This morning I passed on the 6:00 am Dawn Patrol hike in order to read the General Introduction to the Norton Anthology of Renaissance Drama.
It has been an incredible read, and I'm hardly halfway through the 50 page, phone-book-print chapter.
The part I've just read prompts reflection. The economics of 17th century English fascinate me. The growth of a merchant class in London somewhat challenged the ideas about nobility being the only ones entitled to and deserving wealth. Suddenly, virtues didn't seem to be the only source of affluence: other traits of the protocapitalist class, such as imagination, diligence, risk-taking, time-consciousness, and a keen sense of the bottom line, produced wealth as well.
The English had seen, until now, social structure based on a hierarchy in which everyone played his given role; now it became evident that everyone aspired to have more than was his station, though they achieved that "more" with varying success.
Now, perhaps the most interesting, is to think about what implications this aspiration had for the understanding of human nature. Former economic models had placed the health of the community above the profitability of business venture or of individual effort. Now, the practices of business owners often destroyed the social fabric that had contained economic activity (and the production of wealth) and protected the vulnerable.
So, what is our impulse? Are we naturally community-oriented and cooperative, or do we all yearn to be individual agents competing against one another? The introduction quotes Marlowe's Tamburlaine, asserting the latter:
"Nature, that framed us of four elements,
Warring within our breasts for regiment,
Doth teach us all to have aspiring minds."
We take this position for granted today, believing that cooperation is unnatural and in fact often hinders the progress which is propelled by self-interest uninhibited. But imagine living at a time when you looked at your neighbor and thought, "do I want to get ahead of you, or do I want to make peace with you?" Well, I suppose we wonder that today, but I think mostly we come down on the "get ahead" side.
It has been an incredible read, and I'm hardly halfway through the 50 page, phone-book-print chapter.
The part I've just read prompts reflection. The economics of 17th century English fascinate me. The growth of a merchant class in London somewhat challenged the ideas about nobility being the only ones entitled to and deserving wealth. Suddenly, virtues didn't seem to be the only source of affluence: other traits of the protocapitalist class, such as imagination, diligence, risk-taking, time-consciousness, and a keen sense of the bottom line, produced wealth as well.
The English had seen, until now, social structure based on a hierarchy in which everyone played his given role; now it became evident that everyone aspired to have more than was his station, though they achieved that "more" with varying success.
Now, perhaps the most interesting, is to think about what implications this aspiration had for the understanding of human nature. Former economic models had placed the health of the community above the profitability of business venture or of individual effort. Now, the practices of business owners often destroyed the social fabric that had contained economic activity (and the production of wealth) and protected the vulnerable.
So, what is our impulse? Are we naturally community-oriented and cooperative, or do we all yearn to be individual agents competing against one another? The introduction quotes Marlowe's Tamburlaine, asserting the latter:
"Nature, that framed us of four elements,
Warring within our breasts for regiment,
Doth teach us all to have aspiring minds."
We take this position for granted today, believing that cooperation is unnatural and in fact often hinders the progress which is propelled by self-interest uninhibited. But imagine living at a time when you looked at your neighbor and thought, "do I want to get ahead of you, or do I want to make peace with you?" Well, I suppose we wonder that today, but I think mostly we come down on the "get ahead" side.
No comments:
Post a Comment