CC BY
35
фа
сновы экономики, управления и права 2 0 20
Economy, Governance and Law Basis
№ 5 (24)
УДК 1 : 330.106
DOI 10.24411/2305-8641-2020-10005
ВЗГЛЯД НА HOMO ECONOMICUS И ЕГО ЭКОНОМИЧЕСКОЕ ПОВЕДЕНИЕ ЧЕРЕЗ ПРИЗМУ ОНТОЛОГИЧЕСКИХ ПРЕДПОЛОЖЕНИЙ
© 2020 А.Н. Сорочайкин, И.А. Сорочайкин *
В статье рассматривается онтологический статус детерминант экономического поведения человека. В рамках такого рассмотрения авторы разводят психологическую концепцию образа человека и экономический конструкт «модели человека». В работе обосновывается тезис, что экономический принцип укоренен в самом существе человека.
Ключевые слова: Homo economicus, экономическое поведение, индивид, философия экономики.
It has already been understood in the scientific community that the concept of class differentiation, as the only determinant of human economic behavior in modern economic theories, has been replaced by the awareness of the economic determinant itself total action of "economic principle".However, in contrast to the total force of the class coercion of individuals on a particular variant of economic behavior (unambiguous determination in which the place of man in economic relations is strictly and unequivocally determined by class relations) this principle "coerces" in a slightly different, less unambiguous. The difference here is that an economic principle is not something entirely external to the individual and his or her conscious interests. It is incorporated into a life project of a person.It exists "above" all other (moral, psychological, etc.) anthropological factors.The question of whether the assurance of such status is just a primitive reduction(or rather a reductionism) leads us to the last and indivisible philosophical bases of any theory.
According to Drucker, modern social realities can be characterized by a process of class contradictions reconciliation. This process was a result of the "labor productivity revolution" [1] that in return was caused by the already considered process of redefining the function of knowledge.Marxs theoretical postulates are well known. They say that industrialization should have meant growing poverty for the population from the beginning. The representatives of the new class - proletarians "estranged" from the capital goods. He predicted thatsuch estrangement, would inevitably lead to the exploitation of the proletariat, which will serve as
the basis for the concentration of property in a handful of large owners as well as for further impoverishment of the disempowered proletariat until the system collapses under its own weightand the remaining few capitalists are overthrown by the proletarians [2, p. 16].
With regard to the topic we are interested in, this approach provides a very non-trivial interpretation of the most important information phenomenon genesis in the post-capitalist era.The emergence of the "information" concept is understood here as the cumulative interaction of diverse historical events, scientific discoveries and even everyday circumstances [2, p. 20].
"The right to work in the centrallyplanned system is understood as a citizens duty", while"voluntarynatureofwork is fundamental in the market economy", also"the role of the state in employment is interpreted differently in these two systems": in the first case"in response to the compulsory nature of work there is guaranteed employment for citizens from the state", then in the second case "there are no such guaranteed obligations regarding every citizen"[3, p. 175-176].
In this work we want to highlight this fundamentally new ontological functioning way of economic principle "above" or "around" all other determinants. There will be no relationship of absolute determination, no reduction of much to a single principleand, accordingly, no development of all human practice diversity from one single beginning as it was in Marxist theory.
To start with, we would like to point out that all the talks about the extreme selfishness and almost animal primitivity of "economic person" seem
* Сорочайкин Андрей Никонович (expert763@mail.ru) эксперт, кандидат экономических наук, доктор философских наук; АНО "Институт судебной строительно-технической экспертизы» (Тольятти, РФ); Сорочайкин Иван Андреевич аспирант; Самарский государственный экономический университет (Самара, РФ).
