I am no fan of Stanley Fish — I thought he was a blinkered lackwit before, but now, with his latest appalling column in they NY Times, I see that he is a gospel-thumping charlatan on a par with Pat Robertson. He looks at our faltering economy like we all do, with great concern, and then, unlike the kinds of rational people we need making decisions, claims that the answer lies in the Christian Bible. Seriously, read that article and you’ll see nothing that wouldn’t have come out of a cheap Bible college stocked with pseudo-scholarly theologians. It’s so stupid it hurt to read it.
The Bible, they tell us, contains 2,350 verses “that have to do with money and possessions.” If we attend to the lessons of these verses and learn how properly to husband the resources God has given us, we will be doing his work, for “God desires a life for us that is free of debt , and the entrapments and common pitfalls related to financial difficulties” (Cross). “The way out of debt,” Dayton teaches, “is not a declaration of bankruptcy, but surrender to the word of God.”
You know, people are concerned with money and possessions; it’s a very human state of mind. What this means is that lots of books will reference those subjects: you could count the sentences that deal with money and possessions in Moby Dick, A Tale of Two Cities, The Fountainhead, and Das Kapital and find thousands. The number of mentions of money and houses and carriages and ships and businesses does not make them legitimate authorities on economics, and doesn’t mean they can’t be utterly wrong (and of the last two, at least one must be wrong as a simple logical necessity).
Now I’ve read the Bible myself, and it really doesn’t seem to be big on economics. Most of its proscriptions are rather anti-wealth, for one thing, and there’s a fairly broad emphasis on the moral compromises of crass materialism — poverty, or rather, distancing yourself from greed and the accumulation of earthly wealth, are regarded as virtues. There really isn’t that much about bankruptcy anywhere in it, and this author, Kevin Cross, who pretends to be speaking for a god, seems to be making stuff up. I’m sorry, but God is not going to descend with a collection of legal writs to protect you from creditors, nor is he going to give you a low-interest loan to help you get over short-term cash flow problems. Surrendering to a god is a way of running away from real-world problems without fixing them. It is definitely not a solution for a nation.
Stanley Fish, of course, gobbles this nonsense right up and suggests that this is how we can fix our economy.
This economy, in which funds depleted are endlessly replenished, is underwritten by a power so great and beneficent that it turns failures into treasures. Some economists identify that power as the market and ask us to have faith in it. God might be a better candidate.
How a god is going to help the economy is something bleating theologians always fail to tell us. Similarly, there’s no explanation for how this imaginary supreme being is propping up our economy. Magic? Conjuring gold? Selling timeshares and commemorative coins?
Maybe this god’s assistance can be encapsulated in a sentence: God help us if morons like Stanley Fish were to have a say in maintaining the American economy.
www.10ch.org says
Maybe Stanley Fish is advising each and every one of us to “give up all wealth and possessions” or something, because God will take care of the rest. Not a really good way to solve an economic problem.
Tom says
I think it’s rather funny that the former president who claimed to be a religious christian found “go shopping” to be the solution to the problems of the economy.
I will admit that the lesson of the bible that says stop being so concerned about accruing wealth and instead help the poor isn’t really a bad lesson.
Richard Harris says
Manna from heaven – except it’ll be gold or something, going to the true believers.
Bwahahaha, why would that fecker Yahweh go to all that trouble when he can just smite the sinners, i.e. unbelievers?
frank says
About 20 years ago, a neighbor had financial problems, stressed out, and put Jesus in charge. A few months later the bank foreclosed on the house. I don’t think that improved her morals or ethics or even her mental state. Jesus, it turns out, is not a good real estate agent.
Phelps Gates says
>”blinkered lackwit”
I love it!
Naughtius Maximus says
Aren’t most of the economist talking heads moneyhteists?
Alverant says
The economy has no simple solution. Praying for a god to solve the economic problems is like praying for rain. It’s not going to do anything but when the result does come those who pray will try and take credit.
My brother is an economist (in training) and I’ve picked up a few things from his blog. The best thing, IMHO, is for those in debt to get out of debt. And by that I mean paying off that debt in full with money and not use some legal hocus pocus to get out of paying some/all of it. That will lead to more confidence which will lead to a stimulated economy. It all boils down to people being responsible.
Sastra says
My understanding of the New Testament is that Jesus’ advice to his disciples and followers was based on the belief that they were all living in the last days of the world. Therefore, earthly possessions and wealth were to be renounced in part because they were not needed.
Eschatological financial planning is not good long-term strategy. Just saying.
Jason R says
Since this is a science blog, lets do a study.
Half of the nation can quit work next Monday at 7 A.M and freeze their bank accounts and Pray 24/7 for 52 weeks.
The other half of the nation can continue on as they were doing.
Granted this is just a proposal, the actual conditions might need to be tweaked to get rid of any mitigating factors of the study.
Mike says
You didn’t mention that the Bible explicitly forbids lending with interest. Enacting that rule would certainly have an “interesting” effect on our economy.
Brian says
“God desires a life for us that is free of debt”
The basic economics 101 lesson of wealth creation is that people take out loans to start building wealth: Mortgages, business loans, and the like. These things are then underwritten by savers/investors and the like. Without mortgages, most people could never afford a home.
And yes, I’m obviously aware of the massive problems that this system is in right now. It just shows how this biblical passage is irrelevant to our current problems.
Brian
Ahcuah says
Yes, yes. The Bible is telling all these people to give up their worldly goods.
And I’m willing to take it off their hands.
E.V. says
Someone should explain that to the Jehova’s Witness crowd.
