===================== HES POSTING ==================== 
 
There seems to be a consensus that there is no generally acceptable 
definition of Neoclassical Economics.  Still, I know some economists who 
consider themselves to be deep in Neoclassical Economics. They, of course, 
are not interested in defining it.  Who wants to be tied down?  Who wants 
to set up a target for crafty opponents of the cause?  I have heard them 
argue that its best to get undergraduates to DO economics, rather than to 
have them intellectualize about it by trying to define it. The dominant 
Neoclassical paradigm is very much alive.  Those inside are not interested 
in defining it.  They dont need a definition.  Those outside have an 
interest in showing that there is no such thing.  That its a fictive 
element of the establishment's imaginative propaganda.  That Neoclassical 
Economics is some thing existing in the information environment, it seems 
to me, is beyond question.  It is also beyond question that it is in the 
interest of many not to define it 
 
..What we need here is not an economist historian, but an historian of 
Economics, someone skilled in the sociology of knowledge,in the social 
construction of knowledge. To explain why, to make sense of the fact 
that, no one wants to say that Neoclassical Economics has a definition. 
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]