Pat Gunning wrote: > But I would venture to say that none of the people in this class would deny > that "ideas are human creations and performance of complex social acts." > Moreover, it seems to me perfectly reasonable, no matter what calls oneself, > to deny that sociology, anthropology, and rhetoric have anything directly > to do with the history of certain ideas. Am I alone in seeing the second sentence quoted as a refutation of the first? I find myself entirely in agreement with the first and not at all with the second -- not least because I, as an anthropologist who studies economists, have a stake in it. (Unless everything is to hinge on "directly".) It seems strange to say that one can study the history of an economic idea without reference to other disciplinary knowledge insofar as: 1. The last 40 or so years in the evolution of the history and sociology of science have driven toward the conclusion that "ideas are human creations and performance of complex social acts" -- and moreover irremediably so. 2. The disciplinary divisions themselves are of recent history; are the result every generation of rebalancing of disciplinary boundaries; and both share common roots in the history of social thought and are traversed by common trends that sweep, in their uneven development, across them. While we as limited beings with limited lives have to decide how wide a net to cast around the problems which focus our attention, and while our approach to these problems will be shaped by our own rhetorical goals, I would think that the ideal would be to include historical, sociological, and anthropological moments -- every time and always. -- Adam E. Leeds Ph.D. Candidate Department of Anthropology University of Pennsylvania, and Visiting Researcher Center for Economic and Financial Research (CEFIR) Москва: +7-985-929-33-49 US: 914.980.2970 [log in to unmask]