This book argues that the assumption of a selfish and rational individual, which has become established in mainstream economics, is both theoretically reductionist and psychologically incomplete, and that this assumption has negative consequences for mental health in capitalist society.
According to Ester Biton Ruben, mainstream economics does not merely explain human beings. It also legitimizes a specific type of human. In this respect, the author offers not an epistemological critique of the discipline, but an ideological one. However, the author’s main aim is not only to discuss the theoretical assumptions of economic theory, but also to make visible the effects of a system based on these assumptions on human psychology.
The concept of homo economicus is not used by most economists to mean “this is what real humans are like,” but rather as an abstract tool that facilitates working with a set of assumptions. Ruben criticizes this by arguing that this assumption has ceased to be merely a tool and has instead transformed into a definition of human nature. At this point, there are also different approaches within economic literature: thinkers such as Herbert A. Simon, Amartya Sen, and Daniel Kahneman argue that the homo economicus concept is insufficient to explain real human behavior, while economists such as Milton Friedman and Gary Becker maintain that, even if unrealistic, this assumption remains a powerful analytical tool. Thus, Ruben’s critique is directed at an assumption that is already controversial within economics.
SELFISHNESS TREND
It is argued that both economics and psychology developed their aspiration to become “sciences” in parallel with the rise of capitalism, and that in this process both disciplines defined human beings in a specific way, thereby producing a subject conception compatible with the system. In economics, the homo economicus model positions the individual as a rational and selfish being pursuing utility maximization, while in early psychology, the mechanical conception of man reduces humans to machines reacting to external stimuli. The author claims that these two reductionist approaches structurally parallel capitalist thought.
Although contemporary heterodox economic approaches have developed strong critiques of this model, the orthodox/neoclassical approach still maintains its dominance over the discipline of economics. Even though approximately fifteen years have passed since the first edition of the book, the assumption of rational behavior in mainstream economics continues to be one of the fundamental analytical tools. Although this assumption is accepted by most economists as a methodological abstraction, as Ruben points out, it does not remain merely an analytical device but becomes a dominant norm that defines human behavior. Especially in the present day, concepts such as individuality, self-interest, and selfishness have become prominent trends.
PRODUCING PROFIT FROM LOVE
In the section titled “Emotions Driven by Capitalism,” a sentence particularly stood out to me. It is stated that emotions such as love and empathy are not naturally promoted or supported by capitalism. However, this claim overlooks an important point. Capitalism does not produce love, but neither does it exclude it. On the contrary, it organizes existing emotions, reframes them, and binds them to exchange value, thereby commodifying them. As seen in the example of Valentine’s Day, love ceases to be a direct lived relationship and instead becomes a performative act that must be proven through symbolic consumption. Gifts and expenditures become material indicators of emotion. Therefore, what occurs here is not a simple encouragement but a structuring of emotions according to market logic; capitalism does not operate to strengthen human values, but to circulate them in order to generate profit.
Economics speaks of “unlimited needs”; however, a significant portion of these needs is not natural but socially produced and gradually shaped over time. The modern capitalist system exploits human tendencies toward comparison, status-seeking, and desire for more, continuously expanding these needs and thereby weakening individuals’ sense of satisfaction. In a traditional context, people work enough to meet their needs; in the capitalist system, however, the purpose of work shifts from satisfying needs to continuously earning more and accumulating wealth. This fosters a sense of expectation in individuals, leading to a difficult-to-repair feeling of unease while also eliminating the concept of “enough.” As a result, people now work not as much as their needs require, but to obtain more, and this situation leads to the production not of satisfaction but of a continuously increasing sense of insufficiency. With this understanding, Ruben prompts readers to question the concept of ‘need’ in the definition of economics.
LEARNED DESIRES
Neoclassical economics defines utility as the satisfaction of whatever the individual desires; therefore, even the consumption of harmful goods such as cigarettes is considered “useful,” since no strong distinction is made between needs and wants. However, as André Gorz also emphasizes, the real issue is not only resource scarcity, but the disappearance of the concept of “enough” and the artificial unlimited expansion of needs. The question here is: Is the real problem the scarcity of resources, or the transformation of needs? From a more balanced perspective, scarcity is real; time, energy, and natural resources are limited. However, in modern society, the main issue is not this limitation itself, but rather the continuous expansion of needs through “learned desires” produced within the capitalist system. Therefore, not every desire is a need; from an ethical and human perspective, some desires (such as harmful behaviors or addictions) are not needs but expressions of different kinds of problems. In conclusion, the issue is not only scarce resources, but the systematic inflation of what is presented as need, and this reveals how the utility measure in economics can become detached from real life.
The book also examines in detail the case of the suicide incidents at France Télécom. It describes the pressure placed on employees in order to adapt to market competition, the internal competitive systems that continuously increase, and the resulting work environment. In this process, 25 employees committed suicide and 13 attempted suicide; the letters left behind reportedly expressed that the constant stress created by management, insecurity, and a work environment that forced employees into competition with one another made life unbearable. Similar practices can be observed in many workplaces today, where values such as competition, speed, and performance pressure negatively affect human psychology and increase the risk of anxiety, burnout, and depression. While competition produces productivity and innovation within appropriate institutions, in work regimes where performance is excessively individualized and based on constant comparison, it generates psychological pressure and a sense of inadequacy among employees. One reason capitalism has persisted for so long is human nature itself, because it is human beings who continually reproduce this system. Just as love can be transformed into an instrument circulated for profit generation, human nature can similarly be commodified.
CONCLUSION
The author’s main thesis is that the conception of human beings in economics has been shaped in accordance with the needs of the capitalist system. According to this view, economic models do not merely explain reality; they also produce a particular type of human being.
The book’s most fundamental claim is that if the forms of relations produced by the capitalist system change, then human behavior—and consequently psychological conditions—can also transform. This transformation carries not only economic but also human and social potential for improvement.
Leave a Reply