Introduction
The legendary intellectual Steve Biko, who was brutally murdered by the South African apartheid regime in 1977, famously said in one of his speeches that ‘the most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed’ (Biko [1978] 2007, 101–102). In our times, Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2013, 50) correctly asserts that ‘mental colonization is the hardest part to decolonize and the worst form of colonialism.’ And the power theorist Steven Lukes (2005, 1) rightly concludes that ‘power is at its most effective when least observable.’
In this contribution I would like to draw attention to the destructive and subjugatory content and consequences of the ethical strands embedded in mainstream economics. I believe they are among the key forces to the continuation and expansion of the neo-colonial world order. If I am right, they have to be analysed and understood more in order to be confronted and tackled. I will attempt to show that they lead to significant behavioural subordination to the status quo, which is characterised by grotesque poverty and inequality levels, as well as devastating environmental deterioration. This is because they help to rationalise the systematic exploitation of people and planet, while helping to normalise human behaviour that is both destructive and subjugatory to the prevailing power structures. In doing so, they entrench and exacerbate power imbalances in societies everywhere. This effect is especially taking place in African societies where asymmetric power between elites and people are far greater today than ever before. The ethics at hand encompass individualism; egoism; competition, as well as policy choices that favour capital over workers; corporate profits over the environment; and economic and political elites over regular citizens – all of which are combined with narratives that often reproduce prejudice, colour-coded racism, sexism and alienation.
Altogether, three destructive processes are ongoing: subjugatory ethics are disseminated and nurtured (through policy, education, research and popular media), while emancipatory ethics are suppressed or appropriated away, and access to power is directly related to one’s displayed acceptance of subjugatory ethics. The resulting subordination makes it easier to govern a society with widespread poverty and inequality, and where political power is almost equal to economic power.
This analysis is, in my view, essential to better understand the persistence of the prevailing power imbalances, economic inequalities, environmental destruction and under-development in Africa and beyond. As I see it, emancipatory efforts will not really be fruitful without this analysis and problem-determination. This perspective should also help transcend political ideologies and be useful for anyone who is against suppressive power systems.
Mainstream economics and coloniality
Colonial and imperial powers recognised the importance of influencing minds, i.e. the process of ‘coloniality’. In doing so, they minimised physical violence or deterrents in controlling people, especially given that minds are more affordable tools of power. In our times, this often happens by subtly diffusing selected information, knowledge and narratives that conform to the interests of the power-holders, mainly through education, mass media, politics, culture, research centres and corporations. A second intention is to prevent challenging ideas or conflicts arising in the first place. It is a matter of producing self-surveillance, self-censorship and conformity to power-accepting norms. In this order, the masses and semi-elites (individuals with some managerial power) are dependent on the elites, and preferences are generally sought and obtained according to elite considerations (see Lukes 2005).
African scholars and Pan-Africanists have for a long time drawn attention to channels of mental domination. The classic book Black skin, white masks by Frantz Fanon is a pioneering work in terms of investigating the psychological effects of European colonialism, especially its discursive and ethical spheres. It elaborates upon how colonial notions of white superiority and black inferiority are internalised, not only by the coloniser but also by the colonised. This is made possible through
a constellation of postulates, a series of propositions that slowly and subtly – with the help of books, newspapers, schools and their texts, advertisements, films, radio – work their way into one’s mind and shape one’s view of the world of the group to which one belongs. (Fanon [1952] 2008, xvi)
The field of economics has certainly been a central apparatus in the colonial, elitist, Eurocentric and patriarchal agenda since the late nineteenth century. This was particularly true during the last quarter of the twentieth century – an era often referred to as encompassing the rise and dominance of neoliberalism (see Cline-Cole and Harrison 2010). Today, neoliberal economics dominates policy forums, educational institutions, research organisations, corporations and media outlets all around the world. Keita (2014, 121) concludes that this ‘economics paradigm has become so dominant in these contemporary times of globalisation that its pedagogic instruction in Africa’s universities is now the norm.’
This mainstream economics has received an enormous amount of criticism, but, in my view, there has been insufficient focus on its ethical tenets. I argue that just as there are mainstream economics, mainstream media, mainstream narratives, mainstream academia and other mainstream organisations, there are also ‘mainstream ethics’ prevailing in our societies. As with other mainstream elements, they are disseminated pretty much everywhere as if they are ‘normal’, ‘natural’ and not really up for debate. If they are discussed, it is often with the intention of appropriation, disfigurement and dismissal of alternatives. Mainstream ethics trigger, nurture and reward destructive, polarising and subjugatory behaviours that have devastating consequences on people and planet. We could label this process deep coloniality – that is, a deeper level of ‘coloniality’: the colonisation of the mind through knowledge, narratives, discourses, ideologies and perspectives (see Ndlovu-Gatsheni 2013).
