SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
[log in to unmask] (Colander, David)
Date:
Fri Mar 31 17:19:16 2006
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (35 lines)
----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
I was introduced to thick and thin by Roy's comment that he mentioned in his post. I
immediately reacted against the use of the term because it seemed to be pejorative, which
I think is how it was used by Geertz. In response I decided to push the term thin history
as something positive, in the same way that gays choose the term queer that was used by
others  with a negative connotation, to have a positive connotation.
 
My point was that "thin" as used by Roy, and I expect by Geertz,  assumed that a "thinly
described set of facts" existed and was unique--in that case thick is obviously better.  I
felt that facts do not exist, but are themselves interpreted, and  a "thinly described set
of facts" is really just a story or a framework, that we use. (I.e.--the proposition that
"we now do neoclassical economics" provides a thin framework for thinking about economics
--one that I do not think is correct.) I felt that a framework provides necessary context
for a thick history.  I argued that historians have such a framework and that thick
histories done without stating that framework either implicitly assumed that the reader
shared the thick historian's framework, or left the thick history without context for the
reader to get from it. In my way of seeing the world, both thin and thick histories were
needed.
 
So I am the one who is using the term differently, and I may be the only one who uses it
that way, but I did so because I felt that "thin" histories needed a defense.  As I stated
in my last comment, I think thin and thick histories complement each other. Good thin
histories are built upon thick histories, and thick histories can either support or tear
down the current thin history that exists.
 
My twist on the use of the terms by Roy and Geertz was to argue that there can be multiple
interpretations of the same '"thinly described" set of facts' and that discussions of thin
frameworks--which is what I consider thin histories to be--are absolutely necessary.
 
Dave Colander 
 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask] 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2