Thanks for the cite.  But what I am searching for is a LANGUAGE. 
For example, I can say with regard to macro:  "Well, that is 
basically a Keynesian interpretation, and this guy over here is 
offering a Chicago neoclassical interpretation, and that guy over 
there is putting a Minnesota rational expectations spin on it, and 
back over here they've responded with neo-Keynesianism."      
     See? 
     My problem takes a number of forms.  On the simplest level, 
let's say we're into the lazy-man's-Polanyi version of "barter" 
vs. "cash economies".  There is a literature that offers a very 
usable typology about what "barter" is, and what "money" is -- 
which might help them think about whether it is "barter" in the 
sense that they are meaning for colonial Marylanders to have used 
tobacco as a unit of exchange.  (No -- it's "commodity money" -- 
and, more to the point, you can't use it as a sign that they were 
"pre-market" in the sense my colleagues want to.  Or, if you want 
to, you're going to have to think about what makes gold different 
from tobacco as a commodity money.)  That's an easy one, I think. 
     A more complicated one is an example from labor history. 
Most historians still draw assumptions about productive labor and 
nonproductive labor, for example, from classical and marxist 
typologies of the nineteenth century.  There are some really 
interesting typologies and IDEAS in the new labor economics.  I 
can't get them to look at it - heck, I can't even SAY that's where 
I'm getting some interpretive ideas -- because they are so convinced 
that all economists are narrow Chicago neoclassicists.  ALL economists. 
ANYBODY who works in a U.S. economics department. 
     I've had trouble getting them to read Nancy Folbre's work.  Because 
-- well, she's an ECONOMIST, isn't she? 
     I need terms BEYOND just "economist".  Or beyond the difference 
between a "Marxist" and a "neoclassical" economist, which are the 
only two types that many scholars outside economics recognize. 
     And I am also presenting the hypothesis that it is no accident 
that such terminology appears to be absent.  Because economists do 
not seem, in general, to be willing to confront the reality that 
there are really a number of very very different TYPES of economics 
out there WITHIN their own departments.  Because to admit that would 
be to admit that one theory does not fit all.  The closest you can 
get an economist to admit OUTSIDE THE DISCIPLINE that there are 
major differences in approach that are perfectly acceptable and 
accepted WITHIN mainstream economics, is the curt statement, 
"Well, I'm write and they're wrong."  If it is a Chicago economist, 
you can add "And they're stupid, too."  Now this may be said 
in a joking fashion, but that's what you get.  So economics as a 
profession is no help at all for me.   
     Imagine that it is fifty years hence and you are doing research 
on the types of economic analysis that emerged in the U.S. between 
the end of World War II and 1970.  Or, say, 1960 and 1990.  How would 
you describe to a READER these very real differences?  Wouldn't you 
want to label them according to schools, or interpretive traditions, 
or accepted discourses?  I'm looking for a way to do that.   
     Ball's in play. 
     -- Mary Schweitzer