----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- In response to Tony Brewer: I wonder if it is possible to distinguish between two different approaches to reading history of thought: (1) a journalistic approach of reproducing what the author said, versus (2) an analytical review of what the author meant or ought to have meant. I seem unable to follow the first approach, and impelled to follow the second. But I know some historians may do just the opposite. In the journalistic approach, the historian attempts to reproduce what the author said, with concrete details. The mass of concrete quotes presents an authentic view. My problem with this approach is that since an author says a great deal, especially if one writes several books, one may get a sense of being in the woods with too much detail of trees, but no sharp outline of the forest. One may have difficulty grasping what an author might have meant. For example, it would be difficult to ascribe to the same person three drastically distinct motives (more wealth in economics, greater admiration in anthropology, self- sacrificing behavior in political science) and then relate each of this to the economic issue. It would have too much detail but not enough analysis. There is the further problem that many statements may seem to contradict others, just as individual trees may differ in size, shape, age etc. The other approach is a review, a critical distillation of what the author meant in its abstract and essential elements, while contradictions, digressions, exceptions,and embellishments are thrown away. For example, without an innate selfishness, the market mechanism would make little sense. The reviewer's task is to see for himself what Smith wanted to show, and select only those that show the outlines of the forest, namely, to reconstruct meaning analytically. This is admittedly not authentic, and it leaves out a great amount of detail. And yet it is what captures the essential message. If I were to follow the journalistic approach, I would not even wonder if Marx and Smith differed greatly. They could not possibly differ greatly in presenting concrete details. But yet they could differ greatly in the essential elements, namely, what they saw as the driving force behind the market mechanism. For example, it was essential in Smithian economics that self-interest of individuals were reconciled by the invisible hand, and that one did not harm the other, but indeed the market generated unintended benefits for the others. But Marx did not see a reconciliation of (conflicting) interests, and instead did perceive the occurrence of harm to some (=the proletarian) by some others (=the capitalists). I cannot imagine if it is possible for the same historian to pursue both approaches. But a student should read both, if available. I even wonder if the journalistic approach has much demand, on the presumption that the student could simply read the original. M Gani ------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]