The Fable of the Bees by Bernard Mandeville - Essay Example

An insight into Bernard Mandeville’s, The Fable of the Bees Introduction: In the year 1714, Bernard Mandeville created quite a few ripples among scholars of Philosophy and Economics through his work, The Fable of the Bees. To say that the poem and the explanatory prose caused the raising of many eyebrows is certainly an understatement. This was because the poem seemed to upset the apple cart of virtue – a prized symbol of both private and public life, at the time. There were very few men and women who believed that being virtuous was the second best quality required of them. He forced them to look at life from a totally new perspective. What was also of great import was the style in which the whole work was written. Mandeville’s easy flow of verse sounded both rhetorical as well as downright practical at the same time. Just when the reader was getting used to his signature style, they were trying to find their bearings in a sea of ethical turmoil that Mandeville had cast them into. The kind of speculation that he forced upon his readers is what has made his work not just remembered, but also the subject of many philosophical and ethical discussions. Very often, the reader is left wondering whether they really grasped the meaning of the poem; hence reading and re-reading the poem continues to be a common occurrence. Mandeville’s work forced readers from all walks of life to look at the relativity of life rather than trying to find exhaustive answers to many problems. It became a tool to kindle the thought process of those who had come to accept the words of those in power – political, religious or otherwise. He seemed to enjoy turning upside down the very precepts by which people had lived for a very long time, paying no heed whatsoever to the discord that he had created not just between various groups of people, but within these groups as well. This essay endeavors to present a picture visualized by Mandeville, with special emphasis on the economic angle. Though religion, social and political perspectives are intertwined in this discussion, there is a concerted effort on the part of this writer to present the economics of a world portrayed by Mandeville. Background study: Before going into the economic aspects of Mandeville’s work it is essential to get into his mind and ascertain the exact (or near-exact) nature of the picture he tried to paint. A close look at how Mandeville viewed human psyche reveals a few surprising facts: the central element in his scrutiny of the human mind was his unshakeable belief that there was a basal irrationality demonstrated by humans that lead them to behave in a particular way. He discounts the expression of reason (however pure, it may be) and says that it is a camouflage used by the human mind to find justifiable and socially accepted physical expressions of varied emotions. While this might put Mandeville into a category of anti-rationalists, it also puts him into an exclusive bracket of philosophers and radical thinkers. It would therefore be simplistic to label this man a practitioner of Pyrrhonism – a term which is now used synonymously with Scepticism. There is a lot more in his work, than what an ordinary sceptic would opine. Of course, there is the underlying distrust of the whole social fabric as it existed during the time of Mandeville. He also comes across as a person who grossly underestimated the ability of a person to reason for himself or herself and come to reasonably well-accepted conclusions on any topic. This is reminiscent of the thoughts of other greats like Plato who also believed that majority of men are not capable of reasoning well. To most, this might sound like a snobbish and elitist attitude and go totally against the grain of common good. It is also an indication of the primary thought that was attributed to the aristocratic sections of society at the time. Some of the fundamental issues raised by Mandeville: To understand The Fable of the Bees in its entirety, it is necessary to get a clear understanding of the basic concepts and issues raised by this great thinker, economist and philosopher: To each his own – people are different with varied perceptions and abilities. It is necessary for society to view and accept people for what they are, rather than brand or categorise them. The workings of a society in general are geared towards economic balance and lessening of disparity – Mandeville believes that in reality this is far from possible. The question of morality is a serious one as well as a relative issue as well. What is morally right for one person might not be so for another. He works on the premise that not all men are born equal and that there is a certain hierarchy that lends itself to social as well as economic change. When personal or private virtues such as thrift are adhered to, this brings about reduced spending. Reduced spending causes a lessening in the flow of money. When money flow is hindered and becomes scarce, there is a likelihood that production and manufacturing of goods are hampered. There is a need to re-examine the role of the state, in setting up a society. is the state just a passive regulatory body or is it one that can contribute in a significant way to altering the thought processes of people? In doing so, is the state fulfilling its primary duty of governance? If work is worship (as the popular adage goes), does this extend to doing one’s work oneself, without delegating the same or paying somebody to get it done? If this is so, it is possible that doing one’s own work might amount to a rise in the unemployment level in a society, since there are not many jobs to be done, that can bring in some sort of financial compensation. Since the notion of personal virtue needs to undergo a critical re-examination, it is also necessary to understand and estimate the cost of