Homo Economicus : Robinson Crusoe’s Two Readers

1. Homo Economicus: Robinson Crusoe’s Two Readers Individualism, Capitalism, and the Form of the Novel

2. Liberal Individual = “Natural” Man • Locke’s “state of nature” gives an account of men in an original condition of individual equality • In this state, an individual has essential rights that he protects on the basis of in-born “rational self-interest”: life, liberty, and estate • The social contract essentially involves individuals (acting in their own rational interests) leasing out some of their rights to the state • Important to remember: This “state of nature” is a plausible fiction! Locke tells this story to illustrate a point. • Serves to justify liberal individualism as the most “natural” political theory.

3. Liberal Individual = “Homo Economicus” • Hobbes/Locke: the “labor theory of value” • The man of “rational self-interest” and whose “natural” rights include the accumulation of property and freedom to enter into contracts is also the “man” described by laissez- faire classic liberal economics. • Adam Smith, David Ricardo (political economy) • Term originates with J.S. Mill (utilitarianism) • These economic theories are founded on this vision of individuals whose actions are predictable based on rational self-interest • “desert island” scenarios and readings of Robinson Crusoe

4. Marx’s Reading • Marx himself holds to the “labor theory of value” • Read Crusoe’s protagonist as “homo economicus” but pointed out that Robinson is not truly in a “state of nature.” • Despite his solitary situation, Robinson engages in social activities: “…our friend Robinson soon learns from experience, and having rescued a watch, ledger, and pen and ink from the wreck, commences, like a true-born Briton, to keep a set of books. His stock book contains a list of the objects of utility that belong to him, of the operations necessary for their production; and lastly, of the labour time that definite quantities of these objects have, on average, cost him.” • The argument: Whereas labor is individual, VALUE is a social form and a relation of exchange.

5. Liberal Individual = (Capitalist) “Natural” man • Marx: Liberalist philosophy’s story of “man in his state of nature” was an attempt to justify capitalism as “natural.” • When liberal philosophy imagines “man,” it is really envisioning “capitalist man.” • Naturalizes bourgeois, capitalist logics as “rational self-interest” and “the nature of the individual” • Critique of Watt: Does the form of the novel construct the “individual” constructed by liberal philosophy? Or does it construct (capitalist) man? What about (imperialist) man? What else is built in to the form of the novel?

6. The Argument • IMPORTANT: You aren’t going to be able to use Robinson Crusoe to prove or disprove either Classic Liberal or Marxist economic systems. • Marx doesn’t use RC to prove any economic points. He used it as an example of how liberal economists were looking at value incorrectly. • For us, Marx’s critique has other implications that have to do with the foundational “plausible fiction” of liberal individualism.

7. Back to Watt • Watt’s theory of “formal realism” shows how the novel’s conventions are invested in individualism • Characters (individual perception, proper names, biographical approach/identity through duration) • Time (objective, linear causality, historical development) • Setting (solidity, constancy of objects) • Authenticity of language (descriptive, natural voice) • Marx: Does the concept of the liberal individual “hide” the values of market capitalism? • What is the “nature” of the liberal individual?

8. Where is the language of value? • What is the value of… • People (characters, their names, their relation to Crusoe) • Time (Labor, leisure, keeping time) • Setting (objects, home, property, territory) • Language (telling, writing, description) … in the novel? • Think in terms of both the content AND the form and find particular passages to discuss.