Integralists need
to include ancient seminal ideas from Earth-respecting traditions if – in spite
of originating in predominantly pre-modern stages- they are still essentially compatible TODAY with Integral
Theory and with other integrative approaches. There might be ideas established
at “integral level” across cultural & social stages. Apparently, many of
these did occur in agrarian economies like those of the ancient Greek and Andean
pre-Hispanic.
Economist Jorge
Alberto Montoya Maquin knowledgeable in Andean cosmology, and traditions studied
the Quechua language and ancient Greek to write a critical translation of “About Economics,” the first economic “treatise”
written as a dialogue by Xenophon -friend
and disciple of Socrates. Apparently his perspectives originated in an ancient tradition. Like
Socrates’ “Maieutic” (and probably not unlike traditional educational styles in
the Andes) Xenophon’s dialogues don’t tell as much as elicit small “aha”
moments of discovery and understanding in the reader.
Montoya Maquin thus wrote Económico
de Ksénofon: Traducción Crítica, which includes an original translation into
Spanish and an interpretive section trying to revive – unlike other modern
translations – the cultural context of ancient Greek culture. The book also contrasts
Xenophon’s ideas with Andean thinking and was published in 2013 by the School
of Economists of Lima. I think it should be translated into English for more scholars
to re-discover Xenophon’s foundational economic ideas.
Unlike modern
Economics focused on concepts like “scarcity,” “greed,” “competition” and a “rational”
attempt to maximize individual “profit,” Xenophon’s thinking represented a
synergistic kind of utilitarian administration and protection of the goods and
entities within an “oikos” (“house”
or “estate”).
“Economy” derives from the word “oikos”
and “nomos,”
The former can be appropriately translated as “house” or as “estate” and the latter
as the “norms” which that house or estate follow to maintain their organization
and objectives. That “house” would essentially have to be a circumscribed land inclusive
of all its living entities and the concept can extend to a country, village, or
the Earth itself. The “oikos” should
also be considered an “autarchy” or self-sustaining organization, also in a
fractal-like relation with other such elements. This in itself reminds me of the
concept of “holons” as self-organized systems in relation with other higher,
lower and same level holons.
A well-administered
“oikos” would benefit all plants and
animals within it while being useful to meet basic, genuine needs. This would
be a “synergistic” administration in current terms and would correlate well
with the Andean concept of “living in a good, wise, relational way” (“Sumaq Kausay”). The world would be
made of interwoven functionally independent yet related “oikos.”.
If components
of Andean thinking are on a par with Greek concepts that served to ground Western
civilization, perhaps French philosopher Edgar Morin’s hope for the rise of a contribution
to an integrative, “complex” world philosophy could indeed also potentially rise
from Andean South America.
Apparently,
Xenophon conceived the world –all of it – much like Andeans did: as “Alive.” He did not say so explicitly
as Andeans would but that idea is clearly implicit in the dialogues. In a sense
all that changes (not just animals
and plants) is “alive” in that it can actually communicate with us. Moreover,
if we understood the inorganic, physical features of the world as per their
subtle information aspects they would also be perceived as “alive.” That would
enhance our concepts about “holons” (including piles and artifacts) including what
is – erroneously – perceived as an insentient collection of systems called
“Mother Earth” and would probably coincide with current quantum information
holographic theories.
For Xenophon
and the Andeans, since everything changes, to live well we need to demarcate
and situate ourselves. “Episteme” was
about delimiting an aspect of experience so as to observe it (in stasis) from
outside for its inside to reveal meanings at various degrees of depth. It is like
relating to the interior meaning of holons and – as in the Andes where everything
that changes is considered “alive” – it is relational,
surpassing the simple acquisition of information about something simply
considered an “object.” Thus all “things”
would have a relational living aspect.
Xenophon also
uses the idea of “making a chorus” (as
in a concert) and as guidance to administer the “oikos” well. It must be of benefit to all and to humans only if they
administer without greed taking what is really useful and necessary without
waste. This attitude is similar to life in an Andean community or “ayllu” based on the concept of “making
pairs” or connecting two to make three. Besides, the “ayllu” is also considered an autarchy or self-sustaining entity in
which – as in Xenophon’s views – people share each other’s work and every person
plays multiple converging roles. Poverty in both the “ayllu” and “oikos” essentially
means disconnection from others.
If Xenophon
and Andean ideas had been less misrepresented in modernity (rather than
re-interpreted under modern biases), they may have influenced modern economic
thinking at is formative stages and perhaps our current economic systems would
have emphasized a practical, relational harmony with the living environment
while de-emphasizing resource exploitation, scarcity, greed, unending “growth”
and competition. Let’s reconnect with this for a change.