Modern Myths: our un-Gaian assumptions

John Turnbull January 2004

In our previous meeting Mary talked about there being a great deal of work to be done before Gaian concepts - the Gaian worldview - becomes widespread. She said that it is not just that new ideas take a long time to get used to, but also that first impressions of a new idea colour its take-up. I think we agreed that the term 'Gaia' does carry with it some connotations of 'New Age-y' pseudo-science/pseudo-religion, which is a great shame.
I would like to suggest that there are two other important factors in delaying the switch to a new paradigm. The first is that there are always people - often powerful - who have a vested interest in retaining the status quo. Think of Galileo's struggles with the Catholic church - not so much that they thought he was wrong, as that his defence of Copernicus's ideas threatened the authority of the church. Today, I would argue that the role of the church has been taken on by economists and big business. Economists come up with theories that, far from being any kind of verifiable science, are merely intellectual fig leaves for the action of powerful companies. Politicians go along with this, perhaps because they think it's in their best interests, perhaps because they genuinely believe what economists and business leaders tell them.
Of course, it's not just those in power who are (or will be) reluctant to take on a more Gaian worldview
For another, people find it hard not so much to accept new ideas, but more to let go of old ones; it's not easy to cast off your whole way of viewing the world, to reject ideas that you took for granted.
It is these points that I would like to expand on today: to take a look at some of the myths or assumptions commonly put about by those with vested interests, and which the rest of us hang on to, even if we are unaware of it.
Perhaps I should note that I am not suggesting that most people actually give a second thought to whether, for example, the fundamentals of neoclassical economic theory are right or wrong. But I am saying that we all feel the effects of these ideas and assumptions - after all, they are held by those who make the laws we all live by (the institutional framework of our lives) - and they 'trickle down' and are internalised by all of us to a greater or lesser degree. These assumptions help to define our socio-economic landscape.
So, I am suggesting that these internalised assumptions are a barrier to the uptake/spread of Gaian thinking. Firstly then, I should explain very briefly what I mean by Gaian thinking, or the Gaian Paradigm (others may have different interpretations).
Gaian paradigm has emerged from recent scientific developments: Lovelock & Margulis, evolutionary biology, chaos & complexity etc.
This new paradigm sees hidden connections and interdependence, and recognises that the world is mostly non-linear; human society is seen as a subsystem of the larger Gaian system, not as standing apart from it. Result: recognition of need to reconfigure our systems (societal, political, economic) so as to be in balance with the wider system in which they are embedded; a recognition of the necessity for sustainability, in other words.
This stands in contrast with the current, 2000 year-old worldview, sometimes called the 'Dominator paradigm'. It places humanity at the top of the tree, with the whole of Earth and nature laid out for our benefit. It emphasises discreteness (separateness) and linearity, especially since the Enlightenment and the development of scientific reasoning and methodology. Result: hierarchical, centralised, command-and-control social and economic systems - benefiting mainly the few at the top (in global terms) and exploitation/depredation of nature.
So, if we are to start to understand something of the blockages to Gaian thinking, we should try first to understand where we are now. We can't get from here to there unless we know where 'here' is.
So what are the underlying assumptions of the Dominator paradigm, assumptions that we have all to some degree internalised? And what effect do they have?
William Rees talks of the "central role of myth" in human societies:
"One of the most ironically enduring myths of industrial society is that modern nations, products of the enlightenment all, are no longer the dupes and slaves of myth. True, the industrial era is the age of science but this has not prevented us from being as myth-bound as any culture that has preceded us. The modern mind has difficulty in grasping this paradox only because we have learned to equate myth with falsehood, superstition, and the unscientific beliefs of 'primitive' peoples. But this belies a shallow and sterile dismissive view of myth - myth making is a universal property of human societies and plays a vital role in every culture. "
Perhaps the biggest myth is that we live in a post-ideological world (McMurtry) (the myth that we have no myths?):
"[Like] other social value programs, the doctrine of 'the global free market' itself does not recognize its ideology as ideology, but rather conceives of its prescriptions as 'post-ideological' recognition of law-like truth (original emphasis)… The truth of the global market order is believed to be final and eternal, 'the end of history'. Its rule is declared 'inevitable'. Its axioms are conceived as 'iron laws'. Societies that dare to evade its stern requirements are threatened with 'harsh punishments' and 'shock treatments' (McMurtry 1998, 43).
I would like to look at a few examples of modern myths and assumptions as a way of kick-starting discussion on what stands in the way of Gaian thinking. Throughout, I hope to keep our attention focused on how these myths block a more Gaian way of thinking and also on the question of who benefits from the perpetuation of these assumptions.

Economics
Assumptions:

· The economy works in a linear, clockwork fashion.
· Everything can be marketised.
· Less regulation equals greater freedom.
· That the 'free' market is natural state.
· Price is determined by supply and demand.
· Nature is contained within the economy; therefore the economy can grow indefinitely into the 'void'.
· Money is a 'value-free' medium of exchange.
· Economic globalisation is a 'natural' and therefore inevitable phenomenon.
· Growth is good.

Economics is often touted as a science, but it's nothing of the sort. Scientists observe natural phenomena, come up with a theory/hypothesis to explain it and then test that theory's powers of prediction. If the theory does not accurately predict the phenomenon in question, it is amended. In neoclassical economics, if real life does not fit the theory, then recommendations are made that real life be changed.
Author and economist Hazel Henderson has described economics as 'politics in disguise'. In other words, economic theory is devised to legitimate political decisions about the forms our societies take. This is also known as 'dominant revenue economics'
(COMER - Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform) "Francois Perroux (1903-1987), a leading figure of the French school of economics during the sixties held that in every historic period the revenue of a particular group is taken to be the 'dominant revenue'. With each successive dominant revenue there was associated a very distinct economic theory:

· The ascendancy of the landowners gave us the doctrine of the Physiocrats who held agriculture to be the only productive occupation.
· The era of merchant capitalism had as its doctrine mercantilism, which hardly looked beyond the balance of trade and the net flow of the precious metals.
· Laissez-faire mirrored the interests of a pioneering industrial capitalism.
· Marginal utility answered more closely the requirements of industrial capitalism at a more advanced stage.
· Today, profit gleaned through global fiscal speculation- essentially gambling-is justified by the economic theory of monetarism."
·
Mainstream (neoclassical/neoliberal) economists believe that the economy can be understood as if it were a clockwork mechanism.
But what we call the economy is the result of millions of interactions between millions of living, breathing people (an emergent property); and these interactions are influenced by laws and regulations also drawn up and implemented by living, breathing people. A Gaian approach to economics would explicitly recognise this. Example from System failure: can throw a rock and know where it will land, try throwing a live bird. Economy a complex, dynamic, non-linear system.
The same applies to the global economy. Recently, Tony Blair expressed sorrow at the fact that thousands of call centre jobs were being exported from the UK to India. But, he said, there is nothing he can do about the global economy, and nor did Labour ever promise it could.
Another fundamental assumption of mainstream economics is that the actors within the economy - us - act as 'Homo economicus', always looking to maximise our utility, always armed with perfect information. In fact, (from Rees):
"Like all abstractions, the global market model/myth simplifies reality-for example, it transforms decent well-rounded citizens into gluttonous single-minded consuming machines. The resultant Homo economicus is defined as a self-interested utility maximizer with immutable preferences and insatiable material demands (definitely not the type of person one might invite home to dinner!). You and I are assumed to act as isolated automatons whose sole goal is to maximize our personal consumption through participation in the increasingly global marketplace. The market model cannot accommodate the concept of 'family' and relieves our morally diminished Homo economicus of any other responsibility to society (see Daly and Cobb 1989, Ch. 4)."
The concept of the free market is inherently unGaian - it assumes that people undertake economic transactions in some kind of vacuum, ignoring the forces at play which cannot be quantified in simple money terms. Of course there's nothing wrong with entrepreneurship, and no merit in interfering unnecessarily in markets. But the problems start when free-marketeers treat the 'market' as a given, some kind of natural phenomenon, a gift from nature, rather than the result of myriad human decisions. By doing this, they can then argue that the market should never be interfered with, lest humans upset its natural workings. This of course allows the most powerful players in any market to get away with whatever they want. Tony Blair was guilty of this misrepresentation of what the economy is when he recently said that he was sorry that thousands of UK call centre jobs are moving to India, but there is nothing the government can do to influence the global economy
The Gaian approach would be to recognise the hidden connections in the market - the roles played by power, politics and psychology for example - and reject this atomistic interpretation.
Many economists also seem to believe that the natural world is contained within the global economy; hence the economy can grow indefinitely without any worries about bumping up against the limits of nature.
Rees:
"The late Professor Julian Simon's was perhaps the most ebullient proponent of what has become the near doctrine of 'near-perfect substitution:' "Technology exists now to produce in virtually inexhaustible quantities just about all the products made by nature…," and "We have in our hands now… the technology to feed, clothe, and supply energy to an ever-growing population for the next seven billion years…" [Simon, cited in Bartlett 1996, 342]). In contemporary mythology, the cornucopia of human ingenuity has clearly displaced nature as the great provider."
A good Gaian would of course recognise that the human economy is but a subsystem of the wider ecosystem and therefore must remain within certain limits.
But why this need for growth? Partly driven by the way our money is created as debt, therefore must always expand money supply in order to pay interest. If we don't want inflation, we must also increase output, which leads to ever-greater strain on the Earth's resources.

