Economics of Love

right-2363090_1280Feminist economics needs to question existing systems of law while challenging underlying phallogocentric assumptions about ostensibly homogenous yet actually extremely individually diverse human cognition. The economics of love needs to be devoted to the study of the socially constructed ecology of economic and social relations in discrediting and erasing the very naturalization of the various sub-ideologies of patriarchy as being part of what constitutes phallogocentric economic science.

Love and friendship are about sharing yourself with others and certainly not about “getting” such as typically expecting to “receive” emotional attachment and free sexual services respectively from others. Sharing can be mutual in two or more persons sharing their respective personhoods (i.e. simultaneously sharing both exterior & interior) with each other. “Getting” is not love/friendship but is rather pure evil of social, economic, sexual and reproductive parasitism whereby one person parasitically attaches himself/herself to a fellow person. “Sharing” yourself is ultimately far more successful than somehow expecting mere “getting” and typically so by means of selfish psychological manipulation.

Interestingly is this not only true in interpersonal emotional relationships but importantly also in innovation, entrepreneurship and enterprise as well. Sharing yourself does not of course imply yourself giving away everything yor own away and living in the streets or in a monastery but rather yourselves building ethically reciprocal relationships of profound appreciation and mutual interpersonal respect for the uniquely idiosyncratic individual personhood in a fellow somebody.

The transition from agricultural society to the industrializing (“capitalist”) economy was an extremely painful one and now there is another transition from one economic era to another and so the question is how painful the transition will become in the relative absence of political, intellectual and corporate leadership?

Selling non-material goods over the Internet is based on sharing in the sense that you first need to give away for free in order to also sell. Social media is about sharing and you only get “likes” etc. once you first share aspects of yourself such as your life, your appearance and your mind. Facebook “likes” have become sort of the new virtual heroin as humans as zoological herd animals do tend to performatively crave interpersonal appreciation and so online posting is often done for the wrong reasons in order to merely get “likes” rather than selflessly share aspects of oneself. Yet, there is an emerging very different consumer economy of sharing as based on a completely different set of rules than the traditional commodity consumer economy of the industrializing era.

Many observers of course wonder when we will see the breakthrough of VR (virtual reality) technologies? This is already happening of course to some extent in the world of gaming and although practically speaking the VR headsets could take the shape of glasses, lenses and brain enhancement technology as the VR revolution is likely to spread from the private sector of the United States unless government there or elsewhere take proactive initiatives in virtualizing their own public sectors in thus making enormous savings of tax payers’ money. Once this breakthrough happens will there be an increasingly growing global shockwave which will result in most current job positions simply disappearing and being supplanted by advanced technologies. It is not just VR itself but there will be countless VR apps such as integration with smartphone apps and so the scope, scale and pace of the VR revolution will almost inevitably have an economically, technologically and historically exponential character. Offices, classrooms, hospital rooms, physical shopping space and even factories will simply exponentially disappear as industrial manufacturing will become supplanted by 3D printers or even more advanced technologies such as replication.

As the industrial manufacturing economy exponentially disappears will the economy of sharing exponentially spread in its stead. If you have an idea for a product, then you will use a VR app for design & innovation and subsequently almost instantly sell your idea online in VR so that others can 3D print your idea as a physical product in the privacy of their own homes. If you indeed succeed or fail will be less important as what matters will be that you actually try as your next product may become much more of a global hit. However, in order to gain exposure will you likely need to offer free versions to attract many more to your product ideas and thus hopefully make more others want to purchase more of them.

Free versions will indeed thus create many more potential customers than would otherwise be the case. Products will be printed out with materials that you have previously purchased yourself and are subsequently recycled for printing out yet new product designs that you have downloaded in online VR. Will free product versions really become a hit? Yes because this will help sell much more. You will be able to realistically touch products in virtual reality but using free versions means that you will get a taste of more if you indeed truly like the free version. People with small economic means will therefore get by through the use of free version 3D printout products. Once you purchase a premium product and become truly satisfied is there indeed significant likelihood that you will want to buy more virtual designs from that very inventor/designer/enterprise.

This is the increasingly emerging economy of sharing and in order to understand what that is need we also conceptualize the economy of love as a social science devoted to understanding how emotions (whether rational, semi-rational or irrational) indeed structure economic social behaviors.

The dying industrial economy is one of a phallocentric mindset of “getting” whether “getting” products or getting money to buy products through employment or enterprise. The exponentially growing economics of sharing is in contrast one where you are ready to share most things for free and simply offer something even better for paying customers. This means that we need to move beyond the producer/consumer mindset of “getting” money/products by manipulatively socio-psychologically controlling producer/consumer behaviors of others.

The economy of “getting” is essentially based on ancient patriarchal patterns of seduction involving typically selfish socio-psychological manipulation sometimes leading to the typically unhappy monogamous/monotonous state of reproductive marital prostitution. In heteroculture does the male manipulate for the purpose of “getting” parasitical “sex” while the female manipulates for the purpose of “getting” parasitical “love”. Of course these are mere social illusions as intimacy and friendship are obviously not commodities of “getting” but rather performative emotions of sharing and indeed hopefully mutually selflessly so.

