"lo.charles" <[log in to unmask]> a écrit :

> A number of remarks aroused by the postings on this thread:
>
> First, I can't see why do we have to care whether historians or  
> (historians of economics broadly defined) contribute to economic  
> theorizing.
  May be just in order to get or secure job for historians of economic  
thought in departments of economics? (:-) but you addressed this point  
later with a very optimistic view - on the one hand, and leaving open  
another point : have historians of economic thought no longer their  
places in deptartments of economics


To ask of historians to "contribute to useful additional
> insight and analytical technique" is simply unfair and meaningless  
> to me. What if an historian asked whether such or such economist  
> "contributed to useful additional insight (in history) and  
> historiographical method"?

Well, it is an interesting debate, and I suggest to thing about the so  
called historical school (you will find several contributions to these  
topics in Alcouffe - Diebolt German economic thought - Paris -  
Economica 2009 (the pertinent contributions are  not mine)

>
> Second, about intellectual history. If we are talking about "modern  
> intellectual history" in contrast with the program launched by  
> Lovejoy with the Journal of the History of Ideas after WWII, I find  
> some of the postings misleading at best. One has simply to look at  
> the issues of Modern Intellectual History published by the CUP to  
> see that they care a lot about the history of social sciences.  
> Moreover, in the case of English intellectual history, what about  
> the Sussex University group?? I would personnally list Keith Tribe,  
> Donald Winch, Knut Haakonsen and Richard Whatmore as major  
> contributors to the history of economics and social sciences.  
> moreover, what about the Cambridge people (Istvan Hont, Michael  
> Sonenscher, Emma Rothschild)?? One can make a good case that there  
> are, in England right now, more people doing history of Economics  
> and Social Sciences outside economic departments than inside and  
> that these people often defined themselves as intellectual  
> historians. More broadly put, about the relations between  
> English-speaking intellectual historians and oter disciplines  
> including history of sciences, I mention the interesting volume in  
> teh Palgrave Advances collection: Intellectual History, eds R;  
> Whatmore & Brian Young (Palgrave macmillan, 2006).
>
> Third, about indentity. When I am surrounded by a historians' crowd,  
> I often feel like A social scientist or economist or intellectual  
> historian, but when put in an economists' crowd, I feel very much  
> like An historian... It is a question of training and interest, but  
> my point is: as long as these different crowds are interested in  
> what I had to say, I do not see my fluid identity as a problem,  
> quite the contrary. As historian of economics (or social sciences),  
> one should be trained both as historians and social scientists and  
> this is what I would recommend to a graduate student. There can be  
> issues of strategy like, if you are in an economic department, then  
> you should write something that talks to these people, and likewise  
> if you are in an intellectual history, history of science or history  
> department, but if you want to make a contribution to history of  
> economics/social sciences (and not to economics and not to  
> intellectual history, etc.), you need to be trained in history and  
> social sciences alike.
>
> Loïc Charles
>
> Une messagerie gratuite, garantie à vie et des services en plus, ça  
> vous tente ?
> Je crée ma boîte mail www.laposte.net
>



----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.