264 Chapter 11
Is thatlast paragraphnot similarto Spencer’s assessmentthat“underall its aspectsand
throughall its ramifications,” the marketeconomy“is a [biological]growthandnot a
manufacture”? Quitelogically,Rothschildnameshis theoryBionomics, as it combines
“Biology” and “Economics.”
JaneJacobspointsout thatbionomicsis a betterwordthanecology, foreco-means
“house” while-logymeans“knowledge.” Henceecologytranslatesto “houseknowledge.”
On the otherhand,bio-means“life” and-nomymeans“management.” Thereforebionomy
refersto “life management” the samewaythateconomyalludesto “housemanagement.”^9
In concordancewithRothschild’s views,Jacobsnotesthatecologyonlymakessensewhen
viewedas “the economy” of ontologicallygivenlife formsand life systemsin “nature.”^10
Rothschild’s claimthathis Bionomicstheoryis completelyoriginalis underminedby
the factthatSpencer’s “TheSocialOrganism” providedsimilarcomparisonsbetween
societyand biology.Spencerwrites,
The orderlyprogressfromsimplicityto complexity,displayedby bodies-politicin com-
monwithlivingbodies,is a characteristicwhichdistinguisheslivingbodiesfromthe
inanimatebodiesamidwhichtheymove.Thatfunctionaldependenceof parts,whichis
scarcelymoremanifestin animalsthanin nations,has no counterpartelsewhere.Andin
no aggregateexceptan organiconeor a socialone,is therea perpetualremovaland
replacementof parts[suchas animalsof a particularspeciesin a jungle,or skincellsin an
individualcreature],joinedwitha continuedintegrityof the whole.... Societiesslowly
augmentin mass;theyprogressin complexityof structure;at the sametimetheirparts
becomemoremutuallydependent;theirlivingunitsare removedandreplacedwithout
destroyingintegrity.... Andfurther,the analogybetweenthe economicaldivisionof
labourandthe “physiologicaldivisionof labour,” is so strikingas longsinceto have
drawnthe attentionof scientificnaturalists....^11MiltonFriedmanandLeonardE. Readobservethatthis sortof spontaneousorderand
EmergentComplexityis visiblein the usageof language.^12 In the UnitedStatesthereis no
one centralgovernmentauthoritydictatinggrammarrules.Wherein historytherehave
beengovernmentsattemptingto legislateovergrammarrules,everysucheffortultimate-
ly failed.Nonetheless,the absenceof a centralauthorityhas not bredchaos.As the sum
consequenceof variousindividualchoices,individualscommunicatingwithone another
developtheirownnormsand commonlyacceptedcustoms.Hence,the absenceof central
authorityandgovernmentforceto policeandplanverbalexpressionfully,fromthe top
down,has not causedanarchyor pandemonium.It is by consensual,free-marketmeans
that rulesand standardsemergedon theirownfromthe bottomup. The sameprincipleis
visiblein open-sourcesoftwareand Internetwikis.
BothSpencerand Rothschildexplainhowthe marketeconomy,despiteits artificiality,
remainsbotha voluntarilyacceptedevolutionaryadaptationandself-createdhabitat.
ThoughRothschild’s explanationis moresophisticatedandaccuratethanthe biological
metaphorsSpenceremployed,onemustadmitthatseveralof Rothschild’s keypoints
weretoucheduponby Spencerbeforehand.Firstis thatthe marketeconomyfomentsa
spontaneousorder—completewithits ownset of rulesthatare commonlyagreed-upon
by mostof its participants—thatrunson its own,havingno needfor micromanagement
by a totalitarianState.Secondis thatthe economyundergoesdynamicalterations,and
additionallyexercisessucha degreeof unpredictabilitythatit wouldbe morereasonable
for socialobserversto viewthe economyas beingmorecomparableto a biologicalprocess
thanto a predictablemechanicaldevice.Justas withanyinstitutionin a dynamicfree
economy,grammarrulesgraduallychangeoverthe ages.Withthatin mind,it wouldbe
fair for Rothschildto concedethatSpencerprecededhimin brainstormingparticular
aspectsof his economictheory.Instead,though,Rothschildfuriouslydisavowsany philo-
sophicsimilaritywith“socialDarwinists,” assumingthatall of the defamatoryaccusa-