The Invisible Hand
Conspiracy
The Case for a Capitalist Theology
by Eve Poole
Summary
Capitalism has been marginalised and silenced in the social and religious
debate about morality. This may be because Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’
implies capitalists do not need to act morally. In this climate, capitalists may
feel they have a licence to misbehave. They are endangered by their proximity
to wealth and power, and need help. A theology of capitalism is needed.
Social and religious battle-lines
have long since been drawn against
capitalism. While historically Weber
and Tawney have argued that religion
and capitalism in the West have in
fact spurred each other on, more
recent popular thinking in this area
has tended towards the Marxist
legacy, as expressed in the antiglobalisation protests and in
Christian Liberation Theology. Both
of these reject capitalism as being an
oppressive regime that widens the
gap between rich and poor, and use
the rhetoric of ‘social justice’ as the
correct response to its crimes.
There is also something deeper at
stake in the socio-religious battle
against capitalism, which is the very
survival of local cultures and
religions. In the case of the former,
well-researched best-sellers such as
Naomi Klein’s No Logo add fuel to
the criticism that global capitalism
promotes deculturalisation by
favouring global standardisation. In
the case of the latter, some have
argued that capitalism with its
economic ideology has already
become the pre-eminent global
religion.1
These battle-lines are particularly
problematic for those seeking to
improve levels of employee
engagement at work by addressing
its capacity to provide meaning and
spiritual satisfaction.2 For instance,
the 1999 study carried out by Mitroff
and Denton suggested that, after the
ability to realise one’s full potential
at work, meaning is best derived
from having an association with a
good or ethical organisation.3 This
insight already influences campus
recruitment policy, as any milkround veteran will know, and the
commercial value of having a clean
reputation is uncontroversial, as
suggested by its accounting
terminology: ‘goodwill’. The
problem is that a blanket
condemnation of capitalism removes
the possibility that a capitalist
enterprise could ever be the sort of
good or ethical organisation - except
in a superficial way - to which
workers would seek to belong.
A licence for misbehaviour
There is another danger in this
popular denunciation of capitalism.
Not only does it destroy the ability
to make those working within
capitalist
structures
feel
fundamentally good about the work
they do, but it can also act as a licence
for misbehaviour. By labelling
capitalism pernicious, all sorts of
misdemeanours can be blamed on
the ‘system’, as witnessed by the
Enron scandal. Both capitalists and
their critics alike show this tendency
to blame the system. It is a clever way
of displacing and therefore evading
responsibility for human decisionmaking. It also impedes reform, in
that the ‘system’ is seen as being too
big and powerful to tackle.
Indeed, this displacement appears
to be sanctioned by the quasireligious rhetoric of Adam Smith’s
‘invisible hand’. As long as the
capitalist is true to the rules of
capitalism, everything will
mysteriously come good, without the
capitalist being required to seek to
assist this end. Moreover the
capitalist is discouraged from
attempting to work directly towards
the common good, because it is only
through the mysterious actions of the
invisible hand, left free to its own
Ashridge Business School UK - http://www.ashridge.org.uk
Page 24
Vol.8, No.4 Winter 2004/2005
devices, that this alchemy can
happen. This reasoning plays into the
hands of the cynics, for whom any
good or ethical behaviour exhibited
- for example corporate social
responsibility - is seen to be serving
a capitalist or self-interested goal,
generally concerning organisational
or personal reputation, rather than
being worthwhile in its own right.
And, in cutting off capitalism, this
mentality is likely to intensify, not
least because it removes the societal
expectation that capitalism can be a
force for good. We are then left with
an increasingly stereotyped
and ghettoised capitalism,
from which the critics have
ceased to expect and require
good behaviour, and which given its power - need not feel
obliged to volunteer such behaviour
for its own sake.
capitalist system so well in its
infancy. 4 So, if the critic says
‘capitalism is evil’ and the capitalist
ripostes with the ‘invisible hand’
argument, both effectively deny the
individual moral accountability of
the capitalist. This philosophical
shift away from immorality to
amorality tends not only to obfuscate
but also to enrage, because it puts
capitalists beyond our moral reach.
