The Dispatch: More from CWR...

Democracy, health, and the economy

The perennial threat in our times will be to cut ourselves off from others and dwell in an empty sphere of isolation.

(Image: everythingpossible | us.fotolia.com)

John Ikerd, emeritus agricultural economist at the University of Missouri, observes that “to most economists, if the economy is growing, if it is getting bigger, then the economy is getting better, regardless of the consequences for social equity and environmental integrity.” In other words what so often determines the defining feature of a first-world nation, one that you would want to move to and live in, is the status of the economy. Without being overly reductive, even within the United States itself, many of us choose to move and live where we do because it is a place that has a “good economy.”

Ikerd’s judgment is certainly correct in one sense, but there is some nuance that is absent. To see the world, and our lives, merely in terms of money or wealth, would be to foster a real form of anthropological reductionism. However, searching for a place to set down roots that is embedded within a good economy is, taken in itself, not a bad thing. As Abby McCloskey rightly contends, “A healthy economy is a growing one. Each generation cannot have greater economic success than the one that preceded it unless the economy is increasing in size. If the economy stays the same…the most connected and skilled individuals usually win.” Similarly, as Robert T. Miller has demonstrated, the American economy is one that has, since the 1980s, continued to experience regulatory increases and a serious decline in freedom.

The issue requiring further reflection is not whether or not commerce and wealth are good. They are necessary for society. However, the circular debates between increased economic opportunity and increased GDP are too often seen as the primary question that needs to be answered. While such debates can be helpful, they are not my concern here. Rather, I think there should be a deeper consideration of why many citizens of modern liberal democracies are so prone to view the status of the economy as the standard for a decent society. In this light we can then form an initial resolution answering the question “What should we do?”

According to the analysis of Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America (first published in 1835), there can be a fervent restlessness surrounding the pursuit of well-being as the penultimate principle in life, and which seems to aptly characterize democratic societies:

It is a strange thing to see with what sort of feverish ardor Americans pursue well-being and how they show themselves constantly tormented by a vague fear of not having chosen the shortest route that can lead to it.

In reference to pursuing the goods of this world, Tocqueville goes on to say that democratic citizens rush “precipitately to grasp those that pass within his reach that one would say he fears at each instant he will cease to live before he has enjoyed them.” To understand the sociological, and even anthropological, import of such restless pursuit, Tocqueville alludes to what appears to be a more remote cause of American restlessness and the drive for well-being:

In the United States, a man carefully builds a dwelling in which to pass his declining years, and he sells it while the roof is being laid; he plants a garden and he rents it out just as he was going to taste its fruits… He embraces a profession and quits it. He settles in a place from which he departs soon after so as to take his changing desires elsewhere.

In aristocratic societies, citizens are embedded within a set of associations and intermediate groups that provide meaning and stability to their lives. We could say that aristocratic societies are predominantly characterized by having a variety of economies. In contrast, Tocqueville’s notion of democracy entails that citizens are socially born into a world wherein such associational forms of life are not presupposed.

This judgment does not mean that real community is entirely absent in democratic life. In fact, Robert Putnam’s lesser-known work, Making Democracy Work (Princeton, 1993), is one of the most persuasive books demonstrating the real potential for social life and human flourishing in democracies. Rather, the claim relates to the historical origins of modern democracy, wherein the once-given forms of human connectedness have gradually dissolved. There is a real sense in which an existential vacuum is present as a result of the social and existential disconnections that can permeate democratic nations.

Tocqueville goes on to say that in “democratic centuries, men rarely devote themselves to another.” The perennial threat, if you will, in our times will be to cut ourselves off from others and dwell in an empty sphere of isolation. The more alone we are, the greater the susceptibility to want to be cared for by a “distant other.” My concern is that this so often results a flawed and unhealthy understanding of the economy. Increased GDP or economic opportunity too often is viewed from a lens that is grossly insufficient. Speaking critically to a rather common notion of health, D.C. Schindler has made the following observation:

The very notion of health in the modern world represents a fragmentation or break down of wholeness. And in this case the irony becomes a tragic one: this unhealthy understanding of health, insofar as it informs our actions and so also our ordering of society, in a certain sense performs what it represents. The understanding itself fragments. In a word, the reductive notion of health causes disorder, which means that the very energies devoted to the pursuit of this health may turn out to be a profound cause of disease (“The Healthy and the Holy”Communio, Fall 2014: 549)

An unhealthy account of the economy is one that fosters fragmentation. Following Schindler’s logic, we could rightly say that a reductive view of the economy “may turn out to be a profound cause of disease.”

