art-e-conomy _ reader - marko stamenkovic

56
In India, the policy of “Economic Liberalization” intervenes into a social situation which
is still feudal or at least semi-feudal. I guess that this evokes specific dynamics?
That has always been the case, including in the West. When societies are transiting
from feudal to capitalist structures, the latter does not operate in its own pure forms.
It uses any available form, including the worst forms of exploitation available under
feudalism. You are correct that the feudal elements are quite strong in the current
Indian situation. But that was also true of the European and the American reality
150 to 200 years back. In the initial years of capital formation in USA, slavery was
used something even more exploitative than the feudal one. In the case of Britain
and many other European nations, capital accumulation was based on extraction
of surplus from the colonies. So your capital accumulation has also been based on
many negative features.
This does not justify what is happening in India. The new policies started in 1991
enabling the spread of global capital are being implemented in India where extreme
forms of exploitation exist. Wages are very low, child labor is common and environment
is being destroyed in the name of development. Exploitation is on the rise since 1991
and it is having a negative effect on the already poor in our society. Available data is
unreliable because the government wants to project a rosy picture of the country to
foreign investors. What is clear is that the poor face a deteriorating environment and
their health and educational status is declining even if their incomes are marginally
higher. Social and political tensions are correspondingly rising.
During the past years one could observe tendencies towards a “cultural turn” in
Cultural Studies or in Post-colonial Studies. Is there any such trend as a “cultural
turn” in Economic Theory?
Economics is a difficult subject. Either it is trying to make sharp predictions about
matters that are not sharply defined or it is studying a hypothetical world that does
not exist and therefore often it does not have to relate to reality. Economics is able
to make predictions only by defining the problem narrowly. Problems are typically
then shorn of their wider context - social, historical, political and cultural. Questions
relating to culture are typically left out of economic theory. There is a premium on
what is “objective“ and “subjective“ elements are excised. Cultural matters relate
to the subjective and therefore not capable of being dealt with by the methods used
by economists. They also exclude ethical issues from consideration.
However, there is one sense in which economics is in tune with social developments.
There has evolved a limited view of society and of Man himself. Man as “homoeconomicus“
- a rational individual maximizing his gains. Society is supposed to be a
collection of such individuals. Culture is itself evolving along these lines and getting
more commercialized (like, Christmas in the West and Diwali, the festival of lights
in India) and passing into the control of big business so there is a harmony between
cultural and economic developments. Consequently, diversity in life is being destroyed
and many indigenous cultures are fast disappearing along with their language and
the knowledge associated with them.