I should perhaps explain my amazement. The first question to this
thread, I recall, concerned the origin of the phrase "founding
father". People jumped into discuss the "founding" aspect but were
silent on the other aspect of the term, namely the gendered metaphor.
That is what surprised me.
In the context of the USA, for precisely the reasons Weintraub gives,
it makes sense to talk of the country having been founded by those who
signed the constitution. I would presume, though it is not my field,
that American historians have paid attention the significance of the
term "founding fathers". In economics, on the other hand, such
language is much more problematic.
I accept that Smith and many of those who wrote about his work in the
nineteenth century and part of the twentieth, were writing in an age
when people were not sensitive to the gendered nature of such
language. Nowadays, however, we do not have any excuse. With students
who use the term "founding fathers", I simply invite them to reflect
on their use of language. In the same way, I would expect most
contributors to this list to wish to reflect on all aspects of the
term "founding father" and was amazed that no one appeared to be doing
so.
Roger Backhouse
On 5 April 2011 11:52, Alexander Guerrero <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I am not American, for instance; the phrase "founding fathers" appears to
> have more or less the same sense in any other latitudes as for the
> Americans. And it gives me some idea of the relevance, in this case A.Smith
> as "founders" of economic science, I mean there could be many others . It
> seems that when someone is named "founder" his name stays in saecula
> saeculorum, relatively. Of course, across the times.
>
>
>
> AG
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Roger Backhouse
> 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
>
>
>
> On 4 April 2011 02:22, Alexander Guerrero <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> One the most common mistakes in understanding A Smith’s role as
>
>> “founding father” of economics is failing to (read) understand The
>
>> Theory of Moral Sentiments, before reading The W of N.
>
>>
>
>> AG
>
>>
>
>> Economist, PhD.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>
>> Behalf Of luigino bruni
>
>> Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2011 2:46 PM
>
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>> Subject: Re: [SHOE] Adam Smith, the "Founding Father" of Modern Economics?
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> Smith's idea of invisible hand (mentioned more than once) is actually
>
>> very central in both his theory of market (wealth of nations) and in
>
>> his theory of human sentiments and social behaviour: the invisible
>
>> hand mechanism is one of the most powerful idea in modern social sciences.
>
>>
>
>> bye luigino
>
>>
>
>> 2011/4/1 michael perelman <[log in to unmask]>
>
>>
>
>> This is from my new book, The Invisible Handcuffs. I would like to
>
>> get some responses from listers.
>
>>
>
>> Initially, Smith's Wealth of Nations did not make much of an
>
>> impression, despite its popularity today. Although his earlier book,
>
>> the now less known Theory of Moral Sentiments, was a sensation, his
>
>> more famous work seemed as if it had missed its mark. Yet unlike most
>
>> ancient writers, whose importance recedes into the distant past,
>
>> Smith's influence rapidly grew.
>
>>
>
>> The book went through five editions, but each of the first two
>
>> editions sold only 500 copies a substantial number, but far from a
>
>> roaring success (Waterman 1998b). In Parliament, where the members
>
>> frequently quoted important political economists, Charles James Fox
>
>> made the first reference to Wealth of Nations on November 11, 1783,
>
>> six years after the book first appeared (Rashid 1992, p. 493). Still
>
>> another ten years passed before two of Smith's friends, Alexander
>
>> Wedderburn and William Petty's great grandson and former prime
>
>> minister, the Marquess of Lansdowne, mentioned the book in the House
>
>> of Lords (Rae 1895, p. 291).
>
>>
>
>> Even in 1789 when Thomas Robert Malthus signed out the 1784 edition of
>
>> Wealth of Nations from his college library, he was just the third
>
>> person to do so (Waterman 1998a, p. 295). Up to the year 1800, only a
>
>> few Cambridge colleges had acquired the book (Waterman 1998b). Emma
>
>> Rothschild notes with some irony that when Adam Smith died in 1790,
>
>> the influential Annual Register devoted but twelve lines to Smith
>
>> compared with sixty five for Major Ray, a deputy quartermaster general
>
>> with an interest in barometers. The Scots Magazine gave Smith a scant
>
>> nine lines (Rothschild 1992, p. 74).
>
>>
>
>> Only after the French Revolution of 1789 made British property owners
>
>> fearful, did The Wealth of Nations take on an air of importance.
>
>> Thereafter, the rich and powerful appreciated Smith's ideological
>
>> influence. For example, Francis Horner, editor of the Edinburgh
>
>> Review, rejected a request to prepare a set of notes for a new edition
>
>> of The Wealth of Nations. He explained his refusal in a letter to
>
>> Thomas Thomson, written on August 15, 1803:
>
>>
>
>> "I should be reluctant to expose S's errors before his work had
>
>> operated its full effect. We owe much at present to the superstitious
>
>> worship of S's name; and we must not impair that feeling, till the
>
>> victory is more complete .... [U]ntil we can give a correct and
>
>> precise theory of the origin of wealth, his popular and plausible and
>
>> loose hypothesis is as good for the vulgar as any others." [cited in
>
>> Horner 1843; 1: 229]
>
>>
>
>> Thereafter, Smith's influence steadily increased, along with the rise
>
>> of Procrustean market ideology. In fact, as one current Smith scholars
>
>> observed, "There were more new editions of The Wealth of Nations
>
>> published in the 1990s than in the 1890s, and more in the 1890s than
>
>> in the 1790s" (Young 2007).
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> --
>
>> Michael Perelman
>
>> Economics Department
>
>> California State University
>
>> Chico, CA
>
>> 95929
>
>>
>
>> 530 898 5321
>
>> fax 530 898 5901
>
>> http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com
>
>>
>
>>
|
