Re: [SHOE] Adam Smith, the "Founding Father"
of Modern Eco
To ask who is the founding father of political economy is to
assume, I think, that there is a clearly identifiable founder and an
identifiable act of founding and that the founder is male.
(Ditto with "founding fathers," US style -- it assumes
an identifiable group [excluding others], an identifiable act -- why
is writing the constitution solely constitutive of the American
'founding' -- and it assumes maleness.)
When Luxemburg refers to Quesnay as the "father of the
Physiocrats," I assume that she was drawing a *conclusion* that
she came to after examining and interpreting the evidence. So,
no, she is not being inappropriate. (If, prior to looking at the
evidence, who was the founding father of the Physiocrats, you would
be assuming *a* [or *a few*] founders, an act of founding, and
fatherhood or maleness -- and all those *assumptions* strike me as
inappropriate, potentially misleading, and, really,
thoughtless.)
Peter G. Stilman
I would agree that political economy does
not have a founder in the proper sense of the word. But I didn't
understand the feminist critique. For example, Rosa Luxemburg
refers to Quesnay as the "father of the Physiocrats." Is
that inappropriate?
Matías Vernengo
Associate Professor
University of Utah
260 Central Campus Drive, Room 371
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
(801) 349-9462
________________________________________
From: Societies for the History of Economics [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Roger Backhouse [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 4:05 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Adam Smith, the "Founding Father" of
Modern Economics?
What amazes me about this discussion is that there has been no
comment
on whether it is appropriate to use such gendered language. Am I
the
only teacher who, when students use the phrase "founding
father", asks
them to reflect both on whether economics really had a founder and
on
the implication that such a founder must have been male. If a
student
proceeded to offer a feminist critique of Smith's economics,
presumably such language would be entirely justified, but in my
experience that never happens.
I realise that for Americans the phrase "founding father"
has
particular resonance, but I am not convinced that this justifies
using
it without reflection on its implications.
Roger Backhouse
On 4 April 2011 02:22, Alexander Guerrero <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> One the most common mistakes in understanding A Smith's role as
"founding
> father" of economics is failing to (read) understand The
Theory of Moral
> Sentiments, before reading The W of N.
>
> AG
>
> Economist, PhD.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Societies for the History of Economics
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of luigino bruni
> Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2011 2:46 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [SHOE] Adam Smith, the "Founding Father"
of Modern Economics?
>
>
>
> Smith's idea of invisible hand (mentioned more than once) is
actually very
> central in both his theory of market (wealth of nations) and in
his theory
> of human sentiments and social behaviour: the invisible hand
mechanism is
> one of the most powerful idea in modern social sciences.
>
> bye luigino
>
> 2011/4/1 michael perelman <[log in to unmask]>
>
> This is from my new book, The Invisible Handcuffs. I would
like to
> get some responses from listers.
>
> Initially, Smith's Wealth of Nations did not make much of an
> impression, despite its popularity today. Although his earlier
book,
> the now less known Theory of Moral Sentiments, was a sensation,
his
> more famous work seemed as if it had missed its mark. Yet unlike
most
> ancient writers, whose importance recedes into the distant
past,
> Smith's influence rapidly grew.
>
> The book went through five editions, but each of the first
two
> editions sold only 500 copies a substantial
number, but far from a
> roaring success (Waterman 1998b). In Parliament, where the
members
> frequently quoted important
political economists, Charles James Fox
> made the first reference to Wealth of Nations on November 11,
1783,
> six years after the book first appeared (Rashid 1992, p. 493).
Still
> another ten years passed before two of Smith's friends,
Alexander
> Wedderburn and William Petty's great grandson and former
prime
> minister, the Marquess of Lansdowne, mentioned the book in the
House
> of Lords (Rae 1895, p. 291).
>
> Even in 1789 when Thomas Robert Malthus signed out the 1784
edition of
> Wealth of Nations from his college library, he was just the
third
> person to do so (Waterman 1998a, p. 295). Up to the year 1800,
only a
> few Cambridge colleges had acquired the book (Waterman 1998b).
Emma
> Rothschild notes with some irony that when Adam Smith died in
1790,
> the influential Annual Register devoted but twelve lines to
Smith
> compared with sixty five for Major Ray, a deputy quartermaster
general
> with an interest in barometers. The Scots Magazine gave Smith a
scant
> nine lines (Rothschild 1992, p. 74).
>
> Only after the French Revolution of 1789 made British property
owners
> fearful, did The Wealth of Nations take on an air of
importance.
> Thereafter, the rich and powerful appreciated Smith's
ideological
> influence. For example, Francis Horner, editor of the
Edinburgh
> Review, rejected a request to prepare a set of notes for a new
edition
> of The Wealth of Nations. He explained his refusal in a
letter to
> Thomas Thomson, written on August 15, 1803:
>
> "I should be reluctant to expose S's errors before his work
had
> operated its full effect. We owe much at present to the
superstitious
> worship of S's name; and we must not impair that feeling, till
the
> victory is more complete .... [U]ntil we can give a correct
and
> precise theory of the origin of wealth, his popular and plausible
and
> loose hypothesis is as good for the vulgar as any others."
[cited in
> Horner 1843; 1: 229]
>
> Thereafter, Smith's influence steadily increased, along with the
rise
> of Procrustean market ideology. In fact, as one current Smith
scholars
> observed, "There were more new editions of The Wealth of
Nations
> published in the 1990s than in the 1890s, and more in the 1890s
than
> in the 1790s" (Young 2007).
>
>
>
>
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA
> 95929
>
> 530 898 5321
> fax 530 898 5901
> http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com
>
>
--
Peter G. Stillman
Department of Political Science
Vassar College (#463)
124 Raymond Avenue
Poughkeepsie, NY 12604-0463
[log in to unmask]
office: 845-437-5581
FAX: 845-437-7599
http://faculty.vassar.edu/stillman/