Besomi's comments make much sense to me, for whatever this is worth. As an outsider, I have learned most of what I think I understand about the history of economics from the storia del pensiero economico, and the closest approach to the Italian that I can find in English, though so far (as I know) it does not (yet) consider economics, is the new (social) history of science.
It's my impression that French, German, and Spanish studies have been much more like Italian (in several cases evidently under Italian influence) than like U.S. American studies.
Maybe one way to see the difference is to distinguish between (1) trying to understand and explain the development, logic, and meaning of past thinking about relations of production and exchange, thinking that was important or significant in the past, whether significant or not for the present, and (2) trying to find the sources in the past for getting at perfect, exclusive sets of incontestable, imperishable, eternal truths about production and exchange, or only exchange.

-----Original Message-----
From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Daniele Besomi
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 7:43 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Writing in the History of Economics

I am perplexed by Roy's sharp distinction of history of economics and history of economic thought as follows:

> The distinction between HE and HET or HOPE is the following: HET creates the impression that thought or ideas live autonomously and exist in a world of disembodied shadows where ideas themselves beget ideas unmediated by human agency or human community. Those of us who are repulsed by this fairly tale, who see ideas as human creations and performances of complex social acts, use HE or the older HOPE. If the sociology, anthropology, and rhetoric of economics is intrinsic to understanding the development of economics, and its continued presence in human discourse, then HET is too weak a term, and implied practice, to engage broadly interesting work.

First, I do not see why the use of the word 'thought' in HET should refer, directly or indirectly, to an idealist stance where thoughts and ideas have an autonomous and objective existence. The use of 'thought', unless further qualified, does not itself seem to imply anything about the statute of 'thought' itself?

Second, I have always understood HET as being something broader (and appropriately so) than HE (and than other streams not mentioned so far, Schumpeter's History of Economic Analysis and Blaug's History of Economic Theory). I understand HET (or HE Ideas) as concerning economic ideas in their broader context, precisely because these ideas do not live in a world of their own but are human ideas which arise not only in the strictly economic context but also in the political, social and also non-social work. When I am writing, e.g., an essay on the usage of the medical metaphors relating to diseases in the 19th century reflections on crises (most of which not by professional economists but by laypeople: merchants, bankers, politicians, journalists, etc.) I am discussing a broth of ideas of economic relevance which is clearly outside the main stream of economic thought. The expression HET, or HEI, seem relevant to me, HOPE could still be of relevance, while HE surely is not. HE incorporates in its very name not the broadest range of economic ideas, but 'economics' in the tradition of MacLeod, Jevons and Marshall: "The nation used to be called 'the Body Politic.' So long  as this phrase was in common use, men thought of the interests  of the whole nation when they used the word 'Political' ; and  then 'Political Economy' served well enough as a name for the  science. But now 'political interests'" generally mean the interests of only some part or parts of the nation ; so that it  seems best to drop the name 'Political Economy,' and to speak  simply of Economic Science, or more shortly, Economics." I don't see why our field of study should tag itself down to this specific understanding of what 'economics' is and what it is not ('political economy' is not only the older name of the discipline, but it is being rescued precisely for its incorporating of the political element expelled by Marsall: HET is therefore not equivalente to HOPE), nor I do understand why accepting this name would rid us of the idelistic stance mentioned by Roy. 

The above may be the result a linguistic bias, which I may have somewhat transferred into English from Italian: in Italian, our field of study is normally called "storia del pensiero economico", that is, HET -no idealistic implication seems to be involved here; one of the Italian journals is titled precisely like that, while another Italian journal, written in English, is titled HEI. There might be a number of national traditions in this naming issue, which I think may be useful to discuss. Is the distinction as suggested by Roy widely accepted in English? and what about French, German, Spanish and other languages?

Daniele Besomi