Customer Reviews

The Insatiability of Human Wants: Economics and Aesthetics in Market Society

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Gagnier has brought together in this volume a very singular argument that is much needed in contemporary discourse with its increasing specialization and consequent (unfortunate) ignorance of fundamental concerns for each discipline. Economics and aesthetics were inseparable for Kant and Smith. With this fundamental acknowledgement Gagnier sets out to trace the history of their divorce and the unfortunate consequences that followed. Jacques Derrida was in his rather unique way of presenting his thought, the first to point out the radical importance of Kant's Critique of Judgment (Parergon) in bridging the gap between the previous critiques (pure and practical reason). Judgment as a "bridge" (the metaphor belongs to Kant) connected the supersensible and phenomenal, the theoretical and the practical. Gagnier here sets out on a mission to regain that original project. One might call it academic "bridge" but it is no game (there's ample criticism of this kind of economical thought in the book). Gagnier is acutely aware of the ramifications of the thesis for the utopian side of nineteenth century writers and she explores what happens when society does not "get it."

Gagnier works at the margins of intense academic scholarship and attempts to work between Victorian studies (with the legacy of unresolved problems Victorianists explore on a routine basis) and the larger concerns of economics. She shows how both have always influenced each other based on their common ancestry. The larger focus of the book is to show how these seemingly microscopic problems (Victorianists are increasingly concerned with economic criticism, economists with literature) are actually all around us. Whatever the problems one might find in the book's seemingly endless construction of bridges between the Victorians and contemporary economics, she deserves highest praise for her remarkable efforts. Each chapter may be found published in an array of academic journals as book reviews, essays, etc. What is unique is Gagnier's arrangement in this volume. The price of the book in my opinion is very economical and should be on any student's bookshelf.

Problems there are, both for Victorianists and economists reading this book. In particular, she does not update some of the rudest reductionist readings of Vernon Lee and Grant Allen, but prefers to place them both under one problematic of post-1870 consumer economics (I refer to the effects of the Marginalist Revolution in economics, Jevons, Walras, and Menger). This is an error and unfortunately helps to perpetuate stereotypes about late nineteenth century Victorians that scholars are presently working on discharging. Our increasing knowledge about Vernon Lee in particular makes it difficult to accept all of her thought under the banner of "psychological aesthetics." Grant Allen's "physiological aesthetics" must also be understood in terms of his self-identification as a "radical." To lump psychological and physiological aesthetics under the same rubric distorts rather than clarifies our knowledge of these intellectuals. Nevertheless I mark it off as one of the consequences of republishing material that was written for a rather different reading audience and not updated for the present volume. I am not saying that she does not stand by her original statements (obviously she does) but merely that recent scholarship has pointed in the direction of revision.

Saying that, I am still astounded by the sheer brilliance of Gagnier's intellectual scaffolding. I don't think that it is possible to esteem her efforts higher. The Insatiability of Human Wants will be the focus of much debate ironically returning us to the site where Kant and Smith began. A spot Gagnier will forever be welcoming us to explore.

I liked the idea behind this book, and for a few pages I was agreeing with the jacket blurb that described it as the first history of economic thought with new and original insights. But the book does not deliver the goods. The author needed a co-author with a much better understanding of the history of economic thought than hers: she is applying her obviously broad expertise in aesthetics with a very superficial reading of the economic classics.
Furthermore, the quality of the book declines after about the midpoint. The book is a collection of revised academic papers, and there is nothing wrong with that -- they are tied together pretty well. But the last couple of chapters are quite superficial rants on the state of the US, the UK, and other market economies: a summary of the savings and loan crisis here, a discussion of homelessness taken from some San Francisco Chronicle articles there.
I hope Professor Gagnier will find a good economist co-author and give this topic another try.