Can We See Our Own Blind Spots?
I recognize there is an inherent logic challenge with my blog title. By definition, one cannot see one’s blind spots. If it were possible, they would not be blind spots. And yet, this week’s readings pushed me to see the blind spots in the economic system that has been like what air—polluted air—is to my lungs. It sustains me but kills me at the same time.
Western-educated, Pakistani professor, economist, and social scientist Dr. Asad Zaman captured my learning journey with Karl Polanyi’s The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time[1] well when he said, “A major obstacle to understanding Polanyi is the fact that living in a market society shapes our mindsets and behaviors, making it difficult to imagine radical alternatives. Understanding Polanyi requires standing outside the streams of history which have shaped modern societies, to see how our economic, political and social theories about the world have been shaped by external forces, and have evolved in time.”[2]
But paradoxically, Polanyi, a preeminent economic historian, moved me to a deeper understanding of the pollutants in the economic air I breath through his thorough examination of the interacting economic and political histories of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. He provides a historical map of the development of market societies, and in doing so gave me another way of navigating the questions I have been asking in my NPO about the relationship between social cohesion and economic justice. He wrote the first edition of this book between the first and second world wars and so wrote from the vantage point of living through the calamitous impact of market forces intersecting with fear and anger. This dance between the utopian belief in unfettered free markets and the human needs of individuals and societies that defy commodification is the center of Polanyi’s argument. In a market society, human need is subordinated to the market. In fact, poverty is seen as a requirement by a market society. It drives people into the labor force. But societies can only endure so much pain before they react with regulations (or revolution) to restrain the dehumanizing aspects of the self-regulating market. This back-and-forth between the impersonal free market system and its focus on profits at the expense of everything else (whether human dignity or the environment), and the correctives and/or restraints imposed on the market by governments and societies is what Polanyi calls his “double movement” thesis.[3]
In sharing my NPO—especially the research I have discovered linking social cohesion with economic justice—I hear from some in my circles of relationships, “But Jesus told us the poor would always be with us (Matthew 26:11).” This is always said in a way that closes conversation and leaves me feeling both sad and disturbed. Now I have to wonder how much of that statement is blindly informed by the assumptions of our free market economy that depends on there being haves and have nots. Bryant Myers, long an evangelical activist among and with the poor, rebuts this attempt to shut down conversation. Jesus’ comment references Deuteronomy 15:4-8, a powerful set of commands given to the ancient Hebrew people. Myers comments: “There will be poor in Israel, not because God’s Promised Land failed to provide, but because human beings were not faithful to God nor to each other. There has to be provision for the poor in the Promised Land, not because God failed or intended it, but because Israel failed.”[4]
Jason Clark’s work, Evangelicalism and Capitalism: A Reparative Account and Diagnosis of Pathogeneses in the Relationship,[5] engages biblical/theological reflection with Polanyi’s historical analysis, using Polanyi’s argument to further his investigation into the role evangelicals can play in repairing the societal harm caused by the self-regulating market system. He lives with the abiding hope that evangelicals will not ultimately fail in their call to place economic structures at the service of society, rather than society being enslaved by an economic structure. That is my hope as well for my developing NPO. But I will need to further steep myself in Polanyi’s work so that I have a more developed map to navigate successfully around (or through) my blind spots.
[1] Polanyi, Karl. 2001. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. 2nd Beacon Paperback ed. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
[2] Zaman, Asad. 2018. “Summary of the Great Transformation by Polanyi.” Medium (blog). August 25, 2018. https://asaduzaman.medium.com/summary-of-the-great-transformation-by-polanyi-c329541e8532. Accessed 03-03-22.
[3] Polanyi, 79-80.
[4] “Will the Poor Always Be With Us?” n.d. Christians for Social Action. Accessed March 3, 2022. https://christiansforsocialaction.org/resource/poor-always-with-us/.
[5] Clark, Jason Paul, “Evangelicalism and Capitalism: A Reparative Account and Diagnosis of Pathogeneses in the Relationship” (2018). Faculty Publications – Portland Seminary. 132. https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/gfes/132
About the Author
Elmarie Parker
12 responses to “Can We See Our Own Blind Spots?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Elmarie, I share your sadness when Jesus gets quoted in a way to justify inaction to help those in need – that’s what it sounds like to me. You mention your research shows a connection between “social cohesion and economic justice.” That sounds like a huge topic but can you say a little more about that? Also, who would you recommend to read if someone wants to learn more about that connection?
Thank you, Roy, for your comment and questions. Yes, this is a huge area (social cohesion and economic justice). My topic expertise essay focused on biblical, historical, and contemporary views on these points of connections…I”m happy to share it with you if you would like…just let me know.
