Although Friedrich Hayek's "The Use of Knowledge in Society" is a landmark in modern economic literature, a thoughtful reader can apply its thesis to almost any problem of social organization: even the problem of sweet dudes who hang out more than the College administration, or Mirror columnist Matthew Ritger '10, would prefer.
Hayek was a seminal figure in what is called "Austrian" economics. The Austrian school emphasized practical reasoning over mathematical modeling, and stressed the power of market prices to convey information about realities in society. Although Austrian economics emerged to counteract communism at a particular historical moment, its ideas shed light on problems that arise whenever individuals are making choices and individuals are certainly making choices in the social scene that inspired Ritger to "sincerely" hope that a fraternity or sorority pledge dies this term ("The Gospel According to Matthew," Oct. 9).
In "The Use of Knowledge in Society," Hayek rebukes socialism for its incorrect formulation of economic problems. The question we face is not "How should society use its resources and knowledge to maximize welfare?" The problem is, "What do we do about the fact that knowledge and information are decentralized?" Even if a government official has perfectly good intentions, he simply doesn't have enough information to act on them in such a way that his policies will have the consequences he desires.
The problem my bros and I pose to the College administration is no different. The opponents of the "Greek system" are trying to correct the sub-optimal social choices that Dartmouth students make, just as socialism tries to correct the sub-optimal market choices that producers and consumers make. Whoever has bureaucratic power gets to decide what is sub-optimal.
Any serious discussion of the social scene at Dartmouth should begin by recognizing the following fact: No one forces the student body to hang out at frats. Do we really give ourselves so little credit as to believe that fraternities are the center of our social scene due to a lack of "substance-free" or "gender-neutral" alternatives? Witness the failure of the Student Life Initiative and other attempts to rearrange the lives of 4,000 individuals from the top down. How much fun did you have the last time you went to Fuel on a Saturday night?
The idea that society can be improved by the brilliant insights of a few people is embedded in American discourse today, but this has not always been the case. The notion harkens back to the Progressive Era of American politics at the turn of the 20th century. The earliest progressive activists attempted to correct what they saw as the market excesses of the Industrial Revolution, through government action and mass consumer protest. This movement brought us the national parks, but it also led to sharp tax increases and large amounts of waste.
Similarly, the anti-Greek crowd's social improvement ideology has had tangible consequences. The East Wheelock cluster is one example: a bastion of intellectualism whose relative appeal drops annually as nice dorms spring up in more convenient locations. The administration's notorious "keg policy" has inspired fraternities to spend outrageous amounts of money on 30-racks of Keystone Light, while doing nothing to curb the drinking habits of Dartmouth students.
The truth is that there is no "Greek system", just as there is no "capitalist system." There is just a large number of free individuals making choices and spending their time however they please. If you want to change their behavior, you can tax the things you don't want them to do or subsidize the things you do want them to do. Charge Dartmouth students to play pong, and they will play less. Pay us to read Proust, and we will. Do not, however, expect that you can re-engineer the social habits of an entire student body through ingenious ideas like more ice cream socials or the occasional concert. My advice? Read more Hayek, and leave my pledges alone.
