The laws of consumption, it may be noted, are simply certain deductions from the economic doctrine of the utility theory of value Formulated, as a reaction to the classical theory by Cournot, Gossen, Walres [sic]Menger and Jevons, it no longer thinks of utility as a quality inherent in the objective thing or condition but as dependent upon the capacity it possesses to satisfy human wants. This being so, the utility of an object varies according to the varying condition of the organism needing satisfaction. Even an object of our strongest desire like food may please or disgust, according as we are hungry or have over-indulged the appetite. Thus utility diminishes as satisfaction increases. In other words as satisfaction is the pleasurable activity of a particular organ or a group of them, the curve representing the relation of the organ to the object of its satisfaction varies inversely with the condition of the organ.
If Mr. Russell had carefully gone into the implications of this psychological analysis, he would certainly have avoided the misconception in question. For what does the psychological analysis really mean ? Why does the utility of an object tend to be zero or even negative ? This takes place it may be argued either (1) because at some point in the process of satisfaction the particular organ irritated ceases to derive any further satisfaction by feeding itself on the object of its craving or (2) because other organs needing a different kind of satisfaction clamour against the over-indulgence of some one organ at their expense. Prof. Giddings holding the latter view says “ if the cravings of a particular organ or a group of organs are being liberally met with appropriate satisfactions, while other organs suffer deprivation, the neglected organs set up a protest, which is usually sufficiently importunate to compel us to attempt their appeasing. The hunger of the neglected parts of our nature normally takes possession of consciousness, and diverts our attention and our efforts from the organ which is receiving more than its due share of indulgence”.13 Of the two alternative explanations that of Prof. Giddings is probably the more correct. Having regard to the behaviouristic hypothesis, of the organism as an active entity, it is but proper to suppose that there does exist this hunger of the entire organism for a varied satisfaction appropriate to each of its organ which would engender such a protest. It is this protest that compels obedience to what is called the law of variety in consumption. If this is a fact it is difficult to understand how one organ by perpetual dominance can mutilate the whole organism. On the other hand, though one at a time, all the appetites have their turn. Human nature is, thus, fortunately, provided by its very make-up against a one-sided development leaving no doubt as to its promise for an all-round development in a congenial environment. Whether it will be able to obtain the miscellaneous food-material, intellectual or spiritual it craves for is a matter beyond its control. If it is mutilated by the lack of variety of food, it will be through social default and not its own. B.R. Ambedkar (1918) "Mr. Russell and the Reconstruction of Society," in Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches: Vol. 1 Compiled by Vasant Moon, 490-491
A moment of google enhanced, idle speculation -- would Russell and Ambedkar have known each other? -- prompted by a fascinating essay by Meena Krishnamurthy on Ambedkar's early writings (1916) on caste that I had recently edited brought knowledge (see here) of the existence of Ambedkar's review of Russell's (1916) The Principles of social Reconstruction. (also known as Why Men Fight).The review was initially published in the Journal of the Indian Economic Society in 1918.*
Ambedkar is that rare world-historical figure -- among his many legacies one can single out the authorship of the Indian constitution -- who, as one starts to read his writings, turns out to be a serious intellectual, too. So, I was thrilled to see he wrote on Russell. And while it is, perhaps, true to say that Russell's star is fading within professional philosophy -- I doubt he is much taught or studied outside of history of analytic -- in virtue of being the rhetorically most gratifying founder of analytic philosophy who shaped our ways of thinking, returning to him always is rewarding. When he wrote the review he had just obtained two MAs at Columbia University, and was on leave from the LSE back in India while writing a dissertation in economics (conferred by UCL after the war). His learning shines through the review despite the orientation of, and self-limitation on, the "review...meant for an economic journal" is a focus on Russell's analysis of the institutions of property and the modifications it is alleged by Mr. Russell to produce in human nature." (484)
Despite this self-limitation, there is plenty of (political) philosophy in the review (Nietzsche and Dewey are discussed cleverly). And, in fact, one of his main polemical targets, which he discusses while treating Russell's philosophy of war, is the idea that Indian identity is (or ought to be) tied up with "the gospel of quieticism and the doctrine of non-resistance." (486; I am not an expert on these matters, but I do note that Gandhi had returned to India a few years before, although was not yet leader of National Congress.) Ambedkar wishes to decouple Russell from pacifism. And he treats Russell approvingly, I think, as a liberal reforming advocate of (what we may call) non-violent agonism as the key to social progress (see, especially, p. 487). Some other time I hope to return to this.
Okay, let me turn now to the bit I quoted from the review at the top of the post. The target of Ambedkar's argument is Russell's claim (itself partially influenced by James) that love of money in human nature mutilates itself by stimulating one appetite at the expense of all others. Ambedkar has the following passage in mind (which he quotes partially):
It is the worship of money that I wish to consider: the belief that all values may be measured in terms of money, and that money is the ultimate test of success in life. This belief is held in fact, if not in words, by multitudes of men and women, and yet it is not in harmony with human nature, since it ignores vital needs and the instinctive tendency towards some specific kind of growth. It makes men treat as unimportant those of their desires which run counter to the acquisition of money, and yet such desires are, as a rule, more important to well-being than any increase of income. It leads men to mutilate their own natures from a mistaken theory of what constitutes success, and to give admiration to enterprises which add nothing to human welfare. It promotes a dead uniformity of character and purpose, a diminution in the joy of life, and a stress and strain which leaves whole communities weary, discouraged, and disillusioned. Chapter 4. [emphasis in original]
Now, Russell here echoes Hobson's view that conditions of modern life homogenize. But in a clever inversion of Adam Smith -- who famously claimed that it was excessive division of labor on the factory floor that mutilates our nature -- Russell thinks this homogeneity is an effect of widespread avarice, which in turn, is the effect of the consequence of market and especially property owning society more generally even if (Russell goes on to contrast the United States and England on this point) how this general avarice manifests itself, and is motivated, may be culturally conditioned.
Ambedkar tackles Russell's claim from both the production side and the consumption side (to which the passage quoted above this post). What's noteworthy about Ambedkar's argument is not his psychological interpretation of the law of diminishing marginal returns. But rather that he takes this law itself to be caused (most likely) by a kind of internal balancing/competition among organs of the organism (the whole human). And the appetites and desires of the general organism, and its direction/orientation, is caused by the relative strength of the various internal organs subject to this internal balancing/competition.
Ambedkar's model was derived from Giddings, who he probably encountered at Columbia.** Giddings himself is notable figure because he is a key figure in American early social science. The model anticipates, in rough outline, the mathematical models of decision making (with utility curves) as an internal to our brains/nervous system conflict over resources in the brain made popular by behavioral and neuro-economists in the 1990s or so.
The interesting twist Ambedkar gives to Giddings' model (perhaps it is in Giddings) is that by denying that homogeneity is normal, he can claim that if one does observe one-sided mental development this is the effect social environment. One may think this just is Russell's point. But Ambedkar had already denied (from the production side) the plausibility of Russell's claim on other empirical grounds. (To summarize and simplify: Ambedkar thinks that all things being equal, the richer one becomes the more risk averse one becomes.) But the upshot of Ambedkar's argument is that if one does encounter a homogeneous society all one needs to do, if society has the resources, is to provide an outlet for, and satisfaction of, diversity of human passions; then a rich human diversity will reassert itself.
*I thank Shruti Rajagopalan for helping me find a digital copy of Ambedkar's review.
**Ambedkar is especially interested in James Bonar and Achille Loria (who he mentions in a note). I had never heard of Loria, who seems really interesting.
Comments