Hugo Fjelsted Alroe (alroe@vip.cybercity.dk)
Sun, 22 Mar 1998 06:08:48 +0100
Squad,
This is a mail I sent to a list on Ecological Economics yesterday.
Any thoughts?
Hugo
________________________________________________
Rune Hansen, List
Thanks for your very suggestive mail, Rune.
I cannot comment on your conclusion that the optimal distribution of the
economic product (for the maximum overall utility) is an equal
distribution, except that is sounds intuitively true, not considering the
theory involved. But what makes for the economic systems tending towards
inequality, if the overall utility would be larger in an equal
distribution, as Rune suggests? What kind of change would alter this trend?
Be that as it may, -- I want to make a few comments on the concept of value.
Rune Hansen wrote:
>A short essay on the notion of value
>
>What is value ? At least three meanings of the word can be
>established. Value can be seen as the subjective evaluation of
>an object or event by the individual. Value can be seen as
>something inherrent in objects or events (e.g. the value of the
>beauty of nature). Or value can be understood as price. Within
>the environmental debate, all three sorts of value are
>represented.
We may pose the three sorts of value as subjective, objective and economic
value. The economic value, or price, I suppose can be called the exchange
value, a value which can be agreed upon by two or more parts, and as such
not really problematic here. The more difficult of the three seems to be
the objective value, the value inherent in objects. But I suggest this
distinction between subjective and objective value, or between imposed and
inherent value is not a basic and necessary distinction. In some
philosophical systems of thought (e.g John Dewey's experientalist
pragmatism, Robert M. Pirsig's metaphysics of quality) experience is taken
as basic, and the distinction between the knower and the known, between
subject and object, as secondary. In such a system of thought the notions
of subjective and objective value, or imposed and inherent value, merge
into what may be called contextual or situational value, or just value,
without qualification.
Consider the value of a painting. Usually we say: "She puts a lot of value
on that painting", or "It is a very valuable painting", and the latter
statement can refer to either price or some concept of inherent value.
Again the economic value is quite unproblematic, though maybe volatile. But
the art critics argue on the other two. From an experiental or contextual
viewpoint there is no cause for such argument. There is no purely
subjective or objective value, only the contextual value expressed by the
statement: "I value that painting", where both the I and the painting in
question are necessary parts of the context for understanding the
statement. This contextual value is not something entirely imposed by the
subject, we might think of our valuing food, or shelter; and it is not
something entirely inherent in the object, we might think of the value we
put on a chair which we have inherited from our grandfather.
As I said, in the case of the painting, the contextual values can flow into
an exchange value without major disasters. But there are many cases where
the relation between contextual values and money value are deeply
problematic, some of which are being discussed here on this list. I suggest
that a fundamentally contextual notion of value may provide for a better
understanding of the relation between value and exchange value, and the
economic systems of value, than the more common split notions of subjective
and objective value. Especially by way of illuminating the connection
between value and context, focusing on the 'what for whom' of value, and
how this context enters into the exchange value accounts.
Our present economic system thrives by eliminating context, the basketball
shoe shows no trace of the working environment in which it is produced, the
pork shows no trace of the living conditions of the animal; - and it
thrives by building virtual contexts, a substantial part of the price of
commodities pays for commercials, building virtual contexts for the goods
we buy.
Preserving context, preserving the contextual value across the exchange
system, is a problem, and a growing one in a world relying more and more on
the economical exchange value system.
Any thoughts?
Regards
Hugo
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hugo Fjelsted Alroe alroe@email.dk alroe@vip.cybercity.dk
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:56 CEST