Naturopathic medicine is a distinct primary health care system that blends modern scientific knowledge with traditional and natural forms of medicine. It is based on the healing power of nature and it supports and stimulates the body’s ability to heal itself. Naturopathic medicine is the art and science of disease diagnosis, treatment and prevention using natural therapies including: botanical medicine, clinical nutrition, hydrotherapy, homeopathy, naturopathic manipulation, traditional Chinese medicine/acupuncture, lifestyle counselling and health promotion and disease prevention. – Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors

Naturopathy is a cornucopia of almost every quackery you can think of. Be it homeopathy, traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurvedic medicine, applied kinesiology, anthroposophical medicine, reflexology, craniosacral therapy, Bowen Technique, and pretty much any other form of unscientific or prescientific medicine that you can imagine, it’s hard to think of a single form of pseudoscientific medicine and quackery that naturopathy doesn’t embrace or at least tolerate. – Dr. David Gorski

Naturopaths claim that they practice based on scientific principles. Yet examinations of naturopathic literature, practices and statements suggest a more ambivalent attitude. NDhealthfacts.org neatly illustrates the problem with naturopathy itself: Open antagonism to science-based medicine, and the risk of harm from “integrating” these practices into the practice of medicine. Unfortunately, the trend towards “integrating” naturopathy into medicine is both real and frightening. Because good medicine isn’t based on invented facts and pre-scientific beliefs – it must be grounded in science. And naturopathy, despite the claims, is anything but scientific. – Scott Gavura (Science-Based Medicine)

Naturopathic training does not prepare them to be primary care physicians. Their profession is not science-based, does not have a science-based standard of care, and is largely a collection of pseudoscience and dangerous nonsense loosely held together by a vague “nature is always best” philosophy.

This is one of those situations where most people will not believe that the situation can be as bad as it really is. This is similar to when I describe to people, who are hearing it for the first time, what homeopathy actually is. They usually don’t believe it, because they cannot accept that something so nonsensical can be so widespread and apparently accepted in our society. The same is true when I tell people about the core chiropractic philosophy of life energy (at least for those chiropractors who have not rejected their roots), or about what Scientologists actually believe.

One common reaction is the “no true Scotsman” logical fallacy. Defenders will insist that what we are describing is the exception, and that a “real” naturopath is not like that. Obviously there will be a range of practice (especially since there is no standard), but the pseudoscientific treatments that make up naturopathy are not the exception. They are at the core of their education and their philosophy. – Dr. Steven Novella

“Naturopathic medicine” is an eclectic assortment of pseudoscientific, fanciful, and unethical practices. Implausible naturopathic claims are still prevalent and are no more valid now than they were in 1968. – Kimball C. Atwood

Naturopathic medical school is not a medical school in anything but the appropriation of the word medical. Naturopathy is not a branch of medicine. It is a combination of nutritional advice, home remedies and discredited treatments… Naturopathic practices are unchanged by research and remain a large assortment of erroneous and potentially dangerous claims mixed with a sprinkling of non-controversial dietary and lifestyle advice. – The Massachusetts Medical Society

Naturopathy[1] is, and always has been, a declaration of pseudoscience and pseudomedicine mixed together with truism dressed-up in cheap makeup to appear legitimate, respectable, even advanced and modern, and real, as per the first statement at the top in contrast to reliable and respected voices following it. Ignorance in a tutu is still ignorance.

It’s not an alternative way of knowing, a different form of medicine, or a novel line of thought. It’s not cheaper than medicine because real medicine works on the cases needing it and, therefore, utilize the finances of patients properly, i.e., effectively.

Naturopaths are not doctors, medical doctors, or real MDs. By peddling nonsense as sensible, they harm the public good and, thus, become a negative force in society, as purveyors of illegitimate practice. Why deal a light critique to individuals harming public in the most important areas of life, for example, medical care or health?

In turn, as self-proposed practitioners for the betterment of the health of the public, they detract attention and legitimacy away from real medical doctors, real medicine, in addition to the finances of the public. If alternative medicine became effective, then it would become non-alternative medicine, also known as medicine. So, what’s the point of it, in the first place?

As noted in “Freethought for the Small Towns: Case Study,” “Canadians’ and Others’ Convictions to Divine Interventionism in the Matters of the Origins and Evolution,” “Making a Buck as a Mountebank – Astrologers, Mediums, and Psychics,” “The Message of William Marrion Branham: Responses Commentary,” “The Fantastic Capacity for Believing the Incredible,” religious fundamentalism, pseudoscience, and pseudomedicine, play off one another, as gullibility in the pulpit informs gullibility in the wellness marketplace, and vice versa.

One ignorance feeds into another. Whether in the local Township of Langley or in the wider province of British Columbia, even in small towns including Fort Langley, this is the nature of the pseudoscience and pseudomedicine landscape. Bad people, even thinking themselves good, bilk the public earning good money, even bad money or minimum wage income.

