Week 3 Thomas: Economic Identity
Warning: Undefined variable $comments in /home/idemborg/paigemorgan.net/teaching/engl200d/wp-content/themes/inove/single.php on line 18
Leave a comment Go to comments
Economic identity is an important factor to consider when living in any community. People can either choose to live with an outward lifestyle to support the community, inward for self support, or a mixture of these. I can imagine a conversation between John Locke and Bernard Mandeville regarding the types of economic identity and which is best.
I feel that these men would agree that it is necessary to have an outward sense of economic identity, that each of us are tied to one another and must consider our own earnings, leisure, spending, property, services, and products of labor in the context of our neighbors. By taking as much as we need to live and sharing with others, the greatest happiness can be achieved. Locke points out that we should each own property with as much labor as we put into it, showing a sense of personal ownership. However, Locke also points out that we should live in a way that is considerate of others so that we may all have a share and no property is wasted or spoiled, like the laziness and greed found in Mandeville’s beehive early on. Likewise, Mandeville shows us with a beehive how a bustling society can become strongly unified once it realizes the need for a common goal and well being, suggesting that a society will naturally be outwardly focused if a moral compass is in place. While both men hint at a governing body to preserve the rights and property of the people, their writings would suggest that they believe each person can have a unique and personally chosen role while still supporting the community. There isn’t pure socialism or anarchy in either Locke or Mandeville’s vision of an orderly society, but a naturally organized cooperation.
I feel that Mandeville has a greater emphasis on the outward identity due to the fact that it is almost impossible to live it today’s world (or at his time) excessively independent or cut off from the outside world. On the other hand, I feel that Locke was trying to focus more on recognizing of others to possibly create a greater economy.
Mandeville’s beehive was originally driven by the individuals’ greed. Then the beehive became honest, and everything fell apart. From Locke, it seems that Locke’s way of living is more honest and ideal. What do you think would happen if people who lived Locke’s way of life became greedy like the beehive? Would they adapt to their own greed and still live a relatively “good life” like the beehive, or would it fall apart?
A good post, Thomas, but I really like the framework that you establish in your first paragraph of inward and outward economic identities, and I think it would be helpful if you kept using that terminology in the second paragraph, where you dive into the analysis of Locke and Mandeville. You start, of course, by saying that they’d probably both agree that an outward economic identity is important. I think the question is “what are the boundaries of an outward economic identity?” Are there benchmarks that one could use to determine whether one was being too outward, or too inward? I’m a little bit doubtful about your conclusion, that “Mandeville shows us with a beehive how a bustling society can become strongly unified once it realizes the need for a common goal and well being, suggesting that a society will naturally be outwardly focused if a moral compass is in place.” In a way, you’re correct — but when I look at the last 20 lines of Mandeville’s poem, where he describes arts and crafts neglected, and ease counted as vice, I can’t help but think that the “strongly unified society” has new problems to face. I suppose that could lead to another set of questions about inward/outward focus: does being outwardly focused mean that you only make things that the whole community, or the majority, wants to use?
I would agree that Mandeville demonstrates the need for a more outward identity than Locke points to. It is interesting that Locke talks about the danger of moving toward a greedy society and Mandeville talks about how a society can move toward being honest. Either way that these men are getting their point across, they are saying we should live within reason and consideration of others. Their tactics are quite different with Locke starting with a very primitive society and Mandeville starting with an organized bureaucracy. Who knows, this might be a cycle that civilizations go through as it seems when you put the ideas of these two authors together. As we know from many other instances of life, it is tough to be somewhere in the middle, away from the extremes, because this forces us to define boundaries. I would agree that it is necessary to define the boundary of an outward economic identity.
Peer-Review: You set up a good foundation and topic, however it could benefit from specific details. I think this will help lead you to a clearer purpose. It would help to know why the author wants the reader to recognize their economic identity. The blog post can be expanded by seeing if there is any change in one’s identity, especially if there is a change in status or relationship. Overall, I think it is a really good topic to explore.
Peer Review:
I think that the your purpose is easy to understand but I think that you could go into more detail on the inward self support and to what degree is the best mixture. Also the conclusion seems to be rushed because I feel that there could be more to the ending than just how they view a good society.
Peer-Review
The purpose is clearly understood and you chose two strong texts to support your topic, but I think you can expand more with Mandeville’s economic identity and explain the laziness and greed found in the beehive. Also, I think you could make the second paragraph into three different paragraphs to make it easier to read.