==================== HES POSTING ==================== 
 
I have taken some time to reply to Ross Emmet's response to my criticism 
of relativism. The reason is that I want to broaden the discussion. 
Let me explain. The heart of my criticism of recent HES editorials and of 
Ross Emmet's implicit defense of them is simple. The editorials purport 
to give advice on how do the history of economics. Yet they shy away 
from defining (1) history, (2) ideas, and (3) economics. I ask only one 
thing: that before one gives such advice or makes judgments about a piece 
of work claiming to be in the subject "history of economic ideas," one 
ought 
to have a clear idea about the meaning of these terms. If one talks about 
contexts, styles and modes, rational reconstructions, etc, and at the same 
time has no clear idea of what these three words mean, only mere chance 
will make what one writes relevant to the history of economics ideas. 
My quarrel with the recent editorials and with what appears to be the 
predominant view among HESers is that they appear to have very little 
idea of the subject they claim to be writing about. An example is Mary 
Schweitzer's (11-14-96) argument that economics is what she has been 
taught that it was, accompanied by a potpourri of definitions with no 
opinion 
about which is best. 
        The reason for my delay is that before I presented this argument, 
I wanted to rethink my own views on these matters. Do I have clear and 
definite definitions of these terms? And are these definitions defendable. 
If not, I have no business criticizing others. This project has taken a bit 
longer than I anticipated. 
        The point I have raised is critical to the future development of the 
history of economics profession. If my view is correct, the current 
gatekeepers 
of this profession are inhibiting the development of the history of 
economic 
ideas. They are treating genuine advances in economic theory the same as 
genuine retrogressions. 
        When I say that this point critical to the development of the history 
of economic ideas, I am not writing abstractions. Four reviewers of a 
recent 
paper I wrote about Herbert J. Davenport, two at HOPE and two at JHET, had 
similar comments 
(http://stsvr.showtower.com.tw/~gunning/subjecti/workpape/dav_valu). 
They criticized the paper on grounds that it fails to account for the 
historical 
context of Davenport's works and that it does not say enough about 
Davenport's 
contemporary colleagues and opponents. None of the four commented on 
my claim that the idea about which Davenport wrote was important in the 
progress of Austrian economics. Indeed, all wrote remarks to the effect 
that 
 I was writing what Ross Emmet and others call "Whig history." I don't 
know how one can logically judge that a paper is a Whig history of an idea 
without evaluating the idea about which the history is written. But these 
reviewers 
did make 
judgments. 
        Of course, I am not complaining about getting negative reviews. 
I have long since come to terms with this. Indeed, how can one legitimately 
complain about receiving opinions from reviewers who volunteer their time? 
True enough, the reviewers hold the keys to the gates of particular 
professions. 
But there are plenty of professions. And with the internet, who needs an 
academic 
profession, anyway? 
        Nor am I the only one to face the gatekeepers. Greg Ransom drew 
our attention to the dispute between Steven Horwitz and Allin Cottrell in 
the most 
recent issue of JHET (Fall, 1966). One must be puzzled at the editorial 
decision 
to (a) publish Horwitz's piece and (b) allow criticism and response in the 
same 
issue of the journal. Such a decision would appear to be reasonable if 
there 
were some legitimate disagreement about the subject matter of the paper. 
However, the main disagreement seems to me to have been about how one 
should do the history of economic ideas. If the editor wants to have a 
forum on 
this subject, why not invite a set of papers? Or, if he/she prefers, why 
not 
wait until someone submits such a paper? 
        I have completed my rethinking and have published a very preliminary 
version of my rethoughts on my home page in a paper entitled "What it Means 
to 
Be an Historian of Economic Ideas." It is available at the following web 
sites: 
 
http://web.nchulc.edu.tw/~gunning/pat/subjecti/workpape/histidea 
http://stsvr.showtower.com.tw/~gunning/subjecti/workpape/histidea 
 
If you do not have a browser, I would be happy to Email you a copy. 
Comments are welcome. 
 
Pat Gunning 
http://stsvr.showtower.com.tw/~gunning/welcome 
http://web.nchulc.edu.tw/~gunning/pat/welcome 
 
================ FOOTER TO HES POSTING================ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]