In a diary entry in 1912 Tawney wrote:
"If modern England and America are right in believing that the principle aim of man, what should be taught to children, what should serve as a rough standard of merit, what merits approbation and respect, is the attainment of a moderate - or even immoderate - standard of comfort, and that moral questions arise only after this has been attained; then they must be content to go without religion, literature, art and learning. These are not hard to find for those who really seek them, or who seek them first. But if they are sought second they are never found at all ..."
The choice we all face is not between less and more wealth, it is between less and more civilization.
"We assume that the greatest misfortune which can befall a man is poverty - and that conduct which leads to the sacrifice of income is unwise, impractical, etc; in short that a man's life should be judged by its yield of income, and a nation's life by its production of wealth ..."
Tawney was concerned with humankind's seemed obsession with the fallacy that the most important problems are economic problems. He thought the challenges go deeper, and what was (is) needed was (is) a reformation of the fundamental philosophy of life. It's not, as BillClinton famously once said, 'the economy, stupid!', according to Tawney it's moral philosophy, stupid!
He wrote in the 'Acquisitive Society' published in 1920:
"These are times which are not ordinary, and in such times it is not enough to follow the road. It is necessary to know where it leads and, if it leads nowhere, to follow another. The search for another involves reflection, which is uncongenial to the bustling people who describe themselves as practical .... But the practical thing for a traveler who is uncertain of his path is not to proceed with the utmost rapidity in the wrong direction: it is to consider how to find the right one." (p.2)
Tawney considered those who pursued economic productivity and growth as an end in itself as flawed. This approach has been tried and found wanting. Increased productivity alone will not dispel our social or environmental problems. To find the 'right path' Tawney turned to the writings of Ruskin who suggested the purpose of industry is to supply humankind with things that are 'necessary, useful or beautiful, and thus to bring life to body and spirit'. By making the pursuit of productivity the end-goal industry is left to produce goods and services with no other guiding principle than 'more is better'. In these circumstances factories manufacture goods which to some are seen as wealth and to others are seen as waste. It would be better not to produce unwanted goods. Instead of producing and consuming our way out of societal problems, it may serve us to take time to reflect, to simplify, to consume less. Dare it be said to consume what we need as opposed to what we think we want, or what the marketeers tell us we want. Could there be a higher guiding philosophy than consume more, produce more?
Lest it be forgotten Tawney reminded us when he wrote in 'Religion and the Rise of Capitalism' published in 1954, "even quite common men have souls, no increase in material wealth will compensate them for arrangements which insult their self-respect and impair their freedom." (p.233)
If productivity, growth and the accumulation of wealth is not the end-goal, what is? Tawney did not have a singular response to this other than to suggest that the standard applied to an assessment of the ideal is 'transcendental, religious or mystical'. An attempt to articulated an ideal in a definitive sense is impossible. The purpose of life is more likely to be found by first directing our attention towards spirituality, literature, poetry, art and learning before that of mammon.
For an expansion of these ideas read Gerald Alonzo Smith 'The Purpose of Wealth: A Historical Perspective', in Daly, H.E. & Townsend, K.N. (1996) Valuing the Earth: Economics, Ecology and Ethics, MIT Press, London.
