BifogadFil_Articulating a Holistic Approach of Relative Scarcity and Abundance

Work in Progress: Not for Citation Prepared for the PhD-seminar on 24 Okt 2007 Articulating a Holistic Approach of Relative Scarcity and Abundance – the Case of Simplicity by Adel Daoud Supervisors: Freddy Winston Castro Bengt Larsson Work in Progress: Not for Citation Prepared for the PhD-seminar on 24 Okt 2007 Contents Introduction 1.1 A categorical distinction 2 Mainstream economics and the Scarcity Postulate .3 2.1.1 The prominence of scarcity 2.1.2 Scarcity in ME analysis – Budget-lines and Indifference-curves The Case of Simplicity: relative abundance .10 3.1 Formulating a working hypothesis 11 3.2 Review of Previous Research 12 3.3 Results 18 3.3.1 Text-analysis 18 3.3.2 Interviews .18 Elaboration: articulating a holistic approach of relative scarcity and abundance 18 Conclusions 19 References .20 Work in Progress: Not for Citation Prepared for the PhD-seminar on 24 Okt 2007 Definitions and Categories Complexity All possible, actualized and non-actualized, socio-cultural forms that try to increase the importance of material wants Simplicity All possible, actualized and non-actualized, socio-cultural forms that try to reduced the importance of material wants This is the referent of the generalization of the conclusions of this essay The complexifier An abstraction or an ideal-type of a person who practices any form of complexity The simplifier An abstraction or an ideal-type of a person who practices any form of simplicity In this essay viewed as a partial sub-set to VS but as a complete sub-set to simplicity Accordingly, the interviews conducted refer partially to VS but completely to simplicity The interviewees adhere to this tradition Tibetan Buddhism Voluntary Simplicity (VS) Refers to the intersection between voluntary simplicity which is most notably related to Duan Elgin as well as Tibetan Buddhism as manifested in Western society; the main element of this intersection is the deliberate tendency to reduce a persons material wants Critical Realism in Economics (CRE) All the general sets of ontological, epistemological and methodological propositions transferred into a specific set adapted for socioeconomic inquiry Mainstream Economics (ME) Refers mainly to the neoclassical school of economics It is the dominant school in the Universities of the Western world One of its essential rationales is the scarcity postulate Absolute Scarcity and Abundance In a given system, one kind of need or want is measured in relation to its satisfiers (resource), with no regard to its alternative use If the resources are not enough to satisfy all needs in a given system then absolute scarcity prevails; absolute abundance prevails when the reverse relation exist Relative Scarcity and Abundance For a given individual, several kinds of needs or wants measured in relation to a satisfier with alternative use If the satisfier is not enough to satisfy all needs or wants then relative scarcity exists; relative abundance exist in the reverse relation This type of scarcity and abundance is the focus of the essay Work in Progress: Not for Citation Prepared for PhD-seminar 24 Okt 2007 Introduction The purpose of this essay is to unfold the scarcity postulate of mainstream economics (ME) in order to develop a holistic understanding of relative scarcity and abundance This is done by contrasting a typical consumerist (adherent to consumerism; denominated as the complexifier) and a voluntary simplicity consumerist (adherent to anti-consumerism; denominated as the simplifier) Following Tony Lawson, this study will utilize contrastive explanations This means that the social scientist is not concerned with “explaining event X” but with understanding “why event X occurs rather than Y”; where event X and Y are believed to have the same causal history and thus ought to turned out the same but have not This can be translated to our case, the case of simplicity (X) and complexity (Y) in the following terms: what are the reasons for the development of the practice of simplicity rather than complexity for a give group of people when both simplicity and complexity have actualized in modern mass consuming society (same causal history)? This elicits three more specific research questions: (α) How could a typical consumer and a voluntary simplicity consumer be characterized, respectively? (β) In which way does the scarcity postulate of mainstream economics apply to the socioeconomic analysis of complexity and simplicity, what are its premises and conclusions? (γ) As we shall see question β will lead to unsatisfactory analytical implications, being so, how could we reformulate or assemble a new theoretical perspective of relative scarcity and abundance with greater explanatory power than the mainstream conceptualization with reference to simplicity? One of the fundamental premises of ME is the scarcity postulate It claims that the world is saturated by scarcity and that the discipline of economics (ME) is the study of how people cope with this fact Nevertheless, it is argued in this essay that mainstream analysis (provided by ME), and socioeconomic analysis in general which is in close proximity to the scarcity postulate, generates a static picture of the deeper structures of scarcity and abundance – hindering an adequate explanatory account of these events Consequently, this explanatory insufficiency is accounted for by this paper by grounding the analytical arguments in the real world event of the contrasts between consumerism and anti-consumerist way of life; as a result, a model of scarcity and abundance with greater explanatory power is presented In previous research I was able to provide an account of the absolute dimension of scarcity and abundance This was done with reference to the reality of global hunger The scarcity postulate was disputed on the basis that global hunger persist despite that there is an abundance of food goods An alternative model of the underlying structures of the events of scarcity and abundance was developed by synthesising necessary concepts from the notions of Carl Menger, Amartya Sen and the philosophy of critical realism In this essay I will continue the critique of the scarcity postulate but with focus on the relative dimensions of scarcity and abundance.3 Hence, the essay shall synthesise relevant aspects of ME understanding of scarcity with the general account of reality provided by critical realism in economics (CRE) The main M Parkin, Economics, Harlow: Addison Wesley, 2000, p 36; P A Samuelson and W D Nordhaus, Economics, Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2001, p T Lawson, Reorienting Economics, London: Routledge, 2003, p 86 See below for the definitions of the relative and absolute dimensions of scarcity and abundance Work in Progress: Not for Citation Prepared for PhD-seminar 24 Okt 2007 argument is that, contrary to ME,4 both events of scarcity and abundance are relevant for socioeconomic analysis and that their underlying structures and mechanisms are inherently dynamic, holistic and open The disposition of this essay: first some definitional issues of scarcity; then we will demonstrate how the scarcity postulate informs mainstream analysis; after that, an abstraction or ideal-type of anti-consumerism (with reference to consumerism) are constructed in order to guide the analytical argumentation and show the real inconsistencies of ME’s postulate; lastly, these inconsistencies is accounted for by the articulation of a new theoretical approach guided by this anti-consumerism as well as critical realist ontology 1.1 A categorical distinction A categorical distinction has to be made between the ‘relative’ and ‘absolute’ dimensions of scarcity and abundance Relative scarcity refers to generally all wants and needs an individual have in relation to a given resource with alternative use; whereas absolute scarcity refers to only one kind of want or need in a given system, but commonly to one need which is defined as the basic necessities to maintain life (e.g food, water, air) Wants, which is synonymous to ‘wishes’ or ‘desires’, refers to non-necessities of life (e.g cell phones, televisions, football) Of course, the distinction between needs and wants is not clear cut, for example, we need art, or intellectual stimulation in the same way as we need food? Our biological body would arguably survive without such stimulation, but maybe our psychological and sociological development will be impaired Consequently, relative scarcity arise when the ‘many wants’ (competing ends), or ‘unlimited wants’ in terms of the scarcity postulate, exceeds the given resources The given resource is commonly expressed in monetary terms, but could also be ‘time’, ‘energy’, ‘cognitive abilities’ or other resource with alternative use For example if you want to be both a philosopher and a mathematician but does not have the time or cognitive ability to both things completely, then some part of your want have to be foregone But if my wants not exceed the given time or abilities I could be said to experience ‘relative abundance’ Absolute scarcity, like relative scarcity, arise when needs exceed the given means or resources But in opposite to it, absolute scarcity refers only to one kind of want or need in a given system, but commonly to the necessities of life But if there are enough resources to fulfil given needs, then ‘absolute abundance’ prevails Absolute scarcity is more visible than relative scarcity As Raiklin and Uyar writes: …absolute scarcity which manifests itself during times of social