Matt Heath says
I only really know Fish from Language Log fiskings of his (seemingly very weak) stuff on meaning, but I suspect he’s engaged in some form of pomo fucking around. You can’t be a “anti-foundationalist” and believe that the Bible is from on-high, right?
Also, he discusses two contradictory interpretations of what Christian economics would be and doesn’t sem to come out in favour of one or the other.
I’m not sure what he’s trying to convey but I don’t think it can be what he’s actually written.
Sarcastro says
What is the “Invisible Hand of the Marketplace” if it is not the hand of God?
I mean, in the sense that NEITHER ONE EXISTS!
Spiv says
Yeah, I think I must have glazed over the bit about fractional reserve banking when I was going through Luke the other day. I do recall it saying that the rich should give up all their wealth and posessions and donate them to the poor. Which, ironically, is exactly the opposite of what the republican party seems to think is the solution.
Maybe this bible thing /does/ have some logic in it after all!
Your Name's Not Bruce? says
@Tom #2;
I thought shopping was how one kept the terrorists from winning. I didn’t know it was more generally applicable. Silly me.
I wonder how often the ministers/pastors/whomever in the megachurches and on teevee quote Jesus’s warning about a rich man’s ability to go to heaven? If the United States was as much a “Christian” nation so many Christians claim, would there be such a lionization and valourization of wealth as one sees? It looks sorta like a collision between the words of Jesus (or at least some of them) and the Protestant Work Ethic with the latter coming out the victor.
My own solution? Economic recovery through the sale of indulgences. Yeah, I know it’s not actually “biblical”, but the christianists toss the bible aside when it comes to wearing mixed fabrics at the same time and eating shellfish, so why not in this case too?
Mover says
“I’m sorry, but God is not going to descend with a collection of legal writs to protect you from creditors, nor is he going to give you a low-interest loan to help you get over short-term cash flow problems.”
Are you sure?
I’ve been reading and hearing a lot lately on how Lord Obama is going to protect marginalized homeowners from those evil bankers to whom he’s been giving trillions of hope dollars.
JT says
Indeed, we should look to the church for economic relief! By taxing their income, we could easily provide plenty of jobs and really stimulate the economy.
Random Economic Chimp says
@ Spiv, 16
Luke may say take from the rich, to give to the poor
but, Mark (4:25) says:
Clearly stating take from the poor, give to the rich. Which is exactly what the Republican Party seems to think is the solution.
The Barefoot Bum says
Atlas Shrugged is a better guide to Randian economics than The Fountainhead.
2-D Man says
Wait, isn’t the New Testament’s main economic philosophy communism?
Is that what the conservatives are pushing nowadays?
Nerd of Redhead, OM says
Lord Obama? Who is that?
mds says
On Not the 9 O’Clock News, there was a sketch where Rowen Atkinson played the leader of the Conservative party, addressing his party members. Amongst other things he says,
Falconer says
I’m sure he’s counting all the verses that merely mention money, possessions, or wages, without considering that some of them are parables.
Like the one where the servant buries the money while his fellows go out and risk theirs on venture capitalism, then the master praises them (magically, they all made profits) and scrounges the saver.
Or the one where everyone works in the field, some all day, some for an hour or two, and the wealthy landowner pays them all the same. I’m sure the unions love that one when it’s taken literally.
Wealthy men being parsimonious with their money and pretending that they are being generous is no basis for a system of economics.
Jonathon says
The dirty secret that American Christians won’t admit is that if one follows the teachings of Jesus, then one rejects capitalism and the pursuit of wealth for wealth’s sake.
Jesus was a proto-Marxist in many ways, and a truly “Christian” nation would never be a capitalist one like our’s. True “Christian” values call for (at least) socialism with a goal of complete communism in the future.
Remember, it is harder for a rich man to get into heaven than it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. (This little gem is also recorded in the Qur’an – almost verbatim to the Gospels.) Jesus told people to give away all their wealth and follow him. He told people to help the poor, feed the hungry, clothe the naked and heal the sick.
He didn’t say make money off of doing any of these things.
Rev. BigDumbChimp says
Yes yes. We all know that the current president is the only one involved in the bailout. Nothing happened with it pre January 20th.
Luke says
“The Bible, they tell us,…”
Another Christian who hasn’t actually read the fucking book then.
Matt Heath says
Lord Obama? Who is that?
Didn’t you read the chain-email? “President” Obama is not an American citizen because he’s a British aristocrat. Alan Keyes is bringing a challenge to supreme court based on the “tiles of nobility” clause.
c-law says
#8 “Eschatological financial planning is not good long-term strategy. Just saying.”
It is also interesting to note that the phonetic difference between “eschatological” and “scatological” is one syllable at the begining.
hmmmmm.
Helfrick says
Now now Mover. Try to be civil.
Matt Heath says
@Luke, As I said, I don’t really know but I think he isn’t a Christian, he’s a pomo-fucker-arounder
Auraboy says
The Manna market has really nosedived sadly.
Keep checking the sky for recovery signs though.
Although it could be blue ice instead.
Spiv says
Random Economic Chimp @ 20:
well yes, but then it goes on to mention corn in 4:28, which I didn’t think they had in 30 AD.
This thing is a mess. Plus I think it’s saying “this is what happens, bitch.” As apposed to “this is what you should do” like in luke.
Living the gospel of oprah would probably have fewer contradictions.
Matt Heath says
Spiv@34: The word “corn” existed in English before Europeans knew of maize; it meant cereal grains in general
LMR says
If only we could all conduct business using biblical principles.