Politics

· The right to vote constitutes 'democracy'; we therefore live in a democracy.
· Societal problems can be tackled using a reductive, scientific approach.
· Politics and economics are separate spheres.

The most obvious way in which politics is unGaian is in the approach to societal problem solving, which is still very linear. Lip service has been paid to the interconnectedness of society, and therefore of social ills e.g. Tony Blair's pledge to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. But, on the other hand we have recently reverted to a policy of building more roads to solve congestion (a policy I have seen described as like loosening your belt to tackle obesity), and public services (hospitals, education etc) are forced to work towards very narrowly defined targets, which are doing more harm than good (people concentrate on achieving the targets, not on improving overall service).
In fact by taking a linear approach to problems that could be properly described as messes (problems with no clear definition; no clear solution), and which are part of an interlinking system of messes, things are often made worse.
A Gaian approach would mimic nature - constant learning and adaptation; an evolutionary process of improvement in all areas of life.
Our political system is very hierarchical, all the more so now that Mr Blair is presiding over what is virtually a presidential system (Meacher - never spoke to Blair about general environmental issues, Blair's coterie forcing through policy). Indeed, representative democracy could be described as a system for minimising public involvement in government decision-making. A Gaian approach would recognise the need to harness the intelligence of as many people as possible, not just a few 'experts'. The open source software movement demonstrates the benefits of this.
Ideas of individual freedom are increasingly fetishised (Esp in US). Freedom to at the expense of freedom from (Freedom to drive car everywhere reduces others' freedom from pollution, congestion etc).

Science

· We can conquer nature.
· Nature exists outside of, and separate from, society.
· 'Survival of the fittest' means that the strongest and meanest survive.
· Technology allows us to get something for nothing.

We assume that, with all our technology, we can conquer nature. But (again) this assumes that humanity is not part of nature - do we really want to conquer ourselves? If we are not part of nature, if society exists separately to it, then where is the boundary between the two?
Separation from nature has lead to a situation where some children have no idea where their food comes from - milk from cows, eggs from chickens etc.
The Gaian approach would be to use technology to allow us to better adapt to living in balance with nature.

How are these myths and assumptions kept alive and propagated?
Economics profession, financial services industry has massive interest in keeping free-market/neoliberal ideas about the world at the forefront. The media plays along - business journalists cannot bite the hand that feeds them (large part of media's revenue from advertising).
Post-Autistic Economics movement, started in France. Student protest at the increasing emphasis on maths in economics, its separation from real life. Has spread around the world, but no great impact yet.
Force of habit.
Attractive presentation (what could be wrong with freedom in free markets?)

Conclusion
In our globalising world, government policy is increasing driven by purely economic factors - the need for growth in order to maintain the money system, above all else. We live in 'market states', therefore we must all buy into (literally) the economic system, and this entails taking for granted what politicians and economists and business people tell us about how the world works. But this system is not anchored in the real/natural world, and is therefore unGaian.
New ways of thinking are emerging. The internet, for example, is a network of highly interdependent people - they know how much the actions of one (a virus sender, for example) can affect everyone else. Perhaps this mindset will spill over into the rest of life.
And US sociologist Paul Ray's research has identified Cultural creatives as a large and growing new demographic grouping - they could be thought of as a step towards Gaian thinking.
But for the time being, the Dominator paradigm persists, especially among those in power.