the invisible hand conspiracy, de eve polle

7/27/2019 The Invisible Hand Conspiracy, de Eve Polle

1/4Page 24 Vo l.8, No .4 W inter 2004/ 2005

The Invisible HandThe Invisible HandThe Invisible HandThe Invisible HandThe Invisible HandConspiracyConspiracyConspiracyConspiracyConspiracy

by Eve Poole

Social and religious battle-lineshave long since been drawn againstcapitalism. While historically Weberand Tawney have argued that religionand capitalism in the West have infact spurred each other on, morerecent popular thinking in this areahas tended towards the Marxistlegacy, as expressed i n the ant i-globalisation protests and inChristian Liberation Theology. Both

of these reject capitalism as being anoppressive regime that widens thegap between rich and poor, and usethe rhetoric of social justice as thecorrect response to its crimes.

There is also something deeper atstake in the socio-religious battleagainst capitalism, which is the verysurvival of local cultures andreligions. In the case of the former,

well-researched best-sellers such asNaomi KleinsNo Logoadd fuel tothe criticism that global capitalismpromotes deculturalisation byfavouring global standardisation. Inthe case of the latter, some haveargued that capitalism with itseconomic ideology has alreadybecome the pre-eminent globalreligion.1

These battle-lines are particularlyproblematic for those seeking toimprove levels of employeeengagement at work by addressingits capacity to provide meaning andspiritual satisfaction.2 For instance,the 1999 study carried out by Mitroffand Denton suggested that, after theability to realise ones full potentialat work, meaning is best derivedfrom having an association with a

good or ethical organisation.3 Thisinsight already influences campusrecruitment policy, as any milk-round veteran will know, and thecommercial value of having a cleanreputation is uncontroversial, assuggested by its accountingterminology: goodwill. Theproblem is that a blanketcondemnation of capitalism removesthe possibility that a capitalist

enterprise could ever be the sort ofgood or ethical organisation - exceptin a superficial way - to whichworkers would seek to belong.

A licence for misbehaviourA licence for misbehaviourA licence for misbehaviourA licence for misbehaviourA licence for misbehaviour

There is another danger in thispopular denunciation of capitalism.Not only does it destroy the ability

to make those working within

capitalist structures feel

fundamentally good about the work

they do, but it can also act as a licence

for misbehaviour. By labelling

capitalism pernicious, all sorts of

misdemeanours can be blamed on

the system, as witnessed by the

Enron scandal. Both capitalists and

their critics alike show this tendency

to blame the system. It is a clever wayof displacing and therefore evading

responsibility for human decision-

making. It also impedes reform, in

that the system is seen as being too

big and powerful to tackle.

Indeed, this displacement appears

to be sanctioned by the quasi-

religious rhetoric of Adam Smiths

invisible hand. As long as the

capitalist is true to the rules of

capitalism, everything will

mysteriously come good, without the

capitalist being required to seek to

assist this end. Moreover the

capitalist is discouraged from

attempting to work directly towards

the common good, because it is only

through the mysterious actions of the

invisible hand, left free to its own

The Case for a Capitalist TheologyThe Case for a Capitalist TheologyThe Case for a Capitalist TheologyThe Case for a Capitalist TheologyThe Case for a Capitalist Theology

Summary

Capitalism has been marginalised and silenced in the social and religiousdebate about morality. This may be because Adam Smiths invisible handimplies capitalists do not need to act morally. In this climate, capitalists mayfeel they have a licence to misbehave. They are endangered by their proximityto wealth and power, and need help. A theology of capitalism is needed.

Ashridge Business School UK - http://www.ashridge.org.uk


2/4Vo l.8, No .4 W inter 2004/ 2005 Page 25

devices, that this alchemy can

happen. This reasoning plays into the

hands of the cynics, for whom any

good or ethical behaviour exhibited

- for example corporate social

responsibility - is seen to be servinga capitalist or self-interested goal,

generally concerning organisational

or personal reputation, rather than

being worthwhile in its own right.

And, in cutting off capitalism, this

mentality is likely to intensify, not

least because it removes the societal

expectation that capitalism can be a

force for good. We are then left with

an increasingly stereotyped

and ghettoised capitalism,from which the critics have

ceased to expect and require

good behaviour, and which -

given its power - need not feel

obliged to volunteer such behaviour

for its own sake.

