================= HES POSTING ================= In his most recent note, Tony Brewer makes the reasonable point that many types of history of economic thought "make sense" and should be pursued. He argues that we might want internalist histories, externalist histories, and hybrid blends of the two. This seems a hard position with which to disagree. But I cannot help but reflect on the ironic juxtaposition of this argument with the reality of how the history of thought has been done in the past 30-odd years (in the post war period?) How much internalist history have we had? How much externalist? How much of the internalist history has been Whiggish? How much of this internalist, Whiggish history has been undertaken out of a fear that writing fuller, more complete histories would further marginalize the history of thought? How much of it has been written to appease the sensibilities of the people who have taken the whole discipline down a path that has removed historical reasoning and history itself from the study of economics? I realize as I reflect on Tony's note that some of the urgency with which I have argued for (and tried to write) histories of economic thought that consider external influences stems from what I see as the implicit acquiescence of (most) historians of thought to an unfortunate turn in the discipline. (By the way, my point here about the unfortunate turn is one made by Arrow, Solow, and Baumol in recent years, as well as the litany of "outsiders" who have railed against mainstream practice during this time.) It must certainly be true that there are still valuable, pure "internalist" histories of economic thought to be written. There must be, for instance, technical mistakes in past works that have led to ambiguities and/or misunderstandings. But how few of these get written in a year? In a decade? Not many, I judge. Instead we get the bad, Whiggish histories that don't tell us anything new or worth knowing. How ironic it seems that the majority of the "internalist" work produced may itself be a reflection of the current discipline and the myriad of external influences that have shaped it into an ahistorical project that has less and less influence in central banks and ministries of finance. Is it possible that some amongst us will be reluctant to do/accept externalist history because they can't or don't want to see their own position as compromised? My reflection here may be completely wrong, and it is always difficult to speculate reasonably about other people's motives; but it strikes me that the debate about writing a fuller, more complete history of economics is itself more complex than the kind of "purely theoretical" argument that Tony is making. In the abstract, his argument seems reasonable. Indeed, I can extend his defense along quite plausible lines. But there's the reality of who we are and what we have become in the last 3-4 decades; and my own belief that the more interesting, more satisfying work in our discipline will have a strong externalist impulse flows from my understanding of that reality. Thus, in part, I want more externally influenced histories simply because I find them more satisfying and richer. But I also want them because I see internalist histories as a product of what I don't like in contemporary economics. (The particular kind of external influences I am concerned with are those that reflect politics, the policy process, and public opinion and I see this as a way to get at a broader conception of "economic thought".) In the abstract, I understand Tony's desire to hold onto internalist histories, but my own desire for something else goes beyond the abstract. Brad Bateman Grinnell College ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]