Gender Constructions and the Possibility of a Generous Economic Actor

“And you receivers—and you are all receivers—assume no weight of gratitude, lest you lay a yoke upon yourself and upon him who gives. Rather rise together with the giver on his gifts as on wings.”

–Kahlil Gibran “The Prophet”

1. Introduction

Mainstream economic models generally assume that economic actors are motivated by their self-interest and pursue it rationally. Part of this assumption is that economic agents in some sense have unlimited wants, although with diminishing marginal utility. Economists often express this assumption in shorthand with the phrase “more is better.” However, economic theory does not distinguish between motivation by “more is better” to a reasonable degree, and motivation simply by greed. Within the psychological framework that will be discussed subsequently, Melanie Klein has proposed a definition of greed as “an impetuous and insatiable craving, exceeding what the subject needs and what the object can and wishes to give” (1956, 212). Focusing on the greed as an aspect of economic motivation can make us more aware of how behavior in accordance with the standard economic assumption that “more is better,” as well as models that presume this describes all behavior, may lead to environmental, social, and human devastation.

Those aspects of economic growth that threaten our quality of life are widely regarded as external to the discursive context of economics, even today, when economic and technological developments influence humanity and the ecosystem far more profoundly than ever before. Certainly, the marriage of economics and technology to power has brought us many gifts of food, medicines, and material comforts, but its blessings have not been unmixed. A high price has been paid in the form of environmental degradation, such as pollution, global warming, and destruction of the rain forest, and in human destitution, such as poverty and appalling work conditions in poor countries. Perhaps the destitution of the poor is no worse now than in earlier times; it may seem worse because the advancement of humanistic thinking has raised the ambitions as well as the hope for social transformation and global survival. Technological progress meant to reduce the amount of work and improve standards for living may in fact speed up the pace of life and make life seem more stressful, as, for example, Staffan Linder (1970) and Juliet Schor (1992) have pointed out. Perhaps our consciousness of how to use technology wisely has not progressed as rapidly as technology itself. A wise use of ever-expanding technologies must certainly involve the fundamental question of which ambitions are healthy and which are unhealthy, for the individual, for society and for nature.

It is, of course, difficult to define which needs are real and which needs arise out of greed. An individual who realizes her or his talents and tries to make a good life makes a healthy choice—because no one can save the world by refusing to eat—yet the sum of all individual consumption can be larger than what is ecologically sustainable. This paper does not provide an answer for defining the difference between needs and greed, but rather looks at how mainstream economic theory, by not raising questions about the greedy aspect of economic motivation and behavior, may in fact contribute to the social and environmental problems by its assumption that economic behavior can be seen as a result of well-informed choices where all relevant consequences are taken into account.

The assumption of “more is better” is appropriate for characterizing the economic condition of people in absolute poverty, but more material goods do not necessarily yield a higher quality of life at higher income levels. A recent survey indicates that both poor and rich people to some extent are dissatisfied with their income levels, because they compare themselves with people higher up on the income scale (Schor 2000). This type of economic dissatisfaction cannot be alleviated by higher income and consumption; our wishes for more always run ahead of us. Greed is nourished by comparison with others who are better off.

Although economic theory is based on a notion of “unlimited wants” bordering on greed, real-life economic actors have the capacity to be motivated by social responsibility and generosity as well. A larger notion of long-run and enlightened self-interest recognizes that people may avoid economic decisions that would he harmful for the quality of life for themselves and other people. Economic activity that involves ruthless exploitation can have a cost in the form of negative market reactions. In this context exploitation can he seen as breaking a norm of decency in economic conduct—an issue that may be analyzed in the framework of economic research on social norms. Focusing on our inherent capacity for social responsibility could be a first step toward a model of (and the reality of) an economic actor who pursues a healthy self-interest without being oblivious to the social and environmental consequences of economic activity.

In this paper I discuss various approaches to human motivation, considering how our image of economic actors as motivated by narrow self-interest and greed may be changed to one of self-interest combined with generosity and social responsibility. I draw inspiration from feminist economics as well as from psychology, mythology, and anthropology. From the perspective of feminist economics, I will explore how social constructions of gender affect how we see the possibility of behaving in ways that include some generosity toward others, in settings where we usually think that self-interest predominates.

