PROGRESS IN ECONOMIC LIFE

"There was no ’one, two, three, and away,’ hut they began running when they liked, and left off when they liked, so that it was not easy to know when the race was over. However, when they had been running half an hour or so, and were quite dry again, the Dodo suddenly called out ’The race is overS’ and they all crowded round it, panting, and asking, ’But who lias won?*

This question the Dodo could not answer without a great deal of thought, and it sat for a long time with one finger pressed upon its forehead (the position

in which you usuàlly see Shakespeare in the pictures of him), while the rest waited in silence*, At last the Dodo said ’Everybody has won, and all must have

prizes.’

’But who is to give the prizes,’ quite a chorus of voices asked." - Lewis Carroll| ’Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland’.

1

fÜÜT

In a c tiv itie s •which are not d elin eated by* th e acceptance o f a convention- ally-nom inated end, th en , we are faced by an h ierarchy of r e a l and imagined aims which v arie s from in d iv id u a l to in d iv id u a l, even though i t i s p o ssib le th a t people

share common evolutionary goals a t th e apex of the h ie ra rc h y . Despite numerous attem pts, no re d u c tio n ist school has ever managed to e sta b lish th a t human m otivatioi can be derived from one b a s ic , common aim. A ll have i t in common th a t, because actu al behaviour does net lend i t s e l f re a d ily to such a u n iC icatio n , then many of our apparent a s p ira tio n s must be stre tc h e d on the rack or have head and fe e t

lopped o ff in order th a t th ey might f i t . onto th e single model bed.

The weaknesses of th ese proposed reductions have been t'âdely exposed, . and £Û.thou gh some workers a c tiv e in the so c ia l sciences s t i l l attem pt to bring human aims doim. to basic d riv e s, the r e la tiv e force of th e se d riv e s, and hence *their order of p r io r ity in the h ie ra rc h y , is admit ted to vary ivi.th the in d iv id u a l. The on].y u n ific a tio n ever to gain wide acceptance i n a s o c ie ty was the h ed o n istic u tilita ria n is m of Be nth am in N ineteenth Century B rita in . Benthara’s contentions th a t whatever i t is we thinl-c we seek, we seek i t for the favourable balance of pleasure over p ain which is consequent upon i t , aid th a t th is q u a n tific a tio n can be summed from the in d iv id u a l to *the s o c ie ty , were popularised in to the catch-phrase “The g re a te s t happiness of th e g re a te s t nuniber", and sueCGSsfu]_ly caught hie ear of those in power. Following from the d iscu ssio n of progress and conventional ends, we may note th a t i t was during th e period in B ritish h is to ry vAeii th is d o ctrin e was paramount 'that th e re was most widespread b e lie f in moral p ro g ress. Wibh the in flu en ce of men such as Bentham and Chachick, the u tilita r ià iir th e s is had considérable in flu e m e on le g is la tio n , and was so widely accepted th a t i t assumed tem porarily something approaching the s ta tu s of a conventional end of

2

the le a d e rs of so c ie ty . This was tlie period which saw fa c to ry a c ts and mines a c ts , laws lim itin g working hours for women and c h ild re n , th e a b o litio n of slavery

126

and th e r is e of an in sp e c to ra te and c i v i l se rv ic e . I t was a period during which a la rg e proportion of those in power were convinced ih a t p ro g ress was being made. They thought, to o , th a t tlie y had a standard independait of personal opinion

ag a in st V'Aiich th a t progress could be measured. Although h ed o n istic u tilita ria n is m cannot now be regarded as tlie b asis of Æ1 value and m otivation, few would d isp u te th a t the N ineteenth Century le g is la to r s did irdeed b rin g g reater happiness to

g re a te r numbers, and did indeed approadi nearer to vàiat they regarded as the S

fundam aital o b je c tiv e .

