Sam: Well, Forstater and I may understand each other, but we may disagree on whether it really matters to economic theory that "people in U.S. and European cultures tend to mentally associate certain characteristics with masculinity or femininity." Forstater: Well, we "may disagree," but Sam doesn't know whether we do or not since I never said what my own view was and was not promoting any particular ideas, I was simply pointing out that to say that, to paraphrase, "no respectable journal would ever publish an article that associates rationality with masculinity" is empirically false, and then following that, to attempt to clarify that discussing that association does not necessarily mean that one agrees with it. There are plenty of phenomena that are analyzed that one may not agree with, say racism or sexism, and there are also lots of things that are published in "respectable" journals that one may not agree with (choose your own example). But sticking one's head in the sand does not make them go away. In scholarly discourse, there are plenty of outlets for those who disagree to respond, write their own articles, etc. (or discuss them on an e-mail list). <snip> Sam: Walter Williams once told me that early in his teaching career his department chairman asked him to teach a course on "Black Economics." Walter replied that he was uncertain what "Black Economics" might be. For example, he asked, would demand curves in "Black Economics" be kinkier than those in "White Economics?" Needless to say, someone other than Walter taught the course. Mat: The fact of the matter is (again, this is an empirical statement, not a "point of view"), that there is a journal called the Review of Black Political Economy (in publication for over 25 years), there are textbooks in Black Political Economy, there are professional associations of Black economists (e.g., the National Economic Association), there are courses on "Black Economics," Departments of Black Studies, undergraduate majors and minors in Black Studies, M.A. and Ph.D. degree programs in Black Studies, and Black Studies (and Black Political Economy) have their own methodologies (plural), and so on. To me, this indicates these fields of inquiry exist. One may not understand what "Black Economics" is; one may have a sense that they understand what it is and not agree with it; but to deny its existence is puzzling (to me). The same could be said for Women's Studies or Gender Studies. One would think that those in the academy would have some understanding that academic disciplines or fields of inquiry all had some beginning, that many at one time were not considered "legitimate" disciplines, etc., and that one who is not educated about a field or sub-field would do a little bit of research to find out about something with which they are not familiar. Of course, to admit that one is not qualified and/or interested in teaching a course is fine, but it does not mean that the topic does not or should not exist. Since it is MLK Day, just to try to make a brief point, two of the reasons for the rise of Black (African American or Africana) Studies (and sub-fields such as Black Psychology, Sociology, Economics, etc.), were that: (1) courses were being taught that presented themselves as *universal* and yet were actually *specific* (which is one definition of ideology in the pejorative sense), e.g., courses called "History" and "Philosophy" that were really "European History" and "European Philosophy"; this is what may be referred to as Eurocentrism; many Black Studies scholars would argue, not that such courses should not be taught, but that they should be clear about their content and perspective, and that other courses should be permitted that are from other equally valid perspectives; and (2) there were serious omissions of material and perspectives in many courses, in the U.S. particularly with regard to the lives of people of African descent. A similar account could be given with regard to Feminist or Women's Studies, that courses were taught from an androcentric perspective and that the lives and perspectives of women were marginalized. And before anyone claims that "no respectable journal would ever publish an article that claims there is a "Black Economics" or questions the universality of mainstream economic theory, see (in the AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW[!]) the following article, the first sentence of which is "Economics is Economics and there is no 'Black Economics'!": The Di-unital Approach to "Black Economics" Vernon J. Dixon The American Economic Review, Vol. 60, No. 2, pp. 424-429. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=3D0002- 8282%28197005%2960%3A2%3C424%3ATD=AT%22E%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E Finally: Sam: Historians may find it interesting and useful in their work, and social agitators may use that assertion to bolster their own ill-conceived ventures into social engineering, but I don't see much reason for economic theorists per se to care about popular culture. Mat: I assume this is shooting from the hip and meant as a dig (to me or some anonymous persons) somehow, but *really*, culture (even 'popular' culture') is irrelevant to economics? How about "identity," is that also of no matter? See, e.g.,: Economics and Identity George A. Akerlof; Rachel E. Kranton The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 115, No. 3. (Aug., 2000), pp. 715-753. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=3D0033- 5533%28200008%29115%3A3%3C715%3AE=AI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4 Abstract This paper considers how identity, a person's sense of self, affects economic outcomes. We incorporate the psychology and sociology of identity into an economic model of behavior. In the utility function we propose, identity is associated with different social categories and how people in these categories should behave. We then construct a simple game-theoretic model showing how identity can affect individual interactions. The paper adapts these models to gender discrimination in the workplace, the economics of poverty and social exclusion, and the household division of labor. In each case, the inclusion of identity substantively changes conclusions of previous economic analysis. P.S. Tony says he should have said that no one outside critics of economics, etc., etc., but that is a weak argument. The Nelson paper is in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, making it part of the mainstream, no? Otherwise, by Tony's account, anything that expresses the point of view he claims doesn't exist or is invalid by definition doesn't count. There must be a name for this kind of argument, probably Latin, but I can't think of it right now. Happy MLK Day!!! Mathew Forstater