Asger Sørensen

Value, Business and Globalisation – Sketching a Critical Conceptual Framework

Value is a basic concept in economics, ethics and sociology. Locke made labour the source of value, whereas Smith referred to an ideal exchange and Kant specified that commodities only have a market price, no intrinsic value. One can distinguish two modern concepts of value, an economic one trying to explain value in terms of utility, interest or preferences, and an ideal one considering values as ends in themselves. On this basis, Durkheim constructed his theory of value, which was developed by his followers Mauss and Bouglé and further by Bataille. Their line of thought makes it possible to develop a conceptual framework, which can be used to criticise neo-liberalism, big business and the effects of globalisation, while at the same time defending the moral value of business and giving an interpretation of the anti-globalisation protests.

On a universal scale Economy in Bataille’s general economy

This article analyses the general economy of Georges Bataille (1897–1962) in relation to political economy. In the first section I present a critical perspective on economy that is necessary in order to appreciate Bataille’s conception of general economy, which is presented in the second section. The general economy is first considered in a macro-perspective, which comprises the whole of the universe, second in a micro-perspective, where the subjective aspect of economy is maintained as non-objectified desire and inner experience. In the third section I turn to the general economy as it was explicitly intended, namely as a political economy. First I argue that the suggestions that Bataille himself presents are apolitical in an ordinary sense of politics, and that this can be shown to be due to some conceptual slides between nature and society and between history and ontology. I then sketch some postmodern attempts to legitimize respectively capitalism and communism, which refer to the general economy, but argue finally that Bataille can escape both, since he maintains the important distinction between need and desire. Although Bataille’s conception of economy thus reminds us of aspects often overlooked by economy in an ordinary sense, it also contains some serious aporias, which means that it cannot constitute the theoretical basis of a new general political economy, as Bataille had hoped.

DEONTOLOGY: BORN AND KEPT IN SERVITUDE BY UTILITARIANISM

The distinction between teleology and deontology is today almost universally accepted within practical philosophy, but deontology is and has from the beginning been subordinate to utilitarianism. ‘Deontology’ was constructed by Bentham to signify the art and science of private morality within a utilitarian worldview. The classical distinction was constructed by Broad as a refinement of Sidgwick’s utilitarianism, and then adopted by Frankena. To Broad it signified two opposite tendencies in ethics, in Frankena’s textbooks, however, it becomes an exclusive distinction, where deontology signifies disregard for consequences, and it is therefore almost impossible to think of deontology as a framework for a comprehensive ethical theory. This conception, however, is adopted by Rawls, and in his contractarian interpretation of deontology it is in fact no more within the sphere of ethics.

The privilege of participation

Being in Prague means being engaged in cases and causes, feeling anxious, excited and alert, trying to convince others of your points and ideals, constantly arguing, attempting to gain a foothold in various hierarchies and networks, while also allowing yourself to make friends, drink and dance, submitting to other views and authorities, learning and experiencing with an intensity and at an academic level which is possible in few other places within academia. Ten times I have been drawn to Villa Lanna since my first attendance in 2006. Only once, in 2010, was I forced to send my apologies, being caught in the middle of a struggle for academic survival. It was during this absence that I first realized that I in fact belong to a community: 73 distinguished colleagues from 16 countries on 4 continents signed a petition urging my dean and rector to reconsider their priorities and expressing their deep concern about decisions ‘taken from the perspective of short-term marketability’. Behind my back, the scholarly and scientific world had performed its inclusionary measures, and the university management, in those years still not completely estranged from academia, gave in. This experience was crucial, since recognition is the scarce resource that every scholar is trying so hard to obtain. Still, exclusion is prevalent and recognition comes in different guises; being part of the family does not secure your academic status. Science is a meritocracy, transforming knowledge to power, granting full professors scholarly authority and, by implication, also licence to determine the destiny of those with less institutional accreditation. The resulting hierarchical structures promote social relations and characters typical of feudal societies rather than democratic states, thus favouring dominance and submissiveness. Still, the scientific idea of knowledge implies that legitimacy depends on validity, and whether an argument is successful or not depends not only on established authority, but also on both formal criteria and situational social recognition. Equal opportunity meets institutional hierarchy – chance meets predictability.