Small is Beautiful
Schumacher. The phrase "Small Is Beautiful" came from a phrase by his teacher Leopold Kohr.[1] It is often used to champion small, appropriate technologies that are believed to empower people more, in contrast with phrases such as "bigger is better".
First published in 1973, Small Is Beautiful brought Schumacher's critiques of Western economics to a wider audience during the 1973 energy crisis and emergence of globalization. The Times Literary Supplement ranked Small Is Beautiful among the 100 most influential books published since World War II.[2] A further edition with commentaries was published in 1999.[3]
Small Is Beautiful received the prestigious award Prix Européen de l'Essai Charles Veillon in 1976.
Contents
[hide]
1 Author
2 Content
3 Quotes
4 See also
5 References
6 External links
[edit] Author
Schumacher was a respected economist who worked with John Maynard Keynes and John Kenneth Galbraith. For twenty years he was the Chief Economic Advisor to the National Coal Board in the United Kingdom, opposed the neo-classical economics by declaring that single-minded concentration on output and technology was dehumanizing. He held that one's workplace should be dignified and meaningful first, efficient second, and that nature (and the world's natural resources) is priceless.
Schumacher proposed the idea of "smallness within bigness": a specific form of decentralization. For a large organization to work, according to Schumacher, it must behave like a related group of small organizations. Schumacher's work coincided with the growth of ecological concerns and with the birth of environmentalism and he became a hero to many in the environmental movement.
[edit] Content
The book is divided into four parts: "The Modern World," "Resources," "The Third World," and "Organization and Ownership."
In the first chapter, "The Problem of Production", Schumacher argues that the modern economy is unsustainable. Natural resources (like fossil fuels), are treated as expendable income, when in fact they should be treated as capital, since they are not renewable, and thus subject to eventual depletion. He further argues that nature's resistance to pollution is limited as well. He concludes that government effort must be concentrated on sustainable development, because relatively minor improvements, for example, technology transfer to Third World countries, will not solve the underlying problem of an unsustainable economy.
Schumacher's philosophy is one of "enoughness," appreciating both human needs, limitations and appropriate use of technology. It grew out of his study of village-based economics, which he later termed "Buddhist economics," which is the subject of the book's fourth chapter.
He faults conventional economic thinking for failing to consider the most appropriate scale for an activity, blasts notions that "growth is good," and that "bigger is better," and questions the appropriateness of using mass production in developing countries, promoting instead "production by the masses." Schumacher was one of the first economists to question the appropriateness of using GNP to measure human well being, emphasizing that "the aim ought to be to obtain the maximum amount of well being with the minimum amount of consumption."
[edit] Quotes
Man is small, and, therefore, small is beautiful.
A Buddhist economist would consider this approach excessively irrational: since consumption is merely a means to human well-being, the aim should be to obtain the maximum of well-being with the minimum of consumption.... The less toil there is, the more time and strength is left for artistic creativity. Modern economics, on the other hand, considers consumption to be the sole end and purpose of all economic activity.
It is clear, therefore, that Buddhist economics must be very different from the economics of modern materialism, since the Buddhist sees the essence of civilisation not in a multiplication of wants but in the purification of human character. Character, at the same time, is formed primarily by a man's work. And work, properly conducted in conditions of human dignity and freedom, blesses those who do it and equally their products.
The most striking about modern industry is that it requires so much and accomplishes so little. Modern industry seems to be inefficient to a degree that surpasses one's ordinary powers of imagination. Its inefficiency therefore remains unnoticed.
Wisdom demands a new orientation of science and technology towards the organic, the gentle, the non-violent, the elegant and beautiful.
The way in which we experience and interpret the world obviously depends very much indeed on the kind of ideas that fill our minds. If they are mainly small, weak, superficial, and incoherent, life will appear insipid, uninteresting, petty, and chaotic.