Witness the consternation that
greeted Machiavelli’s Il Principe,
which was branded immoral because
it was so shockingly amoral, and in
capitalism to exist in its pure form
as an unfettered marketplace.
Likewise, critiquing capitalist theory
is unhelpful, in that it is never
manifest, being universally diluted
by government intervention. And
even if we were to venture into the
debate about the traditionally selfish
model of capitalism, some game
theorists would argue that this model
is not in fact correct, given the ‘winwin’ of so-called equilibrium game
theory. 5 So too would some
economists, given recent thinking
about, for example, trust and ‘social
capital’. 6 But given this
fundamental stand-off
between the capitalists and
the socio-religious, is there
some way to re-open the
dialogue between them?
This shift from immorality to
amorality puts capitalists
beyond our moral reach
From immorality to
amorality
This is dangerous because it
encourages a belief by extension in
the amorality of capitalists: the
presumption being that their
involvement in capitalism with its
invisible hand somehow removes
them from the moral sphere. While
this may be kindly motivated - hate
the ‘sin’ (capitalism), but love the
‘sinner’ (capitalist) - it is
compounded by a predominantly
rationalist understanding of
economics, and of economic man as
a rational agent. This again serves to
play down the moral content of
work. Indeed, neo-classical
economics formally holds that its
work is ethically neutral, thereby
rejecting the moral underpinning
that is widely held to have served the
our own time reaction to such films
as The Clockwork Orange and Natural
Born Killers, or the Tarantino films
Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction.
These similarly shocked by ignoring
the ethical debate.
Confusingly, this dehumanising of
capitalists by taking away their
accountability and ascribing it
instead to the capitalist system is
reversed in recent attempts to afford
the enterprise personal status,
whether metaphorically in the case
of ‘brand personality’ or legally in the
case of a charge of corporate
manslaughter. This gives back to the
enterprise the moral status denied to
its adherents, further muddying the
waters and bringing the confusion
between people, enterprise and
system full circle.
There is of course a logical problem
present in any attempt to critique
capitalism in action, in that
governments have never allowed
Problematic Theology
In traditional Christian theology,
there are a number of precedents for
such dialogues, and for what John
Hick calls ‘problematic theology’,
where new theology is created in the
light of new situations. 7 In fact,
Liberation Theology, itself critical of
capitalism, is one such precedent.
Together with its related feminist,
black and womanist theologies,
liberation theology seeks to speak to
the particular realities of a group of
people who have been ‘silenced’, be
they the poor, women and/or black.8
The ‘silencing’ in these cases is their
subjugation by a ruling elite,
traditionally capitalist/white/men or
a combination thereof, particularly
where the church is seen to have
colluded.
What is happening in the current
globalisation debate bears some
parallels. While it cannot be argued
Ashridge Business School UK - http://www.ashridge.org.uk
Vol.8, No.4 Winter 2004/2005
Page 25
that capitalists are being subjugated
under a ruling elite, indeed quite the
reverse, they are effectively being
silenced, and the Church is colluding
in this action through its mainstream
support of anti-capitalist Liberation
Theology and some elements of the
current Trade Justice campaign.9 As
one modern Christian theologian has
put it, capitalism is ‘a form of sin, a
way of life that captures and distorts
human desire in accord with the
golden rule of production for the
market. Given the horrendous
consequences of this
discipline for the majority of
humanity, it is fitting to call
capitalism a form of
madness.’10 This collusion
also serves to compound the
original ‘error’ of capitalism,
according to Marx, which was the
alienation of the workers. Given
today’s messy version of capitalism
in which few workers are not
themselves capitalists, whether by
choice or through share schemes or
membership of pension funds (Marx
himself freely admitted to having
made money on the stock exchange),
condemning capitalism now
condemns the workers, thereby
achieving their full alienation.
actively. While this sleight-of-hand
may not be logical (why does telling
someone they are sinful make them
so?), it can act as a self-fulfilling
prophecy, like telling women that
they are not equal.
Of course, it would be grossly
unfair to draw a direct parallel
between the silencing of capitalists
and other oppressed people.
Capitalists have far more power and
opportunity than others to make
their views known. But they are
nevertheless being ‘silenced’, in that
beings and are freely able to make
decisions about the morality or
otherwise of their actions as part of
the system, it is its capitalist authors’
fault if the system is being used to
perpetrate immorality, not the
system’s.11 It may be a moot point
whether or not capitalists at all levels
would wish to accept personal
responsibility for the actions they
carry out under the auspices of
capitalism, moral or otherwise, but
it is a denial of their humanity not
to require that they do so. (A parallel
is the experience of
oppressed women achieving
self-determination through
universal suffrage). This
argues for an end to the type
of oppression that arises
from the rhetorical
confusion between capitalists with
capitalism, and vice-versa.
The capitalist’s soul is
treated in the modern
media as an oxymoron
The silencing of the
capitalists
through the current anti-capitalist
rhetoric their right to be treated as
full human beings is being steadily
undermined. While it used to be
acceptable to question whether
women or black people had souls,
this has long since been recognised
as outrageous, yet the capitalist’s soul
is treated in the modern media as an
oxymoron. This is rarely challenged.
Such dehumanisation is appalling,
but because it is popular to cavil at
the rich, this kind of attack attracts
a veneer of respectability and enters
into the vernacular.
This condemnation achieves the
‘silencing’ of capitalists in that, like
other oppressed groups, they are
effectively being denied their right
to self-determinism, in this case by
being told that their association with
capitalism makes them sinful. Thus
they are encouraged to believe they
have no choice, within the system,
but to be so, whether latently or pro-
Whether or not this name-calling
actually provokes misbehaviour, it
still lacks a solid theological
rationale. While capitalists may
readily be evil, why is capitalism, as
a man-made system, necessarily so?
As a structure, it should by definition
be amoral, in that any moral content
it has is conferred, not intrinsic.
Given that capitalists are moral
Liberation
There is yet a theological reason
that stands regardless of the previous
discussion. Marx sided with the
workers against capitalists, because
capitalists perpetuate capitalism.
Liberation Theology also sides with
the workers, to free them from their
oppressors the capitalists. But in the
words of the Bishop of Oxford, ‘the
rich need to be liberated no less than
the poor.’ 12 If - because of their
proximity to wealth and power - we
admit the possibility of capitalists
being particularly susceptible to
temptation and therefore endangered
by their situation, they also need
help. Indeed, while it is problematic
to cite scripture out of context, it
could be argued that since Jesus
explicitly included tax collectors in
his mission, and given his view that
it would be easier for a camel to go
Ashridge Business School UK - http://www.ashridge.org.uk
Page 26
Vol.8, No.4 Winter 2004/2005
through the eye of a needle than for
a rich man to enter the Kingdom, it
is entirely appropriate to offer such
people particular assistance.
However, one of the side-effects
attributed to capitalism is a culture
of envy, and one of the hallmarks of
the anti-capitalist debate is a focus
on social justice. These conspire to
render this an understandably
unpopular line of argument. Why,
when capitalists already have so
much, should they get extra help
while others struggle to find enough
to eat?
A theology of capitalism
But in the Pauline spirit of
becoming to the capitalist as a
capitalist, notwithstanding any
arguments that the ‘seller’ could
make for a Capitalist Theology, what
would the potential ‘buyer’ have to
say? Apart from the argument
logically following from the tendency
to ascribe amorality to capitalists,
making questions of morality or
theology ‘inapplicable’ in the
workplace, the climate of political
correctness much favoured in
pluralist societies is a major argument
against developing a theology of
capitalism. However, this argument
rests on the premise that diversity is
problematic because it produces
conflict, when current thinking is
more inclined to recognise diversity
and the conflict it produces as a
source of competitive advantage.
This asset has been dubbed ‘conflict
capital’, viz., an organisation’s ability
to generate conflict to inspire
innovation.13 It resonates with the
view that the job of the modern
business leader is to identify
productive areas of confusion and
deliberately lead the organisation
into ‘black holes’ to gain first mover
advantage by learning faster than the
competition.14
The theology of capitalism is the
topic of my current research toward
a PhD, so it would be premature to
speculate further at this point.
