“Whenever there are these attempts to think about alternative ways to live, or to create an economic system that is less destructive and more just, there’s very often this response that ‘that’s impossible,'” Alicia Mendonca-Richards tells us. “That any changes that would make our way of life more sustainable and more caring and more equal would cause the international economic order to collapse. And that’s just not true!”
“We feel it in our hearts, we feel it in our bones,” she continues. “We feel the sadness of the way that we are living and the destruction we are causing and we know that this can’t be the best way to live.”
Alicia is studying how mysticism can guide economic philosophy and lead us to other models for living beyond market capitalism. “When we listen to that still, small voice within us, we know what we need to do,” she says. “We know what is true. We know what is good…. We can trust that when we take the right action, things will unfold from there.”
Resources:
- Subscribe to QuakerSpeak so you never miss a video
- See a list of all the videos we’ve produced.
- Read Friends Journal to see how other Friends describe the substance of Quaker spirituality
Transcript:
We live in this sort of structure of never ending growth and consumption and production and that it’s always better to produce more to consume more. Even if, you know, like me, you come from a rich country, you will see the extent to which economics sort of now infiltrates every area of your life. So whether it’s, you know, your family life and your ability to spend time with your children, whether it’s your access to health or social services. You know, you can see the impact of global corporations on politics at an international level, at a national level. It’s not only, you know, killing all species, which it is, but it’s also just an exhausting way to live, and one that takes us away from what matters most.
I don’t see how we can resolve any of those issues while we have an economic system that depends on an unsustainable level of growth and that is driven by this ideology of scarcity and competition. I’m doing. a Ph.D. on economic thought and mysticism. So I’m looking at how mysticism can contribute to alternative ways of imagining our economy the way we live economically.
My name is Alicia Mendonca-Richards. I’m from Welwyn Garden City Quaker Meeting, which is in Hertfordshire, just outside London in the UK. So whenever there are these attempts to try and think about alternative ways to live or to sort of create an economic system that is less destructive and more just, there’s very often this response that that’s impossible. That any changes that would make our way of life more sustainable and more caring and more equal would cause the international economic order to collapse. And that’s just not true.
We feel it. We feel it in our hearts. We feel it in our bones. We feel the sadness of the way that we are living and the destruction that we are causing. And we know that this can’t be the best way to live. We can look at the earth around us and we can look at how nature sustain itself and we can see that a system of, never ending growth on a limited planet, a system that doesn’t allow for reciprocity and, you know, a sustainable way of life just can’t be the best way to live. But we can also see it because, you know, human Beings have for millennia lived in different types of social structures and they haven’t always organized in a capitalist system; and we are here!
Since the beginning of the 20th century, economics has model itself after the physical sciences. The classical economist that when we think of people like Adam Smith and Marx and Ricardo, these are people who were asking very theoretical and philosophical questions about what does it mean to live a good life and how does the distribution of resources contribute to that. Just like in political theory, we asked questions about, you know, how should we shape how, how should we govern ourselves. We expect that there is no perfect answer and there is no objective answer. These are theoretical questions that we ask, and they have a lot of normative assumptions in them, and we have to make subjective judgments. It’s the same in economics.
What happened at the turn of the 20th century was, because Newtonian physics had become so successful in allowing us to industrialize and innovate and it’s seen as such an authoritative discipline, what economists wanted to do was to model themselves after the most credible discipline of their time. They deliberately moved away from the social sciences, from political philosophy, and decided they wanted to become more mathematical, more scientific.
The problem with trying to economic questions into these sort of classical physics models is that human beings are very complex and relational people who live in a contextual environment. We’re not predictable. We don’t always do the same thing. And so in order for economists to sort of model economics after science, a physical science. It had to really simplify a lot of the very complex theoretical discussions they were having about how human beings organize and share resources. The consumer that they use in these models is a hyper rational and self interested person who’s always going to make every decision for economic gain.
Economics has never been able to use scientific models to predict things as successfully as science has. So that’s why we keep having financial crashes. We can’t really resolve unemployment. There’s always corruption, there (are) high levels of inequality, and obviously we are also taking ourselves into extinction. I think what’s so tragic about this is the fact that not only are we are we using these models that don’t work, the problem is that we’re now remaking society to make the models work. If we live in a system that only supports a certain way of life, of course that’s the only way of life that has been able to flourish in that system. But that doesn’t mean that’s the only system that could ever work.
