----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
Chas Anderson wrote: 
 
<<I think the frustration that some are experiencing with the method of 
style in which economics is taught has really more to do with the 
intransigence by which political correctness was greeted by the econ 
departments.  While the other social sciences ran with open arms to 
unquestionably embrace every and all new demands made, economics resisted. 
And, because economics is really a much older and more sophisticated subject 
than many outside the field realize, it will continue to frustrate those 
with the "new" agenda.>> 
 
Dear Chas, 
 
Gee, just when the discussion was getting really interesting, you bring out the No
Trespassing, Keep Out, Certified Serious Economists at Work Sign. Bummer.
 
Yet, let's have a closer look at your version of a rather old sign. Isn't it a tad
hyperbolic to say, vis-a-vis "political correctness" that other social sciences "ran with
open arms" to "unquestionably" "embrace" "every and all" "new demands"?  And to the extent
that what you write is relatively true, that economics resisted this putative dash, is
that necessarily because economics is older and more sophisticated than many outside the
field realize? (here I must note my queasiness with the prophylactic formulation of your
position). I would think that the Gramscian position, that the hegemonic role of
intellectuals in our social order is largely to defend our socioeconomic system and to
train functionaries to fill its needed positions, might give a more plausible answer. A
Gramscian corollary would suggest that the closer the academic field is to studying the
heart of the system (private property, profit motive, etc.), the tighter will be the reins
on the participants; hence teachers of business students or economists might have a
tighter leash than say, English professors. And in Economics, some sub-disciplines might
be more closely guarded than others. For example, the limits of legitimate discourse might
be more tight in e.g. international finance (where now even a nice Keynesian such as Joe
Stiglitz can't seem to keep a job at the so-called World Bank) than in the relatively
estoeric and benign field of the history of economic thought.
 
Your claim is that since economics is so much older and more sophisticated than many
outside the field of economics realize, economics will continue to frustrate those with
the "new" agenda. Well, what exactly do you think this "new" agenda is? I suspect that if
you set it down, many aspects of this so-called new agenda will be as old as, say, the
work of Aristotle and Plato (e.g. the role of women in society, concern with the negative
effects of private property, money, the profit motive; the need for strict zoning
regulations for health reasons, etc.). This might then raise the question:  which is
really older and more sophisticated - economic theory or other social theories? Or, is the
larger problem that economics is so much older and more sophisticated than many outside
the field of economics realize; or, perhaps it is that "non-economic" theories are so much
more older and more sophisticated than economists realize? It may be that in this day and
age, economics is much too important a subject to be left to the economists.
 
Spencer Pack 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]