These individuals and, more fundamentally, fraudulent practices, should be combatted directly, even at the legislative level as they have been enforced in countries like the United States largely through legislative efforts. Why such a directed effort at legislation rather than randomized double-blind trials? Let me know how those homeopathic studies turn out.

In British Columbia, widely, when you do a search, you can find more than 100 places, so associations, colleges, clinics, centres, integrative clinics, medical centres, practitioners, and so on. All devoted to a pseudoscientific practice within one province. All either harming the bank accounts through fraudulent practices, or, potentially, harming the public.

Personally, they should not be able to operate in British Columbia generally, or in the Township of Langley in particular. It’s easily viewable as a wide range of pseudomedicine postulated as real medicine while without proper medical credentials, only fake qualifications, as in ‘real’ to the fake medicine while fake to the real medicine.

There’s a large number of practitioners and clinics of naturopathy, including associations, colleges, and institutes, such as the College Of Naturopathic Physicians Of British Columbia and the BC Naturopathic Association/BCNA.

It’s a – literal – zoo with the number of them. In a general search of the Canadian province of British Columbia, one set includes Dr. Janine Mackenzie ND, Abby Naturopathic Clinic: Dr. Cristina Coloma ND, Horizons Holistic Health Clinic, Edgemont Naturopathic Clinic, Boucher Naturopathic Medical Clinic, Dr. Aggie Matusik, Integrative Naturopatic Medical Centre, Dr. Marisa Marciano, ND, Dr. Melanie DesChatelets ND, Vitalia Naturopathic Doctors Vancouver, Dr. Grodski – White Rock Naturopathic, Dr. Lindsey Jesswein, ND, Noble Naturopathic, Local Health Integrative Clinic, Dr. Carlson-Rink C., Dr. Andrea Gansner Naturopathic Physician, Dr. Lorne Swetlikoff, BSc.,, ND, Polo Health + Longevity Centre, A New Leaf Naturopathic Clinic, Dr. E. D’Souza-Carey, ND – Family Health Clinic.

Another, second set includes Family Health Clinic: Naturopathic Medicine and Midwifery Care, Integrated Health Clinic, Dr. Jiwani, Naturopathic Physician Surrey Clinic (Not Vancouver) Autoimmune Weight Loss, Dr Andrew Eberding Naturopathic Doctor, Boucher Institute of Naturopathic Medicine, Meditrine Naturopathic Clinic, Vancouver Naturopathic Clinic, Selkirk Naturopathic Clinic, Cross Roads Naturopathic clinic, OZONE THERAPY BC: Dr. Walter Fernyhough, Dr. Allana Polo N.D Polo Health + Longevity Centre, Pangaea Clinic of Naturopathic Medicine Inc, Dr Eric Chan, Dr Tawnya Ward, Dr. Rory Gibbons, Naturopathic Physician, Dr. Caroline Coombs Naturopathci Doctor, Dr. Brian Gluvic, Kitsilano Naturpathic Clinic, Agency Health, and Richmond Alternative Medical Clinic.

There there’s the third set with Arc Integrated Medicine – Delta & Surrey Naturopathic Doctors, Dr. Kali MacIsaac, Naturopathic Doctor, Aspire Naturopathic Health Centre – Naturopath North Vancouver – Dr. Emily Habert, ND, Dr. Hal Brown, Red Cedar Health Ray Clinic, Lonsdale Naturopathic Clinic, Metrotown Naturopathic and Acupuncture, Yaletown Naturopathic Clinic, Flourish Naturopathic, Northshore Naturopathic Clinic, and Dr. Jonathon F. Berghamer.

The fourth set includes Dr. Scarlet Cooper, ND., Dr. Terrie Van Alystyne, Naturopathic Physician Whistler, Butterfly Naturopathic, Dr. Jason Marr, ND: Naturopathic Doctor, Peninsula Naturopathic Clinic, Dr. Karen Fraser, Yaletown Integrative Clinic, Serenity Aberdour ND – Horizon Naturopathic Inc, Dr. Tasneem Pirani-Sheriff, ND, Avisio Naturopathic Clinic & Vitamin Dispensary, Dr. Robyn Land, Naturopathic Physician, Springs Eternal Natural Health, Dr. Alaina Overton, Cornerstone Health Centre: Maryam Ferdosian, ND, Dr. Kim McQueen, BSc, ND, Dr. Safia Kassam, and Restorative Health.