to us insufficiently justified [4]. In this sense, the following discourse is quite revealing: "The myth of the economic human (Homo economicus) was created and consolidated in various ways during all stages of bourgeois ideology development. This anthropological model legitimized the destruction of the old society and the establishment of a new and very specific social order, in which labor becomes a commodity and every person becomes owner and merchant. The most important bases of natural law in the market economy, as opposed to all "laggard" societies, are the selfishness of the individuals and their rationalism" [5, p. 114].It is not difficult to note that the above statements, which are clearly having moral and evaluating nature, are unjustifiably claiming the status of objective theoretical judgments. The fact that labor becomes a commodity under capitalism is objective and irreducibleaccording to most modern economists-theorists. And as such, it can be equated by definition to the status of physical or mathematical regularities that are "beyond good and evil". Itisthe same with "rationalism" and "selfishness" of modern economic person: economics uses these concepts not in a pejorative moral sense, but as ethically neutral hypotheses and theoretical assumptions.
Moral criticism of the Homo economicus model has a tradition and therefore requires some counter-arguments from economists. Indeed, if we interpret this model only psychologically or ethically (i.e. as the "image" of a person), it turns out to be, no less, a caricature of human nature. But the thing is that such criticism is not sufficiently aware of the specifics of the subject matter. If an economist sees his task as a deep and comprehensive analysis of one real aspect of human activity, he will have to abstract from all other aspects, classifying them as "other equal". Whatever personal philosophical views have the scientist on the man s nature and mans destiny as an analyst, he or she still needs some abstract human model as the starting point of scientific research. In other words, the image and the model of a person are not the same things in economics [6, p.40].
More than that, the relationship between the epistemological model of the human and the political order of society turns out to be more meaningful than the supporters of critical social theory imagine. Forexample, if the phenomenon of totalitarianism is considered as a political regime, the findings of social criticism reveal their heuristic value. However, the purely economic processes that take
place under any political regime, including a totalitarian one, are fundamentally an autonomous and complete subject of economic analysis.An anthropological research model of rational maximization (or any other model that corresponds to reality) can be useful here. The totalitarian state itself, seeking to put each individual under its political control, will also have to make some assumptions about human nature. In other words, it will have to base on some anthropological model. But it is not an economical model, it is a rather sociological one. The question of whether a theoretical model is responsible for the political, social and moral interests on which it is based seems to usself-evident.
To sum up the discussion above, it may be said that theoretical models of humans in economics need to be distinguished from matching philosophical attempts of revealing human nature. Economists never intended to create a holistic, diverse image of humans as well as never intended to give the human a comprehensive definition. These would apply more to the sphere of philosophical anthropology. The incomplete and sometimes unrealistic image of the human, which implicitly presents in any economic theory, is nothing but the result of specialization of this science and awareness of its methodological limits.
The same can be said in more general terms: the scientific models formulated within the framework of social sciences are fundamentally different from the equivalent philosophical concepts and ideas. They are analytic, while in philosophy they are synthetic. The philosophical anthropological model is always a result of a study based on data from proprietary sciences. Human models in the social sciences are only instruments for hypothesis construction.Since science examines person actions as purposeful behavior, this approach should be distinguished from the purely philosophical methods by which peoples values and goals are analyzed.In other words, the person at one level of existence chooses the means to achieve his goals and this is the field of scientific research. On the other side, on a parallel level, the person can think about these goals, about their absolute value, whatever his private (perhaps selfish) interests may be.The first level is a subject of the social sciences, including economics, the second level is engaged in philosophy and especially in philosophical anthropology.
