The truth is that the mere economic motive would never have produced anything like what we call the history of men; even if it produced something like the history of mice. Even if we merely think that men have behaved too much like mice, we shall in fact find that some notion of moral order was behind their action; was behind even their inaction. We may think we can prove their inaction to be servile, to be superstitious; the one thing we cannot prove it to be is materialistic; or even economic.
(source: History Is Humanity)
This is true if we accept the definition of “economics” as “the amoral and ametaphysical manipulation of the world for the sake of superficial gratification.” To be fair to Chesterton, that was and remains the prevailing functional definition. But I think a better way to state this point would be: given that the history of man is what it is, economics must be much more than we have taken it to be.
I think you and Chesterton could agree on such an adjustment of the language here, sure!
As is often the case with GKC, category-words are used in very local ways; he does not do much in the way of systematizing nomenclature.
“mere economic motive” would, I think, have your sense of narrow self-interest. I think that I would want to add that Chesterton’s point still holds up fairly well if we use a slightly more expansive definition that encompasses the habit of reducing all evaluations to fit on a single axis of value.
But in the fullest sense of “economy,” in which one is attempting to understand the uniquely human capacity and necessity of proportioning effort and attention among pursuits which are incommensurable except as united by human “common sense” and our tacit conviction of the perfect unity of the good within God, the concept of “economy” is certainly a vital part of any understanding of history.
And there is devotion to be considered, of course.