----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
Rod Hay notes that Reder in is article "did not document actual 
anti-Semitic remarks [by Hayek] but neither did he document the positive  
acts in defense of jews that he did for Schumpeter and Keynes." 
 
Rod has narrowed like a laser beam on perhaps the most highly 
serious and even chilling aspect of the whole episode -- the fact 
that Reder link Hayeks to a group of rather nasty anti- 
semities on the basis of essentially no visible scholarship. 
Reder makes it clear that he knows at least a bit of the literature on 
Keynes and Schumpeter, and that he's looked at some section of 
their private letters and papers.  There is no evidence in Reder's 
article other than the citation of a _SINGLE_ 1978 interview only  
_very partially_ republished in Kresge's _Hayek on Hayek_ that  
Reder has looked in any way at the large literature on & by Hayek, or that 
he is familiar in the slightest degree with Hayek's private letters  
and papers -- indeed, there is not even any hint that Reder is aware  
of what Hayek has published on matters closely tied to the topic  
of Reder's article, for example, Hayek's writings on his part Jewish  
second cousin Ludwig Wittgenstein. As I've stated elsewhere, when  
the matter is one of whether or not to label someone an anti-Semite --  
and to group a person with a set of rather nasty anti-Semites -- someone  
had better meet a very high level of scholarship, proof & care -- at  
least as high as the level of moral opprobrium which would go with the  
labeling.  And in my judgment Reder has not come close to meeting  
this standard. 
 
Rod also remarks that "I did not read Reder as claiming that Hayek  
was an anti-Semite but that he shared many of the stereotypes of the  
period."  One of the most disturbing things about Reder's article  
vis-a-vis Hayek is the degree to which it trades in guilt by insinuation 
and association -- within Reder's section on Hayek he includes a bit of  
evidence of some nasty anti-Semitism on the part of some University of  
Vienna faculty members.  He then immediately _summarizes the chapter_  
with the with words "the anti-Semitic remarks reported above", subtly 
sweeping Hayek into the same net with the nasty anti-Semitism of these  
U. of Vienna faculty members.  The effect of the article is to repeatedly do  
essentially this same thing time and again -- moving freely back and  
forth between such expressions as "anti-Semitic", "(ambivalent) anti-Semitism",  
"anti-semitism", "ideological-ethnic bias", and "distaste for Jews", etc. 
-- leaving the overall impression that what we are we are dealing 
with in different forms is anti-Semitism by some anti-Semites, with Hayek 
fitting right in the mix. 
 
Reder implies that Hayek fits right in the mix with Keynes and Schumpeter, 
building the theory of a set of anti-Semites and a form of anti-Semitism 
engendered by "the absence [on the part of these anti-Semites] of a 'need 
to mind manners' .. stem[ing] from the confident (and correct) belief 
that few Jews with whom they wished to maintain amicable relations would 
not take umbrage at even overt breaches of good manners."  Reder speaks 
of his Keynes and Schumpeter as having power relations over the jews 
they disparaged, and of the jews in their purview having no alternative 
than the power structure these men controlled for the pursuit of their own 
intellectual and career aspirations.  But there are more than a few ways 
that Hayek DOESN'T fit right in with Keynes and Schumpeter, beyond the more 
obvious fact that Hayek belongs to a completely different generation. 
In Hayek's case, when he came to maturity, it was von Mises (a jew) in the 
power position within Hayek's employment situation.  Similarly 23 of 
the 26 members of the Mises seminar were Jewish -- and this was the circle 
that Hayek prized intellectually.  Likewise, Hayek's _own_ intellectual 
seminar (the "spirit" circle), which he also highly prized, was composed 
predominately of Jewish students and intellectuals.  When Hayek left for 
London, it was Hayek as much as anyone else who was an outsider -- and made 
to feel one by people in powerful positions (including the Prime Minister 
of Great Britain).  If Reder had met even the minimal demands of good 
scholarship, he would either have been aware of all this, or he would have 
included these significant differences in his account.   
 
Greg Ransom 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]