The question which i t i s now proposed to consider i s whether or not there can he any general assessm ent or awareness of p ro g ress in the absence of any kind of o b je c tiv e standard. Can th e re b e, in oth er words, any idea o f p ro g re ss when we deal w ith a c tiv itie s in which th e ends are not conventionally nominated? In the fi.rs t in stan ce th e answer must be th a t th e re cannot. I f th ere is no agreed end, th en people cannot estim ate performance in terms of an ideal,, and cannot th e re fo re ta lk of p ro g ress towards i t . But th e re i s a sense i n which th e members of a so c ie ty can be agreed th a t th e re has been p ro g ress, even where they are not in agreement over the ends to be pursued. I t is p o ssib le th a t i n some a c tiv itie s people can pur sue d iffe re n t ainB, and yet al.l, make progress sim ultaneously t awards the achievement of those in d iv id u al ai i t s . Although the term *p regress* is

nor mal. ly used in an aim -related way as ‘progress towards something*, we can re a d ily conceive of situ a tio n s i n wlrLch i t could be used vithout the aim being sp e c ifie d . A teacher a t a c ra ft-sc h o o l may say "A ll of the pupils made good p ro g re ss", w ithout n e c e ssa rily implying tlia t they were a l l attempts.ng to achieve the same th in g . Some might have studied needlework, some b ask etry , sonB cooking, and some weaving; but i f each one approached nearer to p ro fic ie n c y in whatever aim he or she had s e t fo r themseQ,ves, i t would be se n sib le to spealc c o lle c tiv e ly of hie whole c la s s as

3 " jurr ‘Progress* is here being taken to mean "advancerænt towards the aim, whatever i t might b e ". I f asked in what f ie ld the progress had been made, the

teach er could only rep ly by enumerating tlie in d iv id u al aims of th e members of th e c la s s , or by giving a general answer such as ‘handicrafts* vihich served to conceal the d isp a ra te aims included under i t s heading. The s itu a tio n described by th e example is a lim ite d one. We are ta lk in g here o f p ro g ress i n f ie ld s which perm it a v a rie ty of indiv1.dual m otives to f a l l under th ei.r terms of referen ce , and we are fal.king about m otives which r e f e r to the desi.r ed achievement of th e in d iv id u a l who holds them, ra th e r than a d e sire fo r o th ers to behave in a p a rtic u la r way.

Obviously, i f th e m otives are of a type which r e q iir e su ita b le behaviour on the p a r t of o th ers before th e y can be i h l f i l l e d , then we meet ^•dth a possible c o n flic t of m otives. The person who is req u ired to behave in a p a rtic u la r way to fulfill,

a n o th er’s motive might find th a t th is req u ired behaviour does not enable him to achieve h is own aims. Only in a s itu a tio n vhere the m otives re fe r ex clu siv ely tx? 'those m otivated can such c o n f lic t be elim inated. In tiie h a n d ic ra ft cla ss o f our example, i t is assumed th a t each p e rso n 's aim is p ro ficien cy fo r h in s e lf in his chosen craft© Because h is aim cbes n o t involve o th ers in ‘the actiievemenb of ends which he nom inates, h is pro g ress does not in te rfe re with "their oi-rn. The other monter8 of the c la ss pursue .tJieir in d iv id u al aims i n a sim ila r fashion© Because the progress of some does not involve the re ta rd a tio n or re tro g re ssio n of o th e rs, we can speak of th e c la ss as a Wiole making progress©

This i s a very d iffe re n t case from one we considered before, in which we talk ed of two people vn.th co n trad icto ry m otivesj and emdsaged a s itu a tio n in

which a new sta te would mean progress towards his aim for o îb , but (necessarily)

