----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- Fred, If you interpreted me that way, I think you misinterpreted us. (I suspect the same is true for Roy) I see the mainstream as very eclectic about ideas, and becoming more so every day. In my latest writing I've been arguing that it is changing from an adherence to the holy trinity of rationality, greed, and equilibrium to an adherence to a broader trinity of purposeful behavior, enlightened self interest, and sustainability. They are open to new ideas. However in terms of method, the mainstream has definite ideas about what constitutes good method, and the type of broad literary discussion that many of us historians of thought take is not an approach that the mainstream takes. It's foreign to them, and is not what they teach or are looking for students to do. Theirs is a very applied mathematical approach--it is quantitative and not philosophical except where the philosophical questions it addresses integrates with particular quantitative or mathematical approaches. (i.e. Sen's work) So I would disagree with much of your characterization. Where Roy and I probably disagree (Roy will probably disagree with me--he usually does) is that he believes that the best history of economic thought is done using a similar methodology to that used in graduate economics--and if I interpret him correctly, the good history of thought is done in formal history of science programs, or if it is done in economics programs should be done with the same methodology that it is done in history of science programs. I'm happy with that work, and learn much from it, but in my view, it really pulls researchers too much away from economics, and for the most part would eliminate them from being economists. Put another way, he favors thick histories. I'm happy with thick histories, but I think that there is also a role for thin histories, where economists reflect a bit more on what they are doing rather than getting caught up in the thick of things. Our contrasting work reflects our contrasting beliefs. (I suspect Roy would agree with that, but sometimes I wonder.) But we both agree that dumping on the mainstream as religious anti-intellectualism is wrong and serves little purpose. We also both agree that top graduate programs in economics, and those aspiring towards the top (which is where I classify Duke), don't see themselves as teaching people to do thin or thick histories of the field. But the fact that they don't has nothing to do with ideology; it has to do with method, and what the focus of training is. Dave Colander ------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]