Pat Gunning wrote:
> But I would venture to say that none of the people in this class would deny
> that "ideas are human creations and performance of complex social acts."
> Moreover, it seems to me perfectly reasonable, no matter what calls oneself,
>  to deny that sociology, anthropology, and rhetoric have anything directly
> to do with the history of certain ideas.

Am I alone in seeing the second sentence quoted as a refutation of the
first? I find myself entirely in agreement with the first and not at
all with the second -- not least because I, as an anthropologist who
studies economists, have a stake in it. (Unless everything is to hinge
on "directly".) It seems strange to say that one can study the history
of an economic idea without reference to other disciplinary knowledge
insofar as:
1. The last 40 or so years in the evolution of the history and
sociology of science have driven toward the conclusion that "ideas are
human creations and performance of complex social acts" -- and
moreover irremediably so.
2. The disciplinary divisions themselves are of recent history; are
the result every generation of rebalancing of disciplinary boundaries;
and both share common roots in the history of social thought and are
traversed by common trends that sweep, in their uneven development,
across them.

While we as limited beings with limited lives have to decide how wide
a net to cast around the problems which focus our attention, and while
our approach to these problems will be shaped by our own rhetorical
goals, I would think that the ideal would be to include historical,
sociological, and anthropological moments -- every time and always.


-- 
Adam E. Leeds
Ph.D. Candidate
Department of Anthropology
University of Pennsylvania, and
Visiting Researcher
Center for Economic and Financial Research (CEFIR)
Москва: +7-985-929-33-49
US: 914.980.2970
[log in to unmask]