Social Meaning and Social Norms

Abstract

The virtue of economics is its economy. Its sparse ontology. Its simplicity. With a few blocks, it aims to build the world. And with a few blocks, it has built much. Becker-ized or Posner-ized, economics has given insight into the full range of human life, with very few conceptual tools. There have been critics: those who complain that too much is missed; that the reduction is not without loss; that what is essential has been lost. But in large measure, these complaints miss the mark. One does not mind pocket-sized maps, so long as they guide reasonably well. Sometimes they do not. Sometimes this sparseness and simplicity make one miss something important. New blocks are then needed. Some see these gaps as pathology-evincing a rotten core in economics's foundations. But economics does not need a foundation; we need not worry whether we can describe its core. When Russell pointed out the flaw in Frege's derivation of the foundations to mathematics, the math curriculum in elementary schools did not change much. Arithmetic goes on perfectly well without foundations. Economics can as well.' Gaps do invite something more, however, and this push suggests two kinds of supplement. One is the supplement of Posner: small additions to the core ontology, deployed to pragmatic ends.2 The other is the supplements of Elster or Hardin: large additions to this core ontology; whole new classes of stuff; social norms, for example, that supplement talk of individual preferences as a way to understand behavior that does not quite fit talk limited to individual