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] (Mohammad Gani)
Date:
Fri Mar 31 17:18:46 2006
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (46 lines)
 
   I must have missed the fun. Why do we care about schools? 
 
 
   It seems that one could study an author, an idea, an era or an area, of 
   which the first and last would bring distractions while the second and the 
   third  would bring attraction. An analogy of a theater may help see my 
   objection.   The  middle  ones would be interested in the drama itself 
   involving the story and its message, while the few viewers will miss the 
   story and note the actors (the author) and try to get irrelevant personal 
   data such as where the actress slept (area). Looking for a master of a 
   school sounds like looking for the ring master of a circus, and missing the 
   magic of the performance itself. 
 
 
   If we were to get some scholarly output from a historian, I would expect him 
   to disregard arbitrary clannish identities, so that even Marx would not seem 
   to be sufficiently Marxian or Keynes would not be a proper Keynesian. The 
   fruitful attraction I am looking for is the study of how an idea evolved and 
   how it was shaped by the events of the era during which it emerged, trying 
   to link ideas to experiences, disregarding the individual whose pen wrote it 
   down and absolutely not giving any relevance to where the author made home. 
   Does the Austrian School have anything to do with Austria; or is American 
   institutionalism in any way American?  The most influential authors of 
   course become attached to their ideas not so much as a school identity but 
   as shorthand for an idea whose abstract name may be unwieldy. Thus it may be 
   simpler to talk of Malthusian population theory than invent a long name for 
   the same theory. 
 
 
   Unless we are clamoring for economic history as another version of the 
   Peoples magazine, we would be more interested in the economics, namely the 
   ideas. If we cared to study the ideas, we would hope to learn something, and 
   find useful insights that could show us ways to advance the science. Or else 
   we could simply be like the paparazzi taking photographs of the famous 
   People, and who they mixed with, all the time missing the thing which made 
   them famous: the stories they told. 
 
 
   Hence I am not applying to join any school or even recognize one. 
 
 
   Mohammad Gani 
 
 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2