The Mises-Hayek Connection
A good friend of mine, Brent Gilliland recently published his article;
In Defense of Misesian Historical Revisionism | by Brent G | Jul, 2021 | Medium
While, for the most part I remain in the praxeological tradition, I am formally a Hayekian and thus I take some issues with the strictly Misean interpretation of thymology and of historical evolution. This is not to say that I am not in total agreement that thymological analysis can provide a far more comprehensive overview of history, but formally the evolution of the ‘whole’ may still remain the most important connection in this relationship.
While these disagreements are bound to occur in the formulation of a theory of historical evolution, the intent here is not to provide a scathing criticism of Gilliland’s article. Rather, quite the contrary. The intent here in this note is to provide a slight elaboration on the progress of history from the Hayekian point of view, and to provide a frame in which the driving force behind historical evolution can be given. In Gilliland’s article, it is clear that the main theme is that, in historical evolution ideas from individual, real actors are the main driving force behind historical evolution. This is to say that, as society develops the driving force behind such evolution must be ideas from individual peoples. To reflect this, we may quote Gilliland as follows;
“He begins by establishing the proper subjects of historical analysis, consisting of the particular value judgments made by individuals in question, the ends they hoped to achieve, the means they employed to achieve their desired ends, and the outcome of the actions taken, regardless of whether or not it was the desired one.”
And;
“A historian must be aware of the social context in which the individuals exist in order to determine the elements of any historical event, as Mises knew historical change is always driven by the ideas of individuals, and therefore ideas are the ultimate subject of history.”
It is thus clear that, in the view of Gilliland history is driven primarily on the individual scale. The individual with big ideas is he who changes and conforms to society. This is similar to a strict rationalism and what Hayek called ‘Constructivism.’ In my view, the driver of historical progress is more than just mere ideas. It is important that we do not omit mans interpersonal nature and important that we avoid abstracting him to a cold, stainless, third-party observer. Quite the contrary, man is an active participant in society, and therefore is impaired, influenced and presented with many ways of life and conflicts. Are these ideas mere abstracts of ones being, I disagree on this core point. Rather, mans ideas are always bound, to some degree by his social context. His very being and consciousness is shaped by the individual presentation of close affiliates ways of life, and both the general ‘jelly’ of social life. These in turn, having been determined by the same preconditions.
Thus, we may say that the main, pre-eminent driver of history is not primarily, as Gilliland asserts ‘ideas’ themselves. But rather the main driver of historical evolution is, in reality other men and observed ways of life. Social values and culture serves as a chain to the ideas of men, while ideas are certainly an important driver in the progress of history indeed, a proper thymological interpretation of history must be aware of the fact that ideas are, in all cases, formed in an impersonal context. To subject such a relation to a means-ends relationship can be problematic.
One of the more fundamental problems to a strict ends-means relationship is the problem of culture, particularly of cultural transmission. Upon analysis, many men will find that, for the most part, their behaviours and social values are totally arbitrary and irrational. Various practices, superstitions, etc that men do not even give a second thought, upon logical examination can be dispelled as mere nonsense. Yet, the wider aggregate of society tends to accept these very things, and for reasons that even to them remain unclear.
Let’s say for instance, in modern culture the distain at so called ‘manipulation.’ Most, if not all peoples tend to be morally opposed to such practices, and yet as a ‘trick-of-the-trade’ there is no real reason for this to be so pronounced. For those who understand tendencies and how to manipulate those tendencies, from that end there is no real reason to has such a distain. Further, this is a totally arbitrary and inconsistent standard given that, in trade negotiations these exact skills are seen as highly desirable and even worth paying for. What basis do we have for such intolerance of so called ‘manipulation?’ Well; logically, we have none besides favouring the so-called ‘victim.’
My reason for saying this is not to go on about logical contradictions, rather exemplify the point that those who push such social ideals fail to give these even the slightest of thought. In fact, in the modern world the foundation of the vast majority of the population has a foundation of morality that is completely unfounded, arbitrary and inconsistent. To the extent that this morality goes, for the most part it remains completely unquestioned beyond ‘it is what I say it is.’
This is a prime example of the missing link between the ends-means relation and cultural transmission, as various practices move through the wider society and more and more begin to adopt them and teach them to their families, specifically children the more these ideals become so ingrained into ones foundation of life that they increasingly grow unquestioned, and thus people begin to engage in practices that they have no definite conception of any end that can be serviced in its process, and yet continue to do engage in such practices. When questioned on these practices, the vast majority of people will immediately fault and the inconsistencies in their morality are readily revealed.
As is clear upon historical examination, legal and market structures also play a significant role in the problem of social order, and social order, as we know plays a major role in historical development. The binding of society to certain explicit customs and rules are developed, not primarily by individual ideas. Rather, major social institutions are developed freely not according to any one visualisation, plan or idea, but rather according to a spontaneous whole developed as a consequence of the many interacting parts ideas and visuals. The overall product is not a definite outcome, but rather one generated along the lines of many. The final building shows not to be a representation of one individuals ideas, but rather a reflection of internal complexity and relations between many interacting parts at once.
Thus, in a true thymological approach it is necessary that we understand the extensive division of knowledge, and active social individuals influence on ideas that are formed inconsistently and randomly. To place such comprehensive existences into a single restrictive category of ends-means also negatively contributes to the social understanding of ideas that thymology can give rise to. A true study of thymology should study, and trace back social and cultural influences, along with interactions and personal developement with society along with definite ideas, visualisations and motives.