disturbance, economic crisis, revolution, war, or as a result of natural disasters; this is when the system fails to produce adequate amounts of items needed for survival (Raiklin and Uyar, 1996, p 54) Hence, it follows per definition that when the goods available are not enough to satisfy all human needs of one particular kind in a given system then an event of scarcity emerge; abundance is the reverse relation.7 Resources can thus not be scarce or abundant as such, they must be related to a need or want This is the absolute definition of scarcity, that is, when only one kind of need evaluated with reference to its satisfiers Relative scarcity is when several Cf C Menger, Principles of Economics, trans J Dingwall and B F Hoselitz, Grove City, PA: Libertarian Press; Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1871/2004 ; L R Robbins, An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science, London: Macmillan, 1932/1945 ; Samuelson and Nordhaus, Economics E Raiklin and B Uyar, 'On the Relativity of the Concepts of Needs, Wants, Scarcity and Opportunity Cost', International Journal of Social Economics 23 (7), 1996, pp 49-56., pp 50, 53 Robbins, Essay, p 14 Menger, Principles, p 94 Work in Progress: Not for Citation Prepared for PhD-seminar 24 Okt 2007 kinds of needs (ends) are related to a resource that has the capacity to satisfy all the given needs; the resource has thus alternative use Relative scarcity presupposes substitutability of alternative consumption bundles.8 According Raiklin and Uyar, the focus of ME is relative scarcity, which is its raison d’être – i.e allocation of scarce means (resources) among competing wants (ends) Maybe so, but such an important demarcation is absent in many prominent books, I argue This conceptual distinction is never made explicitly by ME This comprises a significant absence in Samuelson definition of economics10; Smelser and Swedberg characterization of ME; 11 or Gee’s outline of neoclassical economics.12 This critical identification is supported by Karl Polanyi Polanyi uses the concept ‘substantial economy’ in similar way as ‘absolute scarcity’, whereas ‘formal economy’ is similar to ‘relative scarcity’.13 Consider Polanyi’s articulation: …[T]he concept of “economic” in which the two meanings, the substantive and the formal, are naively compounded Such a merger of meanings is, of course, unexceptionable as long as we remain conscious of its restrictive effects But the current concept of economic fuses the “subsistence” and the “scarcity” meanings of economic without a sufficient awareness of the dangers to clear thinking inherent in that merger 14 As a consequence of this absence, confusion arises about what kind of scarcity ME is actually referring to, is it absolute, relative or both? With this categorical distinction in mind we now turn to ME and how the scarcity postulate actually conditions economics analysis Mainstream economics and the Scarcity Postulate Mainstream economics (ME), according to Alec Gee, refers mainly to the neoclassical school of economics It is the dominant school in the western world University courses that major in economics are overwhelmingly grounded on neoclassical notions These notions, embrace among other, the premise that people rationally maximize utility, moreover, the general methodology to study this behaviour is founded on mathematics He writes, In fact, the orthodox economist [ME] would regard the type of economics taught as being definitive, rather than as belonging to a particular school among alternative equally valid schools The neoclassical school is a broad church, offering a methodology and paradigm embracing many sects The high priest of the church are well versed in mathematical technique, which they employ to trace out the consequences of individual behaviour on the assumption that economic agents constantly strive to maximize their economic wellbeing.15 S Baumgartner, C Becker, M Faber, and R Manstetten, 'Relative and Absolute Scarcity of Nature: Assessing the Roles of Economics and Ecology for Biodiversity Conservation', Ecological Economics 59 (4), 2006, pp 487-98, p 489 ; Raiklin and Uyar, 'Relativity' Raiklin and Uyar, 'Relativity', p 55 10 Cf Samuelson and Nordhaus, Economics 11 N J Smelser and R Swedberg, eds., The Handbook of Economic Sociology (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ Press, 1994), pp 3-6 12 A Gee, 'The Neoclassical School', in A G Miller and D Mair (eds), A Modern Guide to Economic Thought: An Introduction to Comparative Schools of Thought in Economics, Aldershot: Elgar, 1991, pp 71-77 13 14 See Polanyi (1957), pp 243-6 for explanation K Polanyi, ed., Trade and Market in the Early Empires: Economies in History and Theory (New York: Free Press, 1957), p 244 15 Gee, 'Neoclassical', p 71 Work in Progress: Not for Citation Prepared for PhD-seminar 24 Okt 2007 Compared to economic sociology, which is the harbour of this essay, the neoclassical school has developed a strong dominance or hegemony over other schools (e.g Austrian, feminist, post-Keynesian, and Marxist).16 Nonetheless, the creative environment within economic sociology will enable a holistic understanding of scarcity and abundance which will provide theoretical tools for explaining and understanding phenomenon beyond ME I want to advance to proposals The first, which is less controversial, is that without the scarcity postulate, the ME model of human action cannot be sustained It is imperative for the ME analysis that the rational utility maximizing actor is constrained by scarcity Without it the mainstream analysis looses its applicability Still, how this scarcity arises and the underlying causes of this event are rarely accounted for in ME; it is either left absent or seen as a natural event The second proposal is thus that the underlying structures and mechanism of both an event of scarcity and abundance ought to be holistically perceived, that is, scarcity and abundance is the emergent (synergy) effect of the outcome of social, cultural and natural structures; reinforcing the fact that economics is indeed part of sociology, but at the same moment that sociology is part of economics In the following section I will give an account of the former proposal and in the remaining sections of the last The large majority – if not all – of the definitions of the practice of ME include the notion of scarcity The scarcity postulate in ME is generally found in every economic book and textbook.17 Samuelson claim, “The essence of economics is to acknowledge the reality of scarcity and then figure out how to organize society in a way which makes the most efficient use of resources That is where economics makes its unique contribution 18 Some versions of the scarcity postulate are as follows According to Michael Parkin: Two facts dominate our lives: [1.] We have limited resources, [2.] We have unlimited wants These two facts define scarcity A condition in which the resources available are insufficient to satisfy people’s wants…Scarcity is a universal fact of life It confronts each one of us individually, and it confronts our families, local communities, and nations.19 Or as the prominent neoclassical theorist Alfred Marshall (1842-1924) articulates the issue Human wants and desires are countless in number and very various in kind: but they are generally limited and capable of being satisfied The uncivilized man indeed has not many more than the brute animal; but every step in his progress upwards increases the variety of his needs together with the variety in his methods of satisfying them He desires not merely larger quantities of the things he has been accustomed to consume, but better qualities of those things; he desires a greater choice of things, and things that will satisfy new wants growing up in him.20 How people chose among these varieties of desires, or allocate limited resources, is the subject matter of economics, according to Marshall Samuelson asserts that scarce goods are one of the essential foundations of ME A world of abundance, free from scarcity, is characterized as follows: 16 Smelser and Swedberg, eds., The Handbook, p Menger, Principles, ch 2; Parkin, Economics, p 36; L R Robbins, An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science, London: Macmillan, 1935/1945, p 15; Samuelson and Nordhaus, Economics, p 18 Samuelson and Nordhaus, Economics, p 19 Parkin, Economics, p 36 20 A Marshall, Principles of Economics, London: Macmillan, 1920, p 73 17 Work in Progress: Not for Citation Prepared for PhD-seminar 24 Okt 2007 People would not worry about stretching out their limited incomes because they could have everything they wanted…since all of us could have as much as we pleased, no one would be concerned about the distribution of incomes among different people or classes In such an Eden of affluence, all goods would be free, like sand in the desert or seawater at the beach All prices would be zero, and markets would be unnecessary Indeed, economics would no longer be a useful subject.21 Samuelson promptly emphases that the present world has not research such an utopia: But no society has reached a utopia of limitless possibilities Ours is world of scarcity, full of economic goods A situation of scarcity is one in which goods are limited relative to desire An objective observer would have to agree that, even after two centuries of rapid economic growth, production in the United States is simply not high enough to meet everyone’s desires If you add up all the wants, you quickly find that there are simply not enough goods and services to satisfy even a small fraction of