Mainstream ethics and deep coloniality
A central idea in mainstream economics is that everyone acts in self-interest, or strictly egoistically, but that the aggregated result is maximisation of social welfare. In particular, maximisers of utility (consumers) and profits (firms) help to make our economy efficient, to the benefit of all. This individualist view provides a very powerful moral justification for market mechanisms (Chang 2014). Adam Smith’s well-known passage has justified this position for a long time: ‘It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest’ (Smith [1792] 1994, 15). However, Gintis et al. (2005, 3) argue that mainstream economics often
overlooks Smith’s second, and equally important book, The theory of moral sentiments, in which Smith promotes a far more complex human character. ‘How Selfish soever man may be supposed’, Smith writes in The theory of moral sentiments, ‘there are evidently some principles in this nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it.’
Of course, there is plenty of evidence of strictly egoist behaviour. The real concern is that it has become truer over time since it has been disseminated widely as scientific fact. A growing body of literature concludes that strictly selfish behaviour is learned behaviour, especially when people study economics and business. People and organisations act as if the neoliberal theory is true, and in doing so make its predictions become increasingly true. For instance, as managers adopt the worldview of selfish agents and competitive markets, they pit people and organisational units against one another in the belief that competition among self-interested agents produces optimal solutions. This type of process spurs an adaptive cycle of behaviour, so that its incentives, inducements and sanctions become entrenched norms. As subjugatory theories become normalised beliefs, societies, organisations and leaders become increasingly trapped in unproductive or harmful cycles of behaviour that are very difficult to withdraw from. At some point, people may not even contemplate behaving differently from the accepted norms.
This means that theories can be sold in the marketplace of ideas, independent of their empirical validity, to the extent that their assumptions and language are taken for granted and normatively valued. In this manner, economic ideas are appraised not so much through objective academic exercises, but by creating conditions that make them come ‘true’ (Ferraro, Pfeffer, and Sutton 2005). For instance, media corporations, often controlled by the wealthy, influence minds so that most individuals accept the notion that humanity is divided along the lines of elites and masses. This acceptance has negative consequences for the masses when they are also accepted by the elites. But this acceptance and belief also constitute adaptive preferences, which means that people may choose to interpret their circumstances in certain ways in order to make decisions that generate a more bearable reality (Chang 2014).
Instead, mainstream economics assumes that economic agents have limitless choices (although in modelling they have usually only two). In reality, people have very restricted choice limitations, especially if they live in poverty, live under social and political suppression, possess narrow cognitive frameworks, or are influenced by overt and covert manipulation of their preferences. Despite the neoliberal theory of limitless choices, and the complexities of the real world, individuals in mainstream economics are basically reduced to being consumers (Branco 2012) voter headcounts (Streeck 2011) or labour.
These individuals are part of the greater idea of individualism. This idea states that anyone is able to succeed in society – ‘if someone can do it, anyone can do it.’ But this model of achievement ignores prevailing structural imbalances in a society, especially when it comes to unequal distributions of power. For instance, when individualism is applied to land, it means that private ownership and transfer of land into the hands of a few is taken as the outcome of individual achievements rather than as part of structural processes. The unequal distribution of land is further entrenched and sustained, in mainstream economics, through the practice of strict property rights, the intellectual backbone of capitalism. In this manner, individualism is not serving to liberate, but rather to enslave the majority for the benefit of a few. It also creates false myths in arguing that hard work leads to prosperity. If this were true, anyone working hard under very difficult conditions would be extremely rich (Rodney 1972).
Moreover, mainstream economics prescribes that the labour market should be ‘flexible’ in order to easily replace workers from the abundant labour supply. In combination with high unemployment rates and other power imbalances in African economies, this has devastating consequences for people since it provides another ethical justification to exploit workers. The dominant view does not see anything wrong when workers have to endure low incomes and poor working conditions, pointing out arguments such as that it is better than nothing. In this way, the status quo, with poverty, unemployment and under-development, is sustained.
