Sam: Well, Forstater and I may understand each other, but we may  
disagree on whether it really matters to economic theory that "people in U.S. and European
cultures tend to mentally associate certain characteristics
with masculinity or femininity."  
  
  
Forstater: Well, we "may disagree," but Sam doesn't know whether we do  
or not since I never said what my own view was and was not promoting any  
particular ideas, I was simply pointing out that to say that, to  
paraphrase, "no respectable journal would ever publish an article that  
associates rationality with masculinity" is empirically false, and then  
following that, to attempt to clarify that discussing that association  
does not necessarily mean that one agrees with it.  There are plenty of  
phenomena that are analyzed that one may not agree with, say racism or  
sexism, and there are also lots of things that are published in  
"respectable" journals that one may not agree with (choose your own  
example).  But sticking one's head in the sand does not make them go  
away.  In scholarly discourse, there are plenty of outlets for those who  
disagree to respond, write their own articles, etc. (or discuss them on  
an e-mail list).  
  
<snip>  
  
Sam: Walter Williams once told me that early in his teaching career his  
department chairman asked him to teach a course on "Black Economics."  
Walter replied that he was uncertain what "Black Economics" might be.  
For  
example, he asked, would demand curves in "Black Economics" be kinkier  
than  
those in "White Economics?"  Needless to say, someone other than Walter  
taught the course.  
  
  
Mat: The fact of the matter is (again, this is an empirical statement,  
not a "point of view"), that there is a journal called the Review of  
Black Political Economy (in publication for over 25 years), there are  
textbooks in Black Political Economy, there are professional  
associations of Black economists (e.g., the National Economic  
Association), there are courses on "Black Economics," Departments of  
Black Studies, undergraduate majors and minors in Black Studies, M.A.  
and Ph.D. degree programs in Black Studies, and Black Studies (and Black  
Political Economy) have their own methodologies (plural), and so on. To  
me, this indicates these fields of inquiry exist.  
  
One may not understand what "Black Economics" is; one may have a sense  
that they understand what it is and not agree with it; but to deny its  
existence is puzzling (to me). The same could be said for Women's  
Studies or Gender Studies.  One would think that those in the academy  
would have some understanding that academic disciplines or fields of  
inquiry all had some beginning, that many at one time were not  
considered "legitimate" disciplines, etc., and that one who is not  
educated about a field or sub-field would do a little bit of research to  
find out about something with which they are not familiar.  Of course,  
to admit that one is not qualified and/or interested in teaching a  
course is fine, but it does not mean that the topic does not or should  
not exist.  
  
Since it is MLK Day, just to try to make a brief point, two of the  
reasons for the rise of Black (African American or Africana) Studies  
(and sub-fields such as Black Psychology, Sociology, Economics, etc.),  
were that: (1) courses were being taught that presented themselves as  
*universal* and yet were actually *specific* (which is one definition of  
ideology in the pejorative sense), e.g., courses called "History" and  
"Philosophy" that were really "European History" and "European  
Philosophy"; this is what may be referred to as Eurocentrism; many Black  
Studies scholars would argue, not that such courses should not be  
taught, but that they should be clear about their content and  
perspective, and that other courses should be permitted that are from  
other equally valid perspectives; and (2) there were serious omissions  
of material and perspectives in many courses, in the U.S. particularly  
with regard to the lives of people of African descent.  
  
A similar account could be given with regard to Feminist or Women's  
Studies, that courses were taught from an androcentric perspective and  
that the lives and perspectives of women were marginalized.  
  
And before anyone claims that "no respectable journal would ever publish  
an article that claims there is a "Black Economics" or questions the  
universality of mainstream economic theory, see (in the AMERICAN  
ECONOMIC REVIEW[!]) the following article, the first sentence of which  
is "Economics is Economics and there is no 'Black Economics'!":  
  
The Di-unital Approach to "Black Economics"  
Vernon J. Dixon  
The American Economic Review, Vol. 60, No. 2, pp. 424-429.  
Stable URL:  
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=3D0002-
8282%28197005%2960%3A2%3C424%3ATD=AT%22E%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E 
  
  
Finally:  
  
Sam: Historians may find it interesting and useful in their work, and  
social agitators may use that assertion to bolster their own  
ill-conceived ventures into social engineering, but I don't see much  
reason for economic theorists per se to care about popular culture.  
  
Mat: I assume this is shooting from the hip and meant as a dig (to me or  
some anonymous persons) somehow, but *really*, culture (even 'popular'  
culture') is irrelevant to economics?  How about "identity," is that  
also of no matter? See, e.g.,:  
  
Economics and Identity  
George A. Akerlof; Rachel E. Kranton  
The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 115, No. 3. (Aug., 2000), pp.  
715-753.  
Stable URL:  
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=3D0033-
5533%28200008%29115%3A3%3C715%3AE=AI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4 
Abstract  
This paper considers how identity, a person's sense of self, affects  
economic outcomes. We incorporate the psychology and sociology of  
identity into an economic model of behavior. In the utility function we  
propose, identity is associated with different social categories and how  
people in these categories should behave. We then construct a simple  
game-theoretic model showing how identity can affect individual  
interactions. The paper adapts these models to gender discrimination in  
the workplace, the economics of poverty and social exclusion, and the  
household division of labor. In each case, the inclusion of identity  
substantively changes conclusions of previous economic analysis.  
  
P.S. Tony says he should have said that no one outside critics of  
economics, etc., etc., but that is a weak argument. The Nelson paper is  
in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, making it part of the  
mainstream, no?  Otherwise, by Tony's account, anything that expresses  
the point of view he claims doesn't exist or is invalid by definition  
doesn't count. There must be a name for this kind of argument, probably  
Latin, but I can't think of it right now.  
  
Happy MLK Day!!!  
  
Mathew Forstater