.
October 30, 2013
Exciting premise, but the execution involves rambling for about twice as long as necessary.
November 25, 2020
It remains the only book I've ever thrown in the trash.
May 31, 2021
This book should have been part VI only, and skipped parts I-V. They are so dull. Oh my god. Deirdre, please just quote the dictionary to define the seven virtues you want to talk about, and then use the definitions of the words that everybody else uses. If you're trying to advocate for something, use the language your audience speaks. Don't try to make up a whole new language that people have to "buy into" before your premise becomes meaningful!
But she has done this: forcing her audience to come along on her winding and pointless exploration of the history of the terms she wants to use, across foreign languages and dense with references to obsolete philosophers, and making what appears to me to be extensive straw-man fallacies against terms that probably no one in her stated audience cares about. Are her lengthy proscriptions of "Max U" economics, and "prudence-only" value systems, and later the "p-only" mindset, actually meaningful to anyone? Does anyone actually believe in "Max U"/"prudence-only" the way she rambles at length about them, or is a good chunk of this book just one big long straw-man fallacy? (I would imagine real "Max U" economists would include the virtues McCloskey is advocating as perfectly valid paths toward eudaimonic ends that are included in their maximum utility calculations, rather than orthogonal to them; thus McCloskey could have spared herself the effort of writing at least half of this book, right there.)
Part VI of this book is what I wish the whole thing had been. More historical examples, more application of values to economic activity. But instead, she squeezes an outline into a postscript that shows there was a lot more of this book not written... because she wasted all her time and effort on the language stunts in the first five sections instead.
I almost can't believe I am planning to read the next book in her series, but I think it's going to get closer to topics I actually care about. Hopefully the next one won't waste so! much! time! on the history lessons about the words themselves that she wants to advocate for, and more about economic concepts in action.
But she has done this: forcing her audience to come along on her winding and pointless exploration of the history of the terms she wants to use, across foreign languages and dense with references to obsolete philosophers, and making what appears to me to be extensive straw-man fallacies against terms that probably no one in her stated audience cares about. Are her lengthy proscriptions of "Max U" economics, and "prudence-only" value systems, and later the "p-only" mindset, actually meaningful to anyone? Does anyone actually believe in "Max U"/"prudence-only" the way she rambles at length about them, or is a good chunk of this book just one big long straw-man fallacy? (I would imagine real "Max U" economists would include the virtues McCloskey is advocating as perfectly valid paths toward eudaimonic ends that are included in their maximum utility calculations, rather than orthogonal to them; thus McCloskey could have spared herself the effort of writing at least half of this book, right there.)
Part VI of this book is what I wish the whole thing had been. More historical examples, more application of values to economic activity. But instead, she squeezes an outline into a postscript that shows there was a lot more of this book not written... because she wasted all her time and effort on the language stunts in the first five sections instead.
I almost can't believe I am planning to read the next book in her series, but I think it's going to get closer to topics I actually care about. Hopefully the next one won't waste so! much! time! on the history lessons about the words themselves that she wants to advocate for, and more about economic concepts in action.
July 18, 2022
This book is very powerful. It contains 3 identifiable bits, split up into bite size chapters that encourage sustained reading. In many ways it reads a bit like a book of essays with the amount of topics covered, and while I think some of it could be dropped without affecting the message all that much, pretty much all of this book is deep, erudite and precise.
The first part is a non-radical defence of Capitalism in which the state does play a role in certain areas yet where the vast majority of factors of production are privately owned and where an acceptance of the social beneficence of profit, or really more widely, Prudence - the foremost virtue of the bourgeoisie that makes the modern world possible. Deidre is no extremist, and see's a grave flaw in imagining we can explain and control human society by prudence alone.
The second part, by far the longest, is a fascinating and deep exploration of just what the virtues are (there's 7 of them) and how attitudes to virtue and class, with different classes representing different sacred virtues (upper class - courage, proletariat - love, bourgeois - prudence). Bourgeois society is portrayed as having cultivated a more moral society on many fronts. Prudence is shown to play a hand in all 7 of the virtues, for good judgement has near universal application.