everyone’s consumption desires.22 These citations raise at least two important questions: (1) why does this notion of scarcity play such a prominent roll in economic analysis; and (2) exactly in which way does the scarcity postulate, as a fundamental premise, affect economic analysis Let us examine these two questions Still, we have to consult other sources than Samuelson, Parkin and other modern mainstream economists in order to find reasons for the prominence of scarcity in ME – such accounts are simply absent 2.1.1 The prominence of scarcity Carl Menger is the first economist who systematized the notion of scarcity, which later became a fundamental postulate in ME 23 In the marginalist revolution and thus the development of the marginal utility theory Menger developed some of the fundamentals for a new social science – simultaneously but independently of Staley Jevons and Léon Walras 24 For Menger, the end of the human economy is to seek the full satisfaction of human needs It is an essential project that is fundamental to human existence The act of economizing and thus the economy arises as a consequence of the fact that the world does not contain enough goods to satisfy the needs of people Economizing is however both tied to the notion of absolute scarcity, but mostly to relative scarcity.25 The relative notion can, for example, be observed even if not explicitly acknowledged in Robbins argumentation, …by itself the multiplicity of ends has no necessary interest for the economist If I want to two things, and I have ample time and ample means with which to them, and I not want the time or the means for anything else, then my conduct assumes none of those forms which are the subject of economic science Nirvana is not necessarily single bliss It is merely the complete satisfaction of all requirements Nor is the mere 21 Samuelson and Nordhaus, Economics, p 22 Ibid Hayek in Menger, Principles, p 18; L R Robbins, A History of Economic Thought the Lse Lectures, S G Medema and W J Samuels (eds), Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1998, p 277.: my emphasis ; E Roll, A History of Economic Thought, London: Faber & Faber, 1973, p 387 ; N Xenos, Scarcity and Modernity, London: Routledge, 1989, p 68 23 24 A G Miller and D Mair, A Modern Guide to Economic Thought: An Introduction to Comparative Schools of Thought in Economics, Aldershot: Elgar, 1991; B Sandelin, H.-M Trautwein, R Wundrak, and Studieförbundet Näringsliv och samhälle, Det Ekonomiska Tänkandets Historia, Stockholm: SNS förl., 2001, p 79-81 25 Baumgartner, Becker, Faber, and Manstetten, 'Scarcity' ; Raiklin and Uyar, 'Relativity' Work in Progress: Not for Citation Prepared for PhD-seminar 24 Okt 2007 limitation of means by itself sufficient to give rise to economic phenomena If means of satisfaction have no alternative use, then they may be scarce, but they cannot be economised The Manna which fell from heaven may have been scarce, but, if it was impossible to exchange it for something else or to postpone its use, it was not the object of any activity with an economic aspect Nor again is the alternative applicability of scarce means a complete condition of the existence of the kind of phenomena we are analysing.26 Accordingly, the multiplicity of ends has no necessary economic interest, nor the limitation of means as such sufficient to qualify as an economic phenomenon, nor again the alternative use of the means in question adequate for economic analysis: it is when all of this conditions are fulfilled simultaneously that the significance of the economic arise – that is, on the basis of relative scarcity Consequently, for Robbins the relevance of the economics science lies in the following version of scarcity: …when time and the means for achieving ends are limited and capable of alternative application, and the ends are capable of being distinguished in order of importance, then behaviour necessarily assumes the form of choice Every act which involves time and scarce means for the achievement of one end involves the relinquishment of their use for the achievement of another It has an economic aspect If I want bread and sleep, and in the time at my disposal I cannot have all I want of both, then some part of my wants of bread and sleep must go unsatisfied If, in a limited lifetime, I would wish to be both a philosopher and a mathematician, but my rate of acquisition of knowledge is such that I cannot both completely, then some part of my wish for philosophical or mathematical competence or both must be relinquished.27 This state of insufficiency, or scarcity, is by now made static, unchanging and thus universally applicable; A feature of our natural being or the human condition He continuous: The ends are various The time and the means for achieving these ends are limited and capable of alternative application At the same time the ends have different importance Here we are, sentient creatures with bundles of desires and aspirations, with masses of instinctive tendencies all urging us in different ways to action But the time in which these tendencies can be expressed is limited The external world does not offer full opportunities for their complete achievement Life is short Nature is niggardly 28 Nevertheless, even if there is some reasonableness to this claim it harbours several implicitly premises which is disputable: the main one, that scarcity is a natural feature of the human condition The naturalness of scarcity can also be observed in Menger’s work Even if the question seems to be more complicated for Menger it lays nonetheless in convergence with Robbins’ reasoning Menger begins with the absolute definition of scarcity and abundance but moves step by step into the domain of relative scarcity – which ultimately defines the subject matter of economics Because the set of goods available for an individual is generally not enough to satisfy his complex of needs He argues, … in ordinary life the relationship between available goods and our needs is generally much more complicated Usually not a single good but a quantity of goods stands 26 Robbins, Essay, pp 13-14 Ibid., p 14 28 Ibid., pp 12-13 27 Work in Progress: Not for Citation Prepared for PhD-seminar 24 Okt 2007 opposite not a single concrete need but a complex of such needs Sometimes a larger and sometimes a smaller number of satisfactions, of very different degrees of importance, depends on our command of a given quantity of goods, and each one of the goods has the ability to produce these satisfactions differing so greatly in importance.29 He illustrates the principle of scarcity with Robinson Crusoe, the isolated economizing individual Imagine Crusoe living alone on an island, where his only needs are dependent upon the supply of fresh water Crusoe needs (1) one unit of water daily for the maintenance of his need for liquids, (2) nineteen units of water for the animals, which provide him with milk and meat, (3) forty units, for the preservation of his health and well-being, namely to clean his body, his clothes, and his implements, and (4) forty additional units, some to supply his flower garden with water and some for additional supply for some animals to provide him with mere companionship Crusoe needs consequently a total of hundred units of water to cover all this wants and needs.30 Now assume two cases The first case, where the supply of water on the island is enough to support at least thousand of individuals with needs and wants very similar to Crusoe’s – a situation of abundance Then Crusoe would have no reason to economize Additionally, in this case the subject matter of ME does not apply The second case is where the supply of water on the island is only sixty units of water – a situation of scarcity In this case Crusoe is forced to economize and manage best he can, his well-being and ultimately his existence is threatened How does he manage in the most optimal way? In principal the problem is about allocating the limited (scarce) water of sixty units to his four needs (or ends in Robbins view) Now four different ends are competing relative to scarce means Consequently some needs, or ends, have to be foregone – but which ones? According to Menger, it is very likely that Crusoe will value his first and second need more because of the larger utility he derives from such consumption If so, he will consume twenty units of water and left with forty units Moreover, it seems that the third need has some priority over the forth Therefore a greater amount of the rest of the units of water will be consumed on the third need – however, incomplete – and the forth need either left totally unsatisfied or beggarly satisfied 31 Now, even if Crusoe is an unrealistic approximation of real life events, he is the model of how ME reasons about real events what ever the needs, wants or ends are This fact can be illustrated further with a more modern textbook example, namely budget-lines and indifference curves that is in convergence with Menger’s reasoning 2.1.2 Scarcity in ME analysis – Budget-lines and Indifference-curves Even if the scarcity postulate permeates numerous economic models and economics thinking in general, in this essay only one such application is demonstrated, namely Indifferencecurves and the budget-lines We will apply its logic to Crusoe’s situation It is a simple textbook example 29 Menger, Principles, p 129 Ibid., p 133 31 Ibid., pp 133-36 30 Work in Progress: Not for Citation 40 units a units Good Y (Crusoe’s (3) need) Prepared for PhD-seminar 24 Okt 2007 U1 Indifference curve Budget line (Water Supply) b units 40 units Good X (Crusoe’s (4) need) Figure Crusoe’s most preferred consumption combination in a situation of relative scarcity Figure is an illustration Crusoe’s situation and thus his way of allocating water supply with regard to his third and forth need The budget-line is a representation of the budget constraint (Crusoe’s water supply) The horizontal axel represents good X (which satisfies Crusoe’s forth need) and the vertical axel represents good Y (Crusoe’s third need) The indifference curve represents any combination of consumptions possibilities which Crusoe is believed to be indifferent to.32 Moreover, it is stated by ME that persons consume in a way that yields maximum utility (rational actor) and therefore consumer along any point at the budget-line Consuming above this line is not possible because the means are limited, consuming below is possible but believed to be an ineffective way of utilizing a person’s means (monetary budget, or Crusoe’s water supply) Therefore, the rational actor will choose the point where the indifference curve is tangent to the budget-line Hence, the point where the indifference curve is tangent to the budget line is the predicted consumption combination (a units and b units) that Crusoe chooses; thus there is a well-defined, or unambiguous, solution to the problem of how to allocate scarce resources, or means.33 It is clear from the example of Crusoe, in the first situation where water supply was abundant, that he had much more water in the river than he needed – supply was enough for thousands of individuals with needs similar to Crusoe In that situation he does not have to relinquish any of his needs; he reaches his maximum satisfaction at hundred units of water, now even if he uses, say two hundred of units, he will reach a point where further consumption of water (say tree hundred of units or above) will impede his well-being and thus his satisfaction Drinking too much of water will harm his bodily functions and eventually kill him (his first need); the animals will refuse to drink more water because of saturation, and stop producing milk or produce with significantly lower quality (second need); cleaning your clothing, and implements too often will of course hamper their functionality (third need); supplying the flower garden with too much water will eventually destroy the garden (forth need) Therefore consumption of a particular good has a saturation point In ME terms, this means that Crusoe will consume below his budget line But at which point we may ask? 32 Indifference curves can be represented on higher and lower levels of satisfaction, U1 is only one possibility 33 Samuelson and Nordhaus, Economics, pp 102-07 Work in Progress: Not for Citation 300 000 300 Good Y (Crusoe’s (3) need) Prepared for PhD-seminar 24 Okt 2007 U4 40 U3 40 U1 Budget line (Water Supply) U2 300 300 000 Good X (Crusoe’s (4) need) Figure Crusoe’s preferred consumption combination in relative abundance See Figure 2, any point below the budget line that will not hamper his well-being is sufficient for Crusoe, I argue This means that any point along any given indifference curve, for example, U1, U2, U3 or Un is sufficient for Crusoe; but not more than his needs can absorb, which is assumed to be around three hundred units of water If he consume more on his four need, say what is supplied by the whole river, along U 4, then he would either eliminated himself, his garden or his animals In this situation of great relative abundance ME’s analysis have little to contributed, in the worst case scenario it will even collaps e This is so, because there is not one well-defined solution to the question (What consumption combination Crusoe chooses), but infinite number of solutions In this case, and all other similar cases ME’s analysis is redundant Accordingly, the scarcity postulate play an essential role in ME’s analytical framework in order to uphold relevant answers to economic issues Maybe this is the reason why the scarcity postulate is formulated in so general and static terms, that is, by claiming that there are unlimited wants and needs; and with no satisfactory accounts of such claim This gives ME a very general but firm analytical grasp of various phenomenons, from explaining consumption choices to analyzing addiction and crime What is disputed in this essay is the continuous unreflecting role the premise of scarcity is allowed to play in economic analysis A fundamental question ought to be; what causes relative scarcity (and abundance) to arise in the first place; what are the social, cultural and natural conditions for such an event to arise in the first place? It seems to me that ME has little to offer for answering that question The aim of this paper is thus to fill this gap by articulating an alternative model of relative scarcity and abundance The new model shall demonstrate at least three points: (1) both scarcity and abundance is equally relevant for a socioeconomic theory in order to explain human action; (2) the underlying mechanism of scarcity and abundance is an important socio scientific goal in order to understand why scarcity and abundance arise; (3) both (1) and (2) is a sine qua non for emancipatory practices The next section will demonstrate by a case study and by contrastive explanation how these three points hinge on each other It is however not until the final section of this essay that we reach a more satisfactory account of the issue of relative scarcity and abundance Now we turn to the case of simplicity which shows that a Work in Progress: Not for Citation 10 Prepared for PhD-seminar 24 Okt 2007 state of relative abundance is important for a given group of people which in turn makes it relevant for economic sociological analysis The Case of Simplicity: relative abundance In this part of the essay one ideal-type is abstracted and contrasted in order to illuminate the relevance of the theme of this essay, namely relative scarcity and abundance The ideal-type in question is denominated the simplifier which is derived from the principles of simplicity; with focus on voluntary simplicity and Tibetan Buddhism as manifested in consuming society The simplifier is an abstraction or ideal-type of a person who practices any form of simplicity This abstraction shall be contrasted to another ideal-type but which is taken as a given category, or ‘premises category’, called the complexifier which is derived from principles of consumerism It is a premise because it is assumed to be in a certain way by reference to previous research whereas the simplifier is in need of further substantial research; in other words, the complexifier is not the main subject matter of this essay, but still of importance This will enable a contrastive explanation, that is: why the way of life of simplifier rather than the complexifier is actualized for a given group of people when both have emerged in contemporary mass consuming society This contrastive explanation will serve as an illustration of why relative scarcity and abundance is significant for socioeconomic theory The abstractions or the ideal-types are assembled with reference to the following sources, with priority in the order given: (1) previous research; (2) semi-structured interviews; (3) text analysis of promoters of simplicity Some notes on (2) Approximately five interviewees, with follow up by e-mail, were asked in-depth about their consumption behaviour, their ability to satisfy their wants and about their vision of the good life All the interviewees adhere to the Tibetan Buddhist tradition but relate to it in different way It is, however, the lifestyle of simplicity that is of primary interest and not Buddhism or Tibetan Buddhism as such The Buddhist system of thought is a cultural system and viewed in this paper as a subset of general cultural systems that promotes simplicity (e.g ascetic Christianity,34 deep ecology, or some indigenous cultures35), see Figure below The relation between Buddhism and voluntary simplicity is addressed further below In this essay Tibetan Buddhism is viewed as a partial sub-set to VS but as a complete sub-set to simplicity Accordingly, the interviews conducted refer partially to VS but completely to simplicity Most importantly it is maintained that these systems of thought have causal effect on economic behaviour.36 The interviews were conducted in order to fill a gap in the current research about simplicity and thus to enable an elaboration on relative scarcity and abundance The gap in question is about whether the simplifier has enough goods to satisfy her wants and thus lives in a state of relative abundance To address this gap is essential for the purpose of this essay, because even if VS is about reducing material wants it dos not per automatic means that relative abundance prevails The results will be outlined below Both the interviews and the text analysis will be integrated in one interface and their ultimate aim is accordingly to demonstrate the underlying socio-cultural mechanism of relative scarcity and abundance 34 F W Rudmin and W E Kilbourne, 'The Meaning and Morality of Voluntary Simplicity: History and Hypotheses on Deliberetly Denied Materialism', in R W Belk, N Dholakia, and A Venkatesh (eds), Consumption and Marketing, Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western College Publ., 1996, p 190 35 J M Gowdy, Limited Wants, Unlimited Means: A Reader on Hunter-Gatherer Economics and the Environment, Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1998 36 M S Archer, Culture and Agency : The Place of Culture in Social Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, ch