The word economics comes from the Greek word oikonomos meaning manager or steward. Or in other words the science of economics is the science of stewardship. That is a slightly different spin on things than you might have imagined.
Stewardship is an interesting word in that it does not have any connotations of ownership or control. Instead it is more generally used to refer to the act of taking care of something that belongs to someone else. A steward is someone who attends to the needs of another (i.e. a wine steward or a cabin steward). In essence, it is a form of service.
Sometime over the last few hundred years, we have shifted to a perspective that economics is the science of self-interest. There is a case to be made for economics being about self-interest, but I would argue that we have completely missed the bull’s-eye on our assessment of the key components of self-interest. We have used the work of Adam Smith, in vain, I might add, to come to the conclusion that an individual’s well being is measured by material things. So we always want more stuff and are unhappier than we have ever been.
In truth, self-interest has a much wider scope than money or things. The good life incorporates peace of mind, healthy relationships, fulfilling work, and “purpose and meaning.” Our narrow definition of self-interest has cut us off from the planet, each other and even ourselves. There can be no doubt that it is in our self-interest to have a planet that is healthy or populations of people who are housed and fed. But we have been trained to focus on immediate gratification rather than understanding that it is in our interest to make plans for the future. We do benefit tangibly from the time we take to plan for the future of our children and grandchildren.
The questions of stewardship are radically different from those of acquisition and dominance. Instead of how do I get? The question becomes how do I give of my gifts? Rather than how do I control? We ask how do I empower? Our focus shifts from what is the quickest way to what will have the most positive broad impact?
Economics cannot only seek to answer the questions of supply, demand and price. There is the equally important question of for what larger purpose (why)? Decisions must have the question of intent clearly at the center. Profitability, while a legitimate objective, is not the only legitimate objective. Not every intention has equal value in terms our self-interest. We seem to have unconsciously selected an intention that is not really serving our greater good as evidenced by the current economic, political, and social instability.
We must ask ourselves how can we reframe the science of economics so that the measure of utility (individual and corporate satisfaction) encompasses more than just the consumption of various goods and services, possession of wealth and spending of leisure time. Living life fully requires that we harness our life energy and consciously put it to work. Instead of narrowing the economic perspective, it is critical for our survival to broaden the scope of our work to include those things that truly represent quality of life.
Stewardship is an interesting word in that it does not have any connotations of ownership or control. Instead it is more generally used to refer to the act of taking care of something that belongs to someone else. A steward is someone who attends to the needs of another (i.e. a wine steward or a cabin steward). In essence, it is a form of service.
Sometime over the last few hundred years, we have shifted to a perspective that economics is the science of self-interest. There is a case to be made for economics being about self-interest, but I would argue that we have completely missed the bull’s-eye on our assessment of the key components of self-interest. We have used the work of Adam Smith, in vain, I might add, to come to the conclusion that an individual’s well being is measured by material things. So we always want more stuff and are unhappier than we have ever been.
In truth, self-interest has a much wider scope than money or things. The good life incorporates peace of mind, healthy relationships, fulfilling work, and “purpose and meaning.” Our narrow definition of self-interest has cut us off from the planet, each other and even ourselves. There can be no doubt that it is in our self-interest to have a planet that is healthy or populations of people who are housed and fed. But we have been trained to focus on immediate gratification rather than understanding that it is in our interest to make plans for the future. We do benefit tangibly from the time we take to plan for the future of our children and grandchildren.
The questions of stewardship are radically different from those of acquisition and dominance. Instead of how do I get? The question becomes how do I give of my gifts? Rather than how do I control? We ask how do I empower? Our focus shifts from what is the quickest way to what will have the most positive broad impact?
Economics cannot only seek to answer the questions of supply, demand and price. There is the equally important question of for what larger purpose (why)? Decisions must have the question of intent clearly at the center. Profitability, while a legitimate objective, is not the only legitimate objective. Not every intention has equal value in terms our self-interest. We seem to have unconsciously selected an intention that is not really serving our greater good as evidenced by the current economic, political, and social instability.
We must ask ourselves how can we reframe the science of economics so that the measure of utility (individual and corporate satisfaction) encompasses more than just the consumption of various goods and services, possession of wealth and spending of leisure time. Living life fully requires that we harness our life energy and consciously put it to work. Instead of narrowing the economic perspective, it is critical for our survival to broaden the scope of our work to include those things that truly represent quality of life.
No comments:
Post a Comment