public benefits. Society as it exists consists of individuals who are seized by the need to be virtuous, as prescribed by religions prevalent. In such a situation, to what extent would people go against the set precepts of the religions that they follow? For a person like Mandeville who brings out all these thoughts, using a colony of bees as a symbol, the poem speaks of his high intellect on the one hand and the ability to get people to think, on the other. The significance of work & resulting social stratification: To Mandeville, being idle was just short of committing a heinous crime. The very reason why he chose bees to illustrate his ideas of work and organizational structure is a clear indication that he valued work (physical or mental) to a great extent and based his writing on the concept of work being the cornerstone of economic and social stability. People work for a good many reasons. ‘Self-interest’ in its broadest sense, including the interests of family and friends, is a basic motivation for working in all societies. But self interest need not involve just providing for subsistence or accumulating wealth. For instance, among the Maori, a Polynesian people of the South Pacific, a desire for approval, a sense of duty, a wish to conform to custom and tradition, a feeling of emulation, and a pleasure in craftsmanship are additional reasons for working. Work has a good many social meanings. When individuals work, they gain a contributing place in society. The fact that they receive pay for their work indicates that what they do is needed by other people and that they are a necessary part of the social fabric. Work is also a major social mechanism for placing people in the larger social structure and providing them with the required identities. In a situation such as this, is it not correct to assume that the social standing of a person is largely dependent on the kind of work that he does? In fact, old Indian texts that specify how society should function, categorize people on the kinds of jobs that they hold. Mandeville stressed upon the need to have and maintain a working class – this might be an idea that is totally abhorrent to the communist or even the liberalist for that matter. In a society, where the fulfilment of economic needs is of primary importance, he insisted that if there is a very large labor force, it is highly probable that the wages would go down to levels that are easier to manage. The lowering of wages would also ensure that there is a steady and sufficient supply of this kind of labor. He did not agree with the fact that higher wages would increase the number of people to opt for labor-oriented jobs. Conversely, he averred that higher wages ensured a labor supply curve that sloped downwards. This insight into the supply and demand of labor leads us to the next step of social stratification based on the jobs that people hold in a society. Most Marxists would believe that the key to social stratification in capitalist societies is the division between those who own and control the crucial means of production – the oppressing capitalist class or bourgeoisie – and those who have only their labor to sell – the oppressed working class or proletariat. In Marx’s view these two groups and their conflicting interests provide the foundation for stratification in capitalist nations. Therefore social stratification for pure Marxists would consist of only one dimension. A view that was not as purist in nature as that of Marx could be that of the liberal thinkers. They preferred looking at social stratification and through that at economic prosperity from other angles as well. Class, status and power could be identified as the three main components and hence constitute a distinct aspect of social ranking. Linking social stratification with personal wealth: The economic dimension of stratification consists of wealth and income. Wealth has to do with what people own. Income refers to the amount of money people receive. Thus wealth is based on what people have, whereas income consists of what people get. Throughout human history, the question of why social inequality and division should characterize the human condition has been a matter of lively concern. One more key element in this discussion of social stratification is the presence of certain ration and selfish traits of the human mind that might work towards social good as well as personal well-being. At this point, the question that Mandeville poses, gains significance – is it good to encourage private vice, because in the long run it ensues public benefit? Mandeville, the mercantilist: There seems to be no broader vision of social good if you look at the work of Mandeville, cursorily. Only an in-depth study of his work can reveal the extent to which he has focused upon the benefits that society could enjoy as a whole if there is a concerted effort at propagating self-wealth. He is very clear on his stand of being totally against the religious and puritanical ideologies of his time. It was the practice then, to adhere to ‘Christian virtues’ of thrift, patience, contentment, selflessness and a host of similar virtues. Mandeville, the economist and pure mercantilist looked at the whole issue from the point of view of increasing the quantum of public benefits (increasing social standing and good). If one is looking for a simplistic explanation of Mandeville thought, it can be put forward as follows: when a person is thrifty and is of the opinion that he needs to work himself, it results in very few people being employed by him. Therefore there is a slow reduction in the money power that is available in the economy at a given time. Selfishness is considered a moral vice in all societies; however, Mandeville opined that this could be cultivated with the broader prospect of social benefits on a much larger scale. He also was of the opinion that there is no