I mean, look at Genesis 34
—
Shecky gets caught having sex with a Jacob’s daughter, so he has his dad try to smooth things over. Shecky’s dad suggests they all join together in business.
Jacob’s sons are a little mad about their sister, so Shecky tries to calm them by offering to pay whatever they want for her. They tell Shecky that there’s no way they could do business with them because Shecky’s people are uncircumcised. “You know, if only that were taken care of, we’d be happy to do business with you. Otherwise, we’re out of here.”
Shecky and his dad agree to the terms and waste no time lopping man parts off all the men in their city. Three days later, while they are all still in pain, two of Jacob’s sons kill them all and take their stuff.
—
I’m sure there’s got to be some useful allegory to international trade in there.
Right?
Rivet Heretic says
The Old Testament has been sited as the inspiration for the Jubilee movement to forgive third world debt which is a crushing burden on many economies. It’s a tradition from Sumeria and other Near Eastern cultures of the ancient world. The Old Testament includes this as well as it was the practice in the area at the time that it was written. When a new ruler took power, he generally forgave debts and returned properties foreclosed on to former owners. Slaves who went into slavery because of debts were also freed, if I’m not mistaken.
I’ve noticed that many Christians fail to acknowledge this tradition because it doesn’t fit with his brand of capitalist-Christianity. Typical cherry-picking.
Wikipedia Article on Jubilee Debt Coalition: Jubilee Debt Coalition
Michael Hudson Talks About this and Other Things: Six Minutes with the Renegade Economist — Michael Hudson
T. Bruce McNeely says
Some academic criticism of Stanley Fish:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Fish#Criticisms_of_his_work
I particularly like Camille Paglia’s epithet “Totalitarian Tinkerbell” – Snort!
He’s also (in)famous for his criticism of Alan Sokal who got an absurd pile of BS published in Fish’s journal Social Text (google Sokal hoax). Needless to say, he was completely wrong about the outcome.
Now this maroon seems to have “got religion” – oh, dear, the tragic destruction of a mediocre mind…
j.t.delaney says
“So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions.”
-Luke 14:33
Why is it the biblical literalists suddenly get all abstract when it comes to such an unambiguous, straight-forward nuts-and-bolts proclamation like this? This is not out of context; the rest of Luke 14 is basically a lot of undiluted, pinko commie-porn — mostly a parable about how being a dirty, good-for-nothing hippie gives a person the flexibility to hang out more with Jesus. We are left with only one possible conclusion: they don’t actually believe the shit they’re saying.
It really is kind of strange when you think about it; Christian fundamentalists draw a militant line in the sand about belief in Genesis I & II, but by the time they get to the “back of the bible”, things like the Sermon on the Mount and Luke 14 are meant as some sort of tounge-in-cheek satire, while Revelations is pretty much pure lemon-squeezing symbolism for… well, whatever the fuck they want it to be.
Mark says
In all times and ages whenever upheaval comes, people turn to religion as a salve. Fish, along with huge numbers of GOPers in the US, would have us turn to the Bible and their particular form of religious dogma during this time of economic upheaval.
I find it particularly interesting how the ignorant religious masses, whose IQs approach, but never quite reach 100, have THE answer for us. I notice they don’t actually use those answers for themselves, and thus have not risen or kept themselves above this catastrophe.
If their ‘answers’ had merit, they would be doing far far far far far better than 99% of the rest of us.
They are not. Thus, they are liars.
Scott from Oregon says
Ahh yes, the economy…
The war between the workers and savers verses the borrowers and speculators…
“We need to get credit flowing”
should be “we need to pay off our debts and jail our fraudsters”…
Lordy lordy lordy…
IST says
The economy things goes right along with the heinous “What would Jesus Do?” products… ummm, if he were actually real, I doubt he’d market products to fleece poor saps.
Julie Stahlhut says
Actually, the Bible reference does tell us something. It tells us that people have been hamstringing themselves with debt for millennia, and that there are always greedy arsewipes waiting around to encourage this and then profit from someone else’s misery.
Of course, by Old Testament times, this was already old news.
Glen Davidson says
He sounds like the ultimate creationist. Most creationists simply deny the undeniable (to anyone intellectually honest, that is) present evidence of past evolution. Fish denies present economic evolution, calling it divine.
The convergence of post-modernism and pre-modern myth is complete in Stanley Fish.
On a minor factor, I don’t think that he’s promoting the Xian Bible. I believe he’s Jewish. Minor issue to us, I know, but the religionists tend to care about the difference.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
NC Paul says
So that’s what the Hand of the Market is invisible.
And, of course, supply and demand is just a theory.
Oliver says
Dammit… I was just strapping myself in for some A-grade nonsense at http://www.profitfromthecomingrapture.com… and it transpires that it’s Poe.
Carlie says
All debts are to be forgiven every seven years according to the Bible, right? Sweet. I’ll take that.
SteveM says
Re #10:
there are many Islamic banks that are forbidden from charging interest on loans. But they have a cunning method around it. If you want to borrow money to, say, buy a house, you apply to have the bank buy the house, then they contract with you to buy it from them over time for a fee. Technically this is not interest since they are not charging you for the money itself but for the service of selling you the house over time.
Mod says
Nothing says ‘stimulating the economy’ than everybody stopping work one day of the week, not loaning with interest to our own ‘clansmen’, indentured servitude, slavery, and resetting all properties,land ownership and servants to a tribal square one every fifty years.
As we all know, Judah was famous for being a significant economic success for thousands of years. All of their problems were because they broke their covenant with God, not because their policies sucked.
