Man-Devil

An effective gambler could reasonably wager that most professional economists today are unaware of who Bernard Mandeville was or what influence his work carried for the discipline in which they practice. Instead, appreciation for Bernard Mandeville’s intellectual legacy is sadly relegated to a minority of scholars nestled within an underappreciated subfield. First, those who happen to be interested in the history of economic thought are likely to at least recognize Mandeville’s name. And second, a further minority group therein, those who happen to be interested in spontaneous order theory and its particular intellectual history, are most likely to appreciate a lasting importance and influence from Mandeville’s early writings. 

I say sadly, in part because of how significant and foundational the concept of spontaneous order is to economics in particular and social science more generally. Too significant and important to be ignored by most and only appreciated by a few. Also, sadly in part, because as its progenitor, Mandeville’s life and ideas are among the most consequential of the Enlightenment era, yet he and his work are rarely discussed in detail. 

Adam Smith is more typically credited as being the preeminent founding father of economic science, and similarly as the author of the “invisible hand” turn of phrase. This brief but eloquent description of the self-adjusting properties of market prices and the resultant efficient allocation of capital throughout society, for many, were the primary catalysts of spontaneous order theorizing. Since Smith, spontaneous order theory has episodically risen and fallen in popular and political prominence but has always been at least recognized as a core concept in the broader framework of free-market dynamics and laissez faire political preferences. 

In most such treatments, Mandeville’s Fable of the Bees is typically given little more than a proverbial hat tip for intellectual influence upon Smith’s scientific project. One generally gets the impression that Mandeville’s prose, though infamous in its day, was bitingly profound and in hindsight presciently on point. But it was merely prose and commentary, whereas Smith’s work carried rigor and systematic discipline. Mandeville wrote pamphlets, Smith penned treatises. Mandeville practiced social satire, while Smith invented social science. 

Thankfully, John Callanan, (Man-Devil: The Mind and Times of Bernard Mandeville, The Wickedest Man in Europe), apart from bringing renewed attention to Mandeville’s life and ideas, adds detail and nuance to the typically surface-level treatment of Mandeville’s intellectual contributions and influence. The book masterfully retells the timeline of Mandeville’s personal and professional life, surveys Mandeville’s complex ideas across his full body of written and published works, and, lastly, contextualizes Mandeville as not only a formidable intellectual in his time, but among the most pioneering thinkers of economics and social philosophy. In short, Mandeville’s thought is far more systematically consistent and applicable than common historic treatments today recognize or give credit.  

The public’s reception of Mandeville’s The Fable of the Bees: or, Private Vices, Publick Benefits when published in revised and expanded form, and paired with additional commentary and responsive arguments in 1723, was enthusiastically negative but undeniably pervasive. Despite the disagreement and outrage it inspired, The Fable was widely read and the ideas therein were directly targeted for response and engagement for decades to come. In light of Callanan’s work and exposition of Mandeville’s boldness, originality, broad relevance, and intellectual consistency, it is perhaps easier to recognize and appreciate how lasting and foundational Mandeville’s ideas have been ever since. 

Again, if one is so curious and motivated as to investigate the history of spontaneous order theory, then they are quickly alerted to Mandeville’s name and The Fable of the Bees in particular. Prior to Smith’s invisible hand and his explanations of butchers and brewers being primarily motivated by self-love over altruism; Mandeville had argued that the complex and rapid socio-economic development of the early industrial era was caused by the decentralized efforts of ordinary individuals pursuing their own interests. Such stood in stark opposition to the common belief, especially of moral reformists, that society was ultimately guided by the moral education and normative commitments of its time. Hence, moral authorities the likes of ruling kings, priests, philosophers, etc., were the primary causes of social betterment or decline. Hence, reform efforts consisted of overtly designed campaigns and educational efforts to promote virtue and discourage vice in turn. Mandeville’s framework identified alternative spontaneous causes for social maladies and thus shaped his diagnosis that the proposed treatments of reform efforts were futile. In result, his readers thought he was evil and actively encouraging vice. In Mandeville’s framework they doth protest too much as their aimed contempt is indicative of their relative ignorance.

Whereas several theorists such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke had well-recognized the self-interested nature of human behavior, Mandeville was original in so far as he recognized self-interest as a source rather than impediment to social harmony, peace and prosperity. Insights about decentralization, technological innovation, and the incentive effects of policy changes came in stride. Private vices lead to public benefits indeed.

Callanan’s text demonstrates that Mandeville ought not be recognized merely for a single or minor observation and subsequent inspirations. Instead, when viewed across his multiple authored works, Mandeville was a systematic thinker with a cohesive and consistent worldview. As a professional physician Mandeville sought to ground his broader social theory in an accurate and scientific vision as to the nature of human biology and psychology. As his Treatise of the Hypochondriak and Hysterick Passions laid out, humans were animals of a unique sort, in some ways akin to all other animals regarding their anatomies and base motivations. What made the practice of human medicine so much more challenging than other scientific endeavors was the mutual games of self- and other-deception performed by patients and doctors during diagnosis and treatments. Hence, as Callanan rightly points out, Mandeville’s ideas are broader in relevance than just economic processes such as the division of labor. Mandeville’s framework, like that of his later admirer F.A. Hayek, was a theory of economic and political society which rested upon a dynamic understanding of interacting individual agents and was furthermore imbued by a cohesive theory of mind. Therefrom did political inferences and policy frameworks derive.

In result, Mandeville was empowered to offer consistent and regular critique and commentary on a variety of social issues in his day. He fleshed out arguments regarding the proper scope of the criminal law and limited government, offered biting criticisms about the sexual mores and social double standards across genders, gave comments on the role of religion and international relations, and diagnosed the internal contradictions of criminal law enforcement and the causes of frequent executions. Apart from his prose alluding to spontaneous order theory and or the division of labor in The Fable, a keen and thorough reader will recognize Mandeville’s subtle intuitions regarding what contemporary social scientists identify and label as rent-seeking, the Coase theorem, the unintended consequences of regulation and intervention, and a principled commitment to liberal political institutions.

It is perhaps tragically ironic but also romantically fascinating that Callanan reports Mandeville to be rather virtuous, kind and well-regarded by those who actually knew him personally. His life included moments of self-sacrifice when participating in a local tax rebellion and a successful and accomplished career as a physician providing solace to the ailments of his patients. His friends, including Ben Franklin, thought of him as a fun and joyful conversation partner and by all accounts he led a happy marriage and served as a provisional father. Perhaps private virtues beget private benefits.