FFFFFrrrrromomomomom imimimimimmorality tomorality tomorality tomorality tomorality toaaaaamoralitymoralitymoralitymoralitymorality

This is dangerous because itencourages a belief by extension in

the amorality of capitalists: the

presumption being that their

involvement in capitalism with its

invisible hand somehow removes

them from the moral sphere. While

this may be kindly motivated - hate

the sin (capitalism), but love the

sinner (capitalist) - it is

compounded by a predominantly

rationalist understanding of

economics, and of economic man as

a rational agent. This again serves to

play down the moral content of

work. Indeed, neo-classical

economics formally holds that its

work is ethically neutral, thereby

rejecting the moral underpinning

that is widely held to have served the

capitalist system so well in its

infancy.4 So, if the critic says

capitalism is evil and the capitalist

ripostes with the invisible hand

argument, both effectively deny the

individual moral accountability ofthe capitalist. This philosophical

shift away from immorality to

amorali ty tends not only to obfuscate

but also to enrage, because it puts

capitalists beyond our moral reach.

Witness the consternation that

greeted Machiavellis I l Pri ncipe,

which was branded immoral because

it was so shockingly amoral, and in

our own time reaction to such films

asThe Clockwork OrangeandNatural

Born Killers, or the Tarantino films

Reservoi r D ogsand Pulp Fiction.

These similarly shocked by ignoring

the ethical debate.

Confusingly, this dehumanising of

capitalists by taking away their

accountability and ascribing it

instead to the capitalist system is

reversed in recent attempts to afford

the enterprise personal status,

whether metaphorically in the case

of brand personality or legally in the

case of a charge of corporate

manslaughter. This gives back to the

enterprise the moral status denied toits adherents, further muddying the

waters and bringing the confusion

between people, enterprise and

system full circle.

There is of course a logical problem

present in any attempt to critique

capitalism in action, in that

governments have never allowed

capitalism to exist in its pure form

as an unfettered marketplace.

Likewise, critiquing capitalist theory

is unhelpful, in that it is never

manifest, being universally diluted

by government intervention. Andeven if we were to venture into the

debate about the traditionally selfish

model of capitalism, some game

theorists would argue that this model

is not in fact correct, given the win-

win of so-called equilibrium game

theory.5 So too would some

economists, given recent thinking

about, for example, trust and social

capital.6 But given this

fundamental stand-offbetween the capitalists and

the socio-religious, is there

some way to re-open the

dialogue between them?

PPPPPrrrrroblematic Theologyoblematic Theologyoblematic Theologyoblematic Theologyoblematic Theology

In traditional Christian theology,

there are a number of precedents for

such dialogues, and for what John

Hick calls problematic theology,where new theology is created in the

light of new situations.7 In fact,

Liberation Theology, itself crit ical of

capitalism, is one such precedent.

Together with its related feminist,

black and womanist theologies,

liberation theology seeks to speak to

the particular realities of a group of

people who have been silenced, be

they the poor, women and/or black.8

The silencing in these cases is theirsubjugation by a ruling elite,

traditionally capitalist/white/men or

a combination thereof, particularly

where the church is seen to have

colluded.

What is happening in the current

globalisation debate bears some

parallels. While it cannot be argued

This shi ft fromimmorali ty toamorali ty puts capi tali stsbeyond our moral reach



3/4Page 26 Vo l.8, No .4 W inter 2004/ 2005

that capitalists are being subjugated

under a ruling elite, indeed quite the

reverse, they are effectively being

silenced, and the Church is colluding

in this action through its mainstream

support of anti-capitalist LiberationTheology and some elements of the

current Trade Justice campaign.9 As

one modern Christian theologian has

put it, capitalism is a form of sin, a

way of life that captures and distorts

human desire in accord with the

golden rule of production for the

market. Given the horrendous

consequences of this

discipline for the majority of

humanity, it is fitting to callcapitalism a form of

madness.10 This collusion

also serves to compound the

original error of capitalism,

according to Marx, which was the

alienation of the workers. Given

todays messy version of capitalism

in which few workers are not

themselves capitalists, whether by

choice or through share schemes or

membership of pension funds (Marx

himself freely admitted to having

made money on the stock exchange),

condemning capitalism now

condemns the workers, thereby

achieving their full alienation.