Mover says
Rev. BigDumbChimp@27
You illustrate a perfect example of why trying to have a conversation with liberals, mushbrains, progressives, extremists or any other devote subscriber to any inane belief, is difficult. You cannot respond to any statement that you may oppose without setting up some extreme straw man for the purpose of self gratification.
So tell me. Is there anywhere in my that said it all started after January 20th?
If you open your eyes you might notice that the US Congress has been fooling around with the economy for decades lining up one set of unintended consequences after another.
marcus says
I follow the economic paradigm presented in “The Count of Monte Cristo”. It’s really a very simple program. 1.Find a vast treasure trove. 2.Reward your friends. 3.Crush your enemies. 4.Live happily ever after. Unlike waiting for God to do something it has some chance of success. Now for step 1.
Nerd of Redhead, OM says
Mover, still a pointless idiot I see. We already know you are a liar and bullshitter. You don’t need to keep showing us by posting your lies and bullshit.
Naked Bunny with a Whip says
I note this war of yours doesn’t involve most Americans, who are both workers and borrowers, and are relying on speculation to fund their retirement.
Kemist says
Well, that would work. It would solve your finance problems.
As a friendly neighborhood atheist whom is not bound by biblical distaste for worldly goods, I’m also graciously willing to take their money off them too.
Hey, what are you complaining about, PZ ? I love biblical economy.
Jim Harrison says
I believe you have neglected to turn on your irony detector.
Helfrick says
A better question may be, why hijack the thread with your neo-con drivel? Lord Obama? Lame.
David Marjanović, OM says
Please! Corn is the English word, and graine is the French word. The broadening of its meaning to “cereal”, and its subsequent narrowing to “maize” in the USA, are much more recent events.
JasonTD says
Rev. BigDumbChimp@27
Your point is well taken, but that will only go so far. Ultimately, Obama will be judged by what he does in response to the economy. Will his policies be seen as helping correct the problems or worsening them?
Carlie says
I’m throwing in with marcus. Let me know when the crush enemies phase is ready to go.
Kemist says
That’s odd. I have never read a whole bible in English, just in French. Why wasn’t it simply translated to “seed” ?
J. A. Baker says
There’s something *ahem* FISHY about that economic plan that Stanley’s pushing…
*ducks the incoming rotten tomatoes*
Mark A. Siefert says
In the early 90s, Fish was despised by the Right as a standard barer for “political correctness,” university speech codes, deconstructionism, and the attack on “Dead White Males” in the humanities department. In his book “Illiberal Education,” our old friend Dinesh D’Souza lambasted Fish as an example of the left-wing’s dominance of Academia and how it sought to undermine Western civilization.
Now Fish and D’Souza seem to have found common topic: Pissing on atheists.
Politics makes for strange–and sick–bedfellows.
Mover says
Nerd of Redhead, OM@23
Not really been paying attention, ay?
I understand.
There are lots of people, voters, who know very little about what’s going on around them and they don’t care to know anything. That’s how we get congresspersons that receive large donations from bankers, then make rules that allow them to fatten their wallets until the whole thing collapses, followed by taxpayer handouts to ensure those same bad actors don’t lose any of their wealth.
As for Lord Obama… where to begin…..
Oprah:
Oprah:
Chris Matthews Gushes:
Chris Matthews:
Barack Husein Obama
Watch, the Savior
Gee, where would anyone get the idea to refer to him as “Lord Obama”?
SteveM says
I’m guessing but maybe “seed” has the connotation of being intended for planting, while “cereal” (or “grain” or “corn”) is intended for eating. After all, we’ve all heard the dangers of “eating your seed corn”; you won’t starve this year, but have nothing to plant next year.
Nerd of Redhead, OM says
Mover, still irrelevant.
Holbach says
Ah, the bullshit, er, I mean the bible, that insane drivel which has as much literary value as a roll of toilet paper. Toilet paper is useful.
Helfrick says
@Mover
And Ben Stein said:
What does any of this have to do with basing economic strategies on the Bible? Stop threadjacking.
JackH says
BTW it’s the fountainhead, for anyone stuck on the quiz question above.
the US is a nation built and run on slavery. as any capitalist society with no social provision, by definition, must be.
clue: if you have to go to work, for any reason at all, you are a slave. the difference betwixt a whip and a mortgage payment is only one of degree.
Spiv says
Ah, comprende on the corn thingy. That makes much more sense.
Now on to “mover,” I really think cherry picking a bunch of quotes from random people about how they personally feel about our president to insinuate that he’s some kind of liberal demigod is bordering on severe paranoia and internal conspiracy issues. In return I’ll insinuate those things are generally the first signs of schizophrenia. Do you ever hear sounds, not necessarily voices, which seem have no origin?
9/11 truthers put up all kinds of quotes and videos to “prove” (insinuate) things for their own rediculous cause as well. It doesn’t mean they aren’t batshit crazy.
Then again, I suppose the 700billion bank bailout last fall was the democrats in congress, and not bush. Just like that trillion dollar war. Kinda reminds me of the whole “if things are bad for me, it’s god testing me. If things are bad for gay people, they’re being punished for the bad things they did.” There’s no winner in that kind of logic.
Bacopa says
Plenty of good economic advice in The Iliad. Including the recognition that wars forght for honor or the interests of the few are not profitable even with all their plunder and slaves. Lots of stuff about slaves and the textile industry.
The Greek city states boomed after the Iliad was written. Even mid-sized states were wealthier than Israel and Judah at the height of their power. Herodotous, who traveled the world and wrote about anybody who was anybody, made no mention of the recently restored Jewish kingdom.