However, it is already clear that any
such theology will need to be securely
grounded in a robust ecclesiology, it
will need to take account of the
realities of the post-modern milieu,
and it will need to include an
eschatological view. It will also need
to engage with the best economic
thinking available. Exactly how a
theology of capitalism will emerge
and what form it might take remains
to be seen, but it appears to be in the
interests both of the capitalists and
of the theologians that such a
theology be established.
3
Ian I. Mitroff and Elizabeth A. Denton,
A Spiritual Audit of Corporate America: A
Hard Look at Spirituality, Religion, and
Values in the Workplace (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1999)
4
See Sheila C. Dow, ‘Economics, Ethics
and Knowledge’ in James M. Dean and
A.M.C. Waterman (eds), Religion and
Economics: Normative Social Theory
(London: Kluwer, 1999), p.127.
5
See John F. Nash, Jr., Essays on Game
Theory (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar,
1996), p.158.
6
See Dow, p.125f., and ‘A Question of
Trust’ in The Economist, 20 February
2003 (http://www.economist.com/
displaystory.cfm?story_id=1592530 - 3
April 2003).
7
John Hick, God Has Many Names
(London: Macmillan, 1980), p.1.
8
Stephanie Y. Mitchem, Introducing
Womanist Theology (New York: Orbis
Books, 2002), p.37.
9
See for example the early adoption of
Liberation Theology by the World
Council of Churches in Bangkok in 1972
and Nairobi in 1975. More recently, the
2001 Freedom Day message from the
Anglican Bishops of Southern Africa
stated that global capitalism is ‘heretical,
unjust and inhuman’ (Church Times, 4
May 2001). While there have been a
number of individuals within the
Churches who speak out in favour of
Capitalism (notably Michael Novak in
the US and Brian Griffiths in the UK),
there has yet to be formal engagement
with a Capitalist Theology, which would
involve a reconsideration of the WCC
position, over and above the sparse
acknowledgement represented by the
encyclical Centesimus Annus.
10
Daniel M. Bell, Jr, Liberation Theology
After The End of History – The Refusal to
Cease Suffering (London: Routledge,
2001), p.2f.
11
See for example the arguments on
necessity, free-will and the nature of evil
as summarised in John Hospers, An
Introduction to Philosophical Analysis (2nd
edition) (London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul, 1970), p.330f and p.467.
12
Richard Harries, Is There a Gospel for the
Rich? (London: Mowbray, 1992), p.72.
13
Coined by Gill R. Hickman as cited in
Douglas A. Hicks, ‘Spiritual and religious
diversity in the workplace. Implications
for leadership’, The Leadership Quarterly,
13 (2002), p.408.
14
See P. Hodgson and R. P. White, Relax
It’s Only Uncertainty (London: FT
Prentice Hall, 2001), p.40.
Eve Poole is now a tutor at Ashridge
Business School, following earlier
careers working for the Church
Commissioners and Deloitte
Consulting. She is currently
researching in Cambridge for a parttime PhD in the theolog y of
capitalism and can be contacted via
[email protected].
Endnotes
1
2
For example, see Dwight N. Hopkins,
Lois Ann Lorentzen, Eduardo Mendieta
and David Batstone, Religions/
Globalizations (Durham and London:
Duke, 2001), p.9f. This was echoed by
an Edinburgh minister who once
remarked that his parishioners on a
Sunday could now choose between
worshipping at St Giles – the cathedral,
or worshipping at St Gyle – the shopping
mall on the outskirts of the city.
A 2001 poll by Gallup found that in large
companies only 22% of the workforce
feel ‘engaged’ at work, with 19% feeling
‘actively disengaged’, where engagement
is defined as ‘a feeling of being fully
involved in one’s job’, and disengagement
as ‘being fundamentally disconnected
from one’s work.’
Ashridge Business School UK - http://www.ashridge.org.uk
Vol.8, No.4 Winter 2004/2005
Page 27