The fifth set of them include Dr. Esha Singh, ND, Dr. Bobby Parmar Naturopathic Doctor, Lansdowne Naturopathic Centre, West Kelowna Integrative Health Centre, Dr. Shalini Hitkari, ND, Dr. Jolene Kennett, Naturopathic Doctor, Dr. Karina Wickland, ND, Dr. Phoebe Chow – Lumicel Health Clinic, Dr. Maltais Lise, Vitality Wellness Centre, Dr. Lisa Good, ND, Dr. Heidi Lescanec, ND, Dr. Rod Santos, ND, Inc., West Vancouver Wellness Centre, Dr. Kully Sraw, Naturopathic Physician, Juniper Family Health, Dr. Peter Liu, ND, Garibaldi Health Clinic, Dr. Kayla Springer, ND, and Dr. Donna Ogden, ND, MSc, Naturopathic Doctor.

The sixth – yes, there’s more – set includes Dr. Cortney Boer, ND, Burnaby Heights Integrative HealthCare Inc., Dr. Amelia Patillo, ND, Jamie Sculley, Dr. Ewing Robert J., Central Park Naturopathic Clinic, Dr. Kira Frketich, Living Wellness Centre, Dr. Jennifer Brown, ND, Dr. Randi Brown – Naturopathic Doctor, West Shore Family Naturopathic Ltd., Rejuv-Innate Naturopathic Clinic-Dr. Jamie Gallant, Dr. Tonia Winchester, Nanaimo Naturopathic Doctor – Tonic Naturopathic, NaturopathicVictoria.net, Fourth and Alma Naturopathic Medical Centre, Cheam Wellness Group, Maureen Williams, Dr. Meghan Dougan, ND, Dr. Brittany Schamerhorn, ND, and Dr. Jenna Waddy.

The seventh – almost there – set includes Inner Garden Health, Dr. Brit Watters, ND, Dr. Laruen Tomkins, ND, The Natural Path Clinic Inc., Elizabeth Miller, Dr. Jennifer Moss – Naturopathic Physician, Dr. Penny Seth-Smith, Seeded Nutrition, Northern Centre for Integrative Medicine, Aqua Terra Health, Dr. Kelsea Parker, ND, Maple Ridge Naturopathic Clinic, Newleaf Total Wellness Centre, Vitality Integrative Health, Dr. Orissa Forest, BSc, ND, Acacia Health – Dockside, Dr. Megan Kimberley, Naturopath, Dr. Landon McLean Healthcare, Back to Our Roots Indigenous Medicine, and N.A. Hemorrhoids Centre.

The eighth set is Legacies Health Centre, Kelowna Naturopathic Clinic, Marseille’s Remedy – Traditional Oil Blend, Lani NYkilchuk, ND, Dr. Heather van der Geest, ND, Hummingbird Naturopathic Clinic, Dr. Elli Reilander, ND, BodaHealth, The Natural Family Health Clinic, Dr. Chelsea Gronick, Naturopathic Doctor, Dr. Carla Cashin, ND, Dr. Karen McGree, Saffron Pixie Yoga & Naturopathy, Wild Heart Therapies and Farmacy, Dr. Andrea Whelan, Well+Able Integrated Health LTD., Dr. Kim Hine, ND, Dr. Graham Kathy, Dr. Emily Freistatter, Naturopathic Doctor, Inner Garden Health.

The ninth set is Dr. Emily Pratt, BSc, ND, Inc., Life Integrative, Dr. Michael Tassone, ND, Harbour Health: Massage Therapy, Physiotherapy, Chiropractor, Naturopath, Broadway Wellness, Spokes – Clinical Naturopathy, Dr. Fulton Lynne, Electra Health, Dr. Macdonald Deidre, Ray Lendvai Naturopathic Physicians, Dr. Maryam Ferdosian, ND, Yinstill Reproductive Wellness, Prajna Wellness, Fountain Wellness & Physiotherapy, Qi Integrated Health, Paradigm Naturopathic Medicine, Apex Chiropractic Coquitlam, Kamloops Naturopathic Clinic, Dr. Carmen Anne Luterbach, and Dr. Mar Christopher.

The final and tenth set is Dr. Lawrence Brkich, The Phoenix Centre, Cave Cure & Therapies, Twisted Oak Holistic Health, Coast Therapy Maple Ridge, Balance Natural Health Clinic, Dr. Theresa Camozzi, ND, BC Pulse Therapy, Naramata Lifestyle Wellness-Best Naturopathy, Meditation, Weight Management Centre Okanagan, Acubalance Wellness Centre, Ltd., Dr. Milanovich David, Catalyst Kinetics Group, and Dr. Kimberly Ostero, BSc., ND, and Kontinuum Naturopathic Medicine, Inc.

The obvious benefit in these titles compared to the astrologers, mediums, and psychics, is the appearance of professionalism, while, in a mysterious manner, acquiring an entire reputation based on a fallacious premise, pseudomedicine, in addition to a false title.

It’s less turtles, turtles, turtles, all the way down, and more falsehoods all the way down, and to the top. People with all the accoutrement of the professional and medical world while, in fact, lacking the substance, the content, and so mimicking, or parroting, the forms and stylings of them.