The third part is the shortest and aims to establish that Bourgeois society has cultivated more and more virtue along with more and more wealth. From our two other parts, a defence of the market on grounds of virtue and an explanation of what we mean by virtue, we end with the message that though more is needed in human life than prudence alone. Capitalism is shown to become corrupted and incomplete by a focus on purely prudential action, but the common critique of capitalism being "that it destroys the moral foundation of society" is unfounded and anti-empirical. The notion that the teachings of Jesus are as anti-bourgeois as is sometimes made out by reference to the sermon on the mount is also tackled and shown to be incorrect.
Highly recommended
The first part is a non-radical defence of Capitalism in which the state does play a role in certain areas yet where the vast majority of factors of production are privately owned and where an acceptance of the social beneficence of profit, or really more widely, Prudence - the foremost virtue of the bourgeoisie that makes the modern world possible. Deidre is no extremist, and see's a grave flaw in imagining we can explain and control human society by prudence alone.
The second part, by far the longest, is a fascinating and deep exploration of just what the virtues are (there's 7 of them) and how attitudes to virtue and class, with different classes representing different sacred virtues (upper class - courage, proletariat - love, bourgeois - prudence). Bourgeois society is portrayed as having cultivated a more moral society on many fronts. Prudence is shown to play a hand in all 7 of the virtues, for good judgement has near universal application.
The third part is the shortest and aims to establish that Bourgeois society has cultivated more and more virtue along with more and more wealth. From our two other parts, a defence of the market on grounds of virtue and an explanation of what we mean by virtue, we end with the message that though more is needed in human life than prudence alone. Capitalism is shown to become corrupted and incomplete by a focus on purely prudential action, but the common critique of capitalism being "that it destroys the moral foundation of society" is unfounded and anti-empirical. The notion that the teachings of Jesus are as anti-bourgeois as is sometimes made out by reference to the sermon on the mount is also tackled and shown to be incorrect.
Highly recommended
May 26, 2021
Empecé a leer Por qué el liberalismo funciona pero me cansé pronto. Sabía que Deirdre McCloskey tenía mucho más que ofrecer, así que busqué sus primeros libros. 'Las Virtudes Burguesas' es un gran libro, quizás demasiado largo, pero escrito desde una tremenda erudición.
"El sistema combina de manera un tanto improvisada las virtudes «paganas» apropiadas para un ciudadano libre de Atenas (Valentía, Templanza, Justicia y Prudencia) y las virtudes «cristianas» apropiadas para un creyente de Nuestro Señor y Salvador (Fe, Esperanza y Amor).
Improvisadas o no, defenderé que las siete cubren lo que necesitamos para prosperar como seres humanos. Lo mismo valdría en el caso de otros sistemas éticos —por ejemplo, el confucianismo, el judaísmo talmúdico o el chamanismo de los indios de América del Norte—, los que ocupan un sitio, por analogía, al lado de las siete virtudes. Existen muchas maneras de ser humano. Sin embargo, resulta natural comenzar, y para nuestros fines aquí sobre todo terminar, con estas siete virtudes, pues son ellas las que dan forma a la tradición ética de Occidente, ahí donde la vida burguesa adquirió preponderancia por primera vez."
"El sistema combina de manera un tanto improvisada las virtudes «paganas» apropiadas para un ciudadano libre de Atenas (Valentía, Templanza, Justicia y Prudencia) y las virtudes «cristianas» apropiadas para un creyente de Nuestro Señor y Salvador (Fe, Esperanza y Amor).
Improvisadas o no, defenderé que las siete cubren lo que necesitamos para prosperar como seres humanos. Lo mismo valdría en el caso de otros sistemas éticos —por ejemplo, el confucianismo, el judaísmo talmúdico o el chamanismo de los indios de América del Norte—, los que ocupan un sitio, por analogía, al lado de las siete virtudes. Existen muchas maneras de ser humano. Sin embargo, resulta natural comenzar, y para nuestros fines aquí sobre todo terminar, con estas siete virtudes, pues son ellas las que dan forma a la tradición ética de Occidente, ahí donde la vida burguesa adquirió preponderancia por primera vez."
