======================= HES POSTING ================= 
 
The discussion of "the neoclassical position" concerning self-interest 
raises 
what is, for me at least, an interesting problem:  What makes a position 
(theory, model, etc.) neoclassical? 
 
Given that, on this issue and many others, theorists who could be 
identified 
as neoclassical in fact hold different positions, it seems to me that the 
attempt to define neoclassicism as the writings of particular "canonical" 
authors runs into problems.  So the question becomes whether there is 
indeed 
anything that can be called "neoclassicism."  And, if so, is its unity to 
be 
found through a search for a "lowest common denominator" that allows us to 
group a set of theorists together?  Or is it to be found through a 
sociological examination of how a neoclassical community constitutes itself 
(a 
la Kuhn)?  Or is it to be found through an examination of how the 
neoclassical 
idea constitutes itself through the acceptance of certain conceptual 
innovations as compatible with the theory and the rejection of others, and 
through analysis of the reasons why.  (This last approach, it seems to me, 
is 
taken by Philip Mirowski, for instance.) 
 
I have been thinking about such questions also in relation to "Marxian 
economics."  The key dichotomies in both cases, it seems to me, are (a) 
whether the object is understood to be constituted by the individuals who 
define themselves in terms of it, or by a unifying set of ideas and (b) 
whether the definitions are meant to be (for lack of better words) 
descriptive 
or prescriptive. 
 
I'd be very interested in others' thoughts on these matters. 
 
 
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]