A shame, a scandal in the province, a waste of the public’s dime, a tax on the wellbeing of the province as a whole because real medicine exists, and ignorance without proper medical bases, while idiotic in its proposition and imbibing by the general public. Everyone’s to blame here; while, some are more culpable than others.

This shows both a failure in critical thinking on the part of the public, individuals entering into the schools for training, and a firm action on the part of the proper authorities to regulate public health in such a manner as to delegitimize failed philosophies from the 1800s proposed as modern medicine.

As stipulated, succinctly, by the skeptic Wiki, RationalWiki, the titles of ND in British Columbia naturopaths and naturopathic physicians, self-proclaimed, as in Naturopathic Doctor, does not mean a doctor, a physician, or a medical doctor.

These titles, ND, remain false proclamations of credentials and qualifications, by and large, rejected by both mainstream medicine and mainstream science. These are a manner in which to attempt to co-opt the earned legitimate legacy of modern medical science and modern science, as per credentials, e.g., MD, with illegitimate pseudoscience and pseudomedicine.

In fact, the issue in North America is widespread, as stated by RationalWiki, in “Alternative Medicine Education,” “…there are actually 7 accredited institutions in North America that award this degree (as of 2012), 5 in the United States (Bastyr University, National College of Natural Medicine, National University of Health Sciences, Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine and University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine) and 2 in Canada (Boucher Institute of Naturopathic Medicine, and Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine). For those who want a shorter route, it is also widely available from diploma mills.”

These individuals will use the title of “Dr.” If you don’t believe me, then I would propose looking at the ten sets above. How often does the use of the term ‘Dr.” get used in the public face of the institutions?

Next, we can ask about the private face. How many? How often? It is probably more, and more forcefully, because “Dr.,” rightfully, earned the title because the education is more difficult and the positive effects on society far more great.

That which was known as health fraud in prior generations through consistent efforts continues to be regarded more as medicine rather than ‘medicine.’

It should be halted, deconstructed, and shown for its farcical foundations and direct, and indirect, harms on the public.

 [1] Even Wikipedia, as a minor resource, it states:

Naturopathy or naturopathic medicine is a form of alternative medicine that employs an array of pseudoscientific practices branded as “natural”, “non-invasive”, or promoting “self-healing”. The ideology and methods of naturopathy are based on vitalism and folk medicine, rather than evidence-based medicine (EBM). Naturopathic practitioners generally recommend against following modern medical practices, including but not limited to medical testing, drugs, vaccinations, and surgery. Instead, naturopathic practice relies on unscientific notions, often leading naturopaths to diagnoses and treatments that have no factual merit.

Naturopathy is considered by the medical profession to be ineffective and harmful, raising ethical issues about its practice. In addition to condemnations and criticism from the medical community, such as the American Cancer Society, naturopaths have repeatedly been denounced as and accused of being charlatans and practicing quackery.

Dr. Carolina Cristina Alves is a Joan Robinson Research Fellow in Heterodox Economics at Girton College at the University of Cambridge, a co-founder of Diversifying and Decolonising Economics, and an editor of the Developing Economics blog. She sits on the Rebuilding Macroeconomics Advisory Board, the Progressive Economy Forum Council and the Positive Money. This educational series will focus on Heterodox Economics with emphasis on heterodoxy, Dr. Alves’s research, the current research situation, and decolonizing economics. Here we talk about the necessity of Heterodox Economics.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, Dr. Carolina Alves joins us. She is the Joan Robinson Research Fellow in Heterodox Economics at Girton College at the University of Cambridge. This educational series focuses on the subject matter of Heterodox Economics covering the expertise of Dr. Alves. We will emphasize heterodoxy regarding economics, where mainstream economics becomes ‘homodox economics,’ the broad strokes of Dr. Alves’s research, the current developments or situation in Heterodox Economics, and then aspects of decolonizing economics. To begin today, when an individual enters into the field of economics, what is economics?

Dr. Carolina Christina Alves: Economics as a discipline has had many definitions through time. These definitions, often, understood economics as a discipline concerned with the creation, appropriation, and distribution of wealth, where the social and political contexts were of equal concern to economists. However, as the discipline evolved, we saw growing debates around what economics is, with tensions, for example, related to the scientificity of economics and its normative and positive aspects. 

It was not until 1932, with Lionel Robbin’s An essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science, when the profession seemed to head to an agreement on the definition of economics. With a view understanding that the technical condition of production and the history of the social construction of the ‘means’ are not directly part of the occupation of an economist, Robbins argues economics is “the science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between [given] ends and scarce means which have alternative uses.”

Robbins’ definition of economics is widely used and accepted. Thus, nowadays, there seems to be no doubt that economics narrowed down to studying human behaviour in the distribution of scarce means, with a focus on market analysis and choices. 