Jonathan Morse says
But guys: Stanley Fish is a very well known literary theorist who started out as a Miltonist: that is, a specialist in the work of a deeply learned, deeply Protestant poet whose work is grounded in the Bible. Fish isn’t a Protestant himself, though. But he is a professional provocateur, author of books with such titles as There’s No Such Thing as Free Speech and It’s a Good Thing Too. And these days, in his old age, he’s showing an Andy Rooney side, with columns in the New York Times about topics like the wonderfulness of Frank Sinatra.
Mainly, though, he’s a provocateur. As a Miltonist, he made his bones by demonstrating that if the smartest, most learned Miltonists in the world can’t agree on the plain meaning of a Milton line, it probably doesn’t have a plain meaning — and neither does any other text. That idea doesn’t go at all with fundamentalism. Most of the scientists I know are irony-challenged, but when you’re reading Fish you’ve got to try to overcome that handicap. Maybe you could ask an English professor.
Tom Woolf says
Isn’t there a comment on “neither a borrower nor lender be”?
If so, then I’d like to see how The Crystal Palace (errr, I mean “Cathedral”) got built. Isn’t the Vatican Bank one of the biggest banks in the world? And if we stop borrowing and stop lending, then the economy as we know it STOPS.
“You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that’s clear
I will choose freewill.”
Thanks to Neil Peart and Rush for those words of wisdom. I’m sure they’ve only been quoted on this site 10-20 thousand times… ;-)
Blake Stacey says
Which is French for “bullshit artist”.
I don’t think that last bit, as stated, is a valid inference.
Oh, in the dark and seamy underworld of presuppositional apologetics, it can all be made to work out. Your fancy book learnin’ can’t reveal the “plain meaning” of scripture, but True Reason, which is the inspiration whose strength flows from faith in the One True God, can do so easily. The disarray among those secular humanist scholars is just the chaos produced by trying to look through a glass darkly. . . .
'Tis Himself says
The beasts, they hunger, and eat, and die;
And so do we, and the world’s a sty;
Hush, fellow-swine: why nuzzle and cry?
“Swinehood hath no remedy”
Say many men, and hasten by,
Clamping the nose and blinking the eye.
…
Does business mean, `Die, you — live, I?’
Then ‘Trade is trade’ but sings a lie:
‘Tis only war grown miserly.
-Sidney Lanier, The Symphony
Jerry says
Fish is an incompetent buffoon. He came to my school to give a lecture for grad students, and let’s just say that he got just about one thing right all night, and a great deal of things wrong.
spurge says
I thought that “bullshit artist” was short for “Stand Up Philosopher”?
Live and learn.
'Tis Himself says
I read Fish’s op-ed piece with the intention of critiquing its economics. However Fish doesn’t make economic statements, only religious ones. Congratulations, folks, you dodged a
lecture on economicsbullet.SLW13 says
Why is no one discussing the economics of South Park? Remember the financial genius of the episode with the underwear gnomes?
Step #1: Steal underwear!
Step #2: …
Step #3: PROFIT!!!
Way better advice than the Bible.
Knockgoats says
Isn’t there a comment on “neither a borrower nor lender be”? – Tom Woolf
Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Prince of Denmark: Act I, Scene III. Shakespeare puts the advice into the mouth of an old fool, Polonius.
Peter Sattler says
Wow.
Jonathan Morse (#71) suggests that most scientists are irony-challenged, and then Blake Stacey (#73) and a handful of others join PZ in proving him right. Do you folks even try to read anymore? Or do retorts like “bullshit artist” and “lackwit” and “incompetent buffoon” just come naturally?
In fact, “Tis Himself” (#77) comes, inadvertently, closest to understanding Fish’s essay — regardless of what he thinks of it. This essay is not making an economic argument. Rather, it’s aim is to highlight (briefly) an interesting rhetorical similarity between our approaches to the current economic crisis and centuries’ worth of Protestant narratives of sin and redemption.
And if Fish’s essay is not an economic argument, neither is it a Christian argument, fundamentalist or otherwise.
Fish’s analysis is historical, rhetorical, and literary. He does not say that Kevin Cross is right; he does not say that George Herbert is right, although Herbert’s poetry is wonderful.
And Fish definitely does not say that the Bible is right. Jeez, people. Fish is making claims about how different writers — great and very, very small — are using the language of debt to frame their religious beliefs, and using religious language to frame their conceptions of “debt” and their concomitant feelings of helplessness.
What is so wrong — or so hard — about these interpretive arguments? (I like how PZ skipped the essay’s entire central section, jumping to the parts that sounded “bad” to him.)
Again, this is mainly a work of cultural interpretation and analysis, which only comes close to making an claim about our current economic mess in the final paragraph. In it, he says not that God is the answer, but that faith in God and faith in the self-correcting market resonate, strangely, with each other.
Both keep hoping for final and ultimate redemption by an all-powerful, omnibeneficent invisible hand.
Of course, one could say that financial markets have evidence of their efficacy over time, while God’s power does not. But that, too, seems to be missing the entire point of the essay.
Or perhaps missing the point is just a lot more fun. Carry on.
Ryan Egesdahl says
So…this kind of thinking must not be one of the very reasons we’re in an economic bind, right? Surely, if people had done the logical thing and trust in God instead of, say, regulating the markets properly and recognizing an obvious bubble before it burst, this kind of thing just wouldn’t have happened.
Or we could all be reasonable and say that Fishface is bleating about how he wants to continue doing the things that got us in trouble in the first place and isn’t interested in doing the work to solve problems.
But, of course, we would be attacking his religion at that point, wouldn’t we?