[edit] See also
A Guide for the Perplexed
Simple living
Appropriate Technology
[edit] References
^ Dr. Leopold Kohr, 84; Backed Smaller States, New York Times obituary, 28 February 1994.
^ The Times Literary Supplement, October 6, 1995, p. 39
^ Schumacher, E. F.; Small Is Beautiful: Economics As If People Mattered : 25 Years Later...With Commentaries (1999). Hartley & Marks Publishers ISBN 0-88179-169-5
[edit] External links
Multiple translations of the essay Buddhist Economics from the E. F. Schumacher Society
Small Is Beautiful: An Introduction to E. F. Schumacher by Noah Enelow
"Sustainability / Enoughness" from Project Worldview
Fifty Possible Ways to Challenge Over-Commercialism
Beyond Simplicity: Tough Issues For A New Era by Albert J. Fritsch, SJ, PhD
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Is_Beautiful"
Categories: Appropriate technology advocates
Simple living
1973 books
Economics books
Environmental non-fiction books
Hidden categories: Articles needing additional references from December 2008
All articles needing additional references
Personal tools
New features
Log in / create account
Namespaces
Article
Discussion
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
Actions
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Interaction
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact Wikipedia
Donate to Wikipedia
Help
Toolbox
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Español
Français
Tiếng Việt
This page was last modified on 23 August 2010 at 03:08.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Contact us
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
After having written a disertation (and not Adding the comment) on why I believed SEND as a cooperative endeavor would be approprite technologically, may I synopsize here. "Our mission is to become a vehicle to empower other people as individuals and as small groups of other cooperative endeavors." Thus laying the groundwork for smaller more effective communities of learners who could then operate smaller more livable communities. Places where the focus on personal growth in all aspects is encouraged in the sincere hope and belief that an enlighted and engaged person can only hope and desire to connect their creative energy to people and projects that will grow in stature just as the Trees of life also do.
Our profit is found in the creation of Natural capital, realized through the growth of ideas and sustained through the respect of all life.
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 4:59 AM, James Ross wrote:
JimB:
I believe Mr. Schmacher is also a founding member and SOL fellow of great repute.
Best,
Jim
Good Morning Jim,
I really appreciate the paragraph "The most striking about modern industry is that it requires so much and accomplishes so little. Modern industry seems to be inefficient to a degree that surpasses one's ordinary powers of imagination. Its inefficiency therefore remains unnoticed."
I remember that this is something that has resonated with me from the beginning of memory. I think the innocent mind in its capacity to intake it's surroundings and "do the math" is able to formulate "best practices" answers to improve one's lot in life. These of course typically collide with the status quo and unfortunately logic gives way to social pressures. The more banal and commonplace being based on short sighted self serving subterfuges and not supportive of personal empowerment as we know.
So Voila! Here we are in a world where imagination is the exception rather than the rule.
This is one of the reasons that I believe that imaginative communications has to be established and nurtured in any proposed project, this is essential for each person to take part in their own salvation from a world of little imagination. As we know the answers swirl all around us waiting to be found again and again.
Especially since we have been asked to help there, I believe this article http://www.earthbagbuilding.com/projects/ecodome.htm which is about a dome building project in Ananda Nagar is one of many examples of how we may establish common ground and build capacity to explore answers to build local economies (including our own in the process). First though we need to democratise the ability for people to communicate.
Perhaps one proposed way is to set up satellite network towers for high speed transfer of data which of course includes voice, visual and all the the other capacities that can be utilized. Many of the forward thinking ideas for which to put to use these technologies are yet to be "imagined" and may very well come from some 5 year old in a remote village.
As we know though just building it and they will come, hasn't proven to be the only ingredient missing in the formation of organic learning environments, perhaps it's the listening part that has to be increased. Let us listen between the lines, for therein lies the quality of the imaginative and most often undervalued component of any building project.
Best of regards for the fruit of all labors
on this Labor day weekend!,
Jim B
Post a Comment