In fact, corporate-friendly approaches go very far in mainstream economics. The Coase theorem is central in this regard. It assumes that corporations would compensate for externalities such as toxic waste if they threatened the environment, public health and property values. In reality, it is very uncommon to have large corporations sit down and negotiate with representatives of the affected, let alone compensate for such externalities. Similarly, it is almost impossible to take corporations to court for externalities. In the unlikely event that this happens, the likelihood of winning the case is extremely low considering the well-funded legal resources of these corporations (Chang 2014; Perelman 2012; Streeck 2011). These conditions are certainly evident in African economies, where citizens’ power over large corporations is almost non-existent, while corporate exploitation of Africa’s resources and people is almost everywhere.
According to mainstream economics, Africa’s under-development is mainly created by its corrupt political leaders. This is far from the entire truth. The corruption of political elites is directly related to bribes and extractive activities offered by other elites, especially from the corporate sector (both domestic and foreign), but also related to coercive tactics by international stakeholders, such as international financial institutions. Corruption is a complicated matter, but one that almost always involves transactions between and among political and economic elites.
These types of narratives are a conscious and sub-conscious choice by the narrator. This person aims to tilt responsibility for under-development to not only Africans as a people, but also the state as an institution. In doing so, the roles of non-Africans and corporations are significantly downplayed. This is especially relevant for the ‘natural resource curse’ narrative. Although the extent of available natural resources obviously plays a role in the performance of an economy, this dominant narrative omits structural power from the analysis, and prescribes neoliberal policies as solutions. In this manner, the central role of external forces in extracting Africa’s resources as cheaply as possible is largely ignored.
In fact, a key aspect of subjugatory ethics is to dodge frustration and culpability and direct such sentiments towards other groups, such as immigrants, minorities, women and the state bureaucracy and away from domestic and external elites and corporations. This is realised, for instance, by disguising real problems under prejudices, while establishing new forms of ‘common sense’. If ordinary citizens are occupied by competing with each other for jobs, opportunities and social space, while mentally subordinating to the powerful, then they are further disempowered. In this self-perpetuating process, societies are likely to further consolidate power in the hands of the very few – that is, to move towards plutocracy, or other forms of totalitarian rule, including fascism (see Kellecioglu 2017).
Another example is the ‘Africa rising’ narrative, which has served economic and political elites well, by attracting more investments and financial resources to the continent, whether legal or not. However, it is obvious that the vast majority of African citizens have not benefited from this ‘rise’ (see Pillay 2015; Obeng-Odoom 2017). Another example is the ‘African middle class’ narrative. In reality, very few people are able to reach and sustain income levels that could be classified as middle class. This is confirmed by a closer examination of the available data (Melber 2017).
Mainstream narratives also help to create subjugatory mental states. They incite false hopes, mainly by promoting symptomatic policy solutions to structural problems. In doing so, they limit people’s transformative spirit, and thereby help to maintain the status quo. Internalisation of perceived failures is one of the major features of a colonised mind, while its outcome is an inferiority complex (Fanon [1952] 2008). This happens when people begin to perceive themselves, or their ethnic group, community, gender, or class as inferior to corresponding groups. But mainstream economics often identifies African ‘problems’ for outsiders to solve, portraying themselves as saviours with superior knowledge and experience. This narrative often involves promises of ‘civilisation’, ‘development’, ‘democracy’, etc. In reality, they are simply a manifestation of selfish ambitions, based on false ideas of superiority.
This is certainly the case with the ‘culture matters’ narrative in mainstream economics. It asserts that countries with higher development have a ‘culture’ that values hard work, innovation, investments, etc. However, this narrative not only contains incorrect facts but also asserts a subtle racism, since it embeds an indirect case for the superiority of the people in those countries (usually of European origin). After all, in this view, specific cultural mindsets generate better economic outcomes. In order to transcend the racist labelling, they often complement their analysis by arguing that non-Westerners too could replicate the same cultural mindset and be ‘successful’ (Kellecioglu 2010). But it is doubtful whether they actually hold this view as plausible, except perhaps for a small number of non-Westerners. More importantly, their preferred cultural mindset is certainly not admirable nor effective, given its destructive effects on the world economy, humanity and the environment.