It’s funny how we rational people just can’t seem to win against these fruitcakes. They hold all the cards and aren’t even telling us the rules of the game.
Scott from Oregon says
What also amazes me in these days is how many “economists” were “all in” right before the stock market tanked.
Many of these “experts” then make declarative prognostications and belittle those who apply simple, common sense rememdies like “lock up those folks who broke the existing laws before you go and create new laws”, and, “if the problem is too much debt caused by too much spending, let’s try less debt and more savings for a change…”
Methinks more than just religious woo is at play here. Methinks them thar “economists” take themselves far too seriously…
Rev. BigDumbChimp says
Does the mind boggle, Scott?
tomh says
Peter Sattler wrote: Again, this is mainly a work of cultural interpretation and analysis, which only comes close to making an claim about our current economic mess in the final paragraph.
Well, the very first paragraph also speaks to the current economic situation. Regardless, yours seems to be a rather unique take on the essay. Reading through the 250 or so comments it seems that the majority of them read it as a way to explain the current situation through an understanding of the Bible, or to find a way out of it through following the Bible. Of course, there are a few sensible comments, such as #9, “To say that this article is ridiculous is to insult the word ridiculous.”
gerryfromktown says
Umm – if 250 commenters (the majority) failed to follow Fish’s allegory between religion and faith in the market, then this says what about the majority of commenters?
Reminds me of something:
ARGUMENT FROM NUMBERS
(1) Millions and millions of people believe in God.
(2) They can’t all be wrong, can they?
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Brian X says
Fish, IIRC, is the pompous imbecile who tried to take point at Alan Sokal’s pantsing of postmodern literary criticism. Ironic or not, Fish has long been a part of a school of philosophy that tries to claim a special exception for itself as a field of study, overriding even the most solidly empirical approach to reality in favor of postmodernism’s ever-shifting goalposts and enforced lack of rigor.
Pomo thinking started out with a good premise — that any given text can have meaning that was not intended by the author — and spun it out into a sort of absolutist neutrality where the author’s intent and the plain meaning of the text had no relevance at all. It’s never a healthy thing for a field of study to annihilate itself with a bad case of hammer-and-nail syndrome, and that postmodernism has persisted in the 15 years since the Sokal hoax tells me only that it’s a form of self-important intellectual wankery that mirrors Randism in convincing its adherents that they know something the rest of the world doesn’t.
'Tis Himself says
Peter Sattler #80
And the difference between a religious argument and an argument using religious literature as examples is what?
Judeo-Christian perhaps.
I recognized the literary aspect of Fish’s article. Why else do you think I quoted Sidney Lanier (who is, IMHO, a much better poet than Herbert)?
j.t.delaney says
Peter Sattler @ 80:
I re-read Fish’s essay, and I must disagree. I still think he is affirming the “just trust in Jesus” soporific he’s outlining in literature and in popular culture. By doing so, he’s substituting wishful thinking for finding a real solution.
tomh says
gerryfromktown wrote: if 250 commenters (the majority) failed to follow Fish’s allegory between religion and faith in the market, then this says what about the majority of commenters?
It could mean that only the enlightened few, the truly deep thinkers, can decipher this wondrous allegory that Fish spins. Or, if one actually reads the article, one might realize that it is a mish-mash, with no specifics or substance, and think that Fish threw it together to meet a deadline. As many of his columns appear to be.
Peter Sattler says
Hi “Tomh” (#84). My point was not that Fish never refers to our current economic situation. Clearly he does. Indeed, the nonstop talk of market panic, looming debt, and our hopes for economic salvation are the impetus for his short essay.
My point is that Fish is not proposing any economic solutions, Biblical or otherwise. He is “merely” noting interesting parallels between “Christian doctrine” and today’s “economic exigencies” — the ways in which the rhetoric of each resonates with the other. And in the end, he suggest that these resonances are more than a little telling, especially when it comes to how we sometimes think about “the market.” (I won’t re-frame my whole argument, above.)
I admit, I find it puzzling that so many see Fish as doing anything other than this limited interpretive activity. Sure, find his comments banal. Find his implied allegory overblown. But at least judge him on what he actually wrote.
Oh, and to gerry (#85), thanks! That one made my day.
(BTW, I put “merely” in quotes above not to downgrade Fish’s work. Just the opposite. “Noting interesting cultural and rhetorical parallels and structures” is what literary critics do. They talk about how people talk about things. Making economic diagnoses and prescriptions, on the other hand, is what economists do. Sometimes poorly, and with dire consequences.)
'Tis Himself says
Perhaps you missed this bit from Fish (quoted by PZ):
If that isn’t a religious statement, then what is it?
Brian X says
gerryfromktown:
If the majority truly don’t understand it, it means that Fish has done a terrible job of communicating his point. It doesn’t necessarily mean he doesn’t have one, but if he does have one and that’s the best he can do to get it across, he has no business whatsoever in academia.
gerryfromktown says
It isn’t a religious statement.
The Bible, they tell us, …
They being those who would have us believe the Bible has something to say about economics.
Peter Sattler says
Hi “Tis” (#87).
If I could take back one word form my original comment, it would be “inadvertently.” It gave you too little credit.
But I think I can help with your quesiton:
It is the difference, for example, between an argument that uses the Bible (or poetry, or anything) to advance and support religious truth-claims and an argument that uses passages from the Bible (or Christian poetry) to make an argument about the rhetoric of Christian Doctrine (or the metaphysical conceits of George Herbert).