Work in Progress: Not for Citation 11 Prepared for PhD-seminar 24 Okt 2007 Some notes on (1) and (3) Text analysis of the promoters of simplicity will draw on the cultural underpinnings of the practice of simplicity; it will focus on the perception on material wants and its evaluation This analysis will demarcate its self to one modern contribution that has played a central roll in the research about VS ,37 mainly Duan Elgin’s Voluntary Simplicity (1993);38 this will be complemented by some key Buddhist texts Furthermore, this analysis will require a separation between explicit promoters of VS and actual research of VS So even if researchers could be implicit promoters of VS, it should be remembered that Elgin and other (Mitchell, Gregg, Thoreau and others XXX ) are mainly regarded as promoters of VS, and should accordingly not be confused with previous research In this essay these promoters are mainly treated as real (empirical) entities of VS The consequence of this caveat is this: primarily, the actual propositions and statements of promoters are neither disputed nor confirmed, they are merely treated as existing entities in the world, which have causal effects on human action For example, Elgin claim, “…we can describe voluntary simplicity as a manner of living that is outwardly more simple and inwardly more rich, a way of being in which our most authentic and alive self is brought into direct and conscious contact with living”39 What does this mean from a sociological point of view? How should this claim be treated? In this essay it is treated merely as a propositions within a given social, cultural and economical structures, its actual reference to real events (whether VS way of living is a “direct and conscious contact with living”) is not evaluated Of course, such evaluations could only be explored by factual investigation What follows is a summary of the previous research conducted about VS It will highlight the results and arguments which is relevant for the main thrust of the essay, namely, anticonsumptive behaviour – leaving other issues aside It follows a thematic disposition, findings about: (1) kinship of VS to more general philosophies and traditions that will give a summarized historical context; (2) the link between Buddhism and VS will be addressed, which is of methodological relevance for this essay; (3) findings about the reduction of the utilization of material goods and the increase of use of immaterial goods; (4) characterizations and dimensions of VS which will problemize the definition of VS But first we need to formulate a working hypothesis as a guidance for this section 3.1 Formulating a working hypothesis In relation to the purpose of this essay the forthcoming previous research (see the section below) on VS have a gap that needs to be filled Is it sufficient from the set of accumulated research to derive the following conclusion, or thesis: in opposition to the scarcity postulate of ME, that relative scarcity is not the necessary condition of our contemporary mass consuming society and that VS is the example of relative abundance; and consequently we need to develop an alternative view of scarcity and abundance? Even if there is evidence of this claim in the previous research, it is not sufficient to maintain this thesis I believe Therefore at this moment the thesis above needs to be treated as a hypothesis Accordingly, a crucial issue has to be accounted for, namely, that the relation between given wants and needs of a simplifier and the resources used to satisfy these are more than sufficient This is thus an event of relative abundance; if this is not the case, the overall theoretical claim is not supported with reference to real events and thus the scarcity postulate remains standing This hypothesis shall be investigated by interviewing persons that lives 37 D Elgin, Voluntary Simplicity: Toward a Way of Life That Is Outwardly Simple, Inwardly Rich, New York: Quill, 1993; D Elgin and A Mitchell, 'Voluntary Simplicity', Co-Evolution Quarterly (Summer), 1977, pp 5-18 38 L Buell, 'Downwardly Mobile for Conscience's Sake: Voluntary Simplicity from Thoreau to Lily Bart', American Literary History 17 (4), 2005, pp 653-65, p 655; H D Thoreau, Walden, Princeton, N.J.,: 1971 39 Elgin, Simplicity, p 25 Work in Progress: Not for Citation 12 Prepared for PhD-seminar 24 Okt 2007 explicitly or implicitly in kinship to VS, this will be complemented by text analysis of promoters of VS In the next section the results of the interviews are presented 3.2 Review of Previous Research The main fact which this essay draw on is that the simplifiers tends to demonstrate increasing anti-consumptive behaviour, more precisely reduction of material wants; at the same time, these practitioners tend to increase their consumption of immaterial goods, or increase in immaterial wants.40 Lets us address this proposition Even if VS as developed by Elgin and Mitchell 41 slowly blossoms among the middle class in the Western world, its essential cultural propositions is not unique 42 The contemporary ideas of VS have a long history and affinities in various philosophical and spiritual systems of thought, according to Rudmin and Kilbourne 43 For example, in the ancient Greek especially in the ideas of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle virtues as self-control, frugality and humility were honoured Xenophon, a biographer of Socrates wrote: You seem, Antiphon, to imagine that happiness consists in luxury and extravagance But my belief is that to have no wants is divine; to have as few as possible comes next to the divine.44 Aristotle articulate the middle way as the condition for real happiness, “Among these three conditions, then, two are vices—one of excess, one of deficiency—and one—the mean—is virtue”.45 Elgin’s own view of VS historical affinities is, “Historically, voluntary simplicity has its roots in the legendary frugality and self-reliance of the Puritans; in Thoreau’s naturalistic vision at Walden Pond; in Emerson’s spiritual and practical plea for “plain living and high thinking”; in the teachings and social philosophy of a number of spiritual leaders such as Jesus and Gandhi”.46 Strong kinship to the modern VS can as a result be found in the mainstream religious traditions, such as Buddhism or Christianity to mention some The ascetic tradition of Christianity is well articulated in Max Weber’s notions Moreover, material simplicity can be found in Puritans and Quakers system of thoughts 47 Nevertheless, the voluntary aspect of voluntary simplicity is discussable – does a person voluntarily or freely reduce material wants, or is there a matter of coercion involved, socially or fear of God 48 The voluntary-ness is not only an issue for religion but also for general sociological questions (cf collectivism versus individualism; determinism versus voluntarism) The modern VS is arguably a combination of several system of thoughts, emphasising different aspects of the human existence, as spirituality, environmentalism, material simplicity, and alike, for attaining happiness and realizing the good life As such these systems of thoughts reflect the organizing bases of that social order.49 40 A Etzioni, 'Voluntary Simplicity: Characterization, Select Psychological Implications, and Societal Consequences', Journal of Economic Psychology 19 (5), 1998, pp 619-43, p 630; S McDonald, C J Oates, C W Young, and K Hwang, 'Toward Sustainable Consumption: Researching Voluntary Simplifiers', Psychology and Marketing 23 (6), 2006, pp 515-34, p 531; S Zavestoski, 'The Social-Psychological Bases of Anticonsumption Attitudes', Psychology and Marketing 19 (2), 2002, pp 149-65, pp 149-50 41 Elgin, Simplicity; Elgin and Mitchell, 'Voluntary' 42 Rudmin and Kilbourne, 'Meaning', pp 184 ff 43 cf Buell, 'Downwardly'., for a literary history 44 Reale in Rudmin and Kilbourne, 'Meaning', p 185 45 46 Aristotle in Ibid Elgin and Mitchell, 'Voluntary', p Rudmin and Kilbourne, 'Meaning', p 190 48 cf A Shama, 'The Voluntary Simplicity Consumer', Journal of Consumer Marketing (4), 1985, pp 57-63, p 58 49 A Shama, 'A Comment on the Meaning and Morality of Voluntary Simplicity: History and Hypotheses on Deliberately Denied Materialism', in R W Belk, N Dholakia, and A Venkatesh (eds), Consumption and Marketing, Cincinnati, Ohio: 47 Work in Progress: Not for Citation 13 Prepared for PhD-seminar 24 Okt 2007 The link between the Buddhist tradition and modern VS as developed by Elgin, which is of central relevance for this study, can be pinpointed in the following way, see Figure Figure is a visualization of how the subject of inquiry (set (2) and (4)) is related to a more general set (set (1)), which is also the object of generalization (arrow (5)) The way Elgin has articulated the simple life as VS (set (2)) could be seen as a sub-set of all possible ways of articulating or manifesting simplicity (set (1)) Naturally, set (2) and set (4) only partly overlap because all elements (principles, ideas, histories, practices etc) in Elgin’s articulation is not shared by Buddhist in general (set (3)) and Tibetan Buddhism in particular (set (4)); and vice versa For example, the Tibetan Buddhist tradition is not only a cultural identity with more then thousand years of history where Dalai Lama is the explicitly religious leader but also a national identity with a direct link to Tibet, which is now annexed by China; where as VS as formulated by Elgin has its routs in early American thinkers or transcendentalists Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau Nevertheless, VS and Tibetan Buddhist share common ground about their means for achieving the simple and good life Thoreau and Emerson were studying Easter religious texts including Buddhism and Hinduism, maybe before any American’s at their time, as an inspiration source for their philosophy In view of that, today Elgin claims, “In Buddhism, there is a conscious emphasis on discovering a middle way through life that seeks balance and material sufficiency The soulful value of the simple life has been recognized for thousands of years.” 