A couple of quick responses to Mary Schweitzer's post of 
December 4, 1995: 
 
I agree that McCloskey's first work on rhetoric was good 
for economists to hear, and I agree that her's is a  limited 
approach.  However, I strongly disagree with the assertion 
that McCloskey is pushing the notion that rhetoric is a 
weapon with which to wield power.  From my own reading 
of her texts, and my association with her as a student, it is 
apparent that McCloskey treats rhetoric as a PROCESS, 
not as a thing.  In fact, if you have ever read McCloskey's 
"If You're So Smart," I find it astonishing that you came to 
the conclusion that he is promoting a destructive notion of 
rhetoric.  Nevertheless, there does exist a contradiction in 
that McCloskey continues to maintain that neoclassical 
economics is the "right" way to pursue economics, but I 
don't believe that this translates to a desire on her part to 
shut economics off from the perspectives of 
non-economists.  Inclusivity is a main theme of her work on 
rhetoric.  I think you're correct, though, that in the wrong 
hands, rhetoric can be reduced to mere polemics.  
 
In my own work, I look exactly at how narrative and 
rhetoric excludes certain schools of thought from 
mainstream discussion. This analysis could easily extend to 
non-economists.  But I certainly don't think that this analysis 
begins and ends with McCloskey and I can't say I know 
anybody who thinks it does.  I think we are all aware that 
there have been folks writing on this stuff for generations 
and not under the illusion that these are new ideas. 
 
I would also like to address the assertion that "what 
SHOULD have happened was an opening from the 
economics profession into the literature of other 
professions...within my own discipline of economic history 
that SHOULD have meant a reawakening to the value of 
historiography."  Why should this have happened when the 
history profession doesn't widely agree on the beneift of the 
study of  historiography (and I define historiography not 
simply as the writing of history, but the critique and analysis 
of the writing of history)?   
 
By the way, when did the Greeks enter into this discussion? 
 
Jonathon E. Mote 
1822 Chestnut #3F 
Philadelphia, PA  19103 
[log in to unmask]