The economic explanation of individual behaviour, even behaviour outside the traditional province of the market, projects a distinctively economic image on the minds of the agents involved. It suggests that in regard to motivation and rationality, they conform to the profile of homo economicus. But this suggestion, by many lights, flies in the face of common sense; it conflicts with our ordinary assumptions about how we each feel and think in most situations, certainly most non-market situations, and about how that feeling and thought manifest themselves in action. What, then, to conclude? That common sense is deeply in error on these matters? That, on the contrary, economics is in error – at least about non-market behaviour – and common sense sound? Or that some form of reconciliation is available between the two perspectives? This paper is an attempt to defend a conciliationist position.

The paper is in five sections. In the first section I describe the economic mind that is projected in economic explanation, whether explanation of market or non-market behaviour. In the second section I argue that this is not the mind that people manifest in most social settings and, in particular, that it is not the mind that common sense articulates. In the third section I show that nevertheless the economic mind may have a guaranteed place in or around the springs of human action; it may have a virtual presence in the generation of action, even action on which it does not actually impact.