50 Hence, the concept of VS as used in this essay will refer to the intersection between set (2) and (4), that is, of the principles of simplicity as related to most notably Duan Elgin as well as the Tibetan Buddhism as manifested in Western society; the main point of this intersection is the deliberate tendency to reduce a persons material wants 51 The reference of generalization General Simplicity (Actualized and non-Actualized way of life) (5) (1) (2) Voluntary Simplicity (by Previous research, Textanalysis) General Buddhism (by text-analysis (4) (3) Tibetan Buddhism (by interviews, Textanalysis) Figure 3, A Set View of the Subject of Inquiry and the Reference of Generalization52 It is also interesting to view the Buddhist tradition as a partial representation of VS in the way Buddhism perceive material wants and needs contrasts to consumerism The multiplicity of wants is celebrated by consumerism 53 In contrast to this, the Buddhist tradition views the South-Western College Publ., 1996, p 220 50 D Elgin, 'Voluntary Simplicity and Soulful Living', http://www.soulfulliving.com/voluntarysimplicity.htm, 2007 51 Cf E F Schumacher, 'Buddhist Economics', Small Is Beautiful: Economics as If People Mattered, New York: Harper Colophon Books, 1975 52 The sets are not according to scale 53 Z Bauman, Consuming Life, Cambridge: Polity, 2007, Ch Work in Progress: Not for Citation 14 Prepared for PhD-seminar 24 Okt 2007 attachment to the multiplicity of desires or wants as the very source to suffering The ‘Four Noble Truths’ is central for the Buddhist: the first, “existence is suffering”; the second, “the cause of suffering is desire (attachment)”; the third, “the end of suffering comes with cessation of desire (attachment) – nirvana”; the forth, nirvana is attained through the eightfold Path (which is, right views, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration) 54 This could be compared to Elgin when he supports his arguments on Gandhi Civilization, in the real sense of the term, consists not in the multiplication, but in the deliberate and voluntary reduction of wants This alone promotes real happiness and contentment.55 We could compare our definition of VS with several others As demonstrated, VS is a diverse social movement, or philosophy of life For Elgin VS is, “The essence of voluntary simplicity is living in a way what is outwardly simple and inwardly rich This way of life embraces frugality of consumption, a strong sense of environmental urgency, a desire to return to living and working environments which are of a more human scale, and an intention to realize our higher human potential—both psychological and spiritual—in community with others.”56 According to Shaw and Newholm stating a single or rigours definition of VS is not feasible, because of its divergent character, that include values about spirituality, ecology, society, ethics57, economy (consumption) to mention some.58 An example of this diversity is found by Johnston and Burton, they claim that there are at least 12 dimensions that characterises VS in the popular literature; these are: The Good Life, Life Purpose, Personal Growth, Chosen Life, Self Determination, Relationships, Material Simplicity, Minimal Consumption, Role of Work, Plain Living, Ecological Awareness, and Human Scale All these dimensions could be to some degree derived, according to Johnston and Burton, to the five values proposed by Elgin and Mitchell, which demonstrates their influence on the VS movement: these five core values are material simplicity, human scale, self-determination, ecological awareness, and personal growth.59 Amitai Etzioni states, “Voluntary simplicity refers to the choice out of free will – rather than by being coerced by poverty, government austerity programs, or being imprisoned – to limit expenditures on consumer goods and services, and to cultivate non-materialistic sources of satisfaction and meaning.” 60 This is very similar to McDonald’s claim, “Voluntary simplicity is a belief system and a practice of an alternative culture to conspicuous consumerism Voluntary simplifiers’ lifestyles and practices center on the reduction of consumption They pursue nonmaterial satisfactions and value nature, people, and self-growth above material possession.” 61 Zavetoski articules this fact in a similar way, “VS, which is both a system of beliefs and a practice, is centered on the idea that personal satisfaction, fulfilment, and happiness result from a commitment to the nonmaterial aspects of life This belief is put into practice by minimizing consumption of material goods, exercising self-reliance, developing one’s intellect, and other nonmaterial 54 W E Philip's, 'Buddhism', http://www.oxfordreference.com.ezproxy.ub.gu.se/views/ENTRY.html? subview=Main&entry=t105.e1734, 2005 55 Gandhi in Elgin, Simplicity, pp 48-49 56 Elgin and Mitchell, 'Voluntary', p 57 D Shaw and T Newholm, 'Voluntary Simplicity and the Ethics of Consumption', Psychology and Marketing 19 (2), 2002, pp 167-85 58 T C Johnston and J B Burton, 'Voluntary Simplicity: Definitions and Dimensions', Academy of Marketing Studies Journal (1), 2003, pp 19-36 59 Cf Elgin and Mitchell, 'Voluntary', p 60 Etzioni, 'Voluntary', p 620 61 McDonald, Oates, Young, and Hwang, 'Sustainable', p 531 Work in Progress: Not for Citation 15 Prepared for PhD-seminar 24 Okt 2007 facets of human existence.” 62 Accordingly, our definition of VS and the ones presented are to a large extent compatible To reiterate VS will be defined as the tendency to deliberately reduce material consumption; and the simplifier is the abstracted person who practices VS A complexifier is the anti-thesis of the simplifier It is a person who derives her cultural nourishment from the notions and practice of consumerism, that is, material things is the ultimate satisfaction and more is generally better than less.63 Even if VS is an umbrella term for a divergent movement, it significantly correlates with ecological lifestyle, according to Iwata.64 Generally, a simplifier chooses to use the bicycle, or participate in car-sharing co-operative, rather than obtain a private car 65; consume ethically, ecologically and local goods, rather than non-ecological mass-produced goods 66; moreover, a simplifier is more concern with environmental issues, than a complexifier 67 To buy goods on secondhand is not unusual.68 The tendency of reducing material consumption leads often to the tendency of increased use or consumption of immaterial goods Etzioni argues that choosing a simpler life means often the cultivation of other activities, that for a simplifier contains more satisfaction, as volunteering, community or public participation, sports, spending time in natural environments, and other social and cultural activities The pursuit of ever higher levels of consumption is contested by VS Even if VS seeks greater life satisfaction in the consumption of immaterial goods and activities, in the same time it does not advocate involuntary sacrifice of material things Because it is believed that such sacrifice could be a source of unnecessary constraint.69 It is clear that the quest of immaterial activities take the fact that the simplifiers material and basic needs are already satisfied, which cannot be the source of any deprivation Zavestoski, McDonald and Rudmin and Kilbourne among other argue in a similar way 70 This point of decreasing consumption of material goods is central to the forthcoming elaboration on relative scarcity and abundance Without it, the overall thesis, on empirical ground, is fairly damaged However, even if the simplifiers reduce material consumption, it does not necessarily mean that they consume less in terms of monetary cost compared to an average consumer 71 The prices of ecological and locally produced goods are generally more expensive compared to non-ecological goods The same apply to handcrafted goods compared to globally produced goods At first sight, this poses an interesting challenge to the overall argument, that is, if the simplifier is a real example of relative abundance then how is it possible that they earn less 62 Zavestoski, 'Social-Psychological', pp 149-50 Bauman, Consuming, pp 28-31; J B Schor, The Overspent American: Why We Want What We Don't Need, New York, N.Y.: HarperPerennial, 1999, ch 64 O Iwata, 'An Evalutation of Consumerism and Lifestyle as Correlates of a Voluntary Simplicity Lifestyle', Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal 34 (5), 2006, pp 557-56 65 D Cowles and L A Crosby, 'Measure Validation in Consumer Research: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Voluntary Simplicity Lifestyle Scale ', Advances in Consumer Research 13 (1), 1986, pp 392-97, p 393; P Jonsson, Capturing the Elusive Simplifier, Göteborg: Göteborgs universitet, Center for consumer science, School of Business and Economics and Law, 2006, pp 73-74, 104-05 66 M Craig-Lees and C Hill, 'Understanding Voluntary Simplifiers', Psychology and Marketing 19 (2), 2002, pp 187-210, p 186; M E Huneke, 'The Face of the Un-Consumer: An Empirical Examination of the Practice of