4"

reg ressio n for the other© The p o in t of d iffe re n ce in our new exm ple is th a t we are tallcing n e ith e r about conf].icting aim s, nor about s ta te s of achievement common to 'the h olders of d iffe re n t aims© In the h a n d ic ra ft c la s s , any new ‘state* i s a

h

s ta te of achievement in ih ic h only one in d iv id u al fin d s him self ; we a re ta lk in g about a s itu a tio n in which actio n s are in d iv id u al ratlier than c o lle c tiv e . We say th a t the whole c la ss made progress i f each of th e ir in d iv id u al s ta te s of

achievement rep rese n ts an advance towards th e ir in d iv id u al aims from the previous state© We are e ffe c tiv e ly summing dem ents which do not mix© Ju st as th em is no composite sum of ‘my shoes plus your sp e c ta c le s‘ , so th e re is no sum of several d iffe re n t s ta te s o f per for man ce in d iffe re n t a c tiv itie s by

d iffe re n t people© But we can c e rta in ly ta lk about an in c re ase in the composite I f every single element i s larger© Thus i f my shoes are rq )laced by a la rg e r p a ir , and your sp ectacles are replaced by a larg er p a i r , then we know th a t the new ‘my shoes plus your sp e c ta c le s’ is la rg e r than before© What we cannot do is to give comparative w eighting to the in d iv id u al i t ans | we cannot say th a t an in c re ase i n siz e o f sp e cta cle s malces up for a decrease in size of shoes©

The ana].ogy is a h e lp fu l one, because i t may be seen th a t i f two people pursuing n o n -co n flict tin g aims both malce p ro g re ss, then we can t a lk of th e two

c o lle c tiv e ly malcing p ro g re ss; whereas i f one advances and one re g re sse s, we have no common sc ale on which to determ ine whether one’s advance ‘com pensates‘ fo r tiie o th e r’s regression© We ta lk of p rogress in g e ie ra l terms, to o , where a la rg e number of people are engaged in a c tiv i tie s grouped under a general, heading, and where a g reat m ajority of them malce in d iv id u al progress© While we cannot assume

th a t the progress of one can compensate fo r the, reg ressio n of another, we do tend to assuiïB w ith very la rg e numbers th a t p rogress for most of them enables us to ta lk about ‘the progress of th e group* or * c o lle c tiv e p ro g re ss’ © While we have no

system of calculus which enables us to weight th e pïogress o f some ag ain st th e reg ressio n of o th e rs, we assume that the reg ressio n of a very sm all sub-group is outweighed by the advancement of a la rg e majority© U tilita r ia n theor)^, although faced by a sim ilar problem in being unable to w eight p leasu re of some ag ain st

329

p ain of o th e rs, did nonetheless advocate the të c ing of decisions in which a

' sL ig ib ’ unhappiness of few was accompanied by g re a tly in creased happiness of many,, Wliile i t might be d if f ic u lt to decide whether the unliappiness o f one, however

s lig h t, could be counter-balanced by the happiness o f tivo, i t was recognised as being e a s ie r to rndce th e d ecisio n where tlie hap pirn ss of two thousand la y on the other sid e . S im ila rly , w hile a class of th re e menfoers m i^ t nob lead us to ts lk

» X

in terms of ‘c o lle c tiv e p ro g re ss’ i f two had advanced and one re g re sse d , we would use the terms w ithout much h e s ita tio n i f i t were a case of txfo thousand nearing th e ir aims, and only one rec/ed ln g .

I t comes about, th e re fo re , th a t the term ’p ro g re ss’ i s used in the case of la rg e numbers of people pursuing d isp a ra te aims under a general heading, where a la rg e m ajority of them talce steps which bring them closer to tlie achievement of th e ir in d iv id u a l aims. But only fo r a c tiv itie s i n which the in d iv id u a l aims re.'U te only to the performance of the m otivated person can the c o n flic t of* ends be

avoided. In cases Vnere tlB ihlfilam ent, o f an aim xd.ll re q u ire ap p ro p riate

behaviour by those not sharing the aim, i t xvLXI, be Ipijiossible to ta lk of progress by a group g en erally , onI.y of progress from the p o in t of view of c e rta in members of the group.