===================== HES POSTING ==================== Much of the recent discussion about what economic historians should do assumes that the readers of this forum know the meaning of Whig history, internal history, and external history. But my impression is that these terms have been used in different ways by different writers, sometimes rather sloppily. As a result, writers have talked past each other. I commend Ross Emmett for setting out his definitions for all to read and to try to understand. At the same time, I find the recommendations he makes regarding what historians should do unconvincing and his conclusion inconsistent with his definitions. Ross defines "internal history" as "rational reconstructions of the logic of argumentation used by historical figures." He does not like internal history when it becomes equivalent to Whig history. A Whig history is based on a decision by the historian about which of several competing viewpoints of those ideas is "victorious." (I think Ross means to say "better.") In his view, the historian should be free to choose which standards or modes of argumentative logic he/she will use. Whig history, in his view, takes away that freedom. The Whig historian claims that there is one correct standard or mode of argumentation that must be used in making reconstructions. Ross does not call the Whig historian "arrogant" but to do so would be consistent with his line of argument. In any case, Ross rejects Whig history because of its absolutism and, in so doing, is led to RELATIVISM. Although he is led to relativism, he decides not to deal with it. That is, he decides not to confront relativism with its antithesis: absolutism. Instead, he ends his remarks with the statement that "there is little or nothing INTERESTING that can be said about Truth, but lots of INTERESTING things to say about how and why specific economists made the arguments and claims they did."(italics added) Thus, in addition to defining the various histories, Ross's letter is a plea for relativism. I think that his plea is unconvincing. Ross seems to be well aware that if one wavers on relativism, one would have to admit the possibility that a particular Whig historian or a particular "internal historian" might be CORRECT in his judgment that a particular idea, logical argumentation, or rational reconstruction is BETTER and that it therefore DESERVES TO WIN. And if one admits this possibility, one would have to grant provisional credence to the historian who claims that he/she studies these things because they are closer to the truth than competing ideas. More concretely, one would have to provisionally admit that some professional historians might be wasting their time, since they are doing reconstructions of ideas that are incorrect; while other historians are using their time productively since they are doing reconstructions of ideas that are correct. Finally, one would have to subscribe to the operational principle that to do a conscientious history of economics, one would have to try personally to judge the correctness of ideas. Since Ross does not admit these possibilities, he subscribes to relativism. As I see it, the fundamental division between Ross's and my notion of what an economic historian ought to do is this. In his view, the historian should study ideas because they are interesting. I believe that the historian should study ideas because they are a window to the truth. Ross (implicitly) rejects the view that the different human minds possesses the same capacity for discriminating between truth and untruth in ideas, in logical argumentation, and in judging rational reconstructions. I accept this view. I believe that the logic that I use is the same as the logic that every other normal human being uses. And, because of this, I believe that I cannot only be persuasive but LOGICALLY convincing. Beyond this -- and anticipating the response that my position comes from arrogance -- I claim that it is the RELATIVIST who is arrogant, since he/she rejects what every normal human being accepts in his/her everyday interaction with others -- namely, that through reason combined with experience, he/she can arrive at a more true understanding of other human beings. If I agreed with Ross, I might as well go dancing. For dancing is more interesting to me than the fads and fancies of certified professional historians. There also seems to be an inconsistency in Ross's argument, although the matter may turn on a definition which he does not give. Ross does not define "rational reconstruction." But I would venture that to the typical reader, "rational" here implies "logical." And further that logical implies standards for discriminating between logical and illogical reconstructions. It would seem to follow that even Ross's non-Whiggish internal historian applies standards to judge whether a particular reconstruction is rational. Are such standards universal? Or are they relative? If Ross believes they are relative, he ought to bracket the term "rational." In that case, he would seemingly be left with the task of further clarifying his definition of Whig history and internal history. Or perhaps he should omit the term "rational" altogether. However, if he rejects bracketing the term or omits it, his plea for relativism would seem unfounded at least insofar as logic is concerned. Of course, Ross may not want to construct logically convincing arguments at all, either in his history or in his letters to HES. The consummate relativist would reject the notion that "logical" or "rational" has a specific meaning. "There are all kinds of logic and all kinds of rationality," he/she would argue, "and, unlike the arrogant absolutists, I am a humble gatherer of facts and teller of stories." How does he/she choose among which facts to study and which stories to tell? I guess it depends on his/her interest -- i.e., it depends on what he/she finds interesting. The consummate relativist would be unperturbed by a comment that his/her writing is logically unconvincing. -- Pat Gunning http://stsvr.showtower.com.tw/~gunning/welcome http://web.nchulc.edu.tw/~gunning/pat/welcome ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]