Jacobsen: Following from the previous question, how is this considered mainstream or ‘homodox’ economics, henceforth economics or orthodox economics? “Orthodox economics,” in this sense, is descriptive, not pejorative. It is the mainstay of economics.

Alves: Modern economics, or what we call orthodox economics, is about studying human interaction mainly through markets, where markets are theorized as being about the interaction between demand and supply, with equilibrium as a central concept and enduring reliance upon methods of mathematical modelling. This approach went to become ‘the mainstream economics,’ as it is the main and widely taught and researched approach. 

An important point here is that the definition of economics cannot be separated from the methods and methodology used by economists. It is not a coincidence that Robbin’s Essay paved the way for a decade where economic methodology would be widely questioned. Engagements with Robbin’s Essay focused on issues of economic theory versus empirical analysis, how economic theory is to be conceived, and the role of ethics in economics. It is not a coincidence either that Robbin’s definition came to ‘stay.’ As Backhouse and Medema (2009) argue, insofar as the Robbinsian conception deals with the influence of scarcity and human behaviour, it becomes an analytical definition. As a consequence, it allows for regularities and the homogeneity of the market economy. For  Wootton (1938), a fierce critic of Robbins’ definition, it is like if all market processes ought to have a certain objectivity comparable to the regularities of the natural world, so that changes in the market can be predictable and show uniformity – not being subjected to ‘arbitrary caprice.’

For this reason, Robbin’s definition fitted very well to a familiar argument dating back to Walras’ and his idea that economics would gradually evolve into a scientific discipline similar to hard sciences, with economic laws being rational, precise, and as incontrovertible as the laws of astronomy. With a trend drifting economics towards a more inductive approach, largely limited to understanding social behaviour through the lens of equilibrium solution of mathematical models, the scientificity brought by Robbins wrapped in the ideas of equilibrium and generalization about human behaviour represented a happy – albeit some may argue unnatural –  marriage that has since then flourished and become stronger. 

There were many events in the last century that contributed to strengthening this marriage, which could be summaries in terms of a formalization and also uniformization of the economics profession since the 1950s. In this process, not only economics became apolitical and ahistorical, but also economists uncritically accepted the standard choice of taking market equilibrium and human rationality as the starting point of their analysis. This context led to the definition of orthodox economics mentioned above and to an increasing number of economists thinking of themselves as modellers, ‘simplifying’ reality through models and invoking the necessary assumptions regarding equilibrium, representative agents, and optimisation (see also Alves and Kavangraven, 2020).

Jacobsen: What made Heterodox Economics come forward into the fray of economics discourse?

Alves: Heterodox Economics, in the modern sense used, can be traced back to the 1960s; although not many economists, at the time, would not put their hands up and call themselves heterodox economists. The 1960s and 70s experienced the developments mentioned in the previous questions as a gradual and constant exclusion of theories and economists whose intellectual traditions did not lie within what would become orthodox economics. From institutional, evolutionary, and feminist economics to Marxian, Keynesian and structuralist economics, these years witnessed the formation of various different communities of economists who at the time were not necessarily connected or self-identified as heterodox (See Lee, 2009). 

The stronger the movement narrowing down the definition and methods within economics, the greater was the need for other approaches to find a new home, institutional support. Therefore, it should not be a surprise that we see the Union of Radical Political Economy being founded in 1968, the establishment of Post-Keynesian Economics from 1970 onwards, the creation of the Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa (CODESRIA) in 1970, and efforts to revive and develop the Association for Institutional Thought (AFIT) in 1979. 

The political, institutional, and ideological marginalization of other approaches and ways to do economics was violent; it did not take long for these communities to start claiming the need for pluralism within our profession. By the 1980s and 1990s, there was a slow integration of these various communities, which can be seen, for example, with the creation of The International Confederation of Associations for Pluralism in Economics in 1993, the Progressive Economics Forum in 1998, the Association for Heterodox Economics (AHE) in 1999 and the Society of Heterodox Economists in 2002 (See Lee 2009). Meanwhile, new heterodox organizations kept emerging, such as the European Association for Evolutionary Economics (1988) and the International Association for Feminist Economics (1992).

So, heterodox economics comes forward into the fray of economics discourse due to a battle within the profession over who defines and shapes the economics researched and taught in our field. The term is a large umbrella that will continue to expand as long as orthodox economics carries on being narrow and intolerant towards other approaches to economics.

Note, some economists like to argue: heterodox economics is everything that is not orthodox economics; it is a self-definition in terms of the other. Swiftly referring back to the etymological meaning of the word, Wikipedia or dictionaries, these scholars are adamant that no other definition is possible. This is wrong. If anything, it implies an economics that emerges as a sort of reaction to mainstream economics, which is not accurate, as approaches under the heterodox economics umbrella go way back to any coherent idea of mainstream economics. 