November 27, 2020
Amazing and convincing. I'm looking forward to read the two sequels. This first book covers some economics history, and, as the title suggests, gives explanations on why capitalism and bourgeois society are not incompatible with our ethics.
Deirdre quotes numerous philosophers in this book, she tells us how the seven virtues thrive in capitalism (and how capitalism needs them), and she completes the arguments with her knowledge on the world's economy.
Deirdre McCloskey does not give the "what-if" scenario. She elucidates the history which we misunderstood, which we made to believe as bad (due to the popular populist views), analyzing it carefully, and reveals us the full story.
If you are intuitively alarmed by the arguments from some viral politicians who believe the governments and billionaires are secretly hiding magic money vineyard (and not using them to free this, free that), you must read this book to understand how their good intention could harm the society in the long run.
And, most importantly, The Bourgeois Virtues explain how our societies thrives within freedom (which includes the freedom of trade and innovation), and how capitalism contributes in achieving that.
Deirdre quotes numerous philosophers in this book, she tells us how the seven virtues thrive in capitalism (and how capitalism needs them), and she completes the arguments with her knowledge on the world's economy.
Deirdre McCloskey does not give the "what-if" scenario. She elucidates the history which we misunderstood, which we made to believe as bad (due to the popular populist views), analyzing it carefully, and reveals us the full story.
If you are intuitively alarmed by the arguments from some viral politicians who believe the governments and billionaires are secretly hiding magic money vineyard (and not using them to free this, free that), you must read this book to understand how their good intention could harm the society in the long run.
And, most importantly, The Bourgeois Virtues explain how our societies thrives within freedom (which includes the freedom of trade and innovation), and how capitalism contributes in achieving that.
October 14, 2017
The great Deirdre McCloskey argues that the four "pagan" virtues of justice, courage, temperance, and prudence combined with the three "christian" virtues of love, hope, and faith make up the Bourgeois Virtues, which not only sustain, but are promoted, by capitalism.
She states in the beginning that her goal is convince the unconvinced, primarily leftist, intelligencia/"clergy" the capitalism is the best system not only because of the wealth it creates, but the virtues it fosters. She's preaching to the choir with me, but she challenges and disparages much along the way, from the homo-economicus to "greed is good" to evolutionary psychology to Marxism and much more. The book is superfluous and meandering, but rewarding if you stick with it, which few probably will.
She states in the beginning that her goal is convince the unconvinced, primarily leftist, intelligencia/"clergy" the capitalism is the best system not only because of the wealth it creates, but the virtues it fosters. She's preaching to the choir with me, but she challenges and disparages much along the way, from the homo-economicus to "greed is good" to evolutionary psychology to Marxism and much more. The book is superfluous and meandering, but rewarding if you stick with it, which few probably will.
August 8, 2018
Alright... mixed feelings. I agree with other reviewers about the lack of objectivity of the book. The author is well versed in history, economics and culture, and while I pretty much enjoy cultural connections to apparently disconnected subjects (You wouldn't expect Van Gogh, Shakespeare and much more inside of a book about ethics for an age of commerce, right?), but perhaps the author might have gone too far at the cost of objectivity. I've listened the audiobook, so perhaps if it was a read I might dropped one star for the long, unclear road. At the very end, the author gives a nice summary/case for bourgeois virtue so if you are impatient at 1/3 of the book, you might want to skip it and go straight at the conclusion :)
February 2, 2021
This is a tough read - lots of history, economics and philosophy rolled up - since so many different points can be made by the intersection of these subjects on any given specific topic, it can be tough to follow. Worth hanging on until the end but not for the weary and it is very dry in some parts, but again worth it especially in a time when so many are questioning our economic systems and their failings. On to the next book in her series, Bourgeois Equality.
July 4, 2024
This is a very annoying book to read (McCloskey writes like an insufferable Karen half the time), but I think it should be made mandatory reading for all economists in training. I don't want to see ANYONE out there claiming ethics or culture aren't relevant to economic or historical analysis after they've read this. If you lean more towards the humanities side of economics than the hard math side, this is a perfect read.