Emphasis on human motivation in a broader sense may expand the model of agency, as agency is understood in economics, from one of pursuit of narrowly defined self-interest to one that combines self-interest with responsibility for the common good. Ultimately, this may lead to an expanded definition of economics “from the study of choice to the study of provisioning” (Nelson 1992). This approach to economics would have a larger emphasis on the value of non-market work and the qualities of love, care, and generosity. It would give more attention to social and ecological consequences of economic activities that are not visible in traditional economic terms and cannot be measured in monetary value.

The outline of the paper is as follows: Section 2 examines how the social construction of gender influences the way we think about the motivation of the economic actor. Psychological and mythological approaches to the role played by greed and generosity in economic motivation are discussed in Section 3. Section 4 briefly considers theories of gift giving. Section 5 discusses the possibility of a generous economic actor who makes ethical investments.

2. The Economic Actor And Social Constructions of Gender

The notion that “more is better” as a theoretical assumption in economics has important historical roots in the period from the Enlightenment to the Industrial Revolution. In this period, not only did the exploitation of nature increase as a consequence of technological development and population growth, but it also found a philosophical legitimacy in the dualistic thinking whereby human identity came to be based on a separation from nature, rather than connection to nature. The consequences of the conceptual split between the human being and nature is discussed by French philosopher Henri Bergson (1959), who inspired ecological philosophy. The separation between the human being and nature may encourage ruthless exploitation, where nature is seen as a means for fulfilling unlimited human wants. Another approach to the relation between the human being and nature is provided by the history of religion. The connection between the human being and nature may be seen as a reflection of the sacredness of nature, as discussed by Mircea Eliade (1959) in the context of ancient religions. Emphasis on the connection between the human being and nature may encourage economic motivations and behavior that see nature as crucial for human well-being and seek to fulfill human needs without environmental devastation. In the following I will discuss these issues in terms of feminist philosophy and feminist economics.

Feminist scholarship originating from Carolyn Merchant's (1980) work on notions of nature and gender after the scientific revolution has emphasized that the split between reason and emotion, science and nature, and mind and body were expressed as a set of hierarchical dualisms and associated both with a value dimension and a gender dimension. That is, conceptual dualisms such as reason/emotion, hard/soft, science/nature, and mind/body are given both a masculine/feminine association and a superior/inferior or positive/negative association as if these were the only two possibilities. The hierarchical dualisms reflect a social construction of gender that has shaped thinking about human identity and gender in western culture and science (Harding 1986).

One method for thinking beyond these hierarchical dualisms has been suggested by feminist economist Julie Nelson (1992, 1996, 1997, 1999). Her approach involves replacing the simple dualism by a so-called gender-value compass, in which the split between the stereotypically masculine-positive and feminine-negative associations could be replaced by a complementarity between masculine-positive and feminine-positive qualities. Note that the feminist scholarship that Nelson and I draw upon does not necessarily claim that there is some innate or intrinsic link between certain qualities and being female, or being male; it claims that the perceived links between qualities and gender are part of the social gender construction. That is, the gender-value compass is not about sex differences in human values and qualities, hut rather about how our thinking about value and qualities tends to have powerful cognitive associations with gender.

In the following I will explain the gender-value compass in terms of the diagram of “individuals-in-relation” from Nelson (1999). (See Figure 1.) The basic idea is that certain concepts, such as individual agency and relatedness, have been culturally and metaphorically linked with notions of masculinity and femininity. Men have traditionally been thought of as having identities culturally defined by separation from nature and from other people, in the extreme, to the point of isolation. Women's identities have traditionally been culturally defined by relations to other people, in the extreme, to the point of self-effacement and engulfment in concern for others. In contrast to these images, real people are or have the capacity to be both individually separated and related to others, that is, to he “individuals-in-relations,” whether they are male or female.

In figure 1, “individual” represents a masculine-positive concept. The opposite concept, in the sense of lack of individual agency, is represented by the state of being “engulfed,” where individual preferences and self-expression are overshadowed by extreme concern for relatedness. This represents the feminine-negative dimension of the diagram. The masculine-negative dimension, “isolated,” represents a distortion of the positive attribute, “individual.” Isolation could be associated with insufficient trust and a sense of inadequacy, problems that could originate in fear of not having enough in terms of material needs and fear of inadequacy in cooperating with fellow human beings. The feminine-positive dimension is represented by “related,” the ability to relate and care for other people. The masculine-positive and feminine-positive terms are complementary in the sense that healthy, balanced behavior should involve both qualities; individual agency as well as a sense of relatedness to others.

