It is my turn to apologize, in part. When I read the first part of
Steve's message, I must say that I saw red and did not bother to check
the rest of the message closely for relevance. In fact, Steve did
address at least two of the three points in my post. One of the issues
he raises is well taken and I stand corrected. The other seems
nonsensical. If he had quoted the specific paragraphs on which he was
commenting, I would have seen this immediately. However, he chose to
begin his post with demeaning statements about the entire post.
My post made three points. Steve takes up these points without referring
to the specific passages. He does so in reverse order, beginning with
point 3.
I wrote:
"3. The title of the conference is misleading. Its main theme from
paragraph three is "to investigate the strategies adopted by economists
to intervene in the 'public sphere'". This purpose is consistent with
the goal of the liberal-activist-George Soros-funded "Institute for New
Economic Thinking (INET)" of "finding solutions for the challenges of
the 21st century by returning economics 'to its core mission of guiding
and protecting society.'" INET has recently contributed to CHOPE, as you
might recall. In light of the conference theme, as opposed to its title,
it seems to me gratuitous to mention the names F.A. Hayek and Milton
Friedman. The true intent of the producers of the conference is probably
revealed better by the inclusion of the names Walter Lippman and Noam
Chomsky. Since when were these people regarded as economists?"
The title of the conference, as you will recall, is: "The Economist as
Public Intellectual."
Steve implies that I misread the announcement because he and his
co-author meant "the term "interventions"...to refer to the economist
intervening in public discourse." In other words, I interpreted "public
sphere" to mean market interaction, or the market economy. The
co-authors meant it to refer to public discourse. To further explain,
whereas I interpreted the statement to mean that the aim of the
conference was to study the strategies of economists who advocate
INTERVENING in the market economy, the conference's real aim is to study
the strategies of economists to INFLUENCE public discourse. Steve's
criticism does not try to explain the inclusion of Lippman and Chomsky
in the list of authors who might be studied.
I am inclined to agree, upon closer examination of the announcement,
that my interpretation of the aim of the conference is incorrect. I can
assure him and the readers that this misinterpretation was unintentional
and that any of what he regards as "allusions to ideological agendas,
etc.," were based on this misinterpretation.
Steve also comments on at least one of my other points. These comments
raise an important issue regarding the definition of economics, or
political economy.
I wrote:
1. A conference on shaping and transforming the public's imagination and
identity seems more appropriate for the field of social psychology than
for political economy. But, then again, the producers of the conference
may themselves be trying to "shape" and "transform" the meaning of
political economy.
2. Such a conference is consistent with the premise that the history of
political economy is about the history of people called "economists" or
"political economists" rather than about the history of economic ideas
or thought.
Steve's reply to this is in his last paragraph. He concludes that "our
field are incredibly broad, and this conference is a first step to
promoting research in what to this point has been a neglected area of
the work of the economist." This, I surmise, is a perfect example of his
trying to shape and transform the meaning of political economy. There
are traditional meanings of economics. They can be found in the
dictionaries of economics. These meanings are not "incredibly broad."
Steve's definition is based on his reference to someone who wrote or
said that economics is "what economists do." It is no wonder, in light
of this, that he regards the field of economics as broad. But I maintain
that this definition is complete nonsense. Consider: "Fishing is what
fishermen do." "Blogging is what bloggers do." "Texting is what texters
do." Do these statements mean anything? Are they anything more than
words defined in terms of other words?
The same nonsense is expressed, I would maintain, in Steve's claim that
"the study of the history of economics involves studying what it is that
economists do—or have done." If someone says to me that she is committed
to study the history of economics by this definition, I have no idea
whether reading her studies is likely to inform me about political
economy, economics, fishing, blogging, or texting. As I see it, the aim
of the conference in question pushes the nonsensical idea of "economics
is what economists do" to its logically absurd conclusion.
For what it is worth, Roger Backhouse, Roger Middleton, and Keith Tribe
write the following:
"The phrase ‘economics is what economists do’ has long been attributed
to Jacob Viner (for example, Spiegel 1987, p. 814), but we have been
unable to establish its textual origin. We have identified an early
(?first) use of it in print as the opening sentence of Boulding (1941,
p. 3), who after his PPE degree and a year’s postgraduate study in
Oxford had spent 1932–3 on a Commonwealth Fellowship at Chicago with
Viner as his adviser. In the British context, we might further observe
that Viner’s functionalist definition mirrors the realpolitik implicit
in one of Herbert Morrison’s maxims, ‘Socialism is what the Labour
Government does’ (cited in Jenkins 1970, p. 101)."
"functionalist definition?" Do they mean "definition of convenience" or
"non-definition?"
http://eis.bris.ac.uk/~hirm/Downloadpapers/Backhouse,%20Middleton%20and%20Tribe%20(1997)%20Economics%20is%20what%20economists%20do%20con%20ver.pdf
On 1/28/2011 5:18 PM, Medema, Steven wrote:
> I would normally let pass without reaction comments as outrageous as
> those made by Professor Gunning in his latest post to this list. But
> as he raises issues about motives, shades his comments with allusions
> to ideological agendas, etc., I feel compelled to respond.
>
> Economists play several roles. They are teachers of students, they do
> research, they give policy advice, and they communicate with the
> general public. These communications with the general public take a
> wide range of forms: books (Hayek's Road to Serfdom, Galbraith's
> various books, Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom, Levitt and Dubner's
> Freakonomics), articles in popular media (Friedman, Samuelson, and
> Becker in magazines; Krugman, Frank, etc. in the newspapers), blogs,
> and on and on. These references are all quite contemporary, but there
> is a long tradition of economists interacting with the public, or,
> differently put, functioning as public intellectuals. Much of this
> work has dealt with the economy, but much of it has not. Some
> economists have seen fit to speak with the larger public on matters
> that go far beyond matters traditionally considered economic.
>
> The purpose of HOPE 2012 is to examine this branch of the work of
> economists. Here, the term "interventions" is used to refer to the
> economist intervening in public discourse. It is not a pejorative
> term, and it has no ideological overtones or undertones. The point is
> to understand the various way in which economists of all stripes have
> attempted to influence public debate, perceptions of the economy and
> of economic policy, and so on, through their communications with the
> general public. Does this work by economists often have an ideological
> or political element? Certainly. Indeed, this is part of what makes
> the study of this facet of the history of economics incredibly
> interesting.
>
> The great Jacob Viner often said that "economics is what economists
> do." They do many things, and the study of the history of economics
> involves studying what it is that economists do—or have done, whether
> that be theorizing and the economic ideas that come from this,
> developing new empirical techniques and how this impacts economic
> analysis, giving advice on the policy front, or communicating with the
> general public. Whether one wants to call what we do the history of
> economics, the history of economic thought, the history of political
> economy, or whatever, the boundaries of our field are incredibly
> broad, and this conference is a first step to promoting research in
> what to this point has been a neglected area of the work of the economist.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Steve Medema
> University of Colorado Denver
--
Pat Gunning
Professor of Economics
Melbourne, Florida
http://www.nomadpress.com/gunning/welcome.htm
|
