Sociological Perspectives Over Psychological Theories

The explosion of economic growth beginning in the 1800s remains a topic of debate, yet the occurrence itself is undeniable. McCloskey's book investigates these factors, although she is not the first to ponder such queries.

One hypothesis suggests a transformation in people's psychological makeup as a potential cause. McCloskey references Max Weber, who theorized in the 1950s that the Protestant work ethic catalyzed this change. He proposed that Protestants' emphasis on thrift facilitated capital accumulation (p. 278).

However, McCloskey previously demonstrated that capital presence alone does not drive growth; rather, it is the Bourgeois Deal that fosters an environment where knowledge and innovation thrive. In this chapter, she counters Weber's argument, asserting that human nature has not fundamentally changed.

The principle of "buy low, sell high" is not a contemporary concept; it has long been the foundation of trade, as Homo sapiens have always engaged in trading activities (p. 279). McCloskey highlights the historical development of money across various societies as proof of this enduring trait. Whether it’s cigarettes in prisons or specific stones and metals, humanity consistently seeks mediums of exchange to facilitate trade.

According to McCloskey, attributing the Great Enrichment solely to the Protestant work ethic is inadequate, as it implies that people underwent a sudden improvement that spurred this economic boom.

A medieval English peasant's poverty was not due to irrational behavior but rather the societal context devoid of the liberal ideas, the Bourgeois Revaluation, the Bourgeois Deal, and the resulting Great Enrichment... Until societies began to value commercial ethics, their economies stagnated at around $3 a day (p. 283).

McCloskey posits that the true catalyst for the Great Enrichment was not a psychological shift, but a sociological transformation—people changed their perceptions of one another.

In essence, it was not the inherent psychology of the bourgeoisie that accounted for regional disparities, whether within England or in comparison to France. The critical factor was a change in societal attitudes... What mattered was not the instinctive thoughts in people's minds ("I want more of that"), but their discussions about others ("Those wretched Browns, you know: they are such vulgar people, in trade") (p. 279).

Thus, McCloskey concludes that the cultural shift that led to the Great Enrichment was the elevation of bourgeois values.

The Rise of Quantitative Thinking

McCloskey provides further evidence of this cultural transformation by examining the evolving attitudes toward measurement and quantification.

This shift can be encapsulated in the increasing importance of accounting, with Dutch mathematicians proposing that national accounting could mirror business accounting (p. 271). Although this section revisits 1700s England in our search for the roots of the Great Enrichment, the next chapters will illustrate how the Dutch were pioneers in esteeming bourgeois values.

One illustrative example is the debate in June 1713 regarding the lifting of the ban on French wine imports into England. The discussions shifted from national pride to statistical reasoning, despite the dubious nature of the statistics presented. Although the quantitative arguments were flawed, this period marked a significant shift towards valuing numerical reasoning in political discourse (p. 273).

This trend towards statistics and quantitative reasoning exemplifies the growing societal appreciation for prudence, a virtue associated with bourgeois values.

The modern fascination with charts, graphs, and numerical data signifies a widespread admiration for prudence, even if not always practiced (p. 276).

Conclusion

Over the years, I have encountered the theory attributing the Great Enrichment to the Protestant work ethic. However, after examining McCloskey's insights, I find her assertion that human nature remains constant to be more compelling.

For instance, in Japan, until 1848, "elite opinion scorned the merchant" (p. 281). Similarly, in China, while legal barriers to bourgeois advancement were removed in the 800s, negative attitudes towards merchants persisted well into the 1900s (p. 281).

The development towards valuing the bourgeoisie is complex, but the trend is clear: without a revaluation of bourgeois contributions, economic stagnation may ensue (p. 281).

This perspective underscores the rationale behind these reviews and the motivation for McCloskey's work. Our views on the bourgeoisie and their economic contributions have a direct impact on our economic performance. If our rising incomes stem from a societal appreciation for prudence, we must be wary of voices advocating against it.

We may be on the brink of another shift, this time potentially moving away from valuing the established systems that facilitated the Great Enrichment, leading to declines in productivity and living standards.

Reference: McCloskey, Deirdre Nansen, 2016. "The Bourgeoisie Loved Measurement," Chapter 29 and "The Change Was in Social Habits of the Lip, Not in Psychology," Chapter 30 of Bourgeois Equality, The University of Chicago Press.