The positive complementarity between individuality and relatedness is present in an individual with a capacity to love oneself as well as to love others, as illustrated in Figure 2, borrowed from Nelson (1999). The “engulfed” person is characterized by a lack of love for oneself and a motivation driven by an excessive degree of “love others only,” leading to self-sacrifice and neglect of one's own needs. The “isolated” person is characterized by love for self only, not having fully developed the capacity to relate to others.

A social construction of gender based on polarized concepts may encourage economic motivation and behavior based only on the pursuit of narrow self-interest. The gender-value compass leads us to see the possibility of behavior that combines the masculine-positive and feminine-positive aspects. A person who develops a complementarity between the masculine-positive and feminine-positive aspects represents a possibility for a more generous, but not overly self-sacrificing human being as an actor in economic affairs, as seen in Figure 3.

Generosity may be perceived as having feminine-positive associations, with its emphasis on generativity, fertility, and flexibility. However, a generosity that does not pay attention to the proper self-interest, and to use economic terminology, the budget constraint, is not viable. The complementarity of the masculine-positive “self-interest” and the feminine-positive “generosity” requires balanced attention to both maintenance and flux, to both the scarcity that requires prudence, and the creative flow that abundantly enriches life. If we as human beings can recognize our real needs and realize our creative potential, we can overcome insecurity and thus envy and greed, ending up in a situation in which we both take what we need for ourselves and give to others in appropriate (rather than extreme) ways. On the other hand, the complementarity between the masculine-negative “greed” and the feminine-negative “self-sacrifice” is associated with a situation involving ignorance of creative generosity, combined with an aching feeling of insecurity. This is the recipe for seeking to amass as much private wealth as possible, not so much as a result of a carefree happiness and wish to show off through conspicuous consumption, hut rather coming from a fear of not having enough, expressed as hoarding.

3. From Greed To Generosity

One might argue that the assumption of “more is better” to some extent reflects an inherent greed in human nature. From an individual human development perspective, however, the question is what we can do as individuals in order to become more conscious of the extent to which we are motivated by greed and to develop behavior motivated both by self-interest and social responsibility. Psychoanalytical object-relations theory, as developed by Melanie Klein (1956), Nancy Chodorow (1978) and Jessica Benjamin (1988), is one source of inspiration for understanding how human motivation is shaped by greed.

Klein's (1956) work on infant development revealed how healthy human development is characterized by overcoming the stages of primitive envy and greed, and developing the capacity for gratitude and love. To the extent that this development is impaired, the “hungry child” within conditions our greed on the unconscious level in adult life. This unconscious greed must be overcome in order to develop our own capacity for generosity. The nourishment given to the infant creates both a craving or greed for more, and in its absence, a sense of deprivation. At the unconscious level, greed aims at exhausting the creative source, whereas envy includes a wish to destroy the creativeness. Both feelings are projected onto the mother. On the other hand, a more harmonious infant development strengthens the capacity for love and gratitude. “Gratitude is closely bound up with generosity. For inner wealth derives from having assimilated the good object, and this enables the individual to share its gifts with others” (Klein 1956, 216).

Greed in the form of ruthless exploitation of other people and nature comes from a need to dominate and control. Jessica Benjamin (1988) develops a feminist psychoanalytic approach that offers an explanation of the origins of domination, in the development of the early human relationships. Benjamin defines domination, and its counterpart submission, as a result of a breakdown of the necessary tension between the self-assertion and mutual recognition that allows the individual to meet others as equals. Assertion and recognition represent the poles of a delicate balance. This balance is crucial to “differentiation”: the individual development of a self that is aware of its distinctness from others. This differentiation of self and others is difficult to obtain and sustain. Domination can be seen as a consequence of disturbances in the process of establishing this differentiation. The need to break the identification with the mother in order to be confirmed as a separate person may impair the recognition of mother as an independent subject and lead to objectifying attitudes towards women and feminine values. By this process, male and female identities may be linked to opposite sides of the balance of differentiation, leading to patterns of domination and control.

In this polarized structure of gender differences the female symbolizes irrationality and undifferentiation, and the male stands for rationality and separateness. This gender polarity does not only appear in the individual psyche and personal relationships, but also in collective thought, in the dualisms that value rationality over empathy, separation over connection, and depersonalization over personal needs. Regardless of women's increasing participation in public life, both society and economic thinking remain conditioned by gender-polarized male identities. The social and economic institutions seem genderless in their impersonal appearance. Yet it is the depersonalization of the public sphere and the denigration of the maternal aspects of recognition—the recognition of need and the recognition of feeling—that reveal the patterns of domination on the personal level and in society. From this perspective, the erosion of maternal qualities in society is not a result of women's efforts to participate in the public world; it is the consequence of the gender polarity materialized in our economic and social relations.