Voluntary Simplicity in the United States', Psychology and Marketing 22 (7), 2005, pp 527-50, p 527; Jonsson, Capturing, pp 184-85; Shaw and Newholm, 'Ethics', p 168 67 Craig-Lees and Hill, 'Understanding', p 204; Jonsson, Capturing, p 37; D Leonard-Barton, 'Voluntary Simplicity Lifestyles and Energy Conservation', Journal of Consumer Research (3), 1981, pp 243-52, pp 245-50 68 McDonald, Oates, Young, and Hwang, 'Sustainable', p 522 69 Etzioni, 'Voluntary', p 630; cf Zavestoski, 'Social-Psychological' 70 McDonald, Oates, Young, and Hwang, 'Sustainable', p 531 ; Rudmin and Kilbourne, 'Meaning', p 202; Zavestoski, 'Social-Psychological', pp 149-50 71 Craig-Lees and Hill, 'Understanding', p 194; A Etzioni, 'The Post Affluent Society', Review of Social Economy 62 (3), 2004, pp 407 - 20, p 410; Jonsson, Capturing, p 184 63 Work in Progress: Not for Citation 16 Prepared for PhD-seminar 24 Okt 2007 but at the same time the goods they consume is expensive Nevertheless, compared to the complexifier, the simplifier want less and consumer less of material things It is conceived by VS that moderate working time is generally preferred, even if it entails lower income.72 VS want to break with the dissatisfying cycle of “work, earn and spend”, where the majority of ones waking life are dedicated to it.73 Therefore, to seek work which is more in line with reduced consumption is preferred 74 It is arguable that this sort of lifestyle (VS) is reserved only for those with moderate resources affiliated to their social position This is generally the case According to the given research, simplifiers are individuals or group of people that are highlight educated, with professional skills and thus situated in the middle and upper social classes of society.75 For example, in Jonsson’s eco-village study the informants have professions as telemarketer, psychologist, economist, consultant, computer specialist, computer specialist, economic crime investigator, IT-consultant, with the ages around 40’s and 50’s; in her carsharing study, the informants have professions as graphic designer, speech therapist, illustrator, computer programmer, architect, PhD-student, researcher, and prosecutor with the ages around 20’s to 40’s 76 That the simplifiers are generally middle class is supported by other research 77 As Etzioni articulates the point, “Voluntary simplicity is thus a choice a successful corporate lawyer, not a homeless person, faces; Singapore, not Rwanda.”.78 According to Rudmin and Kilbourne, in order to understand the meaning of VS better one could dissect the term ‘voluntary simplicity’ into four logical pieces: (1) the original term voluntary simplicity (+V+S); (2) involuntary simplicity (-V+S) which is the same as poverty; (3) involuntary complexity (-V-S) which could be the normal state of mass consumption, consumerism, society; and (4) voluntary complexity (+V-S), a possible state of mass consumption society or and “enlightened” end state of voluntary simplicity 79 Nevertheless, it is arguable whether -V-S and +V-S ought to be defined in this way Is the complexifier’s way of life voluntary? Some would argue that it is voluntary, some would no t – the matter gets even more complicated if we ask what voluntary actually means Nonetheless, this is the core of sociological questions, which is among other things accounting for the generative mechanisms of why people want what they want, or what they This is a recurrent question that is hardly ever fully and definitely addressed In the last section of this essay we will re-address this question in terms of the relation between social structure and agency.80 Addressing piece logical (2) Poverty is as old as history itself The absence of the most basic material necessities is one of the main features of it; nevertheless, it is maybe the involuntary aspect of being in such state which makes it outstanding as a social misfortunate of society Therefore, poverty or involuntary simplicity (-V+S) has been one of the central subject matter of humanity – how to alleviate it Yet it is not until the scientific revolution and economic progress that such questions left the domains of philosophical and spiritual Utopia 72 Craig-Lees and Hill, 'Understanding', p 186 Huneke, 'The Face', p 531 74 Johnston and Burton, 'Definitions ', p 29 75 Etzioni, 'Affluent ', p 409 76 Jonsson, Capturing, pp 78, 85 77 Craig-Lees and Hill, 'Understanding', p 193; Etzioni, 'Affluent ', p 623; R Hay, 'Becoming Ecosynchronous, Part The Root Causes of Our Unsustainable Way of Life', Sustainable Development 13 (5), 2005, pp 311-25, p 322; A Shama, 'Coping with Staglation: Voluntary Simplicity', Journal of Marketing 45 (3), 1981, pp 120-34, p 126; Shama, 'Consumer', p 60; Zavestoski, 'Social-Psychological', p 151 78 Etzioni, 'Voluntary', p 632 79 Rudmin and Kilbourne, 'Meaning', p 169 80 M S Archer, Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995; R Bhaskar, The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences, London and New York: Routledge, 1998 73 Work in Progress: Not for Citation 17 Prepared for PhD-seminar 24 Okt 2007 and entered the domain of social science 81 As Gareth Stedman Jones articulates it, “It was in the 1970s at the time of the French Revolution that there first emerged the believable outlines of a world without endemic scarcity, a world in which the predictable misfortunes of life need no longer plunge the afflicted into chronic poverty or extreme want.” 82 VS on the other hand, ought to be conceived as a state of non-poverty (defined in this sense) even if it entails a degree of absence of materiality.83 Addressing piece logical (3) and (4) Complexity could then in a similar way be divided into a voluntary and involuntary dimension Rudmin and Kilbourne argue that involuntary complexity is the default state of mass consumption It is involuntary because the culture of consumerism forces itself on people They claim, “In an appropriate psychological metaphor, involuntary complexity is now known as "the rat race," the competitive busy-ness and acquisitiveness of mindless, indistinguishable, unimportant, nasty little animals driven by their instincts and by others' psychological manipulations of them, to continually collect, hoard, protect, and consume whatever is put before them.” 84 Voluntary complexity as such is not possible per definition, according to Rudmin and Kilbourne Complexity is a state of negated opportunity, disability and thus difficulties of making free choices – an involuntary state Therefore, the concepts of ‘voluntary’ and ‘complexity’ are mutually excluding 85 Nevertheless, I maintain, this is logically true only if one defines complexity in the given way A continuous rather than a dichotomous definition of complexity and simplicity is a more preferable option.86 In accordance to Shaw, a more refined definition, which sees complexity and simplicity as a matter of degrees, is embraced by this essay However Shaw views voluntary-ness and involuntary-ness in the same manner, which is questionable As stated above, voluntary-ness or involuntary-ness is a more complex sociological issue that cannot be simply captured in terms of degrees but rather refers to different kinds (social structure and agency).87 Complexity Simplicity A Matter of Degree Figure Complexity vs Simplicity: A Matter of Degree Etzioni makes a further differentiation of VS into three levels of intensity in the practice of it: from the lower intensity group of downshifter medium intensity strong simplifiers, to the high intensity holistic simplifiers.88 This entails increased level of limited material wants and thus material consumption 89 The downshiters are people who make limited or superficial attempts to reduce consumption, but basically maintain their consumption oriented way of living Instead of wearing fancy dresses and drive expensive cars, even if they could, they choose to wear jeans, t-shirts and drives beat-up cars It entails different kind of consumption, but not necessarily less.90 The strong simplifiers give up high-paid and often very stressful work in favour of a simple life with greater amount of leisure, family and creative time The holistic simplifiers intensify the point even more As Etzioni states, “The most dedicated, holistic simplifiers adjust their whole life patterns according to the ethos of voluntary 81 G S Jones, An End to Poverty?, London: Profile Books, 2004, p Ibid., p 16 83 Rudmin and Kilbourne, 'Meaning', pp 169-72 84 Ibid., p 172-73 85 Ibid., p 180 86 McDonald, Oates, Young, and Hwang, 'Sustainable', p 526-28; Shama, 'A Comment ', p 217-18 87 Archer, Realist; Bhaskar, Possibility 88 cf Shaw and Newholm, 'Ethics', pp 171-72 89 Etzioni, 'Voluntary', p 521 90 Ibid., p 622 82 Work in Progress: Not for Citation 18 Prepared for PhD-seminar 24 Okt 2007 simplicity They often move from affluent suburbs or gentrified parts of major cities to smaller towns, the countryside, farms and less affluent or urbanized parts of the country … with the explicit goal of leading a “simpler” life.” 91 The difference between the strong and holistic simplifier is mainly that the latter is more explicitly motivated by the philosophy of VS, where one source of inspiration is Elgin’s book Voluntary Simplicity but not in any sense restricted to it; other sources of inspiration could be found in philosophies of the transcendentalists or the world religions such as Buddhism.92 All the same, in reality the major part of the population resembles surely neither a pure complexifier nor a simplifier Instead people are drawn forth and back between these extremes on basis of