----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
In response to Tony Brewer: 
 
I wonder if it is possible to distinguish between two different approaches to reading
history of thought: (1) a journalistic approach of reproducing what the author said,
versus (2) an analytical review of what the author meant or ought to have meant. I seem
unable to follow the first approach, and impelled to follow the second. But I know some
historians may do just the opposite.
 
In the journalistic approach, the historian attempts to reproduce what the author said,
with concrete details.  The mass of concrete quotes presents an authentic view.
 
My problem with this approach is that since an author says a great deal, especially if one
writes several books, one may get a sense of being in the woods with too much detail of
trees, but no sharp outline of the forest. One may have difficulty grasping what an author
might have meant.
 
For example, it would be difficult to ascribe to the same person three drastically
distinct motives (more wealth in economics, greater admiration in anthropology, self-
sacrificing behavior in political science) and then relate each of this to the economic
issue. It would have too much detail but not enough analysis. There is the further problem
that many statements may seem to contradict others, just as individual trees may differ in
size, shape, age etc.
 
The other approach is a review, a critical distillation of what the author meant in its
abstract and essential elements, while contradictions, digressions, exceptions,and
embellishments are thrown away.
 
For example, without an innate selfishness, the market mechanism would make little sense. 
 
The reviewer's task is to see for himself what Smith wanted to show, and select only those
that show the outlines of the forest, namely, to reconstruct meaning analytically. This is
admittedly not authentic, and it leaves out a great amount of detail. And yet it is what
captures the essential message.
 
If I were to follow the journalistic approach, I would not even wonder if Marx and Smith
differed greatly. They could not possibly differ greatly in presenting concrete details.
But yet they could differ greatly in the essential elements, namely, what they saw as the
driving force behind the market mechanism.
 
For example, it was essential in Smithian  economics that self-interest of individuals
were reconciled by the invisible hand, and that one did not harm the other, but indeed the
market generated unintended benefits for the others. But Marx did not see a reconciliation
of (conflicting) interests, and instead did perceive the occurrence of harm to some (=the
proletarian) by some others (=the capitalists).
 
I cannot imagine if it is possible for the same historian to pursue both approaches. But a
student should read both, if available.
 
I even wonder if the journalistic approach has much demand, on the presumption that the
student could simply read the original.
 
M Gani 
 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]