June 7, 2018
I've read about 200 pages of this, and it is an enjoyable read, but the trilogy is about 2000 pages in total, and I can't see myself having the time to read that much. It didn't seem to put forward strong arguments, I felt it was more anecdotal material.
July 12, 2020
The writing is engaging and informative, but also repetitive and disorganized. Dr. McCloskey could have condensed the book, while still getting her point across. Despite that, reading the first volume was an enjoyable experience.
July 7, 2017
Hard to agree with. Very enjoyable and thought provoking. Will update more later. This is anti-Anathem.
December 28, 2019
Funny at times and extremely impressive in its literary scope. Also practical for daily living and parenting even—which surprised me. A Scholarly Work.
March 14, 2024
A powerful argument for classical virtues as the basis for the moral sentiments of the bourgeoisie. Follow these, you can't go wrong. Other values lead to worse outcomes!
December 25, 2013
This is an easy book to read that is difficult to finish. The author is extremely erudite and writes in a conversational style. But as is typical of a conversation, the thread of the narrative weaves in and out and around and requires concentration to follow.
But the topic is extremely important and deserves to be followed to its conclusion. The facts of the matter are, despite a near-constant stream of anti-middle class rhetoric from the popular press, Hollywood, and our political leaders, the world would not be a better place if we all got shoved back down to the level of the peasantry. Sure the peasants were the wellspring of the saints (Jesus and most of his closest followers were peasants) and the Christian ethics of faith, hope, and love are most visible among this class (think Mother Teresa). But if people who pine for the good old days actually had to live as peasants, they would miss their high-speed Internet, mocha chinos, and instant hot water so much they would sink into depression.
And we would be peasants. Because if our current middle class had to be divided along the medieval lines of peasantry and nobility, we would quickly learn what it really meant to be part of the 99%.
The author also reviews the 4 "pagan" virtues of prudence, courage, temperance, and justice. These correspond to the medieval nobility. And we certainly have our share of "nobility" today who scorn the middle class, including the academics (whose guaranteed-for-life benefit and retirement packages are dependent on taxes paid by the middle class), politicians and bureaucrats (trust us with your freedom - we know best how to use it), celebrities (my faddish beauty qualifies me to judge you), and the clergy (it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle... now pass the offering plate).
The only people that might actually be qualified to critique the middle class are those that have inherited their wealth and so can truly say that they were never part of the middle class. They, of course, note how fake the middle class lifestyle is. I can identify with this comment. My house has stone facing on part of it - but it isn't built out of stone. The stones have been chiseled flat on one side so they can be glued up. It is a "brick" house - but that would more accurately be described as brick veneer, because of course inside it is framed and sheetrocked. And my basement is full of junk that I rarely use and can't find anyway when I do need it.
The author's point is, "so what?" It's still better than living in a hovel huddled around a campfire. And it's my money, so I guess I have the right to spend it as I see fit. The professors, politicians and bureaucrats, celebrities, clergy, and the truly wealthy can just step off.
So up with the middle class!
I also appreciated learning about the 7 virtues. I'm not sure what it says about my upbringing and education, but I had never heard of the 7 virtues. This despite spending most of my schooling in church schools. Well, being raised a Christian, I know about faith, hope, and love. Apparently my forebears were peasants - I don't remember studying courage, justice, temperance, and prudence.
Prudence gets a lot of coverage on Wall Street. "Greed is good!" right? The author points out that a "prudence only" mentality will not get you far in the marketplace. I can attest to that from experience. Try explaining to someone that you are firing that you had to do it because business demanded it. Believe me, things go much better when you can have a conversation that allows both parties to connect, even though you are firing the person.
So read the book. Treat it like a conversation. Let the author take you where she wants. Stop feeling guilty about being middle class.
PS: even the anthropologists apparently used to fantasize that the ancient world was built on a "noble savage" model where the ancients got along by giving each other timely gifts. That is until the extensive marketplace at Ashkelon was discovered, proving that the "buy low, sell high" rule of life has functioned from time immemorial.
