I would like to suggest that 'founding father' captures the gendered reality of the times. Since women were locked out of the public sphere and all manner of intellectual and scientific endeavors, it had to be a father figure.

But feminist economists have criticized not just the implication of such a 'masculine' development of the discipline, but have attributed the continuing gendered nature of economics to its origins. Michele Pujol in her Feminism and Anti-feminism in Early Economic Thought, uses Smith's designated status to great ironic advantage. She writes:

"Smith was the founder of the classical school and the 'father' of modern economics...His writings gave an indication of the initial treatment women received from the pen of an economist who set out to develop a theory of the workings of the nascent capitalist system. They thus offer an invaluable perspectives on the origin of the contemporary economic approaches to women and of the failure of Smith's 'sons' to analyze the characteristics and role of the sexual division of labor (productive and reproductive) to the capitalist system (p. 15).

Sumitra Shah
________________________________________
From: Societies for the History of Economics [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Roger Backhouse [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 6:05 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Adam Smith, the "Founding Father" of Modern Economics?

What amazes me about this discussion is that there has been no comment
on whether it is appropriate to use such gendered language. Am I the
only teacher who, when students use the phrase "founding father", asks
them to reflect both on whether economics really had a founder and on
the implication that such a founder must have been male. If a student
proceeded to offer a feminist critique of Smith's economics,
presumably such language would be entirely justified, but in my
experience that never happens.

I realise that for Americans the phrase "founding father" has
particular resonance, but I am not convinced that this justifies using
it without reflection on its implications.

Roger Backhouse