Further, to think that heterodox economics can be defined by the negative denies agency to a rich and useful bunch of research that, quite frankly, could not care less about what’s happening in the orthodoxy of economics. Finally, in social sciences, one can only wish that concepts used to try and make sense of a word can be reduced to dictionary definitions.

Serious thought about what heterodox economics is starts with an investigation of when and how heterodox economics became a consistent and identifiable object. Two aspects stand out here: 1 –  to trace back the term in history (where we look into the intellectual history of the term – how and when the term was first used and so on); and also 2 – to understand how different communities of economists started organizing themselves (that is, the sociology of heterodoxy). 

In this sense, although the term heterodox economics can be traced back as far as 1863, the key point for us is that the more economics started narrowing down its methods, theory, and approaches during the last century (to then go and become essentially mathematical modelling and econometrics), the more other ways of doing economics were excluded from departments, syllabuses, funding, and journals. 

These [excluded] economists essentially started looking for a home to live. That’s why the term is of crucial importance for our current historical moment. To think that the term is a mere definition of what is not is to overlook the institutional power within the discipline itself; it is to be complacent to the exclusion of many equally ‘rigorous’ and ‘legit’ economic approaches.

Jacobsen: In particular, what makes Heterodox Economics necessary for the advancement of the universe of discourse seen in homodox economics?

Alves: Pluralism of methods and ideas is key for the progress of any social science. Despite enjoying being the queen of social science, economics is not exempt from these dynamics. Mainstream economists like to argue that we are where we are because of the ‘evolution’ of economic ideas. Something like an evolutionary process where other approaches to economics were not able to survive. This could not be further from the truth, especially considering that these approaches were systematically excluded and marginalized. 

Also, it is quite problematic to assume that one single approach and method is enough to understand social reality. Authors such as Colander (2009) and Coyle (2013) argue that the profession has been more open. For them, the inclusion of endogenous growth theory, behavioural and experimental economics, complexity economics, and other theoretical innovations have reduced the dominance of mainstream economics. Although this may be partially true – and, indeed, there are criticisms of economics coming from within – we have to ask ourselves two questions: 1) the extent to which these criticisms mean that economics, at the research and teaching level, became more open to different ways to do economics, to different communities of economists that are not placed within the mainstream basket; 2) the extent to which these changes also mean changes at the very core methodological assumptions and theories of orthodoxy. That is, are these changes and criticisms challenging mathematical deductivism, the idea of rational actors, selfish individuals maximizing their own interest, individuals as the units of analysis, the equilibrium state of the economic system, and so on?

Diversity of approaches and methods is necessary for our field. Both orthodoxy and heterodoxy have the same object of analysis, the economy, but their tools and assumptions are different, which can then lead to different policy recommendations, conclusions. We need a rich and vibrant intellectual environment where competing approaches allow us to see all the options available to tackle an economic problem. We need a situation where Queen Elizabeth II would not knock at the LSE door asking, “Why did no one see it coming?”, but, rather, “Why did orthodox economics not see it coming;  what is the heterodoxy saying about all this?”

My brilliant co-author, Ingrid Kvangraven, whose ideas have helped and shaped most of the arguments expressed in this interview, and I have been forcefully vocal about the need to both i) acknowledge the existence of heterodox economics as a body of economists who rely on different methods and theories to analyze the economy, and ii) bring this body of economists together. This is partially a political strategy to reclaim a rightful space within departments of economics and partially a genuine attempt to open up the profession with the aim to build a more inclusive, just, and fair society.

For this reason,  we have engaged in a bumpy path to look at the history of heterodox economics and these different communities of economists to try and define heterodox economics. In stark contrast with the definition by Robbins mentioned at the beginning of this interview, for us:

heterodox economics is concerned with the study of production and distribution of economic surplus, including the role of power relations in determining economic relationships, the study of economic systems beyond market relations, and the employment of theories focusing on these issues (Kvangraven and Alves 2019)

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dr. Alves.Alves: My pleasure! Thank you very much for inviting me.

Photo by NeONBRAND on Unsplash

Christian is a Philosopher that comes from Belgium. What identifies him the most and above all is simplicity, for everything is better with “vanilla ice cream.” Perhaps, for this reason, his intellectual passion is criticism and irony, in the sense of trying to reveal what “hides behind the mask,” and give birth to the true. For him, ignorance and knowledge never “cross paths.” What he likes the most in his leisure time, is to go for a walk with his wife.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: With this American election ongoing, what is the most striking fact of the American situation now?

