652
PARTISAN REVIEW
other things, the ludicrous idea of
Homo economicu5,
whose behavior,
individual and collective, can be exhaustively described by mathemati–
cal formulas, and the predominance of unilinear, historicist theories,
essentially based on this idea. These theories, which ultimately derive
from Marx's historical materialism/economic determinism, are also
entirely consistent with the German Romantic misinterpretation of
Adam Smith and so are believed to accord with classical economics
whose scientific status cannot be doubted. Thus-with one blow-they
satisfy both the scientistic and the ideological cravings of their propo–
nents. I use the plural "theories," but actually there is only one theory
under several names. Today we know it under the name of "globaliza–
tion," but it was known-and abandoned for lack of evidence-under
other names ("modernization" and "convergence" are only a few of its
aliases). The fundamental-and fundamentally Marxist-idea of this
theory is that economic and technological forces drive the world
towards greater and greater integration, turning it into what already
Marshall McLuhan called "the global village." But the trend is gener–
ally recognized as "globalization" only after the (so-called) triumph of
the West in the Cold War. Not everyone agrees about "globalization":
some believe that it is good; others, that it is rather sinister; and some
disagree as to the precise nature of the driving force-is it communica–
tions technology or market rationality? All this is beside the point. The
point is that it does not exist. Contrary to the buzz, there is no evidence
of globalization.
The realization that this is so would have little importance for the
great majority of us, if the games social scientists play had no influence.
But they do. Social scientists are invested by this society with the respon–
sibility to interpret and articulate it, with intellectual authority; they
educate millions of our children; they influence curricula in elementary
schools; they train the personnel of the media; since the days of
Woodrow Wilson they have the ear of our government, and their polit–
ical influence grows.
It
is not an exaggeration to state, as did
Fortune
in
all earnestness, that "economists rule the world." Economists are the
poster boys of social science: their scientific credentials are impeccable,
but there is not much difference between them and their discipline's less
sophisticated and equally pernicious sisters . This great country desig–
nated a group of its educated members, brought up to be both generally
ignorant and resentful of American culture, its intellectuals, and thereby
placed itself at their mercy. They are given the power to lead-and can
use it only to mislead.
It
may not be an exaggeration to consider this the
American tragedy.
