Schliesser wrote:  
"Let me note, first, that most of Roy's comments are appeals to authority. These should
have a more limited place in a reasonable discussion then he appears fond of."
  
In American English, we have the phrase "tin ear" to describe in pejorative terms an
individual who "mishears" as in "appears insensitive to nuance". The reference to Porter's
views were, to historians on this list, a reference to a subject that has appeared here
many times, and indeed was involved in the very first HES-List Editorial. Porter wrote
those words of course in the important response to Margaret Schabas's paper "Breaking
Away" in HOPE, which symposium has helped shape debates on this list a number of times.
Not then "authority", but an HES community shared reference.
  
  
"Even though I am very familiar with the intellectual pedigree of Porter's writings, it
seems to me baffling that Porter (or Roy) would think that the notion of a precursor could
not find a home in the study of the intellectual efforts of various societies."
  
The issue is not as trivial as Dr. Schliesser suggests (e.g. see my "Is 'Is a Precursor
of' a Transitive Relation?" in the South Atlantic Quarterly, reprinted as well in several
places). While what constitutes historical studies in economics may be seen, from a
philosophy department's perspective, to be a matter of taste, matters for us historians
are more pressing. In departments of economics, historians of economics are disappearing.
There are precisely three places in North America where there are actual resources in
place to sustain the subdiscipline beyond the usual faculty person. The New School
sometimes appears to be one. George Mason has soft money for this purpose, and Duke has a
variety of commitments in place. That is all there is.  Whether any of these sites will
remain viable ten years from now is uncertain. Having just been at a roundtable in Milan
last week on "The Future of the History of Economics: Lessons from the Italian
Experience", I submit that matters are not so dire here (I write from Rome), but are still
problematic. For instance, the recent elimination of all journals in the history of
economics from the international citation indices will certainly damage our subdiscipline
in the Netherlands, England, and Italy.
  
Dr. Schliesser suggests that intellectual history in the manner of Koyre or Berlin is
important. Probably no one on this list would disagree, but the marginalization of
intellectual history in North American departments of history would appear to suggest
otherwise institutionally =96 historians themselves are providing little support for that
kind of work.
  
When individuals in the history of economics, in economics departments, are evaluated by
their colleagues, the general presumption is that "they aren't really economists" and what
they do is something any undergraduate with a word processor could do. The Notre Dame
conflagration cannot but give us all pause.  These days when some of us are called on to
provide external evaluations of candidates in our field, the request letters require us to
address issues of standards of quality in "our" field (which often means defending against
a presumption that we have none) and how the field is connected, if at all, to larger
intellectual concerns of both the department and the institution. A letter stating that "I
enjoy reading his/her stuff" is singularly unhelpful to candidates under review.
  
  
"Moreover, why should economics belong to the history of science and not, say, the history
of political thought or philosophy?"
  
If this argument is to be persuasive, then the alternative to the history of economics
finding an institutional home in departments of history is for it to find a home in
political science or philosophy. The former though requires connection to the older and
less dynamic tradition in that field, namely political theory. And economists there will
be substituted against in hiring and resource decisions: the split between the two kinds
of political science is still causing institutional trouble. The philosophy option puts
those with an interest in history among philosophers, individuals who are quite generally
contemptuous of claims that economics is "scientific". The consequence is likely to be
that mainstream economists will dismiss such philosophical-historians of economics as
"heterodox critics", and shun them accordingly.  Does anyone believe that access to
archival materials that mainstream economists might deposit for future historians will be
unaffected by mainstream economists' beliefs that historians of economics are idiots?
  
  
"This diversity enriches us all. Come on, Roy, relax and enjoy it, too."   
  
The ironic foil-thrust of Professor Shah, to the "Sambo" list remark, is a model response.
I am less accepting of such stuff, for were I or my colleagues to utter Schliesser's
sentence in a coeducational class, we would face harassment accusations. Or was this
another "tin ear" contribution to the thread?
  
  
E. Roy Weintraub