Quote of the Day

In re-reading the first chapter of McCloskey's The Bourgeois Virtues, I came across this quote from the Chief Rabbi of Great Britain, Jonathan Sacks:

"It is through exchange that difference becomes a blessing, not a curse."

Have the benefits of the specialization and exchange ever been presented more concisely and beautifully than in that one sentence?

UPDATE: The quote looks even better in the context of the whole paragraph:

from Jonathan Sack's book, the Dignity of Difference:
"I have suggested a different model and metaphor. The world is not a single machine. It is a complex, interactive ecology in which diversity -- biological, personal, cultural and religious -- is of the essence. Any proposed reduction of that diversity through the many forms of fundamentalism that exist today -- market, scientific or religious -- would result in a diminution of the rich texture of our shared life, a potentially disastrous narrowing of the horizons of possibility. Nature, and humanly constructed societies, economies and polities, are systems of ordered complexity. That is what makes them creative and unpredictable. Any attempt to impose on them an artificial uniformity in the name of a single culture or faith, represents a tragic misunderstanding of what it takes for a system to flourish. Because we are different, we each have something unique to contribute, and every contribution counts. A primordial instinct going back to humanity's tribal past makes us see difference as a threat. That instinct is massively dysfunctional in an age in which our several destinies are interlinked. Oddly enough, it is the market -- the least overtly spiritual of concepts -- that delivers a profoundly spiritual message: that it is through exchange that difference becomes a blessing, not a curse. When difference leads to war, both sides lose. When it leads to mutual enrichment, both sides gain."

Thanks to Josh S. in the comments at Marginal Revolution.  (And thanks to Alex for the link.)

Comments

[Roger Koppl]

I do not have much to say about this quote, but it's killing me that no one has commented on it. It is *great* and I thank Steve for his post on it.

[mt]

Just thinking:

If we are all essentially similar: Hypothesis one, state of nature humans (by definition) are illadapted to withstand the elements (lack of hair, no claws).
Hypothesis two, there is more variance within any one category or group than there is between the median or mean member of the most diverse groups of humans. There exist no two human groups which could not reproduce.

Question one: What makes us exaggerate diversity?

It seems that the construct of diversity (pejorative) allows communitarian values to form. These provide checks against free-riding (to put it in a parsimonious model). I belong to and advance the survival of my tribe (ingroup).

Questions two: What are the communitarian roots of the division of labor?

Seems like the Marxist theory of history, primitive communism is the most widely repeated story of this tendency. I suppose that we can take issue with some of the normative descriptive elements. However, it is important if there are such anthropological pre-barter societies. I assume that removing the distinction between tribes and families allows us to carry small bands forward with a type of community that we see in much smaller groups today.

Question three: What converts communitarian tendency to larger trading circles where diversity is now seen as an advantage?

Seems that biologically the necessity to form marriage pacts with groups of other tribes (exceeding 500 according to Jared Diamond) provides some essential exchange necessity of exchange (both biological and metaphysical). As civilization progresses maybe there is more voluntary trade and relatively fewer slaving raids. As people settle down and towns become large enough to hold more than 500 people, the desire for diversity still lingers. There seems to be an essential (elemental) tension between diversity and community. (The Spartans are on one end of this and the Romans perhaps on the other? Where do the Athenians fit?)