The silencing of theThe silencing of theThe silencing of theThe silencing of theThe silencing of thecapitalistscapitalistscapitalistscapitalistscapitalists

This condemnation achieves the

silencing of capitalists in that, like

other oppressed groups, they are

effectively being denied their right

to self-determinism, in this case by

being told that their association with

capitalism makes them sinful. Thus

they are encouraged to believe they

have no choice, within the system,

but to be so, whether latently or pro-

actively. While this sleight-of-hand

may not be logical (why does telling

someone they are sinful make them

so?), it can act as a self-fulfilling

prophecy, like telling women that

they are not equal.Of course, it would be grossly

unfair to draw a direct parallel

between the silencing of capitalists

and other oppressed people.

Capitalists have far more power and

opportunity than others to make

their views known. But they are

nevertheless being silenced, in that

through the current anti-capitalist

rhetoric their right to be treated as

full human beings is being steadily

undermined. While it used to be

acceptable to question whether

women or black people had souls,this has long since been recognised

as outrageous, yet the capitalists soul

is treated in the modern media as an

oxymoron. This is rarely challenged.

Such dehumanisation is appalling,

but because it is popular to cavil at

the rich, this kind of attack attracts

a veneer of respectability and enters

into the vernacular.

Whether or not this name-calling

actually provokes misbehaviour, it

still lacks a solid theological

rationale. While capitalists may

readily be evil, why is capitalism, as

a man-made system, necessarily so?

As a structure, it should by definition

be amoral, in that any moral content

it has is conferred, not intrinsic.

Given that capitalists are moral

beings and are freely able to make

decisions about the morality or

otherwise of their actions as part of

the system, i t is its capitalist authors

fault if the system is being used to

perpetrate immorality, not thesystems.11 It may be a moot point

whether or not capitalists at all levels

would wish to accept personal

responsibility for the actions they

carry out under the auspices of

capitalism, moral or otherwise, but

it is a denial of their humanity not

to require that they do so. (A parallel

is the experience of

oppressed women achieving

self-determination throughuniversal suffrage). This

argues for an end to the type

of oppression that arises

from the rhetorical

confusion between capitalists with

capitalism, and vice-versa.

LiberationLiberationLiberationLiberationLiberation

There is yet a theological reason

that stands regardless of the previousdiscussion. Marx sided with theworkers against capitalists, becausecapitali stsperpetuate capitali sm.Liberation Theology also sides withthe workers, to free them from theiroppressors the capitalists. But in thewords of the Bishop of Oxford, therich need to be liberated no less thanthe poor.12 If - because of theirproximity to wealth and power - we

admit the possibility of capitalistsbeing particularly susceptible totemptation and therefore endangeredby their situation, they also needhelp. Indeed, while it is problematicto cite scripture out of context, itcould be argued that since Jesusexplicitly included tax collectors inhis mission, and given his view thatit would be easier for a camel to go

The capitali sts soul istreated in the modern

media as an oxymoron



4/4Vo l.8, No .4 W inter 2004/ 2005 Page 27

through the eye of a needle than fora rich man to enter the Kingdom, itis entirely appropriate to offer suchpeople particular assistance.However, one of the side-effectsattributed to capitalism is a cultureof envy, and one of the hallmarks ofthe anti-capitalist debate is a focuson social justice. These conspire torender this an understandablyunpopular line of argument. Why,when capitalists already have somuch, should they get extra helpwhile others struggle to find enoughto eat?

A theology of capitalismA theology of capitalismA theology of capitalismA theology of capitalismA theology of capitalism