Benjamin rejects the notion that the subjugation of women can be equated with the repression of nature. However, like Evelyn Fox Keller (1985), she sees a parallel between the scientific detachment from the object—whether the object is a human being or the natural environment—and the shaping of gender-polarized male identity through separation from and opposition to the mother. As Keller explains, when the first other, the mother, becomes an object, her object status is projected onto the world and nature. The split between the subject and the object, in science and in the economic and social institutions of society, may diminish the respect for and the sense of empathy and connection with other human beings and nature that may serve to protect against greed and ruthless exploitation.

To break the cycle of domination with its devastating consequences, both women and men must be willing to see the unconscious forces operating in human relationships, and women must claim their subjectivity. The conception of equal subjects seems more plausible because women's demand for equality has achieved real social force. Feminism has opened up a new possibility of mutual recognition between men and women, a new understanding of the interconnectedness between the personal and the social and economic spheres, and a realization that our personal longing for mutual recognition also holds the hope for social transformation and global survival.

Another important source of inspiration for individual human development is the insight that the mythology and fairy tales of various cultures contain wisdom about human nature and the potential for human development. Writers such as Tad Crawford (1994) and Jacob Needleman (1991) explain how ancient wisdom teaches us about the dangers of unlimited greed, and ultimately, how greed may be tempered by insight into our real needs and real limits.

Many fairy tales illustrate the consequences of greed. A particularly illustrative story is “The Fisherman's Wife,” where the fisherman saved the life of a fish who granted them the wish for a nice house. As soon as they were in the house, greed took over, and the fisherman's wife wished to be king and emperor and pope. When she finally wished to be “Lord of the Sun and the Moon,” the illusion broke, and they found themselves in poverty again. As Needleman (1991) suggests, the story can be interpreted as about spiritual emptiness, in the sense that greed is inevitable in the absence of an inner aim in life. Economic motivation is too much concerned with the elusive goal of “what do I want?” rather than with the more essential question of “who am I, and what are my qualities that I should develop in order to fulfill my real needs and contribute to the world?”

The fairy tale of the “goose with golden eggs” tells about a couple who had a goose that laid an egg of pure gold every day. At first they cared well for the precious goose. But soon the thought of rapid prosperity overwhelmed them: Why wait for the golden eggs to be laid one by one? The goose was killed and opened, but turned out to be like all other geese with no sign of more eggs inside. The story of the golden eggs is a metaphor of how love and care as motivating forces are crucial for sustainable economic development, and how greed and short-sighted self-interest lead to disaster. In the story, the source of life was sacrificed for short-term gain.

The story of the golden eggs has a parallel in the legend about King Midas who made the gods grant him his greatest wish: that all he touched become gold. But his daughter became gold, and so did his meal, too, before he could be nourished. In the version told by Crawford (1994), King Midas realized his mistake and both his daughter and he were saved by his new wisdom. As the legend of King Midas reminds us, the acquisition of material riches, without an equalizing development in consciousness and responsibility, can be devastating, both for human relations and for nature.

A striking metaphor of the economic consequences of fear and greed is given by Michael Ende (1984) in his modern fairy tale, “Momo.” It is not a myth or fairy tale in the sense of having a long past, being part of an oral tradition, and not being written by a single author. But it is evoked here as a metaphor of how a faster pace of life may have detrimental consequences for health, quality of life, and the ecosystem. This is a story about the time thieves that fool people into working harder and faster in order to save time, to be paid back with interest later. The children, however, are not fooled. The courageous Momo faces a time thief and sees its fear, a fear that stifles creativity and leads the time thieves to feed on stolen time. The fight against the time thieves leads Momo into the ultimate questions about what time is and what is its essential quality: “Just as people have eyes to see light with and ears to hear sounds with, so they have hearts for the appreciation of time. And all the time they fail to appreciate is as wasted on them as the colors of the rainbow are wasted on a blind person or the nightingale's song on a deaf one” (Ende 1984, 122).

