tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5915352525669864997.post2401159769201777357..comments2023-09-11T11:50:12.218-04:00Comments on small is beautiful: Chapter 5: A Question of SizeChrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07447940866650831717noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5915352525669864997.post-38073894194645509082007-09-21T19:09:00.000-04:002007-09-21T19:09:00.000-04:00Personally, I thought this chapter was quite telli...Personally, I thought this chapter was quite telling, even if not satisfying in all of its arguments.<BR/><BR/>What especially stood out to me was the following statement:<BR/><BR/><EM>"What I wish to emphasize is the </EM>duality <EM> of the human requirement when it comes to the question of size: there is no </EM>single<EM> answer. For his different purposes man needs many different structures, both small ones and large ones, some exclusive and some comprehensive. Yet people find it most difficult to keep two seemingly opposite necessities of truth in their minds at the same time. They always tend to clamour for a final solution, as if in actual life there could ever be a final solution other than death. For constructive work, the principal task is always the restoration of some kind of balance."</EM> (p. 48)<BR/><BR/>Here we discover Schumacher's total vision. He's not here to criticize "big" in all of its manifestations, but rather its extreme forms, such as what he sees to be the "almost universal idolatry of giantism" in his time. Schumacher quite openly admits, "If there were a prevailing idolatry of smallness, irrespective of subject or purpose, one would have to try and exercise influence in the opposite direction" (p. 48).<BR/><BR/>Eric, I have to disagree with your rhetorical point about the above statements, suggesting that it would have been better for Schumacher not to mention them and instead focus solely on the "values of smallness." Honestly, despite contextualizing his thought here, I still think the general rhetorical push of the book has clearly been the value of smallness. And personally, this chapter eased one my own greatest concerns about Schumacher, for up until this point I could not tell to what extent he was going affirm smallness, part of me fearing that he might take an extreme himself with the idol of "smallness." Thankfully, this isn’t the case.<BR/><BR/>As for your point about the limits of his argument and the way he understands metropolitan areas in our country, I think you are generally correct. From my own understanding of the issues, I believe he would have been better off focusing on the problem of "big" when it becomes bureaucratic. He seems to admit this in regards to large corporations at the beginning of the chapter, pointing out how even some of them had recognized small to be better in some respects and consequently divided their businesses up in varying degrees (see p.47). Yet does this not happen in cities too! ? (It would be interesting to consider the value of the principle of subsidiarity in this regard.)<BR/><BR/>Lastly, I agree with your lament that Schumacher for all intensive purposes dropped discussion of resources (though I think it is implied that the "<EM>enormous</EM> problems" created by big cities deal with wasting resources), even if he does raise important questions about "human degradation" as a result of "giantism." After all, "economics as if people mattered" must necessarily involve "economics as if nature mattered," for we are part of the Earth ourselves (as Schumacher even said back in chapter 1). Hopefully this issue will be better resolved in the second part of the book, titled "Resources."<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your thoughts!Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16676493074041568312noreply@blogger.com