Dears,

One more thought. Note the analogy with "theory" (as they call it) in
political science. "Theory" means "political philosophy approached
historically through the reading of classic texts,
Plato-Aristotle-Machiavelli-Hobbes-Locke, et alii." In sociology
departments, too, the kids read Marx-Weber-Durkheim-et alii (they should
be reading Smith, too, of course, especially TMS!). That is, in most
departments of political science and sociology worldwide the equivalent
of History of Thought is standard and compulsory fare in graduate and
undergraduate curricula.

True, some "behaviorist" departments (these terms of praise and abuse
all tend to be local: we economist would call such departments
"theoretical" [= Max U models gone mad, using Mathematics-Department
math as against Physics-Department math] or "econometric" [= gross
misuse of statistical "significance"]) have downgraded historical
studies of their own discipline, as I believe departments of psychology
always have. In political science recently the grip that "behaviorists"
have on the main journals (especially the American Political Science
Review = AER) has been challenged by the so-called "Peristroika
Movement" (recall that "preistroika" means in Russian "openness"). I was
told past week by a well-known "theorist" in political science that the
Peristroikists have the problem of all open societies: they refuse to
conspire and to use compulsion to protect their interests, as the
enemies of open societies---such as mathematical and statistical
economists in our own field---are very willing to do.

Time to conspire in the interest of an open economics? I draw the line
at compulsion.

Regards,


Deirdre McCloskey