In the mythology of the Sami, the indigenous people of northern Scandinavia, greed is symbolized by the wolf and generosity by the reindeer. The reindeer provided everything needed for sustenance, representing true generosity and the capacity for love. The wolf has to kill the reindeer, symbolizing that we all need to consume from nature in order to sustain life and survive on a practical level. Unlike the wolf, who indeed represents greed, but also the necessity of hunting, the wolverine represents pure greed as it kills more that it can eat. The difference between greed and sustenance may perhaps be gauged by the ability to feel gratitude for nature's gifts. Gratitude toward nature and life can make us more conscious about the difference between real needs and needs caused by fear of not having enough. This can make us more aware that, if we manage the human and natural resources with wisdom, respect, love, and gratitude, then there will be more to share.

On an individual level, the development from greed to generosity sets out from a narrow pursuit of self-interest, then realizing one's fear of inadequacy, and finally, integrating culturally stereotyped masculine and feminine qualities and moving beyond fear to fulfilling one's creative potential. On the economic level, this psychological and spiritual process corresponds to developing a notion of value that is based not only on single-minded self-interest but also on love and generosity as motivating forces.

4. Gift Giving And Generosity

We will now examine more closely the motivations for gift giving, in order to explore the relation between gift giving and generosity. Why do people give gifts? Rational economic actors might answer that gift giving is part of a social norm that (hopefully) ensures that they will get something in exchange. The classical anthropological literature on the gift, particularly the work of Marcel Mauss (1990), emphasizes the reciprocal nature of gift giving; that is, that receiving a gift implies an obligation to give something back in appropriate amounts. Mauss's work has been applied in modern economic theory in George Akerlof's (1982) in his analysis of labor contracts and work effort. Akerlof explains the norm for the proper work effort in a similar way as the norm that determines the standards for gift giving at Christmas. Such gift giving is a trading relationship, in the sense that if one side of the exchange does not live up to expectations, the other side is also likely to curtail its activities—next time.

Mauss points out that the dilemma of the reciprocal nature of gift giving is reflected in language. In ancient German the word gift means both gift and poison. In modern languages it has split: in English gift is a gift, whereas in Norwegian gift means poison, as well as married. The ancient Greek word dosis for poison, which is the root of the English dose, as in a dose of poison, has the same root as to give, as we recognize in donate. Mauss argues that the reason for the close association of the words for gift and poison in these ancient languages comes from the obligatory nature of reciprocity of a gift, or, equivalently, the threat of harm that was believed to befall a recipient who failed to reciprocate (1990, 63).

The French feminist philosopher Hélène Cixous (1976, 1981) relates gift giving explicitly to femininity and masculinity. Cixous establishes her gendered view of gift giving with the concepts of the “Realm of the Proper” (the masculine aspect of motivation) and “Realm of the Gift” (the feminine aspect of motivation). In the “Realm of the Proper,” gift giving corresponds to relations of exchange that may establish power hierarchies. In the “Realm of the Gift,” Cixous maintains, gift giving can be seen as motivated by generosity, without expectation of reciprocity (1981, 93). Cixous here interprets the two aspects of the gift suggested by Mauss, to give and to repay, in a gendered context. Her approach may seem to introduce a dualism that attributes certain qualities to men and women; nonetheless, her contribution has inspired further research.

Inspired by Cixous’“Realm of the Gift,” Elisabeth L'Orange Fürst (1997, 444) introduces the term “rationality of the gift,” as a positive complement to “rationality of the commodity.” She illustrates the “rationality of the gift” by gifts of food. She asks why women give gifts of food, and what characterizes this transaction, as compared to the transactions in the market sphere. Her purpose is to introduce generosity as a motivating force. She discusses true generosity in the context of the story, “Babette's Feast” by Karen Blixen. When Babette wins a fortune, she spends all her money to prepare a feast. The guests are unfamiliar with elegant dining and have no idea what they are given—yet they are deeply touched by the magic of true generosity. True generosity is an ideal: it is hard to define and perhaps best understood through stories such as “Babette's Feast.” Motivated by true generosity, giving is in one sense effortless, because you feel that you are fortunate to be able to give, and the receiver senses this and is not poisoned by the feeling of having to return. Generosity can also come out of feeling a sense of connection with others. To see someone's real needs and act accordingly is a true gift.

Giving too much and not giving at all can be seen as two extremes of addictive behavior. Giving too much can be a way to try to make other people show love and appreciation, thus inducing others to behave in a way that alleviates one's own fear for lack of love. A feminist inquiry into motivations for giving will look for explanations beyond those that glorify norms and patterns that pressure women to give too much, in particular too much time (Folbre 1995). Feminist approaches to time use studies indicate that there is more pressure on women's time than on men's time (Beblo 1999; Hochschild 1989). Realizing such fears and learning to work through them provides a freedom in one's own life, a possibility to find the inner source of abundance and give from this (Sisson 1986). As more and more people gain this insight and grow as human beings, others also gain more breathing space, and a potential is created for a personal transformation that may lead to social transformation.