These are not far-fetched trajectories when considering the state of power and economic distribution around the world today. This is certainly the case also in Africa, albeit the form and magnitude of totalitarianism varies across the 54 countries. mainstream economics significantly contributes to such subjugatory processes, as it functions indirectly as an intermediary institution that represents and pursues the interests of internal and external elites and powerful corporations. Its ethical strands are often presented as objective, but are in reality part of a normative argument in support of extractive and suppressive interests. They are disseminated by economic and political elites in order to ease the implementation of policies that actually go against the interests of ordinary citizens. Their epistemologies and ethical strands are almost always presented as scientific, neutral and universal truths, while being yardsticks of quality. At the same time, African modes of knowledge are either appropriated, displaced or dismissed entirely, both in the public domain and in formal education structures (Ndlovu-Gatsheni 2013). mainstream economics conveniently ignores asymmetric power in central areas, such as wealth, income, quality of democracy, colour-coded racism and historical origins of inequality. Its economic application upholds economic inequalities (since money makes money), that are in turn partly utilised in maintaining political systems that drain the real meaning of democracy. Its political application exploits people’s vulnerability and destroys nature through extraction and pollution, while allowing political power to become increasingly equal to economic power. Its ethical application enforces subordination to elites and alienation of people’s consciousness and soul.
The three power spheres (economy, politics and ethics) produce societies that oscillate within a vicious cycle of subjugatory and destructive imbalances towards an ever-more authoritarian system of rule. This is because the three normalised, inter-related and reinforcing forces drive societies into a totalitarian path, which is often a plutocracy. After all, it is the wealthy who are able to finance the structures, mechanisms and ideational institutions of the dominant discourse. What is worse, the more these conditions become a reality, the more distant the truthfulness of alternatives, and the more distant the likelihood of emancipatory change. This process often leads to widespread apathy and further submission. This kind of economics and power structure is a reality in all societies around the world today, albeit differing in magnitude and form. The implications are, however, devastating for people facing economic poverty, political suppression, colour-coded racism, sexism, environmental devastation, conflicts and other hardships. After all, the evidence shows that almost all African countries, to one degree or another, exhibit the characteristics of a plutocracy, in which a relatively small group of wealthy individuals control nearly all of the economic, political and ethical power.
Emancipatory perspectives, ethics and solutions
Before discussing solutions, it may be worthwhile to reflect on the problems. Are ordinary people, especially non-Europeans, so easy to deceive? And do they not deserve their lot, given their choices in life? The answer is negative to both questions. People have not really had a fair chance to develop independent mindsets that better reflect their ambitions. They have been faced with unequal opportunities, colonialism, capitalism and associated power imbalances, especially over the past 500 years (see Kellecioglu 2010) as well as mental subordination according to the appraisal above. Also, the individualistic position embedded in the two questions fails to recognise another part of human history, in which elite status is almost never achieved by desert, or by some socially valuable entrepreneurship as professed by mainstream narratives. People are also, more or less, conscious of being lured into certain behaviour. They simply abide in order to achieve a relatively better, or less negative, livelihood, especially given the narrow spectrum of choices and alternative social spaces.
The power of the masses is further weakened by semi-elites, who continuously succumb to inducements of dominant institutions, and thereby align themselves with the powerful. This group is helping to maintain the status quo simply by doing their daily jobs in institutions that have, more or less, internalised mainstream economics. The masses, on the other hand, are not in a position to challenge those institutions on a daily basis. On some occasions when they do, specific forces are deployed to suppress them. All in all, people are not fools but are collectively disempowered. Alternatively, we could all be fools, but with the powerful relatively more able to mind their own business and accumulate wealth, knowledge, skills and other forms of power compared to ordinary citizens. In the end, whether we are all foolish or not, virtuous cycles of development become a reality for the elites and vicious ones for ordinary citizens.
Europeans are equally deceived, but they have also benefited from the power systems run by their elites. Unfortunately, few Europeans sense or acknowledge the economic, political, social and ethical advantages they are born into. This is the essence of white privilege – the failure to see that one's white morphological traits lead to better opportunities all over the world. The above appraisal does not therefore describe a systematic conspiracy against regular people or against African people, but more the destructive forces the human mind is capable of when subjugatory ethics are being internalised and enforced. This is not to say that the individuals, institutions, states and corporations that have benefited, and still benefit, from this world order are excused. On the contrary, the greater the beneficiary, the greater the culprit, the greater the responsibility to correct through sustained action in real solidarity.
