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
>
>