Think of this alternate approach. I can make claims about how economists talk — the rhetoric they use to analyze market behavior, for example. I can even borrow economic terms to interpret literary works. But this does not make me an economist, and it does not make my insights into “economic arguments.”
I pity the investor who cannot make this distinction. ;-) “I’d like to buy 20 shares of whatever Milton proposes and God disposes!”
To J.T and “Tis” (#94).
Those words are not Fish’s. They come from Dayton, Cross, and others. They are things that these Christians say (hence the phrase, “they say,” in the passage). They are things Fish says he “came across” — things that made him notice interesting connections between two ostensible different ways of looking at and talking about the world.
Fish never says he supports Dayton’s and Cross’s ideas. He never suggests that we should listen to their advice, or even buy their books. Indeed, this is the last they appear in the essay before he moves on to metaphysical English poetry!
(The last sentence about how “God might be a better candidate” for our faith is clearly a dig at our “faith” in markets — not a statement of Biblical wisdom or personal religious conviction. That word “might” carries a lot of ironic weight, in my opinion.)
But again, my main point is this. One can make interpretive claims about what “they say” without necessarily endorsing what those others say. That is what Fish is doing. I think you need to provide me with evidence to the contrary.
Best, Peter
Autumn says
You always make me laugh. Thanks.
Naked Bunny with a Whip says
Quite poorly, it seems.
'Tis Himself says
Hi Peter,
If something is quoted without criticism or even comment, it’s reasonable to assume that the quoter agrees with the quote. Fish quotes Dayton, Cross and Herbert with apparent approval, certainly without objection. Also Fish makes the comment:
This is Fish writing, not quoting anybody. He says specifically “we are commanded by the Bible” and “the prudent management of the material goods of His creation is a religious duty”. The only thing missing is the threat of damnation which accompanies bankruptcy. The above paragraph is a religious statement.
Pierce R. Butler says
I was about to challenge Stanley Fish to provide a single example from history where a nation turned to faith and was rewarded with prosperity – before I remembered how Ferdinand and Isabella expelled all non-Catholics from their lands, laying the foundations for the Spanish Inquisition while simultaneously launching the invasion of the western hemisphere which netted their foundling empire untold tons of gold and silver.
Of course, Fish might just as well cite the legend of Genghis Khan’s momentous appeal to The Eternal Blue Sky as he set out to make his people the richest and mightiest in the world just a couple of centuries earlier…
Either way, I’d be forced to concede the demonstrated power of theoconomics, right?
Bryson Brown says
When Fish declares,
his endorsement of the religious claims is clear: ‘teaches’ is an endorsement word, and the straightforward ‘if…then’ of the first sentence also endorses a religious message. (Check for context if you like, but I see nothing in the article that suspends the force of either here.)
Who’s the unsophisticated one here, and who’s the one making silly excuses for silly talk (from a columnist who specializes in it)?
Peter Sattler says
Hi again, “Tis” (#97).
Good point, and we may just have to agree to disagree. For me, the paragraph you quote is substantively framed by its opening sentence (which you omit): “One is an updated version of the Protestant linking of thrift and virtue.”
Fish is saying here that this section of the essay will look at “one” of the “two different ways” that he came across, linking Christian doctrine and economic rhetoric. Later, he shifts and starts talking about “another” way of making the connection. He is no more committed to the truths of “one” than the other.
(Is the use of “we” confusing? Perhaps. But, again, he is trying to lay out broad strokes of Christian rhetoric. And from that frame of reference, “we” are all beholden to follow the same rules.)
I think the clincher in my argument is this distinction between “one” view and the other. Fish provide two radically different ways that religion and economic rhetoric get joined. The first is God as wise investor, steward, and money-manager; the second is God as a force that annuls and heals and transcends all debts. The first vision tells us to be wiser and follow God’s advice; the second tells us to give up and “declare spiritual bankruptcy.” The trouble is the second version undermines the first!
Fish does not tell us which is “better.” He does not tell us which vision of God should guide our investments, if that was indeed his goal. Here’s why. His task is descriptive and interpretive, not proscriptive and evaluative.
And, lastly, I don’t think it is incumbent upon Fish to include explicit statements of agreement or disagreement with his interpretations. Literary critics tend to focus on what writers (like Herbert) meant, not on whether those writers were right or wrong.
But I wonder if you are closer to me or to PZ. Do you think this essay clearly demonstrates that “a gospel-thumping charlatan on a par with Pat Robertson”? Or is that something of an overstatement, borne of a poor reading?
Best, Peter
gerryfromktown says
To all those who took PZ at his word that Fish’s essay was a clumsy attempt at proselytizing, I really recommend a second (or third, or fourth) reading of Fish’s essay through a different lens this time.
Honestly, you have to try harder. There is a level of irony that doesn’t come naturally to many of us, but its worth the effort. Much of it can be seen as clearly critical of faith (in the markets, in the protestant ethic of thrift and virtue, in the Calvinist philosophy of shared moral bankruptcy). For those familiar with Fish (Morse #71, and Peter Sattler, #80, #90 and #94), it comes through loud and clear. For those who are not (count me as one), you have to re-read with this interpretation in mind before you get it.
To use the language we are more familiar with on this blog – it comes close to being a Poe. The giveaway, as several have noted, is the contradiction between the faith-based positions being compared: Faith in the market, faith in the virtue of prudence, faith in the ability of God to pay our debts. Fish is comparing these, not advocating any of them. He alternately quotes and takes on the voice of some of the characters and in so doing he apparently fooled many (including PZ) into thinking he was a “bible thumping charlatan”.
