Dears, One more thought. Note the analogy with "theory" (as they call it) in political science. "Theory" means "political philosophy approached historically through the reading of classic texts, Plato-Aristotle-Machiavelli-Hobbes-Locke, et alii." In sociology departments, too, the kids read Marx-Weber-Durkheim-et alii (they should be reading Smith, too, of course, especially TMS!). That is, in most departments of political science and sociology worldwide the equivalent of History of Thought is standard and compulsory fare in graduate and undergraduate curricula. True, some "behaviorist" departments (these terms of praise and abuse all tend to be local: we economist would call such departments "theoretical" [= Max U models gone mad, using Mathematics-Department math as against Physics-Department math] or "econometric" [= gross misuse of statistical "significance"]) have downgraded historical studies of their own discipline, as I believe departments of psychology always have. In political science recently the grip that "behaviorists" have on the main journals (especially the American Political Science Review = AER) has been challenged by the so-called "Peristroika Movement" (recall that "preistroika" means in Russian "openness"). I was told past week by a well-known "theorist" in political science that the Peristroikists have the problem of all open societies: they refuse to conspire and to use compulsion to protect their interests, as the enemies of open societies---such as mathematical and statistical economists in our own field---are very willing to do. Time to conspire in the interest of an open economics? I draw the line at compulsion. Regards, Deirdre McCloskey