A couple of quick comments on this thread: 
 
When McCloskey's first short work on rhetoric came out, it was good 
for economists to hear.  At this point, however, I fear the McCloskey 
version of "narrative" uber allus to be a destructive rather than 
a constructive force within the discipline.  I see two problems: 
 
1.  McCloskey has continued to promote a version of "narrative" 
that is as combative and aggressive as the most narrowminded of 
Chicago neoclassical models.  In this version, knowledge is a 
"thing" that endows the posessor with power over others.  Rhetoric 
is a weapon with which to weild the power granted by knowledge. 
I believe this is an actively damaging perspective to take by 
anyone, but enormously damaging when adopted by those trained in 
take-no-prisoners We-Hold-the-Key-to-Truth econ departments.  Or, 
as McCloskey himself will say, those in "possession" of a 
"better way" to think -- neoclassical economic analysis.  
     Particularly troublesome to me is that this black/white, 
right/wrong, win/lose model of the acquisition and transfer of 
"knowledge" is juxtaposed (ironically) against a new type of 
economic theory out of mainstream econ departments that acknowledges  
and tries to come to terms with complexity, ambiguity, multiple 
outcomes, shifting perceptions, shifting tastes -- everything that 
was assumed away in the old neoclassical model, and is STILL  
assumed in the "better way" to think one finds in much of McCloskey's 
work on rhetoric -- and in many of his disciples' within econ history. 
     There is an extensive literature on scholarship, communication, 
knowledge, research, learning -- on all of these as PROCESSES, 
not THINGS.  This literature permits a model that is cooperative 
rather than combative, where the teacher is able to listen to the 
learner, or two scholars able to come together and create MORE than 
either could have created on their own.  Where different perspectives 
offer MORE insight (as in multiple camera angles) -- so scholarly 
discourse is not a combative experience, but rather a creative and 
mutually productive one.   
     When I see "narrative" and "rhetoric" used to continue to shut 
economics off from perspectives of non-economists, it is a very 
disturbing trend. 
 
2.  Hand in hand with that problem is the failure of McCloskey to 
address scholarship itself as an endeavor somewhat different from 
casual chit chat with a neighbor.  And the results can be seen in 
some of the postings here -- Gee, McCloskey was such an AWAKENING 
for me.  Really?  And what did you do next?   
     I find that many economists begin and end their study of 
"narrative" with McCloskey.  And the presentation style certainly 
helps that along.   
     There are entire scholarly fields that have been writing on 
these subjectgs for several GENERATIONS, folks. 
     A lot of the stuff in Knowledge and Persuasion, quite frankly, 
was a topic for standard graduate student BSing when I was in 
grad school in history over twenty years ago.  Some of it I remember 
BSing about with philosophy major classmates at Oberlin nearly 
THREE decades ago.  Anyone familiar with French intellectual trends 
in the twentieth century should be aware of a lot of it. 
     The continual refernces to the Greeks are very problematic 
because they are not grounded in TIME.  These terms have had many 
different interpretations depending on the surrounding intellectual 
culture.  There is just not enough awareness of ambiguity, of 
changes in meaning over time.  To make a long thought short, I guess, 
the best way to explain this is you CAN NOT use references to 
the Greeks as your sole "authority" for proper scholarly discourse. 
 
     The problem again stems from the failure to see scholarship 
as a PROCESS rather than a THING to be won or lost.  It is not 
enough to introduce economists to the value of "clear writing" -- 
if we are talking about writing in the context of scholarship, 
it must not only be clear, it must also demonstrate knowledge of 
the relevant current literature by specialists ON THAT TOPIC.   
     What SHOULD have happened was an opening from the economics 
profession into the literature of other professions.  Within my 
own discipline of economic history, that SHOULD have meant a 
reawakening to the value of historiography.  Instead, it has been 
used (at least in my sub-discipline of economic history) to justify 
a bombastic style of scholarship and teaching that is clear, all 
right, but claims to have all the "right" answers, and acknowledges 
no other scholarly literatures.  No footnotes.  No references.  No 
admission of disagreement.   
 
     In the hands of a proponent of specific types of economic 
policies, this is dangerous stuff indeed.  If students or lay-people 
are never given the alternate arguments or presented with 
contradictory evidence, then "persuasion" becomes polemics.   
And in the end, instead of helping rescue economists from their 
own worst habits, it simply reinforces them. 
 
     -- Mary Schweitzer, Dept. of History, Villanova University 
(on leave 1995-96)