What fooled many of us was the final paragraph:
Peter Sattler #94 nicely clarifies this for us:
Personally “God might be a better candidate” strikes me as way too ambiguous, but if you read it aloud, with a snort of derision, you can see it as critical indeed.
Someone much wiser than I said this about the piece to me:
“I read Fish’s analysis as a deep critique of religion, equating its relevance and power with the abstraction of ‘the market’. “
It took me a while, but I agree.
PZ – are you reading this? Its a bit late in the thread, but its worth thinking again.
Best wishes all
Bryson Brown says
Hey, Gerryfromktown–
I think I get it– if I read you just right, I can see that you’re sending our friend Peter up… right?
gerryfromktown says
No.
I agree with him.
I’m not very good at irony or post-modernist piss-taking, so I won’t be trying it on myself.
But perhaps you were being ironic?
Peter Sattler says
My last comment was to be my last comment. But that final exchange between gerry and Bryson (#102-3) was funny in a way that Fish would genuinely appreciate. The sad, maddening truth is: you cannot tell ironic from un-ironic speech just by looking at the words on the page. And I mean that.
Or, to quote another sacred text:
‘Night.
Glen Davidson says
Of course Fish’s “point” is that it’s all myths and interpretation, whether it’s the Bible or the words of economists.
That’s what we have against pomo, it really doesn’t differentiate well between extremely useful models like evolution, or even economics in its most basic forms, and fairy tales about beings on high. I actually do appreciate the point that it can all be seen as story-telling of various levels of precision, however there’s really a very great difference between empirically-based economic and evolutionary models, and those of ancient myths.
That’s not especially true from a philosophical standpoint, simply because philosophers tend to judge models by absolute standards, no matter that they don’t believe in absolutes. From that “lofty perch,” it’s all just story-telling and never arriving at truth.
From the practical standpoint, from the position of science, it’s almost a black and white difference between empirical models and mythical BS. That’s why we protest against his equation of empirical models and mythically-oriented exhortations, because the former are (typically) highly useful, while the latter tend to denounce people for just having human psychology. Myths frequently lead to denial of better ways of knowing, of understanding psychology, while science actually gets people to better understanding.
Sure, Fish isn’t really religious, he just fails to recognize the pragmatic difference between science and myth. As such, he’s full of it. Like Fuller, and for nearly the same reasons.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
gerryfromktown says
Only in this case Fish uses (empirically) the spectacular failure of the markets as an example of misplaced faith in the predictions of the high priests of investment strategy. Ben Stein comes to mind, appropriately enough. No better, apparently, than trusting protestant or Calvinist theology.
So, damn Fish and Fuller if you will for other lapses but the parallels here seem pretty appropriate – putting your faith in woo (economic or biblical) leads to similar outcomes.
Brian X says
You know, Gerry, to a certain extent you can argue that’s a trivial assertion. But that presumes that the investment gurus you speak of represent mainstream economics; given how many of them tend to lead towards the Mises/Friedman/Laffer views of economics, none of which are in terribly good repute in the greater world of economics, most of them likely don’t. I’d feel safe in saying that most of the mainstream doesn’t think much of blanket tax cuts or hard-selling sketchy mortgages and selling them off.
tomh says
Stanley Fish has been a pretentious blowhard for a long time. Someone mentioned Language Log above – his columns are dissected there often and shown to be the fraudulant crap that they are. For anyone who enjoys this sort of thing a good example is this recent one on Fish’s column about Obama’s inauguration speech.
DianeG says
Thank you Stanley Fish. My IQ just dropped 19pts for having read you. The world is now a more ignorant place by the grace of you opening your mouth, other than to drool.
UNRR says
This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 3/4/2009, at The Unreligious Right
Bezoar says
And Stanley Fish is a Jew? WTF? His drivel sounds like something King George would have said.
Diane Gee says
Oh, jeez, now you made me do it. LOL.
Camel-Eyed Banking, for your smart-ass pleasure:
http://thewildwildleft.soapblox.net/showDiary.do?diaryId=1658
Anushka from hogtown says
Wow. I am surprised that Fish’s examination of the paralells between religion and economics as they relate to the question of faith is so problematic for so many of you. Especially since its’ critique of faith would seem to resonate strongly with many of your own views.
This has been a very interesting discussion, though I find the quick resort to adolescent name calling depressing.
MarkM says
Its pretty clear from the Bible we need to reform the nation’s monetary system and base it on trade of Montel Williams’ Obama coins.
tyrone slothrop says
Peter Sattler,
Enjoyed your take on Stanley Fish. Fish’s piece is rather interesting. Neither economics nor religion, but the rhetoric of economics and religion–especially the way they have been conjoined through the discourse of “debt” and “bankruptcy” and ultimately “faith.” These topics have been discussed in other contexts and by other scholar. It was surprising that Myers seemed to edit the text in a misleading way. Certainly Fish was not claiming the bible as an economics textbook.
believer says
Why on earth should God help the economy? I mean you can pray about it, and I’m sure He’ll listen, but its not like God doesn’t want us to suffer. We need it in fact. It was when Israel was held captive that they began a spiritual renewal as opposed to worshipping false idols.
Bob Russell says
Perhaps we can all send Rep. Thomsen an email congratulating him on making Oklahoma look like it is populated by a bunch of moronic hicks….of course we should do this in a polite way.
mailto:todd.thomsen@okhouse.gov
Wendy says
I think the bible does have some good lessons about money and debt… But that doesn’t mean god is real. Going from “this is good advice” to “the lead character of this book must be real!” is quite a stretch. I thought The Chrysalids was a fun read, but it isn’t proof that psychic powers exist.