Book Review: In Search of the Good Life by Rebecca Todd Peters

I just finished reading In Search of the Good Life: the ethics of globalization by Rebecca Todd Peters for my next Doctor of Ministry class at Louisville Seminary. Peters takes a look at four positions on globalization from the perspective of Christian ethics. At the outset she establishes a normative framework for the “good life” with which she evaluates the four competing positions.

Peters suggests we need to ask three questions of each position on globalization. What is our context for moral decision making? What is the telos (end or purpose) of human life? What constitutes human flourishing? Peters then answers these questions from the perspective of Christian ethics, stating that: democratized understanding of power is the context for moral agency; and the purpose or telos of human life is caring for the whole planet. Peters says the well-being of people is what constitutes human flourishing, but she has many assumed categories with which she defines “well being.” These include the meeting of basic needs as well as having the ability to meet those needs independently, the ability to receive education or vocational training, experiencing value in one’s work, a sense of community and relationship, and the ability to express one’s culture in the arts.

Peters begins her evaluation of the positions on globalization with the dominant economic paradigm of Neoliberalism. This position is often referred to as big business, Washington Consensus, supply-side economics, or trickle-down. This approach advocates trade liberalization, limited regulation, and privatization in order to grow the economy.

Globalization as Social Development embraces neoliberal economics but recognizes the need for government to protect and care for the marginalized members of society. More popular in Europe, social development theory comes out of Keynesian economics and is supported by the United Nations and to a lesser extent the World Bank. Although Peters has more sympathy for this position because of its emphasis on justice and fairness for all peoples, she condemns both this and Neoliberalism for relying on capitalist economics which place everything second to the gaining of profits. Peters would have us attend to the theories supported by the Earthist and Postcolonialists.

The Earthist position suggests the care of the environment is the essential goal of humanity. Peters calls this position “localization,” and it is essentially opposed to globalization. The localization theory suggests that we need to return production of all food and resources to local communities. Although products will likely cost more, the local community will ensure environmentally safe practices in production, as the portion of land utilized will be in one’s own backyard. Wages will also be reasonable as neighbors advocate for one another’s well being. Localization values mutuality, respect for the environment and justice.

The position of Postcolonialism is articulated by a network of social movements who are resisting globalization. Proponents are largely people in poverty who feel their traditions and cultures are being destroyed by the neocolonial practices of globalization. They seek to strengthen democracy through the reformation of civil society among grassroots people. The preservation of local tradition and culture is paramount, and they are willing to engage in limited armed conflict to achieve their goals.

This has been an interesting study for me, as I have not studied macro economic theory before. I am struck by the reliance on greed as a driving force for the Neoliberal economic systems, although I realize others might categorize that catalyst as rewarding initiative. On the other hand I am struck by the reliance on personal good will and willingness to sacrifice on behalf of the other that is essential to the Earthist and Post colonialist positions. In all the competing theories there is ultimately a reliance on the personal integrity of people in power. Although there are those who would argue that the Neoliberal theory protects against the need to have trusted people in government over seeing regulation; the events of the last two weeks have certainly proven that powerful people in the business world can wreak havoc on our economy.

I do not presume to hold an opinion at this point, but I am finding the preparation for this coming class enlightening.