SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
[log in to unmask] (Daniel W. Bromley)
Date:
Fri Mar 31 17:18:57 2006
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (19 lines)
----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
Dear Mohammad, 
 
For political scientists--of all people--to be so sloppy with their "own" word
(imperialism) is both interesting and surprising. One would think that political
scientists would be the first to understand that imperialism is about imposition, external
projection of authority, hegemony, alien authority, etc.  Hirschman's sole sin is to
suggest concepts and metaphors that other disciplines--perhaps conceptually impoverished--
suddenly find to be illuminating and suggestive.  Some economists have indeed been
conceptually imperialistic, but Hirschman?
 
Perhaps they mean that Hirschman happened to write an insightful book DURING AN ERA
("phase") in which many economists were behaving imperialistically?
 
Dan Bromley 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask] 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2