A lot of the contemporary research I have found thus far has been done in Great Britain. One of the researchers provided some helpful background as well. Here are two of her articles:
Jenson, Jane. 2010. Defining and Measuring Social Cohesion. Social Policies in Small States. Commonwealth Secretariat. https://doi.org/10.14217/9781848590724-en.
Jenson, Jane. 2019. “Intersections of Pluralism and Social Cohesion.” Global Centre for Pluralism, 29. https://www.pluralism.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Jane-Jenson-Social-Cohesion-FINAL.pdf.
Great post. When I read Clark’s section this week, I too was thinking about how can the Church fill in the gaps that are created when a society falls short and creates injustices. No matter the economic system, the Church is called to help the poor, fight for injustices and feed the hungry. That’s God’s economy and God’s politics. I’ll be interested to watch your NPO develop and see how it speaks to these ideas.
Thank you, Troy, for your comments.
I’m curious what role you see government playing in addressing injustice and poverty? And what role the church has in holding government accountable to address policy issues that perpetuate injustice and poverty?
I concur with you that the church has a critical role to play in working with and for those who are economically (and otherwise) vulnerable. At the same time, some issues related to perpetuating poverty and injustice arise out of governmental policy. Having the church only address the symptoms or results of such policies doesn’t seem sufficient to me. I believe as a follower of Jesus privileged to be born in a country where I can advocate with elected officials and work with them to create more just policies and practices, that it is incumbent on me to do so. And advocacy is more effective when done as a community of voters who are followers of Jesus than simply as individuals.
Elmarie: You always summarize the weekly readings so well. I’m glad that you found the works this week applicable to the work you’re doing on your NPO.
If you haven’t yet, a quick word study on the term translated to ‘poor’ in Mt. 26:11 is really interesting and might bring a different perspective to your work and NPO.
Thank you, Kayli. I appreciate your suggestion.
Hey, Kayli…I did just do a quick word study per your suggestion. I’m curious to learn from you what you found really interesting in the word study?
From what I found, in this context, the word emphasizes the deeply destitute or those lacking any material resources.
In some contexts with the dative τῷ it can also mean spiritually poor.
I look forward to your insights.
Elmarie, as always, thanks for your insightful commentary on this week’s reading. You close with an obviously deep-seated hope of seeing “economic structures at the service of society.” Are there any signs of these beginning to develop in your context?
Hi Henry. Thank you for your question. I wish I were seeing more economic structures at the service of society in Lebanon, Syria, or Iraq. A few glimmers of hope are being developed through several different partners who are working with very impoverished communities. This follows on the idea you mentioned in a reply to Kayli on your post–working with stakeholders in the community to develop economic opportunities (especially for young people and women). These enterprises will benefit the entire community, not just one individual or family. I’m eager to see how they develop and how they navigate the current corruption in the country (and not fall prey to it). I have an executive summary of one initiative. If you’re interested in hearing further details, I can send it to you.
Elmarie your engagement with Polyani in relationship to your NPO is so awesome! I am also intrigued with the connections you make…brilliant!
You said, “In a market society, human need is subordinated to the market.” How does human need vs human want interact with this thought? How does the difference of these two impact an understanding of social cohesion….or does it?
Hi Nicole. Thank you for your comments and questions. As I understood Polyani, when he says human need is subordinated to the market, he said this observing the very real way that “profit as the only value/purpose of a business” results in the impoverishment of some so that there is always a motivated labor force to work. I would understand human need as inclusive of food, shelter, medical care, education, work and stability enough that nobody in the family is going to bed at night hungry, cold, or exposed to dangers and that during the day family members’ holistic human dignity is being upheld/honored at school or work. Luther pointed to the petition of the Lord’s Prayer, “Give us this day our daily bread,” and said it included everything a human being needs to thrive (that’s my paraphrase). I think he got God’s economy right with that thought. I think the issue of human want takes us into the territory of having to discern our own capacities for greed, envy, sloth, covetness, power abuse, etc. It also points to our need to be in accountable community where I have hearing and seeing the impact that my ‘wants’ have on others’ ability to meet their ‘needs’ and vice-versa. I don’t think these things can be boiled down to a formula. They have to be lived-out in community–locally, nationally, and internationally. No easy task. I’m interested to hear your thoughts on this.
I think the above can impact one’s understanding of social cohesion. I’m learning that the definitions of social cohesion have also undergone changes over the course of history. For much of human history, social cohesion has been mostly about working together as a community to repel threats. So similarity in language, appearance, and customs were significant forces of social cohesion. But as our various cultures have become more diverse, leaders are needing to look for other mechanism that encourage social cohesion. Recent research has demonstrated, that especially in diverse communities, economic justice is a significant contributor to social cohesion. Very interesting.
Elmaire, I appreciate your vivid word picture of economic blind spots being like polluted air. I am curious about people you have encountered that quote Jesus and his reference to the existence of poor. What appears to be their motivation? Would you say they are open to a discussion or are they just looking for a reason to not partner?