Sergei Bulgakov's ‘Philosophy of Economy’: a Resource for Economic Bridge-Building between Islam and the West1

1 I acknowledge the problems associated with use of the phrase ‘Islam and the West’. These categories admittedly delineate ‘civilisations’ that do not exist as distinct entities; Muslims are present in great numbers throughout the West just as many non-Muslims are present in countries in which Islam is the dominant faith tradition. However, widespread acceptance of this term and difficulties in developing a succinct yet more accurate replacement for it cause me to adopt this term, however reluctantly.

Abstract

Much has been written of the perceived ‘clash’ between Islamic and western civilisations and of the need for reconciliation. If western nations truly seek rapprochement with the Islamic world, then they must be open to the possibility that in some ways their marvellously productive economic systems have contributed to a loss of community and a decline in social morality, and must acknowledge Muslim fears of the global economy. A purely material or human rights explanation for why non-democratic and predominantly Muslim countries should adopt democratic capitalism will fail. What is needed initially is some foundation upon which to build dialogue. Orthodox social thought could serve as a lynchpin connecting the communal economic ethic of Islamic societies with the individualist ethic of democratic capitalism. Russian Orthodox theologian and social theorist Sergei Bulgakov left a rich repository of economic thought that philosophically bridges a gap between the rationality of western market economies and the transcendent awareness of Islamic social structures. Bulgakov's philosophy of economy embraces ideas of human freedom even as it recognises the need for ‘guidance’ and the essential nature of economic relationships to the preservation of community. By engaging Bulgakov's economic ideas, westerners can better understand the apprehensions of intellectuals in traditional cultures concerning globalisation and the reticence of many Muslims to embrace it.

Notes

1 I acknowledge the problems associated with use of the phrase ‘Islam and the West’. These categories admittedly delineate ‘civilisations’ that do not exist as distinct entities; Muslims are present in great numbers throughout the West just as many non-Muslims are present in countries in which Islam is the dominant faith tradition. However, widespread acceptance of this term and difficulties in developing a succinct yet more accurate replacement for it cause me to adopt this term, however reluctantly.

2 ‘Social constructivism’ is a term frequently used by Friedrich Hayek for the common philosophy that underlay collectivist systems and the ‘progressive’ programmes of democratic societies (such as Roosevelt's ‘New Deal’) that were based on the rational and planned development of social institutions.

3 Marsh continues with recognition that ‘a sizeable segment of the Russian population seems somewhat confused over the nature of market principles and the inequalities that inevitably develop and that are indeed necessary to spur on economic growth’ (see Marsh, 2006, pp. 36, 37).

4 Evtuhov uses the adjective ‘sophic’ rather than ‘sophianic’.

5 Evtuhov shows how Bulgakov's sophianic economy emphasises process rather than ends, in particular with regard to labour, where its ethic ‘prescribed joyful labor “in Sophia” as an antidote to the grim eking out of existence that was so prevalent in life and accepted as necessary by Marxism and other economic doctrines’ (Evtuhov, 2000, pp. 13–14).

6 For Bulgakov the obvious flaws of economic materialism are irrelevant to its persistence; its past failures do not ‘invalidate the mood that created it … . It cannot be simply denied or rejected like any other scientific theory. It must be understood and interpreted, not only in its obvious mistakes and weaknesses, but also in that profound content which shimmers through it. It must be, not denied, but overcome from within, explained in its limitations as a philosophical ‘abstract principle’, in which one side of the truth is sold as the whole truth’ (Bulgakov, 2000e, p. 39 – emphasis in original).

7 As Bulgakov says, ‘Not to experience this enchantment [of materialism] at all, not to feel its hypnosis … , means to have some defect of historical self-consciousness, to be internally alien to contemporary reality’ (Bulgakov, 2000e, p. 40).

8 This statement is remarkably similar to that of the Austrian Friedrich Hayek who stated: ‘At this juncture we are … not only the creatures but the captives of progress; even if we wished to, we could not sit back and enjoy at leisure what we have achieved’ (Hayek, 1960, p. 52).

9 Bulgakov states that despite a world ‘alienated from Sophia in its current condition’ the chaotic elements ‘are linked in a universal whole, illuminated by life that shines within it; and man, though as an individual he is torn from his sophianic unity, retains his sophianic roots and becomes the instrument for bringing Sophia to nature’ (Bulgakov, 2000b, p. 149).

10 Bulgakov continues that ‘from this standpoint everything should be included in the science of economy. But only the philosophy of economy can take a position of this kind; it would be inappropriate and unproductive for the science of economy, which is obligated to address specialized problems’ (Bulgakov, 2000d, p. 249).

11 Chesterton characterises the attempt to erect sciences of history, sociology and ‘folklore’ as ‘not merely hopeless, but crazy’ (Chesterton, 1986, p. 117).

12 Bulgakov sees labour as integral to his concept of the ‘world as household’. In fact, he states that this concept is the very object of labour and, further, that ‘only he lives fully who is capable of labor and actually engages in labor’ (Bulgakov, 2000e).

13 Bulgakov states that ‘political economy studies man only in his oppression, catches him in the state of necessary self-defense, instead of approaching him from the perspective of his free creative relation to life’ (Bulgakov, 2000d, p. 256).

14 Kuran notes: ‘We do not know who introduced the concept into Indo-Islamic discourse, but this much is clear: it gained currency through Mawdudi's sermons, speeches, and publications' (Kuran, 1997).

15 Mawdudi became thoroughly disenchanted with Muslim politics in India and was determined not to see those abuses repeated in any new conception of Muslim social order. ‘It is a pity that Muslims see their objectives in purely political terms and are hence, oblivious to the role of religion in this world’ (Mawdudi, 1968, p. 3, quoted in Moten, 2003, p. 393).

16 For examples of books and essays exploring Islamic economic thought, see Choudhury (1983), Chapra (1991), Wilson (1998) and Saleh (1986). These and many other works on Islamic economic philosophy can be found at the Bibliography on Islamic Economics website at http://www.islamic-world.net/economic/bibliography.html (last accessed 8 August 2008).

17 Lindenmeyr quotes an Englishwoman who visited Russia in 1905 to observe the country's system of poor relief as saying that ‘no people are so lavish in their charity as the Russians and no people give alms with the same reckless generosity’.

18 Dinello here cites Portes and Sensenbrenner (1993, p. 1325).