What, then, should be done to displace ethics of mainstream economics? The starting point should be to recognise the existence of an alternative ethics that is more suitable and feasible for people and planet. According to Gintis et al. (2005, 382) human behaviour is in the end largely characterised by ‘strong reciprocity’: a preference to cooperate with others, but as long as others are doing it too. This preference also includes sanctions against those who violate the norms of cooperation. Promoting trust is a superior alternative to costly incentive schemes for solving societal collective action problems. A society, or an organisation, can evolve to be more co-operative among its members in two ways, one whereby there are a lot of altruistic and co-operative individuals, and one in which social mechanisms spur and encourage cooperative behaviour. A combination of the two improves the likelihood of forming and maintaining a more co-operative society (Gintis et al. 2005).
This type of society needs, of course, a sufficient amount of resources and support – human, financial, political, social, cultural and legal – to kick-start and evolve. The manner in which such (r)evolutionary efforts are conducted and achieved will differ depending on the specific context and dynamics of time, people, organisation, stakeholder, corporation, semi-elite, elite, etc. It is a complex matter to combat these concealed forces, but imperative and certainly possible. Everyone could support this (r)evolutionary process, but especially professionals within institutions of policy, research, education and civil society since they are better positioned to make an impact. It is central that this group of practitioners of economic discourses begin to explore alternative and innovative ways to utilise them in their work. It is, however, advisable to be mindful of misappropriations, such as the ‘green growth’ discourse, which involves the same economics, but with a different ethical packaging (see Monga and Lin 2015).
In other words, just as there are subjugatory ethics, there are emancipatory ethics to trigger, support and nurture. In Africa, ubuntu is the most well-known one. This is a worldview that is broadly about togetherness, about recognising, considering and collaborating with fellow human beings in decision-making. It is not about trampling on individual preferences, but about acting from the premise that human existence is dependent on the interaction with others. Ubuntu has a long tradition throughout Africa, but has different wordings depending on the language used. It is also true that similar worldviews exist all around the world. Again, it is necessary to be mindful of misappropriations of emancipatory ethics, such as the commercialisation of ubuntu in South Africa (McDonald 2010).
Finally, I would like to propose three overlapping tracks of action to promote the greater adoption of emancipatory ethics: (1) dismantling subjugatory institutions (structural and ideational) and (2) nurturing emancipatory institutions (structural and ideational), while (3) ensuring that access to power and accountability increasingly corresponds to knowledge, ethics and intentions that are people- and planet-oriented. This analytical approach with both critical problem-determination and emancipatory solution-orientation is here labelled ‘(r)evolutionary appraisal’. Ideally, this entails a mix of radical and progressive policy changes that are designed in context, optimally sequenced and dynamically enforced. The main objective is to distribute power in order to transform the operation, behaviour and intentions of states, corporations, organisations, institutions and individuals into emancipatory trajectories.
Promoting emancipatory ethics would not only transform policy and reality, but also contribute to one’s own professional and personal emancipation and empowerment. This is applicable to all practitioners of economic knowledge, such as economists and other scholars, but also professionals in government offices, international organisations, multilateral agencies and civil society organisations, as well as students and activists. Unfortunately, many enlightened and emancipation-seeking individuals have also fallen prey to this deep coloniality – minds that are dominated by the European and colonial belief that people are just selfish, competitive and destructive. We have to resist being complicit and resist apathy. It is understandable to despair given the state of our world today, but also in such circumstances the importance of resistance and rebellion is greater. In this endeavour, it is essential to transcend the destructive sides of humanity by increasingly adopting, nurturing and raising consciousness about our constructive sides. We do not know how far we are able to push in one or the other direction, but it is certain that a continuation of this extreme capitalism, this business-as-usual, with its ethical tenets, will lead to further devastation of people and planet. Promoting, implementing and nurturing emancipatory and (re)constructive discourses, policies and ethics will at least trigger a chance for a better future. This calls for retaking and reinventing democracy, not only in the political arena, but also at the workplace, in the household, in schools, etc.
The past two centuries have seen power systems dominated by corporations and governments. It is really time to strive towards people-run power systems – real democracies. They will not perform perfectly, but will certainly perform better than today’s suppressive systems. In this endeavour, it is necessary that sufficient numbers of people recognise that our mental states, including our sub-consciousness, have the potential to operate more collectively and constructively. Achieving mental emancipation leads to greater chances of reversing the ongoing trend and helping to rebuild humanity and the earth. There are genuine signs that increasing numbers of individuals, organisations and movements around the world are taking a stronger stance against the status quo. African people are increasingly conscious and determined to improve their circumstances at hand. They do so not because of the economics, ethics and politics imposed on them by internal and external powers, but despite them.