social, cultural and economical forces of society, as Figure indicates McDonald argues that beginning-voluntary simplifiers (BVS) are a social group that is more interesting to study in order to understand the underlying mechanism of why people act in terms of simplicity or complexity.93 This point is important to bear in mind when conducting the analytical account which is mainly based on the purity of the simplifier and its anti-thesis, the complexifier 3.3 Results Possessions Work, Income Consumption View of goods Resources The complexifier The simplifier Want more material goods Want to earn more Want to consumer more Buy what they want Want convenience Have not enough to satisfy his material needs Want fewer material possession Want to reduce (paid) work Want to consume less Want little, buy even less Want durable, ecological products Have enough to satisfy his material needs Table Idealtypes of the simplifier and the complexifier – Mirror image.94 3.3.1 Text-analysis 3.3.2 Interviews Elaboration: articulating a holistic approach of relative scarcity and abundance • The issue of knowing what we want95 Uncertainty The Self • Apply Archer’s model: Concerns (internal goods)  Projects (micro-politics) Practices (modus vivendi) • What resources we have under our control are conditioned by social structures (which then influences or opportunity costs and bonuses) 91 Ibid., p 626 92 McDonald, Oates, Young, and Hwang, 'Sustainable', p 521 93 Ibid This table is inspired by Johnston and Burton, 'Definitions ', p 22 94 95 D P Levine, Subjectivity in Political Economy: Essays on Wanting and Choosing, London: Routledge, 1998, pp 81 Work in Progress: Not for Citation • • 19 Prepared for PhD-seminar 24 Okt 2007 Finding out what means (resources) we have by engaging our selves in different projects rather than knowing what are resources are in advance (as in ME) Intended and unintended consequences of projects Conclusions Trajectory or probable conclusions: (1) The means (resources) and ends (needs and wants) are biologically, socially, psychologically, culturally and technologically underpinned Thus the form and content of means and ends are variable, changing and fundamentally open for holistic sociological interventions This in opposition to ME (2) Because of (1) Relative abundance and scarcity are geo-historically open (3) Questions of emancipation are fundamentally linked to relative scarcity and abundance Because, how people act, think and what consequences (intended and unintended) is linked to what the opportunity bonuses and penalties there are Work in Progress: Not for Citation 20 Prepared for PhD-seminar 24 Okt 2007 References Archer, M S (1995) Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press Archer, M S (1996) Culture and Agency : The Place of Culture in Social Theory, Rev edn, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Bauman, Z (2007) Consuming Life, Cambridge: Polity Baumgartner, S., C Becker, M Faber, and R Manstetten (2006) 'Relative and Absolute Scarcity of Nature: Assessing the Roles of Economics and Ecology for Biodiversity Conservation', Ecological Economics 59 (4), pp 487-98 Bhaskar, R (1998) The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences, edn, London and New York: Routledge Buell, L (2005) 'Downwardly Mobile for Conscience's Sake: Voluntary Simplicity from Thoreau to Lily Bart', American Literary History 17 (4), pp 653-65 Cowles, D., and L A Crosby (1986) 'Measure Validation in Consumer Research: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Voluntary Simplicity Lifestyle Scale ', Advances in Consumer Research 13 (1), pp 392-97 Craig-Lees, M., and C Hill (2002) 'Understanding Voluntary Simplifiers', Psychology and Marketing 19 (2), pp 187-210 Elgin, D (1993) Voluntary Simplicity: Toward a Way of Life That Is Outwardly Simple, Inwardly Rich, Rev edn, New York: Quill Elgin, D 'Voluntary Simplicity and Soulful Living', 2007, http://www.soulfulliving.com/voluntarysimplicity.htm Elgin, D., and A Mitchell (1977) 'Voluntary Simplicity', Co-Evolution Quarterly (Summer), pp 518 Etzioni, A (1998) 'Voluntary Simplicity: Characterization, Select Psychological Implications, and Societal Consequences', Journal of Economic Psychology 19 (5), pp 619-43 Etzioni, A (2004) 'The Post Affluent Society', Review of Social Economy 62 (3), pp 407 - 20 Gee, A (1991) 'The Neoclassical School', in A G Miller and D Mair (eds), A Modern Guide to Economic Thought: An Introduction to Comparative Schools of Thought in Economics, Aldershot: Elgar Gowdy, J M (1998) Limited Wants, Unlimited Means: A Reader on Hunter-Gatherer Economics and the Environment, Washington, D.C.: Island Press Hay, R (2005) 'Becoming Ecosynchronous, Part The Root Causes of Our Unsustainable Way of Life', Sustainable Development 13 (5), pp 311-25 Huneke, M E (2005) 'The Face of the Un-Consumer: An Empirical Examination of the Practice of Voluntary Simplicity in the United States', Psychology and Marketing 22 (7), pp 527-50 Iwata, O (2006) 'An Evalutation of Consumerism and Lifestyle as Correlates of a Voluntary Simplicity Lifestyle', Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal 34 (5), pp 557-56 Johnston, T C., and J B Burton (2003) 'Voluntary Simplicity: Definitions and Dimensions', Academy of Marketing Studies Journal (1), pp 19-36 Jones, G S (2004) An End to Poverty?, London: Profile Books Jonsson, P (2006) Capturing the Elusive Simplifier, Göteborg: Göteborgs universitet, Center for consumer science, School of Business and Economics and Law Lawson, T (2003) Reorienting Economics, London: Routledge Leonard-Barton, D (1981) 'Voluntary Simplicity Lifestyles and Energy Conservation', Journal of Consumer Research (3), pp 243-52 Levine, D P (1998) Subjectivity in Political Economy: Essays on Wanting and Choosing, London: Routledge Marshall, A (1920) Principles of Economics, edn, London: Macmillan McDonald, S., C J Oates, C W Young, and K Hwang (2006) 'Toward Sustainable Consumption: Researching Voluntary Simplifiers', Psychology and Marketing 23 (6), pp 515-34 Work in Progress: Not for Citation 21 Prepared for PhD-seminar 24 Okt 2007 Menger, C (1871/2004) Principles of Economics, J Dingwall and B F Hoselitz (trans.), Grove City, PA: Libertarian Press; Ludwig von Mises Institute Miller, A G., and D Mair (1991) A Modern Guide to Economic Thought: An Introduction to Comparative Schools of Thought in Economics, Aldershot: Elgar Parkin, M (2000) Economics, edn, Harlow: Addison Wesley Philip's, W E 'Buddhism', Oxford Reference Online, 2005, http://www.oxfordreference.com.ezproxy.ub.gu.se/views/ENTRY.html? subview=Main&entry=t105.e1734 Polanyi, K ed (1957) Trade and Market in the Early Empires: Economies in History and Theory, New York: Free Press Raiklin, E., and B Uyar (1996) 'On the Relativity of the Concepts of Needs, Wants, Scarcity and Opportunity Cost', International Journal of Social Economics 23 (7), pp 49-56 Robbins, L R (1935/1945) An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science, Second edition, revised and extended edn, London: Macmillan Robbins, L R (1998) A History of Economic Thought the Lse Lectures, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press Roll, E (1973) A History of Economic Thought, edn, London: Faber & Faber Rudmin, F W., and W E Kilbourne (1996) 'The Meaning and Morality of Voluntary Simplicity: History and Hypotheses on Deliberetly Denied Materialism', in R W Belk, N Dholakia and A Venkatesh (eds), Consumption and Marketing, Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western College Publ Samuelson, P A., and W D Nordhaus (2001) Economics, 17 edn, Boston: McGraw-Hill Sandelin, B., H.-M Trautwein, R Wundrak, and Studieförbundet Näringsliv och samhälle (2001) Det Ekonomiska Tänkandets Historia, 3., rev uppl edn, Stockholm: SNS förl Schor, J B (1999) The Overspent American: Why We Want What We Don't Need, New York, N.Y.: HarperPerennial Schumacher, E F (1975) 'Buddhist Economics', in (eds), Small Is Beautiful: Economics as If People Mattered, New York: Harper Colophon Books Shama, A (1981) 'Coping with Staglation: Voluntary Simplicity', Journal of Marketing 45 (3), pp 120-34 Shama, A (1985) 'The Voluntary Simplicity Consumer', Journal of Consumer Marketing (4), pp 57-63 Shama, A (1996) 'A Comment on the Meaning and Morality of Voluntary Simplicity: History and Hypotheses on Deliberately Denied Materialism', in R W Belk, N Dholakia and A Venkatesh (eds), Consumption and Marketing, Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western College Publ Shaw, D., and T Newholm (2002) 'Voluntary Simplicity and the Ethics of Consumption', Psychology and Marketing 19 (2), pp 167-85 Smelser, N J., and R Swedberg eds., (1994) The Handbook of Economic Sociology, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ Press Thoreau, H D (1971) Walden, Princeton, N.J., Xenos, N (1989) Scarcity and Modernity, London: Routledge Zavestoski, S (2002) 'The Social-Psychological Bases of Anticonsumption Attitudes', Psychology and Marketing 19 (2), pp 149-65  ... A categorical distinction A categorical distinction has to be made between the relative and ‘absolute’ dimensions of scarcity and abundance Relative scarcity refers to generally all wants and. .. gap by articulating an alternative model of relative scarcity and abundance The new model shall demonstrate at least three points: (1) both scarcity and abundance is equally relevant for a socioeconomic... of scarcity is allowed to play in economic analysis A fundamental question ought to be; what causes relative scarcity (and abundance) to arise in the first place; what are the social, cultural