Steve, your post certainly shows that you have a firm grasp of the 
central issue that Roy raised, at least for me. However, is not the real 
phantom the "embedded cohort of scholars" who are responsible for the 
"body of scholarship."

I initially thought of posting a brief comment about whether these 
phrases have any useful meaning, aside from what "a proportion of 
economists independently find themselves drawn to?" But then it occurred 
to me that your presumed "magnet," which attracts these people, does not 
have the capacity to discriminate between economists and non-economists.

One useful thing that one can say about your "embedded cohort of 
scholars" is that practically every member occupies a position in an 
institution that provides her with incentives to blow her own 
idiosyncratic horn, regardless of what economics means. If one sets 
these incentives and the products that result from them aside -- which 
one must do if one aims to identify some direction for incoming students 
-- shouldn't the central issue be that of producing the "proper magnet?"

The embedded claim of my earlier post is that one cannot expect the 
"embedded cohort" to produce such a magnet. But perhaps a free thinking, 
free-wheeling newcomer to the history of economic thought may produce 
one. Or, more to the point, my claim is that no consensus direction can 
be given to a student until there is a consensus on the definition of 
economics. Since our cohort cannot be expected to produce this 
consensus, our best hope is that our next student will be the genius who 
does produce the definition, the direction and the consensus. With this 
hope in mind, I would want to give that student the widest latitude and 
the most encouragement. Is there a template for this?

On 12/6/2010 8:14 PM, Steve Kates wrote:
> I would like to take up a theme discussed by John Brown in a thread
> commenced by an early posting from Roy Weintraub. John Brown wrote:
>
> “History of Economic Thought has its feet in two distinct
> disciplines, intellectual history and economics. You certainly cannot
> write intelligently about the history of thought without a deep
> understanding of the discipline of economics.”
>
> On this I could not agree more. I have just written a paper on this
> very issue, “Historians and the History of Economic Thought”, which
> is about to be published in the next issue of History of Economics
> Review. The paper looked at the economics embedded within three
> biographies of Keynes that had been written by historians to identify
> whether useful additional insight and analytical technique are brought
> to the study of economics itself when historians undertake studies in
> HET.
>
> In this paper I have come to the conclusion that historians of
> economics, when looking at the actual development of theory, have little
> that can be taken from professional historians. HET is almost entirely a
> specialist area of economics. You cannot write intelligently about the
> history of economic thought without a deep understanding of the
> discipline of economics.
>
> The question raised by Roy Weintraub, if I understand him correctly, is
> quite interesting. Where is the model, the template for studies in HET?
> As he wrote, “there appears not to be any published discussion about
> the craft of writing the history of economics that one could give to an
> apprentice student”. He therefore asks "are there any ways of leading
> students into our craft practices that are other than personal and
> idiosyncratic"? And I apologise in advance if the words "model" and
> "template" are too solid for what he had in mind.
>
> But in addressing his question, let me suggest that there are two
> different dynamics in HET that need to be kept quite separate. There is,
> firstly, teaching students of economics some of the history of their
> subject. This should be a component in the education of every economist
> for a variety of reasons that I need not get into in this brief note.
> For myself, I doubt there is much “craft” involved in such student
> essays. We just want our students to know who have been the most
> influential economists of the past and what their contributions have
> been.
>
> But then there is research into the history of economic thought that is
> undertaken by scholars such as ourselves. As far as this part of
> scholarship is concerned, I would argue that history of economics is
> something that a proportion of economists independently find themselves
> drawn to and that it is the questions that they raise themselves that
> constitute the history of economic thought. We are the embedded cohort
> of scholars within the body of economic theory with our not necessarily
> intended contribution being not only to ensure that economic discussions
> amongst economists maintain an historical perspective but also to do
> what we can to make sure that such discussions are as accurate and as
> comprehensive as possible. Few economists are grateful that we take on
> this role and just as few seem to appreciate how important it is to the
> development of economic theory that such scholarship exists. I am not
> all that sure that historians of economics appreciate their own central
> role in the development of economic theory and policy.
>
> How does this scholarly side of the history of economics get done? My
> answer is this. Each of us finds something that interests us and then we
> write about it. This historical knowledge of the theories and theorists
> of the past is then built into the conversations that economists have
> with each other and in this way even as we discuss modern economic
> theory we find that when some aspect of theory is discussed, monetary
> theory, for example, the views of Wicksell or Fisher or others far more
> obscure are woven into the debates.
>
> Is there a template for any of this that can be taught? There may be
> although it wouldn’t bother me if there isn’t. I think I would even
> prefer that there isn’t since there seems no real point in having a
> pro forma structure however loose it might be. But unless we separate
> the teaching of HET to economics students from the body of scholarship
> on HET we may be hunting for a phantom framework that does not exist.
>
>
> Dr Steven Kates
> School of Economics, Finance
>      and Marketing
> RMIT University
> Level 12 / 239 Bourke Street
> Melbourne Vic 3000
>
> Phone: (03) 9925 5878
> Mobile: 042 7297 529
>
>

-- 
Pat Gunning
Professor of Economics
Melbourne, Florida
http://www.nomadpress.com/gunning/welcome.htm