But the topic is extremely important and deserves to be followed to its conclusion. The facts of the matter are, despite a near-constant stream of anti-middle class rhetoric from the popular press, Hollywood, and our political leaders, the world would not be a better place if we all got shoved back down to the level of the peasantry. Sure the peasants were the wellspring of the saints (Jesus and most of his closest followers were peasants) and the Christian ethics of faith, hope, and love are most visible among this class (think Mother Teresa). But if people who pine for the good old days actually had to live as peasants, they would miss their high-speed Internet, mocha chinos, and instant hot water so much they would sink into depression.
And we would be peasants. Because if our current middle class had to be divided along the medieval lines of peasantry and nobility, we would quickly learn what it really meant to be part of the 99%.
The author also reviews the 4 "pagan" virtues of prudence, courage, temperance, and justice. These correspond to the medieval nobility. And we certainly have our share of "nobility" today who scorn the middle class, including the academics (whose guaranteed-for-life benefit and retirement packages are dependent on taxes paid by the middle class), politicians and bureaucrats (trust us with your freedom - we know best how to use it), celebrities (my faddish beauty qualifies me to judge you), and the clergy (it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle... now pass the offering plate).
The only people that might actually be qualified to critique the middle class are those that have inherited their wealth and so can truly say that they were never part of the middle class. They, of course, note how fake the middle class lifestyle is. I can identify with this comment. My house has stone facing on part of it - but it isn't built out of stone. The stones have been chiseled flat on one side so they can be glued up. It is a "brick" house - but that would more accurately be described as brick veneer, because of course inside it is framed and sheetrocked. And my basement is full of junk that I rarely use and can't find anyway when I do need it.
The author's point is, "so what?" It's still better than living in a hovel huddled around a campfire. And it's my money, so I guess I have the right to spend it as I see fit. The professors, politicians and bureaucrats, celebrities, clergy, and the truly wealthy can just step off.
So up with the middle class!
I also appreciated learning about the 7 virtues. I'm not sure what it says about my upbringing and education, but I had never heard of the 7 virtues. This despite spending most of my schooling in church schools. Well, being raised a Christian, I know about faith, hope, and love. Apparently my forebears were peasants - I don't remember studying courage, justice, temperance, and prudence.
Prudence gets a lot of coverage on Wall Street. "Greed is good!" right? The author points out that a "prudence only" mentality will not get you far in the marketplace. I can attest to that from experience. Try explaining to someone that you are firing that you had to do it because business demanded it. Believe me, things go much better when you can have a conversation that allows both parties to connect, even though you are firing the person.
So read the book. Treat it like a conversation. Let the author take you where she wants. Stop feeling guilty about being middle class.
PS: even the anthropologists apparently used to fantasize that the ancient world was built on a "noble savage" model where the ancients got along by giving each other timely gifts. That is until the extensive marketplace at Ashkelon was discovered, proving that the "buy low, sell high" rule of life has functioned from time immemorial.
May 28, 2017
This is not a usual economic book, it may be even said that ‘The Bourgeois Virtues’ is not about economics but about moral philosophy as it can explain the tremendous economic growth of Europe in the last 200-300 years, which affected the world more than any other event in history since first people left Africa. Moral philosophy is not my kind of reading, but as I started the second volume of the series, ‘Bourgeois Dignity’, I decided to work it through.
A word about the author. Deirdre N. McCloskey, born as Donald McCloskey, had as great change in her views as in her gender: she started as a Marxist, then moved toward Chicago brand of ‘mainstream’ economics and, finally, closer to anarchist-libertarian school of thought. She is a well-known economic historian, her works can be read on her site: http://www.deirdremccloskey.org/
In short, her idea is that bourgeois version of four classic (courage, justice, prudence, temperance) and three Christian virtues (faith, hope, love). She tried to defend these virtues both from the left [after 1848], who say that bourgeois means evil for humanity and the right, who think that prudence alone is enough and those, who are left behind aren’t worth a second thought.
It is quite sad that while she defends the idea that people and not just MaxU-ers made the new better world possible, she doesn’t like to include some behavioral economic studies – libertarians view the idea that the state can improve on individual decisions as a heresy.