Rather, the economics of love means shifting mindset from scarcity to abundance and from manipulation to almost complete transparency. This means skipping parasitical economic models and parasitical social models alike. Once you arrive at the understanding that the most valuable thing in yourself and in others is precisely the invaluable uniqueness of idiosyncrasy in individual personhood are you then becoming ready for changing your mindset from phallogocentric economics to the feminist economics of love. These uniquely individual cognitive profiles involve not only thoughts but importantly emotions as well. If you think only thoughts are valuable and see emotions as nuisance in yourself and ground for potential selfish manipulation in others then you need to immerse yourself into what an economics of love will and would indeed potentially involve. If you think of ideas as only a matter of relative logic (i.e. being more or less logical) then there is much more likelihood that you won’t even bother to try to understand the multiple emotional aspects involved.

A feminist revolution in economics means transitioning from phallogocentric conceptual models that seek to reduce the immense individual variations of human cognition (as actually measured in detail in the science of psychometrics!) to illusory singular standardized mathematical models of hypothetical cognition, including what is sometimes known as “homo economicus”.

The study of the economics of love in an actual economy of sharing should therefore be founded primarily on Critical Theory and psychometrics in terms of existing sciences rather than on the Para-Christian illusion of reducing flesh to logos (a.k.a. carno-phallogocentrism). Critical theory and psychometrics are indeed sciences devoted to the study of diversity and structural perspectives and so are thus suitable foundations for the study of the economics of love. The challenge therefore is to move from an economy of manipulation to an economy of transparency. If you are skilled in manipulation then why try to hide this as that is probably already quite obvious? Manipulation is precisely unethical in the absence of transparency about what precisely it is that what you do as those techniques in the context of transparency are otherwise most probably simply advanced social/emotional skills.

A feminist economics of love means shifting from androcentric phallocentrism to ethically gynocentric sharing of conceptual derivations of yourself with others for ethical purposes only. New international economic law will be needed that will be founded on axiomatics and ethics rather than on literalism, legalism and cruelly senseless bureaucratic inertia. First of all is a Best Choice Principle needed in constitutional/international law in the sense that economic actors would be legally obliged to make the best ethical choice available without legally persecuting them for ultimately not making the optimal choice which may not even have been apparent and there will always be more and more increasingly optimal choices. This would in turn rest on a Fair Treatment Principle, i.e. making the effort to prevent negative consequences of your decisions, as for example creating demands for unethically produced goods. Since there would be legal risks crucially involving economic risk in not consciously making the best choice in fair treatment would most economic actors choose to perform with a ery wide legal margin indeed.

If you yourself approach innovation, entrepreneurship and enterprise with an open mind of ethically sharing with the intention of improving things for others and for the world, then it is extremely more likely that you will succeed in your commercial endeavors. Ethical enterprises tend to be more profitable and involve less risk and if your mindset is that of helping of others on their terms rather than you merely being lowly and greedy is it much more likely that your products/services will become popular with consumers and you will probably also not have to invest so much in marketing as compared to if you are merely out to manipulate others into buying crappy merchandise.

If your focus as a human being is not merely on earning and spending money but rather reocognizing economic interaction as a vehicle for improving the world and the lives of others then you can move from a perspective of scarcity to a perspective of abundance whereby you can easily with little effort earn financial resource by simply ethically sharing your ideas with others as often as possible. The same principle applies to friendship/love (friendship without love is not friendship – love without friendship is not love) as friendship/love is about ethically sharing yourself with yet others. Selflessly sharing yourself does not mean however that you will not help yourself as you are indeed helping yourself by sharing yourself with others. What is known as altruism should therefore certainly not mean self-erasure but rather liberation from selfish emotions and selfish patterns of thought that hold back yourself and others and which simply create unnecessary complications and reproduces an increasingly unethical world indeed.

Rather than spend your life worrying about money/capital can you go to sleep with a good conscious in knowing that you every single day endeavor to do your utmost in making the best choice in fair treatment although the best choice is never ultimate since even more optimal choices are invented with the course of time. If you help yourselves ethico-constructively share aspects of yourself in both private life and professional life then you will probably not even need to worry about emotional/economic security as you will become so immensely experienced in ethically sharing aspects of yourself with others in manner that will be good for yourself that it will become a very interesting routine indeed.

While it is true that agency is often singular need it not necessarily be limited to that often personally frustrating frame as agency can be optimized in sophisticated teamwork of participating partners with matching talents. Sharing in sophisticated collaboration with multiple matching partners is indeed very extremely helpful in both love and entepreneurship.

Phallogocentric economic science typically engages in ideological self-naturalization when in fact many of its assumed “truths” are outcomes of the histories of ideas, technology, economy and law in the modern era in Eurocentric discourse since the 15th century. With a feminist legal system as based upon the ethics of axiomatic law would simply different economic laws apply. The economic system of industrialization (a.k.a. “capitalism”) is based on the notion that it is somehow acceptable to mistreat, abuse and exploit fellow others as long as this does not pose significant legal and/or economic risk.

The secularization of the Jewish-rooted Catholic ideology of secularism meant that Christian morality and “secular” law were increasingly distanced and indeed separated from each other and so did morality become privatized and nominally individualized indeed. Secular modernity is thus nominally based on compulsory adherence to law while the so called “everyone” are supposed to choose/design her/his own personal morality. While there needs certainly be significant space for ethical autonomy need there also be a rapprochement between ethics and law in terms of paragraphic law becoming supplanted by ethical axiomatic law. Axiomatic law needs however provide significant space for individual ethical initiative as individual ethical autonomy is essential indeed to both open society and self-governance.

Phallogocentric economic discourse emerged and developed in particular cultural, technological, ideological, legal, social, economic and historical contexts and so changing  the very system and discourse of law is precisely essential to changing both the societal context and supplanting many existing established, ideologically naturalized “economic laws” with very different feminist laws of economics indeed.