I think the problem is that I don't think of homo oeconimus as lacking an understanding of human interdepence, whereas you seem to. okey doke.
here's what *I* mean by homo oeconimus:
the assumption is that, without ever having to think about my brother and his needs, i can be my brother's keeper simply by thinking about and attending to my own needs, desires, wants. adam's smith brewer does not brew beer because he loves humankind so and wants to fill them with beer. he brews beer in order to meet his needs -- whatever that might be, only he can know what those needs, desires, wants are.
interdependence isn't denied in this view, it's just that we are our brother's keeper, not by acting in ways that take his well-being into account, but acting in ways that take only our actions into account.
families teach this constantly. there is no contradiction between our ideal of marrying for love (not for money or family status or tradition or the exchange of property) and homo oeconimus. in fact, there are several books that make the argument that the two played off each other, each fueling the rise and dominance of the other: romantic love (coupling for love and nothing else) goes hand in hand with capitalism (homo oeconimus).
At 11:11 PM 8/26/2008, JC Helary wrote:
>On 27 août 08, at 12:01, shag wrote:
>
>>I suspect the only reason anyone would think it would be simple is
>>probably because of a tacit assumption: that we are more *naturally*
>>a certain kind of human -- homo commonus or something
>
>No, it is because "homo commonus" is the only way to raise children
>until they can be relatively independant (speak, and open the fridge
>themselves, about 2-3 years or age). All the rest is about fighting
>the contradiction between "commons" life in the family and what the
>rest of society tells us the "best way" is.
>
>Jean-Christophe Helary
>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)