91. LEARNING THE PAST OR LEARNING FROM THE PAST?

LITERATURE- LIGHT AND DELIGHT

91. LEARNING THE PAST OR LEARNING FROM THE PAST?

In his famous 1984 book " What They Don't Teach You At Harvard Business School", Mark McC"ormack said that "business schools, out of necessity, are condemned to teach the past." If we think about it, we will find that all teaching in any subject is about the past, can only be about the past! The irony is that McCormack himself was telling us something out of his experience- out of his past! He was trying to teach us how to face our future out of how he faced things in the past! So, what is the new thing he did?

Usually, we associate history with the past; but every discipline- whether humanities, social sciences or the so called hard sciences- is about the past. 

Indeed, it is not even about the past- it is about how some influential people or those in power thought about the past. It happens in the social sciences, as when they say history is written by the victors. It also happens in the hard sciences.

All our political and economic  theories represent the dust bin of the past: ideas and opinions of past thinkers, which were held as truths at some time, for some time and discarded subsequently. All our current leaders are , as Lord Keynes said, slaves of some defunct theories.

Hard sciences are also like that- though we hardly realise it. Take 'evolution' for instance. It is mainly Darwin's line that is taught in the universities. There were other approaches and voices- which the dominant groups have suppressed. It is the view of the dominant group which holds power  that is projected as the orthodoxy in any discipline. Lot of research goes on, but it is difficult to say if the latest findings get into the text books- except perhaps in medicine, and when.

It is natural that we can only reflect on the past. But no event is experienced by all in the same manner. Wars have always been waged; and they have always been cruel. But how many Asokas were there in history to realise the cruelty and give up war, even when they won? How many rulers were inspired by Ashoka subsequently? H.G.Wells wrote thus about Ashoka:

Amidst the tens of thousands of names of monarchs that crowd the columns of history, their majesties and graciousnesses and serenities and royal highnesses and the like, the name of Ashoka shines, and shines, almost alone, a star.

Ashoka the Great

Indian Relief from Amravati, Guntur.
Preserved in Guimet Museum, Paris.
Creative Commons.

A bilingual edict of  Ashoka in Greek and Aramaic in Kandahar.
AsokaKandahar
Licenced under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons.

The problem is not that we learn the past- it is whether we learn anything from it!

It is here that literature scores as the king of humanities. Great literature records the reflections of great minds on subjects of perennial interest. Great poetry we have is almost all from past poets- but the subjects do not belong to the past. Can we say the Daffodils or the Nightingale or the Country Churchyard  of Thomas Gray belonged only to the past ?

A host of golden daffodils!- Wordsworth.
From: naturetime. nature photography by Pam and Richard.

Singing Nightingale! "Singest of summer in  full-throated ease"- John Keats.
Photo: Nachtingall (Luscinia megarhynchos)jpg: J.Dietrich derivative work Boghumper 

By Bentley,Richard.[Public domain] via Wikimedia Commons. Header for Thomas Gray's poem, 1753

Of course, the rural scene of which Gray sang is long gone. The plough has been displaced by the mini-monster tractor; the plowman, though weary could go home- he had one!; the modern industrial worker , especially the IT worker knows no such home. He does not experience darkness- we none of us do, as our world is almost always flooded by artificial light- so we can't enjoy real light either. The plowman did work hard, so he knew how to take time off and enjoy- at least the simple pleasures. But the modern worker doesn't know to enjoy his work or leisure. In Japan, Govt is planning legislation to compel workers to take vacations! There people literally work to death- what they call "karoshi". This again is our failure to learn from the past: All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy!

What do we learn from the past? What Can we learn?

It will be amusing to know that all social sciences reveal that nothing has ever worked! Societies have lived from ancient times, and changed in the course of living. But our academics must invent theories for why they worked and why they changed. And they would say it changed because it did not work. And since things are constantly changing it means nothing ever works for long!

Our modern theories of economics which cover from the time of Mercantilism in the 16th century, show us that no theory has held for long. They assume away many things which worked before that. But ever since economics emerged as a separate 'science' it has only measured our misery! 

An imaginary seaport with a transposed villa, at the height of mercantilism painted by Claude Lorrain c1637.
Public domain via Wikimedia Commons.

Whatever the economists may say, the general reader may learn a lot from mercantilism- whether it succeeded or failed. It contributed to the development of mercantile capitalism and also state control over economic affairs, trade control, competition for world markets, trade wars and imperialism and colonialism. Though economic pundits have written its obituary, it can be seen that its core ideas are still practised everywhere in varying degrees and disguises! The slogan of Nehruvian  socialism , 'export promotion and import restriction or substitution', and exchange control was nothing but undisguised mercantilism!

Adam Smith subsequently attacked the 'mercantile system'. He emphasised that free enterprise along with competition would  promote national wealth. He repeatedly warned of the possibility of collusion among businessmen to increase prices  or create monopolies.Though Smith is often mentioned in academic circles, competition has never been perfect, and things did not work as he envisaged. In the modern day, there is neither competition, nor free enterprise. Economy is dominated by huge corporates transcending national borders, and often dictating terms to govts.The system has been used by  modern corporates to manipulate both the economy and polity and through them , society at large.

Adam Smith was a moral philosopher and he assumed that man's economic life depended on others, but this came about in spite of his intentions! Each one wants to promote his one interest, but somehow this ensures the interests of others - "led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention". Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Laureate of our times , said famously that the invisible hand has remained invisible, because it was not there at all!

Adam Smith from Wikimedia

But the real problem with Smith was his emphasis on wealth. His book, even shortened , is " The Wealth of Nations". Alfred Marshall, the great economist of the early 20th century criticised Smith that he did not emphasise 'Welfare', as much as wealth. Man, services ( and not mere goods) and human welfare , not merely national wealth were important. He therefore said that economics was concerned with men   "in the ordinary business of life. It examines that part of individual and social action which is most closely connected with the attainment and utilisation of the material requisites of well being."

Alfred Marshall from Wikimedia Commons


This in turn opened a Pandora's box.  While his mention of man is welcome, his focus of the material means of well being makes it narrow, as man requires more than economic means for his well-being. At the same time, "well being" itself is not easy to define or understand, and it certainly involves the idea of ethical values and judgements.

So, the debates go on. If there is no agreement among economists themselves, how can common people understand ?  In a modern democracy, the voters choose the govt which decides the policies, but no one pays attention to the basics. Most voters, including those considered educated, do not certainly know the assumptions and implications of the various measures. So ignorant people choose greedy politicians and bureaucrats to rule over themselves in the name of democracy, with rare exceptions.

Example of direct democray  Canton of Glarus in Switzerland, 2009. By Marc Schlumpf www.icarus-design .ch [CC BY-SA 3.0
(http://Creative Commons.org. licen

Thus the study of past developments in economics does not provide a guide to present action, but it may make us understand in a general way that most problems have no perfect or satisfactory solutions and sincere attempts should be made to seek solutions.

Here is the catch or the rub. Economics itself does not tell us about what is "sincere". It has to come from outside the discipline. This is where general literature - liberal education-helps.

We have first to realise we are human beings, before we become doctors, engineers, accountants, economists. And we remain human beings in spite of becoming anything else. This is what we have to learn from the past. 

Tomas Garrigue Masaryk
First President of Chechoslovakia.Wikimedia Commons.
He said: Democracy has its faults because people have their faults. Like owner,like store.