Economics as a Science of the Human Mind and Interaction

Michael Fast, Frederik Hertel, Woodrow W. Clark II

Clark Strategic Partners, Beverly Hills, USA.
Department of Business and Management, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.

DOI: 10.4236/tel.[phone]                

Abstract

In understanding economics and the organisation of economics, the questions are what constitute economics and the thinking behind economics today? In short what is the field of economics? And in what ways can we connect to and understand this field of study? Of course, the answer to this depends upon the perspective chosen, in which one sees and thinks of economics from a particular philosophical and even political position and perspective. If one takes the perspective on economics from a qualitative paradigm that draws upon the tradition from Kant, Husserl, Simmel, Mead, Schutz, Blumer (see references), then it can be stated that economics cannot only be understood as something that appears in nature. On the contrary, economics must be understood as “something” which results from human behaviour, interaction and groups in human activities and the thinking involved and embedded in those activities. Therefore in analyzing economics it is significant to note that economics belongs to and is being constructed by people due to their everyday lives. What appears as central in those statements, from a qualitative perspective, is that the essences of economics have to be discussed in relation to the mind and thinking related to an understanding of individual and group societal activities. Economics is to be understood as constructed and maintained through everyday human interactions and exchanges, whereby people are creating the meanings of situations with objectives of what are believed as important in the understanding of economics activities, actions and results. Those meanings and definitions of economics are being produced and exchanged in order to become a new comprehensive framework that influences, co-produces, limits and creates contradictions in everyday economic life. This additional qualitative focus [1] outlines the importance of understanding how human cognitions produce meaning of objects, definitions, activities and actions which provides the framework for the field of economics. The epistemological perspective for this is that the objects are not only within themselves. No, instead the objects are as they presents themselves to people, and thereby the meanings we are constructing and attaching to them. The paper will therefore discuss some of the scientific complexities in three areas: mind and thinking; understanding economics as a social activity and construction, and the interplay between economic activities and economic theoretical work.

Keywords

Economic Thinking, Epistemology, Qualitative Meaning, Language, Discourse, Interaction, Science

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Clark, C. and Fast, M. (2008) Qualitative Economics. Coxmoor Publishing Company, Oxford.
[2]	Kuhn, T. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
[3]	Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1980) Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis. Heinemann, London.
[4]	Friedman, M. (1962) Capitalism and Freedom. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
[5]	Friedman, M. (1977) Inflation and Unemployment: Nobel Lecture. The Journal of Political Economy, 85, 451-472. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/260579
[6]	Clark, W.W., et al. (2012) BHUSD Bond Fund Annual Report.
[7]	Friedman, M. (1957) A Theory of the Consumption Function. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
[8]	Chomsky, N. (1975) Reflections on Language. Pantheon Books, New York.
[9]	Simmel, G. (1990) The Philosopy of Money. Routledge, London.
[10]	Berger, P.L. and Luckmann, T. (1967) The Social Construction of Reality. Anchor Books, New York.
[11]	Blumer, H. (1986) Symbolic Interactionism. Perspective and Method. University of California Press, Berkley and Los Angeles.
[12]	Foucault, M. (2002) The Archaeology of Knowledge. Routledge, London and New York.
[13]	Bourdieu, P. (2002) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
[14]	International Student Initiative for Pluralism in Economics—Open Letter (2014). http://www.isipe.net/open-letter/
[15]	Comte, A. (1991) Om Positivismen (Discours préliminaire sur l’esprit positif). Korpen, G?teborg.
[16]	Fast, M. and Clark, W. (2012) Qualitative Economics—A Perspective on Organization and Economics Science. Theoretical Economics Letters, 2, 162-174. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/tel.[phone]
[17]	Chomsky, N. (1980) Rules and Representations. Colombia University Press, New York.
[18]	Kant, I. (1929) Critique of Pure Reason. Macmillan, London.
[19]	Husserl, E. (1962) Ideas. Macmillan, New York.
[20]	Merleau-Ponty, M. (1994) The Phenomenology of Perception. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
[21]	Schutz, A. (1972) The Phenomenology of the Social World. Heinemann Educational Books, London.
[22]	Gurwitsch, A. (1982) Husserl’s Theory of the Intentionality of Consciousness. In: Dreyfus, H.L., Ed., Husserl Intentionality and Cognitive Science, The MIT Press, Cambridge, London.
[23]	Moustakas, C. (1994) Phenomenological Research Methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks.
[24]	Weick, K.E. (1995) Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
[25]	Gioia, D.A. (2006) On Weick: An Appreciation. Organization Studies, 27, 1709-1721. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0170840606068349
[26]	Eco, U. (2000) Kant and the Platypus. Vintage, London.
[27]	Peirce, C.S. (1998) The Essential Peirce, Vol. 2. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
[28]	Gadamer, H.G. (1993) Truth and Method. Shed & Ward, London.
[29]	Jorgensen, L., Jordan, S. and Mitetrhofer, H. (2012) Sensemaking and Discourse Analyses in Inter-Organizational Research: A Review and Suggested Advances. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 28, 107-120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2012.01.007
[30]	Love, S., Ellis, N. and Purchase, S. (2008) Rethinking Language in IMP Research: Networking Processes in Other Words. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 24, 295-307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2008.08.003
[31]	Berger, P.L. (1963) Invitation to Sociology. Anchor Books, New York.
[32]	Mead, G.H. (1962) Mind Self and Society. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
[33]	Schutz, A. (1996) Collected Papers, Vol. IV. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1077-0
[34]	Cooley, C.H. (2009) Human Nature and the Social Order. General Books LLC Publication, Danvers.
[35]	Mead, G.H. (1984) On Social Psychology. The University of Chicago Press, London.
[36]	Friedland, R. (2009) The Endless Fields of Pierre Bourdieu. Organization, 16, 887-917. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1350508409341115
[37]	Weick, K.E. (1976) Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2391875
[38]	French, W.L. and Bell, C.H. (1999) Organization Development: Behavioural Science Interventions for Organization Improvement. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River.
[39]	Cooley, C.H. (1998) On Self and Social Organization. The University of Chicago Press, London.
[40]	Morgan, G. (1986) Images of Organization. Sage, Bristol.
[41]	Fairclough, N. (2001) Language and Power. Longman, Malaysia.
[42]	Harquail, C.V. and King, A.W. (2010) Constructing Organizational Identity: The Role of Embodied Cognition. Organization Studies, 31, 1919-0648.
[43]	Theil, S. (2014) Michael Spence: China’s Rising Middle. Stanford University Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Palo Alto.
[44]	Clark, W.W. and Isherwood, W. (2010) Special Issue on China: Environmental and Energy Sustainable Development. Utility Policy Journal, 53-61.
[45]	Wittgenstein, L. (1993) Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Samlarens Bogklub, Denmark.