Any approach to a theory of value, is at the same time an approach to social theory because value is a concept concerning relations between individuals or social collectives, albeit in an economic context.
As social theory, value theory has to contend with the problems common to all activities aspiring to the title of ‘social science’. That is, scientific enquiry of human society and behaviour has to cope with the unique qualities of human beings that lead some to maintain that such can never be a ‘proper science’. Thus the human qualities of ‘free will’, language, interpretation and ascription of meaning – together with the fact that the ‘social scientist’ is a member of the society that is being studied, and that true experiments are rarely possible on ethical grounds – throw into serious doubt that social science can ever be the impartial, objective activity that the natural sciences claim to be.
This ‘human problem’ applied to social theory has at least two aspects; firstly the social participants under study may be unpredictable, or may differ from day to day in their interpretation of the research process; secondly, the researchers themselves may not be able to maintain an impartial detachment from the issue being researched.
Here, applied to value theory, one substantial aspect of this problem is the extent to which the researcher brings an ideological position to the role.
This page will explore the role of ideology in economic thought, after a short introduction drawing heavily on the work of Maurice Dobb (1973 pp 1-37).
Introduction
Paraphrasing Dobb, ideology can be described as a philosophical standpoint, a historically relative and high level system of thought which can be applied to make sense of more detailed or specific matters. This process may not be simple or direct, and is not always conscious or explicit in individuals. Interestingly Dobb argues that ideology can be a source of insight, as well as partiality and bias.
He also looks at this matter as seen by another economist Joseph Schumpeter who used a concept he called ‘vision’, a way of looking at the world which individuals acquire at the early pre-analytical cognitive stage. Schumpeter argued though, that individuals can put aside their personal vision of things in order to carry out ‘proper’ independent and objective economic analysis; this because they use a ‘hard core’ of supra historical standardised techniques.
Dobb sees Schumpeter’s position to be close to the ‘box of tools’ approach to economics. Here, a range of techniques, mathematical models and forms of statements are applied to specific purposes and, as these formalist approaches have developed they have been increasingly associated with neutrality. Against this Dobb argues that in this approach the economic content of a theory is separated from its analytical framework of techniques and methods. Whilst objectivity and neutrality can be claimed for the latter, he seriously doubts that the guiding theory can ever escape ideological shaping.
Moreover, Dobb argues that there abundant evidence for the historical shaping of economic theory. This he sees as unsurprising, as economics is essentially an applied activity closely linked to social policies. Whilst he accepts the entry into these activities of the kind of individual subjectivity suggested by Schumpeter, he thinks that a more systematic process is at work.
He thus holds that no form of economic research – however abstract, mathematical, ‘objective’ or ‘normative’ – can escape the shaping of ideologically influenced presupposition and thinking. For this reason he argues that an essential part of any exploration of economic theory must be the identification and categorisation of the underlying ideological influences.
To be continued
Profit, Wealth and Value 