5. An Example: Self-Interest And Generosity In Ethical Investment

The question of the extent to which ethical investors are motivated by self-interest or by generosity offers an example for analysis. Ethical investments are defined as investments where the investors have clearly stated objectives regarding ethical, social, or ecological consequences of their investments and either seek to avoid projects with harmful consequences or invest in projects that promote the common good. The term “ethical investment” is often used in an inclusive manner including both socially responsible investments and “green” investments. Defining ethical investments is, in practice, highly complex, especially when environmental and social objectives conflict. For example, investments intended to improve the standard of living in some poor countries may accelerate destruction of their rainforest. Ideally, guidelines for ethical investments would involve an element of generosity, for example, recognizing the need for alleviation of others' poverty, and would also serve our self-interests, properly construed, for example, recognizing our own interest in saving the rainforest.

Ethical investments became particularly visible after the 1970s, with a conceptual basis in the literature on integrating social and environmental welfare aspects, and on measurements of quality of life in the context of economics. Recent contributions by Hazel Henderson 1996; Patrice Flynn 1999; Marc Miringoff, Marque Luisa Miringoff, and Sandra Opdycke 1999; and Sabine O'Hara 1999 further develop the analysis. Academic interest in the theoretical foundations of ethical investment is only recently emerging as a research field. The relative lack of interest in ethical investments in mainstream economics reflects a cultural construction of identity reinforcing the image of economic actors motivated by narrow self-interest rather than by self-interest, generosity, and social responsibility.

Mainstream economic models emphasize the short-run trade-off between economic and ethical performance (that is, ethical guidelines for investments may have a cost in the form of reduced expected rate of return or higher risk), instead of longer-run complementaries. Empirical evidence on the rate of return on ethical investment is mixed (Angel and Rivoli 1997; Butz and Plattner 1999; Gottsman and Kessler 1998). This is not surprising, as studies of the effect on ethical investment guidelines on expected rate of return may fail to take into account the importance of qualitative differences in managerial decisions. A well-informed management may recognize that a crucial argument for promoting ethical investment is that, in the long run, consumers may prefer goods produced in accordance with social and ecological values, although the timing of the long-term gain may be uncertain.

Introducing guidelines for ethical investments is a way to focus more on the environmental and social costs of investment decisions. One set of such considerations, for example, arises from the appalling working conditions, in particular for many workers in developing countries, or the destitution suffered by women who are forced into prostitution by lack of means of living. Another set of considerations arises from the deleterious, and sometimes disastrous, environmental impacts of the practices and policies of corporations when their only concern is with shareholder profits. Poor working conditions and environmental degradation are among the major contributors to a range of problems facing women, men, and children in the developing world, including health problems, infant mortality rates, forced migration, and family and social breakdown. The current interest in ethical investments is a promising sign of the possibility of developing economic motivation and behavior to include some generosity and social responsibility in settings where we usually think that narrow self-interest predominates.

6. Concluding Remarks

The views on economic motivation and human nature discussed here are drawn from many fields. The inspiration from feminist economics is emphasized, however, since many contributions from feminist economics have encompassed psychological, social, and ecological perspectives that take into account the consequences of economic behavior for human well-being and the ecological balance. Moreover, feminist economics is explicitly oriented toward love, care, and generosity as key elements in explaining the interdependencies of the market sphere and life itself.

Our collective value system carries the dream of the golden eggs—the symbol of creativity and abundance—expressed as the wish for meaningful work and heeding one's calling in life and thus contributing to the common good. When the golden eggs of human nature begin to appear on the collective level, new economic laws may emerge. Explanatory models built on greed may expand to encompass gratitude and generosity and reflect a greater humility in light of an uncertain future. Inspired by a belief in people's inherent capacity to contribute to the common good, the new approaches to economics, as seemingly diverse as feminist economics and ethical investment, can make social responsibility more visible and contribute to a more sustainable economic development.

Note

I would like to thank the guest editors Paula England and Julie Nelson, and the referees of Hypatia for constructive comments and encouragement; Ailo Gaup for his teaching in mythology; Charlotte Koren, Karine Nyborg, and Trond Petersen for helpful discussions, but the usual disclaimer applies; and Anne Skoglund for excellent editing and word processing.