The more I read McCloskey, the more I like what she has to say. I have reservations and criticisms (not the least of which is that it could and should be shorter) but The Bourgeois Virtues is a book I recommend to anyone.
I think I have a better grasp on what is happening with McCloskey and Christianity now. The essence of her argument is that if you want to grasp what the love at the basis of bourgeois virtues is, the best place to look at is Christianity.
So far, so good, and I would argue absolutely true. But then the good liberal reflexes kick in and McCloskey has to throw in a big qualifier: That some other religions are potentially just as good a source for this understanding of love. And she is willing to go so far as to do a little Christian bashing and to distance herself from Christianity to give herself street credibility on this point.
Later when talking about economics and love, she uses the expression "economizing on love". She means by this that economists find they can't deny the place of love in human relations so they minimize it. I'd say that McCloskey "economizes on Christianity"; she realizes that any explanation of the bourgeois virtues cannot deny that Christianity has a place in the story. For starters it is simply the fact that bourgeois virtues, along with religious tolerance developed in Christian countries first; anywhere else we find these things it is in imitation of what happened in Christian countries first. If she has to acknowledge this, however, McCloskey is going to minimize it as much as possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment