----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
Fred, 
 
If you interpreted me that way,  I think you misinterpreted us. (I suspect the same is
true for Roy)  I see the mainstream as very eclectic about ideas, and becoming more so
every day. In my latest writing I've been arguing that it is changing from an adherence to
the holy trinity of rationality, greed, and equilibrium to an adherence to a broader
trinity of purposeful behavior, enlightened self interest, and sustainability.   They are
open to new ideas.
 
However in terms of method, the mainstream has definite ideas about what constitutes good
method,  and the type of broad literary discussion that many of us historians of thought
take is not an approach that the mainstream
takes. It's foreign to them, and is not what they teach or are looking for students to do.
Theirs is a very applied mathematical approach--it is quantitative and not philosophical
except  where the philosophical questions
it addresses integrates with particular quantitative or mathematical approaches. (i.e.
Sen's work) So I would disagree with much of your characterization.
 
Where Roy and I probably disagree (Roy will probably disagree with me--he usually does) is
that he believes that the best history of economic thought is done using a similar
methodology to that used  in graduate economics--and
if I interpret him correctly, the good history of thought is done in formal history of
science programs, or if it is done in economics programs should be done with the same
methodology that it is done in history of science
programs.  
 
I'm happy with that work, and learn much from it,  but in my view, it really pulls
researchers too much away from economics, and for the most part would eliminate them from
being economists. Put another way, he favors thick histories. I'm happy with thick
histories, but I think that there is also a role for thin histories, where economists
reflect a bit more on what they are doing rather than getting caught up in the thick of
things. Our contrasting work reflects our contrasting beliefs. (I suspect Roy would agree
with that, but sometimes I wonder.) But we both agree that dumping on the mainstream as
religious anti-intellectualism is wrong and serves little purpose.
 
We also both agree that  top graduate programs in economics, and those aspiring towards
the top (which is where I classify Duke), don't see themselves as teaching people to do
thin or thick histories of the field. But the fact that they don't has nothing to do with
ideology; it has to do with method, and what the focus of training is.
 
Dave Colander 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]