Dr. Christian Sorensen: I think that the most surprising, is the fact to perceive a polarized society, between parts, that defend what I will name as individualistic rights, and that fight, as counterpart, for social rights, by voguing what for me is an integrationist society, in the sense of being one, more humane and just, not because of a liberalism ill-conceived, but because commonwealth prevails, in what I understand as the good of the people, in contrast to what would be personal good, which leads in the case of the last, to social self-referentiality, and therefore pushes to conflict, in the context of disintegration, in consequence, ultimately unable to reach synthetic terms as plausible instances, from prior antithetical premises.

Jacobsen: There have been direct restrictions and repeals of women’s reproductive rights. Mostly, this happens with male leaders. Which isn’t saying much because, most leaders in the world are male. So, maybe, a more interesting line of thought is the following question: “Why those particular male leaders, e.g., Jair Bolsonaro, Donald Trump, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, or Rodrigo Duterte, and so on?” So, Christian, why those particular leaders?

Sorensen: What happens, is because most of these leaders are Christians, and if not, they’re close to some kind of religious fanaticism. All of them have in common, the fact of always climbing over the rights of women, since they have the will, of turning them, into what I will name the apple of discord, since they have perceived them as threats, because from the optical prism of a patriarchal society, and according to their philosophy of life, they firmly express the possibility of women to master their own body, which would imply in turn, a feminine self-sufficiency, that in time, due to an increasing disappointment, can reach to dispense with masculine need, and further carry, the loss of control over the gift of life, due to the reason, that if this logical sequence is followed, then the right to life, would be intrinsically linked to the reproductive rights of women.

Jacobsen: Looking at the consequences of the actions of these individuals, the general tale is one of oppression or suppression of the majority of the population to prevent garnering more equality with the richer minority of the population. Is it all about mammon? Have these, excluding China, highly religious countries succumbed, surrendered to both the temptation of mammon and God?

Sorensen: They have established, what I will name the eugenics of richness, since relying on different resources, that are used for mass extermination, such as it could be the current or other pandemics, which regardless of whether they have caused them or not, they have known well how to utilize these, as control mechanisms, in order to achieve said end, which ultimately is a covered expectative, for eliminating anything human, that humanely can hinder any minority of humans, especially, if they succumb to necessity, since the last would be highly threatening. Nevertheless, what’s not generally noticed, is the fact that the richest, are the only ones who place the burden and yoke, at the same time that they naively convince themselves, of being forced to bend their will, in order to subsidize subsidiarily the neighbor, meanwhile they have been artificially creating since ever, the unequal distribution for everything that could be invested, with feelings leading to the possession of something, and therefore, to the suffering associated with the state of lackness. In other words, some men have placed man, at the center of its own maelstrom and nightmare, by wanting to make him believe, that he’s fighting against the arms of giants, when actually what he has in front, are just the blades of windmills that turn. In this sense, it could be said, that minorities determine and control the destiny of the majorities, which paradoxically is exactly the opposite, of the principle that rules democracy, because in pragmatic terms, in my opinion, what occurs is that the richest, represent God in the world, and consequently, these are the ones who define, existentially speaking, the significance of desire, the object towards which it is cathected, and the goal to which it is headed. Therefore, strictly speaking, and contrary to what it’s commonly believed, it’s not the minority, who succumbs to the temptation of wealth and to God, but on the opposite, they have become God, and then, the temptation of wealth, has been placed in front of the vast majority, since when man, recognizes the existence of a reality that’s beyond the numerical unity, is when the imperiousness of necessity appears, and in consequence, is then this is what leads the majority, to fall into the idolatry of a small God, who basically is any other fellow man, to whom is given the character of omnipotence, for the simple fact of possessing what awakens the desire, but whose only need and temptation, respectively, is the need of the most needy, and their paralyzing feeling of resignation.

Jacobsen: What is the utility of international rights organizations and the United Nations now?

Sorensen: I think it depends, because the United Nations sometimes works with a quota system, that obeys to underlying political interests, which have nothing to do with their natural functions, while some international human rights organizations, also exhibit biases in favor of certain ethnic groups, which demonstrates as such, a sort of invisible bad marriage of convenience, with certain interest groups, respect to whom, they have ideological or political affinities. Under this frame of reference, I think that both fulfill what for me, would only be instrumental objectives, that are at the service of third parties, who telemetrate with an iron hand, these organizations, for placing them far away from their original missions, which in turn, derives in practical and ethical consequences, since a significant number of issues, related with the inhumane conditions of victims, who suffer the scourge of some type of oppression, remain adrift. The aforementioned, enables to state, that fundamental rights, are being constantly trampled, in front of their eyes, which means in concrete, that United Nations and international human rights organizations, are perfectly aware of everything around them, but simply they want to ignore what is happening, and act as if they weren’t knowing anything, which is the same, to say that coincidences do not exist, because when human rights violations appear everywhere, as if it were by chance, what has occured, is that these organizations, in order to follow faithfully the framework of international cooperation agreements, or to remain under the umbrella of certain cultural and religious beliefs, they actually see, out of the corner of their eye, all these catastrophes, nevertheless, they have preferred to let them pass, or directly and unfortunately, to let them pass away.

