================= HES POSTING ================= 
 
I want to amplify my previous comment on Henderson by taking up a 
similar argument used by Roy Weintraub. He wrote: 
 
> recognition that "doing economics" is, and has been, a human activity 
> compels recognition that to study the history of economics forces us 
> to attend to the context in which that activity takes place, the 
> institutions which support it, the local and contingent conditions in 
> which the people and their activity occurs, and the activities 
> themselves, meaning the processes and products of their doing of 
> economics. 
 
This looks like a syllogism, but is a non-sequitur. I have no objection 
at all to looking at context, but don't try to say we have to do so, 
when we don't. 
 
Example: music is a human activity, but I don't have to know anything 
about Beethoven's life to enjoy his music. I do need to be familiar 
with the harmonic conventions, etc., but that is 'internal history'. A 
musician who wants to play the music better will do better to analyse 
the structure, harmonic devices, etc., than to worry about what 
Beethoven ate for breakfast. 
 
Back to economics. A historian interested in the political impact of 
(say) Adam Smith's work might not need to worry about its internal 
coherence at all. There, context is all. But an economist interested in 
how the subject evolved, still more one interested in whether Smith 
still has useful things to say, will focus on the content and internal 
logic. Different questions, different approaches. There isn't one 
correct way of writing history, governed by some pseudo-syllogism. 
 
---------------------- 
 
Tony Brewer ([log in to unmask]) 
University of Bristol, Department of Economics 
8 Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1TN, England 
Phone (+44/0)117 928 8428 
Fax (+44/0)117 928 8577 
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]