----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
Thanks, Ross, for your comment. And welcome back Barkley. I must confess my ignorance of
Butterfield's book. I now realize, however, that it is well regarded. So I'll try to pick
up a copy. I certainly agree with you that we must get past the terminological issue
before we can discuss more substantive problems. I tried to take a step in this direction
with my taxonomy because it seemed to me that different contributors to the list were
using the terms differently.
 
I think that perhaps you misunderstood a part of my post but that I am to blame for this.
I meant to include contra-presentism in the definition of presentism. So I agree with you
on the defects in my ultimate presentation. A remaining question that you seem to
appreciate is that of where, in the taxonomy, presentism shades into "whiggism," if you
will. More specifically, is there a difference between taking the (1) (mainstream)
presentist (contra-presentist) view of the subject X as a reference point and (2) some
other non-mainstream (contra-non-mainstream) view of X as a reference point for making
judgments about what does and does not constitute X? I assume that we agree that there is
a difference. Perhaps we also might agree that it would be helpful if an historian or
historiographer tried to classify himself at the beginning of his work.
 
Barkley clarified the issue with his example of an Austrian (contra-Austrian) whig
history, which presumably is different from a Marxist (contra-Marxist), institutionalist (
contra-institutionalist), or neo-Keynesian (contra-neoKeynesian) whig history. All of
these are different from a presentist (contra-presentist) history.  We may wish to use the
terms differently and say that all of these are whig histories. But if we do, we leave no
room for any other kind of history. Or at least that is how I interpret your comment that
there are no neutralists. In this event, why not drop the adjective "whig" altogether? Or
would one prefer to keep it as a means of slurring other work of which she disapproves?
 
A more fundamental question concerns the demarcation of X (e.g., economics). Should it be
demarcated narrowly with reference only to the mainstream or should it be demarcated more
broadly by taking account of views of X that were once part of the mainstream view of X
but which are not now part of it? (And don't forget that we are including contras in our
views.) A broad demarcation would presumably also include views of X that were never part
of the mainstream view but which reasonable minds might, upon further consideration,
expect to be part of the future mainstream view of X.
 
There is always room for debate about whether a particular view (a) was part of the
mainstream view of X in the past, (b) is part of it now, or (c) may become part of it in
the future. To me, this seems relevant to another thread on the list. Witness the autistic
and post-autistic economics movement. Are not many of the people in this movement simply
trying to hijack the term "economics?" If HESers do not defend their turf by defining X,
one should not be surprised to find that at some future time, not only will they be
complaining about the lack of history of economic thought in the economics curriculum but
about the lack of economics itself.
 
By the way, regarding Frederic and Bruce's points, I teach in the American system with an
extremely diverse set of students and, at the moment, many transfers. The infant
university here is striving to be like the mid-range universities he is describing and may
succeed. Last semester, we wisely pushed a first-year "high school graduate" from the
British system who wanted to major in economics into intermediate micro, where she
outperformed almost all of the students who had already taken the principles sequence.
Another of my students from "the British system" also outperformed others in a different
class. From my limited experience, students trained in the British system (though perhaps
not in the mother country!) seem better prepared for university than students trained in
U.S.-type high schools -- at least in economics. One might ask why, and under what
conditions, this is so.
 
-- 
Pat Gunning 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]