Her writing is rich [Deirdre N. McCloskey is Distinguished Professor of English], the list of sources accounts for 32 pages, ranging from Greek philosophers and early church fathers to classic writers (Dickens, Austin), enlightenment and modern philosophers and of course economists.
In order to show both her style and her ideas, I quote at length:
If Smith had been also a modern econometrician he would have put it as follows. Take any sort of willed behavior you wish to understand—brooding on a vote, for example, or birthing children, or buying lunch, or adopting the Bessemer process in the making of steel. Call it B. Brooding, buying, borrowing, birthing, bequeathing, bonding, boasting, blessing, bidding, bartering, bargaining, baptizing, banking, baking.
What the hard men from Machiavelli to Judge Posner are claiming is that you can explain B with Prudence Only, the P variables of price, pleasure, payment, pocketbook, purpose, planning, property, profit, prediction, punishment, prison, purchasing, power, practice, in a word, the Profane.
Smith and Mill and Keynes and Hirschman and quite a few other economists have replied that, no, you have forgotten love and courage, justice and temperance, faith and hope, that is, social Solidarity, the S variable of speech, semiotics, society, sympathy, service, stewardship, sentiment, sharing, soul, salvation, spirit, symbols, stories, shame, in a word, the Sacred. The two-level universe of the axial religions are these, the Profane and the Sacred. The two summarizing commandments, I have noted, refer to the two levels: (1) love God and (2) love your neighbor. As the historian of religion Mircea Eliade put it,“Sacred and profane are two modes of being in the world.”
Economists have specialized in the profane P, anthropologists have specialized in the sacred S. But most behavior, B, is explained by both
This is not an easy read, it urges you to think, to argue, to discuss.
A word about the author. Deirdre N. McCloskey, born as Donald McCloskey, had as great change in her views as in her gender: she started as a Marxist, then moved toward Chicago brand of ‘mainstream’ economics and, finally, closer to anarchist-libertarian school of thought. She is a well-known economic historian, her works can be read on her site: http://www.deirdremccloskey.org/
In short, her idea is that bourgeois version of four classic (courage, justice, prudence, temperance) and three Christian virtues (faith, hope, love). She tried to defend these virtues both from the left [after 1848], who say that bourgeois means evil for humanity and the right, who think that prudence alone is enough and those, who are left behind aren’t worth a second thought.
It is quite sad that while she defends the idea that people and not just MaxU-ers made the new better world possible, she doesn’t like to include some behavioral economic studies – libertarians view the idea that the state can improve on individual decisions as a heresy.
Her writing is rich [Deirdre N. McCloskey is Distinguished Professor of English], the list of sources accounts for 32 pages, ranging from Greek philosophers and early church fathers to classic writers (Dickens, Austin), enlightenment and modern philosophers and of course economists.
In order to show both her style and her ideas, I quote at length:
If Smith had been also a modern econometrician he would have put it as follows. Take any sort of willed behavior you wish to understand—brooding on a vote, for example, or birthing children, or buying lunch, or adopting the Bessemer process in the making of steel. Call it B. Brooding, buying, borrowing, birthing, bequeathing, bonding, boasting, blessing, bidding, bartering, bargaining, baptizing, banking, baking.
What the hard men from Machiavelli to Judge Posner are claiming is that you can explain B with Prudence Only, the P variables of price, pleasure, payment, pocketbook, purpose, planning, property, profit, prediction, punishment, prison, purchasing, power, practice, in a word, the Profane.
Smith and Mill and Keynes and Hirschman and quite a few other economists have replied that, no, you have forgotten love and courage, justice and temperance, faith and hope, that is, social Solidarity, the S variable of speech, semiotics, society, sympathy, service, stewardship, sentiment, sharing, soul, salvation, spirit, symbols, stories, shame, in a word, the Sacred. The two-level universe of the axial religions are these, the Profane and the Sacred. The two summarizing commandments, I have noted, refer to the two levels: (1) love God and (2) love your neighbor. As the historian of religion Mircea Eliade put it,“Sacred and profane are two modes of being in the world.”
Economists have specialized in the profane P, anthropologists have specialized in the sacred S. But most behavior, B, is explained by both
This is not an easy read, it urges you to think, to argue, to discuss.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews