Lonergan, Social Transformation, and Sustainable Human Development

Ogbonnaya

• Publisher: Pickwick Publications
• Year: 2013
• eBook ISBN: 9781621895244
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

Secular contemporary development discourse deals with the problems of societal development and transformation by prioritizing the human good in terms of vital and social values with the aim of providing the basic necessities of life through social institutions that work. While such an approach is profitable by promoting economic growth, it does not take note of other dynamics of social progress and development. Also, it fails to notice the consequences of development strategies on human flourishing, well-being, and happiness.Ogbonnayu argues for an integral approach to development by engaging in a fruitful dialogue between Bernard Lonergan's philosophical anthropology with contemporary development discourse, as represented in select theories of development, and in select principles of Catholic social teaching. It makes a case for social progress and transformation as emanating from human understanding. Also, it highlights the parts of Lonergan's theory that contribute to an understanding, specifically of his treatment of bias, and of the shorter and longer cycles of societal decline. In view of the reality of moral impotence and limitations, it considers the reversal of societal decline as possible through the supernatural solution of God's grace.

1

Themes in Contemporary Development Discourse

Contemporary development discourse is variegated and diverse. The meaning and scope of ‘development’ has expanded in magnitude and has been radically reformulated in various theories and discourses including dependency, world-system, Marxist, socialist, postmodernist, postcolonial, poststructural, feminist, ecological, critical modernist, etc. The world’s societies have also changed dramatically in many ways (a fact evident in the explosion of discourses of ‘globalization’ and ‘anti-globalization’ or alter-globalization’), and there are many emerging new voices on the world scene discussing societal development and transformation. Knowledge production has also expanded and changed dramatically, raising new epistemological challenges and possibilities. This is the contemporary scene of development discourse divided by the secular academy and in the various notions or principles of ‘development’ in other areas of life as well. Thus the scale of the task of exposing the contemporary development discourse would be daunting. But this is not the task we intend to undertake here.

This chapter sets out to expose not every conversation going on in the contemporary scene of development discourse but only select themes with the aim of introducing the academic field of discourse on development that will be in conversation with Lonergan’s philosophical anthropology. The chapter will be divided into two parts. The first part will discuss select theories of development. The second part will be a discussion of notions of development as contained in some principles of Catholic social teaching.

theories of development

Development means producing a better life. Development is fundamentally economic. Hence, the discipline of economics has to be integrally involved in the study of development. All theories of development have significant economic aspects, along with other dimensions. So, we have to know economics to understand development.1

—Richard Peet and Elaine Hartwick

In the above words Richard Peet and Elaine Hartwick lay the groundwork of their theory of development. They argue that the economic dimension plays a very important role in theories of development because all theories have significant economic dimensions. Peet and Hartwick’s position is correct as far as it goes, for at least two major social revolutions—the industrial revolution and the shift to global economic production. There are other factors as equally important as economic growth. Some of these other factors could be summed up in the goal of economics as improving the living condition of people and promoting human flourishing and well-being. This is clear from the view of economists who champion human development. According to Amartya Sen, the success of economics “has to be judged ultimately in terms of what it does to the lives of human beings. The enhancement of living conditions must clearly be an essential—if not the essential—object of the entire economic exercise, and that enhancement is an integral part of the concept of development.”2 Mahbub ul Haq holds similar view by acknowledging that “today, it is widely accepted that the real purpose of development is to enlarge people’s choices in all fields—economic, political, cultural. Seeking increases in income is one of the many choices people make, but it is not the only one.”3 Thus, in the United Nations for instance, we do have not only macro bodies that deal on economic planning like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the regional development banks. We also have institutions that specialize on micro human development issues like the World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations International Children Emergency Fund (UNICEF), United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), International Labour Organization (ILO), United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) etc. It is very obvious “that people are both the means and the end of economic development.”4 As will be seen below, the various theories of development approach the ends of development differently.

Adam Smith’s Theory of Self-Interest

Classical economics developed following Adam Smith, whose philosophy is based on the inevitability of self-interest as the determinant of exchange and of values, as argued in his 1776 book, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations thus:

As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.5

Adam Smith contends that human beings have a natural propensity to trade, “the propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another.”6 As traders, human beings naturally pursue their self-interest, with the aim of making money, of making profit for themselves. As a result of this pursuit for self-interest, Smith argues that whoever wants to get anything from anybody should appeal to the self-interest of the person, to the others advantage to get him/her to do what one wants. For:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.7

Human selfishness is thus an economic motive for the creation of wealth and production of growth. However, self-interest is tamed by virtue, a concept which to Smith meant the “exceptional powers of character and mind, the love of that which is dignified, honourable and noble in their pursuit of self-interest.”8 For although human self-interest is natural, Smith also believed that human beings’ highest quest was for virtue. Consequently, self-love is mitigated by virtue. And “should that prove insufficient, selfishness (in the form of greed) should be limited by laws made by the state.”9

Adam Smith’s classical theory developed in response to the continuing social turmoil that began in the age of industrialization and state intervention to protect trade in the period of mercantilism. Adam Smith proposed letting human selfishness reign because in the pursuit of one’s self-interest one simultaneously promotes an unintended goal—, “the invisible hand”10 unintended consequence, — promoting the good of the society. For instance, in the course of promoting one’s self-interest in making money, one embarks on a business venture and in the process provides jobs for other people as well. Instead of regulating the market, governments should let the invisible hands of market forces create an overall benefit for society. So within the larger scheme of The Wealth of Nations, Smith insisted that various countries should specialize in those areas of production where they are naturally endowed, what he termed “...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Foreword
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Chapter 1: Themes in Contemporary Development Discourse
• Chapter 2: Lonergan’s Philosophical Anthropology
• Chapter 3: Lonergan and Social Transformation
• Chapter 4: Lonergan and Development: Points for Dialogue
• Conclusion
• Bibliography