The woman who cooked Adam Smith’s dinner

She must have said it in a lighter vein, but the then French finance minister Christine Lagarde’s statement, “If Lehman Brothers had been Lehman Sisters, the financial crises would have turned out differently” is worth a curious scrutiny. Women may not have been at the top in the capital market, but Lehman Sisters would not have allowed the US housing market to overheat in the first place. The past cannot be rewritten, but an emphatic post-facto speculation may ring a different bell at the Wall Street in the future. Is such a thought experiment worth any cause now?

It indeed is, because it helps infer how differently men and women handle risks and opportunities. That higher testosterone levels make men prone to taking risks. And, it is excessive risk-taking that caused banks to capsize and the resultant financial meltdown. Could it be that simple? Maybe not, concedes Katrine Marcal, author of Who Cooked Adam Smith’s Dinner? , but there is some logic in viewing economics through the female mind. Mainstream economics is driven by self-interest and is essentially masculine, hence the dichotomy and the disaster!

Who Cooked Adam Smith’s Dinner?Katrine MarcalTranslated by Saskia VogelPortobello Books LondonNon-fiction₹374

Marcal’s argument rests on the missing feminist dimension in economics, the seeds of which were sown by Adam Smith, who even discounted his mother’s contribution in household economic statistics, despite her daily contribution to cleaning, cooking, washing clothes, and squabbling with neighbours. One wonders if The Wealth of Nations could have been written had Margaret Douglas not prepared dinner for Adam years on end, since he never married. The reason for discounting women’s contribution is primordial, borne out of the assumption that women’s responsibility for care is but a free choice inherited as an opposite sex. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Taking a rigorous economic route, the book challenges patriarchy and the entrenched masculine notions that continue to belittle women as the ‘other sex’ only good at pushing the washing machine button or changing the soggy nappy. Could there be something in women’s biology that makes her better-suited for unpaid work, questions Marcal. Sigmund Freud’s view that women scrub, wipe and clean to compensate for a feeling of inherent filth in their bodies has been proven to be a psychological myth. Prejudices run deeper, and often do not cohere with reality. Women’s bodies, emotions and skills have been suitably appropriated to serve the economic man, as if they aren’t productive in any sense of the term.

The narrative is terse but witty, and makes the reader feel the glaring absence of women as a cog in the economic wheel. Economics is still a science of choice, but one broadly made in favour of man as its driver. No surprise, therefore, that economics is but a male bastion that relies on rational behaviour deft at maximising profit by discounting emotions, relationships, cooperation, and altruism. The activities that happen without dollars changing hands remain intangible, and hence discounted as feminine vocations.

Has economy not failed women? Taking a passionate dig at the economic man, the author argues that his primary characteristic is that he is not a woman. Women may have selectively moved up the economic ladder, but essentially to be like him. It is precisely for this reason that economic outcomes are gender-neutral, as if an opposite sex can’t have different structural relationships to production, reproduction, and consumption in society. And, how can there be a comprehensive understanding of economics when what the other half is doing is not brought into the picture. Economics cannot have only one sex!

Who Cooked Adam Smith’s Dinner is an intense but revealing undertaking. Originally written in Swedish, the translation by Saskia Vogel retains its verve and flair, and is a joy to read. If economists have any intention of ridding the world of its complex economic problems, this book has multiple perspectives that can be worked upon. Feminism’s best-kept secret, concludes Marcal, is just how necessary a feminist perspective is in searching for a solution to mainstream economic problems. Feminism is more than just ‘rights of women’; the economic system needs improvement to accommodate the missing dimensions of what it means to be human.

One thing is clear: If Margaret Douglas were alive today, and witness to the impact of Smith’s economic theory, she would not have cooked his dinner. She’d have ordered online.

Sudhirender Sharma is an independent writer, researcher and academic

COMMENT NOW