================== HES POSTING ======================= 
 
 
I assume that everyone is in the midst of finals, but I didn't want Tim 
Alborn's editorial pass into memory without a little more discussion.  Tim 
is absolutely correct about the insularity of economic thought, but I think 
we need to more clearly distinguish the focus of this insularity.  In the 
past, I think the study of economic thought was exceedingly insular, 
comprising the type of history many on this list have termed "whiggish." 
While history of economic thought continues to be insular about its 
subject matter, many current practitioners of HET on this list are now 
venturing beyond the narrow confines of the discipline's historiography. 
Using the adjective "economic" to describe this work should not be seen 
as simply a parochial fixation.  Most practitioners of HET are trained in 
economics and, hence, have a substantial investment in maintaining 
contact and identification with the discipline.  While the adjective 
"economic" may denote subject matter, a lot of current work does not fit 
the mold of what passed for HET in the past.  Nonetheless, the adjective 
remains apropo because of this disciplinary connection.  As an aside, I 
will be joining a doctoral program in sociology in the fall, and I will more 
than likely continue to characterize my work in this area as HET, as 
opposed to history of thought. 
 
Nonethless, I agree with Tim that HET needs to go even further in 
providing a broader historical context.  But I am extremely wary of his 
entreaty to adopt the practices of social history in attempting to 
historicize terms like "class" and "economics."  As a former student of 
three leading social historians, I was always uncomfortable with their 
desire to see the past through the eyes of their subjects.  (Tim, I am 
unclear if this was your aim as well; please clarify).  Like the works by 
Jones and Wahrman that Tim points out, these historians also wanted to 
"avoid imposing an anachronistic category onto historical analysis."  But 
it is hard to imagine that after all of the work done by Hayden White, 
LaCapra, Ricouer, de Certeau, Veyne, et al that anyone would believe that 
they could avoid doing so.  Any venture into the past from the present 
carries anachronistic baggage.  The notion of somehow getting at a "real" 
past hearkens back to a conception of historical practice reminiscent of 
Ranke or Collingwood.  In fact, De Certeau characterized social history as 
"the institution of the real" which "consists of the construction of 
representations into laws imposed by the states of things" that 
"everyone must believe." 
 
I don't think that Tim advocates for this polar extreme, and his interesting 
story on the differences between academic and business economics in the 
late 19th century is certainly not indicative of such an extreme position. 
Nonetheless, while I think more historical context provides a much richer 
story, I also think we need to be careful about assuming that it will allow 
us to reach a more "real" past.  Of course, the opposite pole is 
represented by Patrick Gunning's notion of "a set of invariant ideas."  I 
would like to think that somewhere in the middle is a happy medium. 
 
Jonathon E. Mote 
[log in to unmask] 
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]