As humans, we we’ve always relied on forms of knowledge that are not only rational and empirical, and one of those forms of knowledge of spiritual knowledge, and I would say mystical knowledge. Knowledge of what we know to be true. In the Christian tradition sort of is really linked to contemplations that are really trying to enter into a personal relationship with God or with the Spirit or with the Light. When we sort of tap into that guidance and we listen to that still small voice within us we know what we need to do. We know what is true. We know what is good. We know what is wrong and we can really use it to inform our decisions. What it means is that we can trust that when we take the right action, things will unfold from there. So we are able to be courageous and imagine new ways of life without necessarily being able to explain exactly how things are going to pan out.
So when we make economic arguments, you know, and people say, “well, no one’s done that so you can’t prove it’s going to work” — when we know something to be true mystically, and we take courageous action in truth and in love, knowing that we’re connecting to this deep truth within us, we are able to do that in faith. So using mystical knowledge is about really sort of taking the time to tune in to your relationship with reality, with the truth of the reality in which you live, and then listening to how that guides you in your life and what it teaches you. Which is why I’m so passionate about challenging economics, because, you know, it’s become such a dominant influence on all aspects of our life that almost every decision we make is now economically dictated and it hasn’t always been this way. And that is insane. And it’s really sad.
Discussion Question:
- How do you believe mystical and spiritual knowledge can be applied to economic thought
The views expressed in this video are of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Friends Journal or its collaborators.
I am really intrigued by this video and am indeed myself depending more and more on my connection to what I call The Flowing of Love as I decide how I will befriend each moment. It is often amazing to me how well things do work out. For instance, I receive songs (see Sally Q Campbell on YouTube). The books I am finding most compelling that I share with others are Braiding Sweetgrass by Robin Wall Kimmerer and Sacred Earth, Sacred Soul by John Phillip Newell.
I wish she had been able to share at least one example of what she was proposing, though I know she didn’t have much time. I also wish she could have spoken a bit more slowly. She is charming and I certainly wish her well!
Yes, it’s always easier to deconstruct & critique than it is to construct.
In 1979 I started a Bachelor of Commerce at the University of Western Australia. In a handout at the beginning of the course, one of the lecturers had placed a cartoon. In the drawing a middle aged man was standing, overlooking an older man at a desk who was marking exam papers. The middle aged man was saying “They’re exactly the same questions you were asking us ten years ago!” to which the older man is looking up and replying “Yes, but they’re different answers now”
Here is my own “proposal”:
The cure for the ailments of democracy is more democracy.
– John Dewey (October 20, 1859 – June 1, 1952)
I am primarily focused on a long-term campaign for the implementation of annual elections for all elected legislatures. My conviction is that this will foster greater responsibility in both governments and citizens. The wish is to be able to cast our sacred secret ballot vote every year on the budgets proposed by Government and Opposition, as well as any other minor parties or individual candidates.
Annual elections will also help us all in discerning how the previous year’s budget has gone, instead of facing pre-election and post-election promises. This will foster better accountability and force better transparency.
We want reasonable, costed, and well-scrutinised budgets to be placed annually before the wisdom of taxpayers in order to promote better stability and long-term planning. We acknowledge that there will always be real and valid differences of opinion and outlook. But essentially democracy works, and will continue to work, because most people agree about most things, most of the time.
Indeed, the things which unite us are far greater than the things which divide us – although you wouldn’t think so if all you read was the news, which thrives on reporting dissent (not dialogue, negotiation and agreement).
By placing real financial plans and aspirations from competing sources before the scrutiny of all voters every year, “We The People” will see more clearly where our tax money goes, and what laws are proposed.
Annual elections will not be onerous. As the old saying goes “It is easier to keep tidy than to have to tidy up”.
Acquisition and distribution of resources to sustain life (i.e., economics) has always been central to human societies (and in a sense all forms of life). Cooperation and mutual aid and support have generally been the most successful paradigms. But, as humans developed increasingly more abundant paradigms for life sustainment, they often diverged into more uncharitable and exploitative ways of organizing their societies. The currently most pervasive paradigm in Western societies is “capitalism”, explained by 20th century British economist John Maynard Keynes as “the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work together for the benefit of all.”
It’s important to understand the origins and operating principles of capitalism. It’s also important to know that there are other viable ways to organize modern societies that already exist in the non-Western world. Some places to start looking at economic questions in the 21st century: The Deficit Myth by Stephanie Kelton; The Case for a Job Guarantee by Pavlina Tcherneva; Invisible Doctrine: The Secret History of Neoliberalism by George Monbiot and Peter Hutchison. And learn about BRICS from sources other than US government and corporate voices. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUdlzmk73Ns