But in the Pauline spirit ofbecoming to the capitalist as acapitalist, notwithstanding anyarguments that the seller couldmake for a Capitalist Theology, what

would the potential buyer have tosay? Apart from the argumentlogically following from the tendencyto ascribe amorality to capitalists,making questions of morality or

theology inapplicable in theworkplace, the climate of politicalcorrectness much favoured inpluralist societies is a major argumentagainst developing a theology ofcapitalism. However, this argumentrests on the premise that diversity isproblematic because it producesconflict, when current thinking ismore inclined to recognise diversityand the conflict it produces as a

source of competitive advantage.This asset has been dubbed conflictcapital,viz., an organisations abilityto generate conflict to inspireinnovation.13 It resonates with theview that the job of the modernbusiness leader is to identifyproductive areas of confusion anddeliberately lead the organisationinto black holes to gain first mover

advantage by learning faster than thecompetition.14

The theology of capitalism is thetopic of my current research towarda PhD, so it would be premature to

speculate further at this point.However, it is already clear that anysuch theology will need to be securelygrounded in a robust ecclesiology, itwill need to take account of therealities of the post-modern milieu,and it will need to include aneschatological view. It will also needto engage with the best economicthinking available. Exactly how atheology of capitalism will emerge

and what form it might take remainsto be seen, but it appears to be in theinterests both of the capitalists andof the theologians that such atheology be established.

Eve Poole is now a tutor at Ashridge

Business School, foll owing earl i er

careers worki ng for t he Chu rch

Commi ssi oners and D el oit te

Consulting. She is currently

researching in Cambr idge for a part-t i me PhD i n t he theology of

capitali sm and can be contacted via

eve.poole@ashr idge.org.uk.

Endnotes

1 For example, see Dwight N. Hopkins,Lois Ann Lorentzen, Eduardo Mendietaand David Batstone, Rel i gions/Globalizations(Durham and London:Duke, 2001), p.9f. This was echoed byan Edinburgh minister who once

remarked that his parishioners on aSunday could now choose betweenworshipping at St Giles the cathedral,or worshipping at St Gyle the shoppingmall on the outskirts of the city.

2 A 2001 poll by Gallup found that in largecompanies only 22% of the workforcefeel engaged at work, with 19% feelingactively disengaged, where engagementis defined as a feeling of being fullyinvolved in ones job, and disengagementas being fundamentally disconnectedfrom ones work.

3 Ian I. Mitroff and Elizabeth A. Denton,A Spir i tual Audit of Corporate Ameri ca: AHard Look at Spir i tuali ty, Reli gion, andValues in the Workplace(San Francisco:Jossey-Bass, 1999)

4 See Sheila C. Dow, Economics, Ethicsand Knowledge in James M. Dean and

A.M.C. Waterman (eds), Reli gion andEconomi cs: Normati ve Social Theory(London: Kluwer, 1999), p.127.

5 See John F. Nash, Jr., Essays on GameTheory(Cheltenham: Edward Elgar,1996), p.158.

6 See Dow, p.125f., and A Question ofTrust in The Economist, 20 February2003 (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1592530 - 3April 2003).

7 John Hick, God Has M any Names(London: Macmillan, 1980), p.1.

8 Stephanie Y. M itchem, Introducing

Womanist Theology(New York: OrbisBooks, 2002), p.37.

9 See for example the early adoption ofLiberation Theology by the WorldCouncil of Churches in Bangkok in 1972and Nairobi in 1975. More recently, the2001 Freedom Day message from theAnglican Bishops of Southern Africastated that global capitalism is heretical,unjust and inhuman (Church Times, 4May 2001). While there have been anumber of individuals within theChurches who speak out in favour ofCapitalism (notably Michael Novak inthe US and Brian Griffiths in the UK),there has yet to be formal engagementwith a Capitalist Theology, which wouldinvolve a reconsideration of the WCCposition, over and above the sparseacknowledgement represented by theencyclical Centesimus Annus.

10 Daniel M. Bell, Jr, Liberati on TheologyAfter T he End of H istory The Refusal toCease Suf fering(London: Routledge,2001), p.2f.

11 See for example the arguments onnecessity, free-will and the nature of evilas summari sed i n John Hospers, AnIntroducti on to Philosophical Analysis(2nd

edition) (London: Routledge and KeganPaul, 1970), p.330f and p.467.

12 Richard Harries, Is There a Gospel for theRich?(London: Mowbray, 1992), p.72.

13 Coined by Gill R. Hickman as cited inDouglas A. Hicks, Spiritual and religiousdiversity in the workplace. Implicationsfor leadership, The Leadership Quarterly,13 (2002), p.408.

14 See P. Hodgson and R. P. White, RelaxIts Onl y Uncert aint y(London: FTPrentice Hall, 2001), p.40.


the invisible hand conspiracy, de eve polle

Documents