The question we must address is how we are to understand the economy from a broader perspective that is rooted in health. This begins by recovering the more ancient meaning of the Greek word oikonomia. The word oikos means “home,” and nomos means “law,” but can also, as Mark Shiffman has noted, be translated as “place.” Our disconnections from home and being “placed”, as Tocqueville mentions, inclines toward an exhaustive experience of restlessness. This is perhaps most visibly witnessed in the rural communities of the Rust Belt, where social and familial disintegration has led to widespread increases in drug addiction, crime, and “deaths of despair”.

What these Rust Belt towns and cities increasingly lack is what Dr. Gabor Mate, an expert on addiction, considers to be the foundational drive of human nature, namely, connection. The family and home is where we first learn the art of association, for it is our first “economy.” It is from here that this vital energy is sprung outwards toward the various other associations of human life, especially the neighborhood, and other local communities. The economies of commerce, trust, family, neighborhood, friendship, loyalty, and even love, can perhaps be viewed more holistically.

The various kinds of economies draw us outside of ourselves, especially by bringing us into personal communion with other people. This is a daunting task, but it is the only soil from which a decent and healthy economy can grow.


If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.


About Brian Jones 21 Articles
Brian Jones is the Coordinator of Liturgy at St. Anthony of Padua in the Woodlands, Texas. He is also a philosophy PhD student in the Center for Thomistic Studies at the University of St. Thomas in Houston. His works have been published in New Blackfriars, Crisis, Catholic World Report, HPR, and Catholic Social Science Review.

3 Comments

  1. Jones begins by spotlighting the GNP and the national “economy” (SINGULAR), but then works toward a deeper insight: “the economies (PLURAL; and non-Keynesian) of commerce, trust, family, neighborhood, friendship, loyalty, and even love, can perhaps be viewed more holistically.”

    Cardinal Danielou, in his Prayer as a Political Problem (1967, on the heels of Vatican II), suggested that today’s atheism is only a fleeting and passing phase, as uprooted modern culture lurches between a pre-industrial, agrarian and religious grounding toward some kind of a post-industrial setting which, again, can be religious. (looking forward, Rerum Novarum, 1891, focused on the expanding disruptions of industrialism, whether communist or robber-baron).

    Looking both back and forward, in Centesimus Annus (1991), Pope St. John Paul II promoted the “integral development of the human person,” by writing, for example, that “a business cannot be considered only as a ‘society of capital goods;’ it is also a ‘society of persons’. . . ”(n. 43). In addition to land, capital and labor, he also carves out a new and more prominent place for “initiative and entrepreneurial ability”. . . (n. 32).

    More radical to Catholic Social Teaching than any (nostalgic?) call to geographic “place” is the prophetic assertion of the transcendent human person—in whatever chaotic setting, whether the common globe as our local (!) home (the “ecological question,” n. 37), or the neighborhood-level (!) solvent of transience and anonymity.

    Still, as Jones explains, the family must remain fundamental. In affirming a compatible economic path that is fully human at all levels, Catholic higher-education’s Land o’ Lakes Declaration (1967) seems now a tragic betrayal in exchange for a continuing mess of pottage—-credentialed secular recognition from a darkened world.

  2. The core of economics is micro economics, which is individual decision making. The early American settlers economic actions, reflected in Tocqueville comments, were made based on their preferences given the opportunities available to them. America provided opportunities that the old European culture did not have, which in effect created the American persona. If opportunities drift away or are taken away by bad policy, peoples actions can deteriorate into crime, drug use etc.
    The adage that God created work for man not that man was created for work seems to be true. With gainful opportunities, which America provided, the early settlers did what was natural, which was to pursue their dreams. The importance of the Catholic culture, based on Christ/biblical teachings, is to harness our preferences so the work pursued is wholesome. Important to recognize that man does not simply sit under a tree and think all day. Even in the life of the Church the parish priest will be the catalyst for building or upgrading the church, school, food pantries etc. While we might not want to characterize these church activities as economic actions, they reflect individual economic decision making based on preferences harnessed by the Catholic culture/Christ teachings. Think that reading Hayek works our useful when pondering the democracy, economy and culture.

  3. This is why the libertarian right bears a lot of responsibility along with the libertine left for the ongoing disintegration of our culture.

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. Democracy, health, and the economy -

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.


*