by Joseph Sunde at Acton.org on February 14, 2017
Despite the predictable flurry of sugary clichés and hedonistic consumerism, Valentine’s Day is as good an opportunity as any to reflect on the nature
of human love and consider how we might further it across society.
For those of us interested in the study of economics, or, if you prefer, the study of human action,
what drives such action — love or otherwise —is the starting point for everything. For the Christian economist, such questions
get a bit more complicated.
Although love is clearly at the center, our understanding of what
that looks like is interconnected with and interdependent on the love of God, which persistently
yanks our typical economist sensibilities about “prosperity,” “happiness,” and “quality of life” into transcendent territory (never mind those convenient
buckets of “self-interest” and “sacrifice”). The marketplace is flooded with worldly spin-offs, as plenty of cockeyed V-Day ditties and run-of-the-mill
romantic comedies are quick to demonstrate. At a time when libertine, self-centered approaches appear to be the routine winners in everything from
consumerism to self-help to sex, we should be especially careful that our economic thinking doesn’t also fall prey to such distortions.
In her book Love and Economics: It Takes a Family to Raise a Village,
Jennifer Roback Morse cautions against such tendencies, pointing us in the right direction and challenging us to reconsider our basic views about human
needs and human potential.
Morse begins with a critique of homo economicus (economic man), the understanding of man as Supreme Calculator, capable of number-crunching his
way to happiness and fulfillment on the basis of cut-and-dry cost/benefit analysis. Such a view ignores the social and spiritual side of the human
person, excusing away our thoughts and affections at the mercy of of a cold, limiting, earthbound order. As Rev. Robert Sirico puts it,
“Any man who was only economic man would be a lost soul. And any civilization that produced only homines economici to fill its markets, courts,
legislative bodies, and other institutions would soon enough be a lost civilization.”
To demonstrate the inadequacy of the common caricature, Morse points us to human infanthood, a uniquely universal human experience in supreme dependency
and irrationality. “We are not born as rational, choosing agents, able to defend ourselves and our property, able to negotiate contracts and exchanges,”
she writes. “We are born as dependent babies, utterly incapable of meeting our own needs—or even of knowing what our needs are. As infants, we
do not know what is good or safe. We even resist sleep in spite of being so exhausted we cannot hold our heads up. We are completely dependent on others
for our very survival.”
As Morse goes on to remind us, the other side of this dependence — a nurturing family environment — is not an automatic given, and our response
(or non-response) proves the economic man hypothesis to be dangerously incomplete (while also countering Rousseau’s view of the “state of nature”).
To demonstrate her case, she looks to extreme situations wherein the family has been entirely removed, focusing specifically on child abandonment and the
attachment disorder that so often follows:
The classic case of attachment disorder is a child who does not care what anyone thinks of him. The disapproval of others does not deter this child
from bad behavior because no other person, even someone who loves him very much, matters to the child. He responds only to physical punishment
and to the suspension of privileges. The child does whatever he thinks he can get away with, no matter the cost to others. He does not monitor
his own behavior, so authority figures must constantly be wary of him and watch him. He lies if he thinks it is advantageous to life. He steals
if he can get away with it. He may go through the motions of offering affection, but people who live with him sense in him a kind of phoniness.
He shows no regret at hurting another person, though he may offer perfunctory apologies.
Here we find a peculiar integration of economic man and noble savage, a child “untouched by corrupting adult influences” who seeks only to meet his own
temporal human needs, regardless of the social costs. As Morse summarizes, to avoid a society filled with such disorder, we must ground ourselves in
something far more powerful and grounded and transcendent than self-centered individualism. “The desperate condition of the abandoned child shows us
that we have, all along, been counting on something to hold society together, something more than the mutual interests of autonomous individuals,”
she writes. “We have taken that something else for granted, and hence, overlooked it, even though it has been under our noses all along. That missing
element is none other than love.”
Thus, before we get too deep into all the important Hayekian questions about knowledge and decision-making, proceeding to dichotomize between a centralized
governmental Mother Brain and “better,” “morerational” individualistic mini-brains, we should pause and remember that without love properly defined
and vigorously pursued, human holes will surely remain.
Whatever form of magical super-rationalism we humans might be able to concoct, whether through governments or markets
or otherwise, without the love of God and the corresponding building blocks of relationship and family and community, our stomachs will continue to
growl and the social stew will continue to fester. Without transcendent obedience and a willingness to sacrifice our own convenience and temporal,
transactional notions about prosperity, happiness, and human fulfillment, society at large will slowly yield to false caricatures about human needs
and the corresponding solutions.
“Love is from God,” writes the Apostle John, “and whoever loves has been born of God and
knows God.” This is what we should strive for: to be born of God and to know God, from the way we respond to a baby’s first breath to the
way we cultivate our families and communities to the way we conduct ourselves in our daily work across the economic order.
This Valentine’s Day, let us remember that love is much more than the sentimentality and self-gratification that consumes our culture. Love is what holds
society together, and that means fewer self-centered sonnets to faux self-empowerment,
and more covenantal worship and service across society. Whether as spouses or parents, neighbors or strangers, we remain children of the King, created
in the image of a God who so loved that he gave.