It is significant that the existence of these two research approaches is often adhered to by one sci-
fle
сновы экономики, управления и права 2 0 20
Economy, Governance and Law Basis
№ 5 (24)
entist. For example, A. Smiths purely economic treatises contain a much simpler and narrower anthropological model than the equivalent assumptions of human nature, on which he based his book "Theory of Moral Feelings" [7]. Following that, several modern economists suggest distinguishing two types of theoretical models in economic science as well as distinguishing different abstraction levels of the same model. The first case is talking about the difference between models in the sense of reality approximation, which are allowed for empirical testing, and models that are more of a service and working nature.These service models may be like libel of reality, but this is only because they are used only as basic assumptions for the further development of hypotheses. The anthropological model "Homo economicus" should be included exactly in this second type as it is a rational maxi-mizer of usefulness and value. More than that, the conclusions from such hypotheses may be very productive and not trivial at all. It may be also affirmed about maximizing behavior hypothesis with undeniable predictive value, which was confirmed by the economic realities of modern life. On the other hand, the division of economic models in to realistic and service ones is not absolute. Even such prominent economists as Bentham, Gossen, Jevons, and Menger often used abstract human models to construct empirically verifiable hypotheses and directly explain economic life phenomena. This clarification is important since the last two scientists that are mentioned above are in fact the authors of the modern economic human model [6, p. 41].
In the second case, it has to be said that even the most abstract original model must be related to the object (in this case to real human behavior) if it wants to capture real patterns and predict the real state of affairs. For example, an econometric study presumes a much more specific human model than it is necessary for purely theoretical research: at least some of the empirical and psychological properties of individuals that influence their decisions and preferences should be drawn and identified.
All that was said above about the objective limits of economics and, as a result, about unproductiveness of narrow moral criticism in this field can be summed up by the following comment of the well-known specialist Vladimir Avtonomov: "Many critics require the model of the economic person to consider all basic and essential human traits, require the renunciation of labor division between the sciences. And this is unacceptable. But
there is also a danger of the opposite, where the conclusions were drawn by the abstract model of the economic personwithout the necessary intermediaries and reservations, apply to the behavior of real people" [8, p. 48].
So what is the conclusion? In our opinion, the economic principle is rooted in the very existence of man, it is not an artificial, speculative and anonymous system, as the critics of capitalism would claim. It is fed by the powerful vitality of a person, by his or her ambitions, the desire for recognition, the need for self-assertion, the need for mastery and the improvement of reality. The question of whether they are (vital and social needs named above) good or bad is estimated, which depends on the perspective and research priorities. That is why the issue in this context is on the wayside. Instead, it would be more appropriate to state that these needs exist and require an adequate and socially acceptable form to be represented. They are given this opportunity by market mechanisms governed by objective rules.
Let us summarize several basic categories in which it is convenient to divide and analyze the structure of economic activity and its patterns. We will select five categories and monitor their relationship: "energy", "economic mechanism", "objective principle", "subjective principle", "economic action".
We have already touched the first concept, it can be conditionally called "energy". This is about an initial economic motivation, which gives the individual energy to pursue economic activity (in the broadest sense). So this is about vanity, ambition, greed, etc. In its pure form, this energy represents a largely uncharted cultural demand for unlimited self-assertion. This is "fuel" of any economic projects of the person. But the thing is, this primary energy is introduced to economic activity not in this form because it just cannot cope in such an unprocessed formwith the market mechanism, which it encounters as soon as it meets an objective reality. The market mechanism exists in strict accordance with its "objective principle", which we above have called a total economic principle. Therefore, energy must somehow adapt to the "cast-iron logic" of its objective regularities to be effective under conditions of mechanism.
We can assume that there is some other subjective force that on the one hand, can limit "energy", providing it with the proper direction, purpose and meaning, while on the other hand will
correspond to the structure ofthe economic "mechanism". In other words, there must be an intermediary in this subjective sphere between economic motivation and economic principle. This mediator is the rationality of the person ("subjective principle"), which in its main features correlates with the internal (also rational!) structure of the market "mechanism". The basic characteristic of economic rationality, optimization of utility at minimum costs is also the most convenient means for the practical implementation of objective economic patterns. It can be argued that a rational entity structure and an objective market structure equally need each other as conditions for each others realization. "Economic activity" takes place in all its diversity in the place of their interaction. As a result, it will come full circle: energy mechanism objective principle subjective principle economic action. The initial human vitality, passing through all the links of this chain and facing with the economic mechanism and the objective principle that serves it, is applied by the subjective principle. And in this way, it gets some articulated social form, and finally, it gets the full implementation in the economic action. In other words, energy becomes action, demand is fulfilled, potentials are updated [4; 6].