Jacobsen: What isn’t a utility in them? They are flawed organizations after all.

Sorensen: I think that the fact that these are defective organizations, in no case, makes them a cause for scandal, because like any other organization, they are made up of human beings, and therefore, are inherently imperfect, although they can progress, and then they’re perfectible, nevertheless the aforementioned, does not justify, regarding the pragmatic purposes pursued, the high level of distortions reached within their structures, which as such, is something completely different, from the fact of being defectives or useless under some aspects. In other words, what is ethically reprehensible about them, is their denialist attitude in front of abusive situations, that are linked, in my opinion, with their vested interests and secondary gains, that in some sense, allow them to get a slice of the cake, and leads these organizations, not to want to recognize nor to assume a reality, that irrefutably demonstrates, severe violations of basic human rights, which are morally and politically unacceptable, in a society that proclaims itself, to be culturally and ethically avant-garde.

Jacobsen: With the decades of embarrassment of Christian sects around the world, what will become of their image in the 2020s?

Sorensen: I think that currently, one of the difficulties that Christian sects face, in addition to being, in the particular case of the Roman Catholic Church, an extemporaneous religion, is the fact that they do not have any image, and therefore, that actually they have nothing to project of themselves anywhere, in this sense, I think that what has evolved within them, is what I will name the phenomenon of transfiguration, since there’s an absence as form of form’s negation, where there isn’t any possibility of retaining nothing within themselves, in terms of a determined generator of contents as figures, therefore Christians show, by going through supposed images, and eclipsing of senses, that is to say, the expression of something that specularly is not equivalent, because what is seen from the inside, ends up not being, what is seen from the outside, and in consequence finalizes not being nothing in absolute, in this manner, what has occurred to these sects, is that they have fallen, from their level of figurative image, because of a irreparable break point, that drives them into a process of unstoppable dissolution, which will be given, by what I’m going to denominate phenomenon of identity diffusion, since carries within them, a crisis of self-concept, and of sense of internal coherence, due to the intricate web of aberrations, in which they have been implied, and that lastly, has sealed their destiny, not only in a moral sense, but also from a gnoseological perspective, because Christian sects, have intended to confront, what for me, are essentially incompatible polarities, that along time, not only have not been able to integrate, but that they have also brought in the après quoi, with some lines of expression on their faces, which translates, as those facts have been already consummated, which ultimately means, that each time, they are more screwed and perturbated, when it comes to wanting to generate, dogmatic precepts and ethical values. In consequence, beyond the manipulative efforts, through which, Christian sects try to seek communicational strategies, for discovering conquering formulas, in order to raise a downcast image, what’s happening, is that their failure of coherence and false truths, has been internally converted, in a rupture of unity, that has thrown them, towards a dynamic of continuous deterioration, that I will name process of progressive spoiling, since by it, they’re going to continue expressing, instances of degradation, which will work as cumulative strings, that will turn them into landfills. The aforementioned means, that the more Christians try to correct their deviations, greater is going to be the intensity of these manifestations, therefore within the near future, they will hatch, due to saturation, with other signs and symptoms, which are going to obey to a second process, that I’m going to denominate, involution on behalf of the anguishing splitting.

Jacobsen: How will this impact the political situations in many countries where religion is political, is politics?

Sorensen: In countries where religion is political, politicians have historically established, with extraordinary success within their population, what for me is the dialectic of master and slave, since through it, they have managed to subdue the people, by stagnant mechanisms of educational and cultural precariousness, that have driven them to act, more as collective masses than as thinking subjects. Probably this paternalistic and political strategy, that is founded on figures, who present themselves with omnipotence, will be seen as saviour of nations, since people need to project their patriarchal religious beliefs and feelings onto it, nevertheless and paradoxically, it will begin to succumb progressively, once they recognize, what has kept them numbed and duped, within the terror of Christian theocracies, although there’s also a latent risk, because they can become politically and existentially disoriented, if there is no other worldview able to confort them, and therefore, that’s capable to take the place of a Christian paradigm, that didn’t have much more to give. In this sense, I think that it is essential, to strengthen the channels of quality education in these countries, taking into account the fact, that besides, this is one of the fundamental human rights, which if it’s taken widely, not only should be focused in the development of cognitive resources, but that also must promote, the consolidation of democratic and civic values, which may enable them, to get out, of what for me is the entropic political vicious circle, to whom the vast majority of these Christian countries, have been praying, and paying religious orders for more than a century.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the inside insight in sight on this site, Dr. Sorensen.

Sorensen: Looking forward that reflects the inside, you’re welcome, Mr. Jacobsen.

Image Credit: Christian Sorensen.