She must have said it in a lighter vein then, but France’s Minister of Finance Christine Lagarde statement ‘if Lehman Brothers had been Lehman Sisters, the financial crises would have turned out differently’ is worth a curious scrutiny. Women may not have been on top in the capital market, but Lehman Sisters would not have allowed the American housing market to overheat in the first place. Past is unlikely to be rewritten, but an emphatic post-facto speculation may ring a different bell at the Wall Street in future. Is such a thought experiment worth any cause now?
It indeed is, because it helps infer distinctions as humans of opposite sexes have contrasting biologies to handle risks and opportunities. That higher testosterone levels in men make them prone to taking risks is one significant manifestation. And, it is the excessive risk-taking that caused banks to capsize and the resultant financial meltdown to occur. Could it be that simple? May be not, concurs Katrine Marcal, but there is some logic in viewing economics through female mind. Because women are warm, tender, caring, and compassionate, their perception is at a tangent to the mainstream economics that hinges on the science of self-interest. The world that is driven by self-interest is essentially masculine, hence the dichotomy and the disaster!
The trajectory of Marcel’s argument rests on this missing feminist dimension in economics, the seeds of which were sown by Adam Smith who even discounted his mother’s contribution in household economic statistics despite her daily contribution to cleaning the house, cooking the food, washing the clothes, and squabbling with the neighbors. One wonders if The Wealth of Nations could have been written had Margaret Douglas not prepared dinner for Adam years on end since he never married. The reason for discounting women contribution is primordial, borne out of the assumption that women’s responsibility for care is but a free choice inherited as an opposite sex. Nothing could be far from the truth, however.
Taking a rigorous economic route, the book challenges patriarchy and the entrenched masculine notions that have, and continue to belittle women as the ‘other sex’ who is only good at pushing the washing machine button or at changing the soggy nappy. Could there be something in women’s biology that makes her better suited for unpaid work, questions Marcel. Freud’s view that women scrub, wipe and clean to compensate for a feeling of inherent filth in their own bodies has been proven to be a sheer psychological myth. The renowned psychoanalyst didn’t know what he was talking about, as woman’s sexual organ is an elegant self-regulated and much cleaner organ than other parts of human body. Such prejudices run much deeper, and often do not cohere with reality. Women bodies, emotions and skills have been suitably appropriated to serve the economic man, as if they aren’t productive in any sense of the term.
The narrative is terse but witty, and makes the reader feel the glaring absence of women as a cog in the economic wheel. As economics is still a science of choice, a choice has broadly been made in favor of man being its driver. No surprise, therefore, that economics is but a male bastion that relies on a rational behavior that is deft at the art of maximizing profit by discounting the importance of emotions, relationships, cooperation, and altruism. The activities that happen without dollars changing hands remain intangible, and hence discounted as feminine vocations.
Has economy not failed women? Taking a passionate dig at the economic man, the author argues that economic man’s primary characteristic is that he is not a woman. Women may have selectively moved up the economic ladder, but essentially to be like him. It is precisely for this reason that economic outcomes are gender neutral, as if an opposite sex can’t have different structural relationships to production, reproduction, and consumption in society. And, how can there be a comprehensive understanding of economics when what the other half is doing is not brought into the picture. Economics cannot have only one sex!
Who Cooked Adam Smith’s Dinner is an intense but revealing undertaking. Originally written in Swedish, the translation by Saskia Vogel retains its verve and flair, and is a joy to read. If economists have any intention of ridding the world of its complex economic problems, this book has multiple perspectives that can be worked upon. Feminism’s best kept secret, concludes Marcal, is just how necessary a feminist perspective is in search for a solution to our mainstream economic problems. Feminism is more than just ‘rights of women’; the economic system needs improvement to accommodate the missing dimensions of what it means to be human.
One thing is clear that if Margaret Douglas was alive today, and witness to the impact of Smith’s economic theory, she would not have cooked dinner for her son. She would have instead ordered it online.
Who Cooked Adam Smith’s Dinner?
by Katrine Marcal
Portobello Books, London
Extent: 230, Price: Rs 374
First published in Hindu BusinessLine dated March 31, 2018