Some of these categories can be specified using the analysis of the Max Weber concept [9]. In this way, the category we have identified as "energy" finds another aspect. If it is isolated, it is simple greed and gluttony. In this form, primary economic energy turns blind to any long-term economic projects involving strategic calculation and delays in the achievement of benefits. Its sphere of interests is limited to short-term benefits, and that is why this principle cannot produce a capitalist way of doing business. According to Webers views, "adventurous" capitalism is limited to this stage and does not transform into another quality. In order to process this energy, three above mentioned additional structures of different nature are needed as well as the "capitalist spirit", category allocated by scientists as an independent subject of analysis. The
latter is then presented as the ideological and cultural basis of economic activity or otherwise the value of this vital energy; then rationality (the subjective principle) can be understood as its standardizing and ordering by the rules and procedures of economic conduct prescribed by reason.
For the sake of justice, it is worth mentioning that this scheme is very abstract and conditional. It seems to us that the lack of a coherent concept of economic activity today is a lack part of such very general, logical and precise concepts and categories that can describe it. It should also be mentioned that philosophical understanding of any reality always implies, in one way or another, a very high level of generalization and abstraction.
Библиографический список
1. Рационализм и культура на пороге третьего тысячелетия: III Российский философский конгресс (16-20 сентября 2002 г.): материалы [в 3 т.] - Ростов-на-Дону: Изд-во СКНЦ ВШ, 2002.
2. Сорочайкин А.Н., Сорочайкин И.А. Знания и рост производительности труда (концепция П. Дру-кера Ф. Тейлора) // Вестник Самарского государственного университета. Серия: Экономика и управление. 2011. - №10 (91). - С. 15-21.
3. Экономика и управление в XXI веке / А.Н. Сорочайкин. Самара: Изд-во Самарский государственный университет, 2012. - Т. 10. 194 с.
4. Философия экономики и экономическая ментальность / А.Н. Сорочайкин, И.А. Сорочайкин. Тольятти: Изд-во ИССТЭ, 2019. 36 с.
5. Кара-Мурза С.Г. Манипуляция сознанием. -М.: Алгоритм, 2000. 864 с.
6. Сорочайкин А.Н. Экономическое поведение: опыт онтологической экспликации // Известия Самарского научного центра РАН. Спецвыпуск «Новые гуманитарные исследования». - 2006. - С.39-43.
7. Смит А. Теория нравственных чувств. - М.: Республика, 1997. - 350 с.
8. Автономов B.C. Модель человека в экономической науке. - СПб.: Экон. шк.,1998. 229 с.
9. Генезис экономической рациональности в теории М. Вебера / А.Н. Сорочайкин // Экономические науки. 2012. - № 9 (94). - С.54-58.
Поступила в редакцию 02.10.2020 г.
Основы экономики, управления и права
Economy, Governance and Law Basis
№ 5 (24)
2 0 20
VIEW ON HOMO ECONOMICUS AND ITS ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR THROUGH THE PRISM OF ONTOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS
The article reviews the ontological status of economic behavior determinant. The authors split the psychological concept of a person and the economic construct "model of a human" within these considerations. The article justifies the thesis, which says that economic principle is rooted in the very essence of person.
Keywords: Homo economicus, economic behavior, person, philosophy of economics.
* Sorochaikin Andrey Nikonovich (expert763@mail.ru) expert, Candidate of Economic, Doctor of Philosophy,; INO "IFCTE" (Togliatti, Russia); Sorochaikin Ivan A. postgraduate; Samara State University of Economics (Samara, Russia).
©2020A.N. Sorochaikin, I.A. Sorochaikin*
Received for publication on 02.10.2020