such a concept as natural harmony and there is an element of ‘survival of the fittest’, no matter what other moralists may claim. Hence it was certainly possible for a skilful government or management to ensure that a private vice is converted into a public benefit. Mercantilists believe that if the governing body and the society as a whole are not careful, it might lead to an overproduction of goods and services which again might result in under-consumption, or vice versa. This view endorses this fact: for individuals saving money on-their-own, would not be a wise thing to do. This would lead to a lowering of need, thereby signalling a lowering of consumption. When this takes place, output also goes down and the employment scenario gets a negative tint. This is where the metaphor of the beehive has been used to the hilt. When we talk of a heightened activity in a specific zone, we very often refer to it as a ‘beehive of activity’ – a term used to demonstrate the fact that there are numerous people working on a job that needs to be done. Moralists and other classical thinkers believed that private virtues of humility, thrift found people an elevated place in society. These people, for whom virtue was a way of life rather than a religious or moral precept, the idea proposed by Mandeville was pure and simple sacrilege. He believed that the final outcome of private virtue could be nothing but economic depression! The government, according to him, had to concentrate on the broader vision of economic stability by ensuring that the exports from a particular country was higher than the imports made by it. This would ensure that the production would always be on the higher side. Consumption had to take a back seat, since production was a lot more important than consumption. Religion and Economics: To the average reader today, Mandeville’s treatise on the economic aspect of promoting private vices, in order to augment public benefits, there is always a lurking question or rather a niggling doubt that one just cannot erase – the ethical or moral concerns. As an economist and revolutionary thinker, Mandeville proposed a way of life that placed self-interest on a pedestal. He made it look like one of the most prized possessions that a person could earn in his lifetime. Since self-interest has been accorded such a high status it is not difficult to decipher that self-interest could clash with ‘common good’. For instance, in the early days of industrial revolution, power remained in the hands of a few (gentry) who succeeded in establishing monopolistic practices that were completely against the idea of common good and overall betterment of society. Creating of monopolies is an integral part of an economy and there is bound to be some amount of self-preservation in the tactics employed by any business, be it big or small. What put moralists on the defensive is the definitive stand taken by Mandeville in his work. He has absolutely no doubts that private vice will result in the common good. There is not even an element of doubt in what he says, leaving no room for any kind of prevarication on the issue. He is clear that economies and societies can move forward only when there is an escalation and deifying of private vices. It is this inflexible stand taken by Mandeville that led him to be treated as nothing short of the anti-Christ! Religious heads (especially of the Christian sect) could not come to terms with his open and stark suggestions for economic prosperity. Conclusion: One could quote every line of The Fable of the Bees and expatiate on it at length – looking in depth at the economic, social and anthropological implications for society, irrespective of date or time. There is a compulsion on the part of the reader to look at each of the trades and professions that are listed in the poem. In spite of the vast spectrum that the poem portrays, the underlying theme is to establish economic progress by promoting social practices that are not the norm. As an economist, Bernard Mandeville insisted that governments of states or countries needed to understand the necessities of the society as a whole, before formulating national policies on work, saving and spending. The idea of laissez faire proposed by economists like Adam Smith, took a little more liberal stand than Mandeville. Though they were of the view that people had to be allowed to do what they want in order for a country to grow, they were also keen that the same should be carried out with some sort of governmental supervision. This was in order to ensure that trade and employment regulations did not get out of hand. Mandeville’s picture for the betterment of society believed in the doctrine that public benefits could not be enjoyed if people continued to follow the precepts of acting in the interests of others. Critics of this view would argue that this was a complete non-humanistic approach, which would at one point be classified as being purely mercenary. Be that as it may, there is no doubt that Mandeville ensured that free enterprise and competitive business efforts became the hallmark of the society he envisioned. To those who still have doubts about the intensity of Mandeville’s words, the last few lines given below give a concise but hard-hitting message about the virtues of being non-virtuous! So Vice is beneficial found, When it’s by Justice lopt and bound; Nay, where the People would be great, As necessary to the State, As Hunger is to make ’em eat. Bare Virtue can’t make Nations live In Splendor; they, that would revive A Golden Age, must be as free, For Acorns, as for Honesty. Mandeville’s Utopia might be a distant dream; but, there is no doubt that he has successfully sown the seeds of economic independence in the minds of his readers. One might either accept or discount his message, but there is certainly no way one can ignore it. (Word count: 3036) Read More