At 04:57 PM 2/23/01 -0500, Doug Henwood wrote:
Vikash Yadav wrote:
>You seem to foreclose the possibility that a group of leftist thinkers could
>do the same. What is the basis for believing this?
I don't think the profession of economics is likely to change as a result
of developments within economics; better arguments are not going to
persuade members of a profession whose fundamental task is concocting
apologias for bourgeois society. It's much more likely that changes in the
larger society might bring more radicals into studying economics, and to
push some already credentialed wimpy liberals a bit to the left.
Doug
and there we have it. the first statement is an explanation of social
change from the perspective of home oeconomicus. change happens--weberian
fashion--via novelty -- because the presuppositions of the discipline is an
enduring methodological individualism. doug's position, otoh, is marxist
or radical (as opposed to bourg liberal --whether its conservative or
"liberal" variants)
kelley
**********
MI aside, KELLEY :-), wouldn't the same hold true of sociology, history etc. as disciplines? Isn't what Doug is saying kind of endemic to the ivory tower even as it may radicalize students who then go out and make mischief in the world? I don't see what Doug is saying as radical; it looks like common sense, hell even physics is *conservative* until an Einstein comes along. What's fascinating is how rapidly that entire community had a rapid gestalt switch; why *radical* explanations and research strategies don't move quickly through a social science discipline would make for a great research program in it's own right. What leads to cognitive rigidities in academic disciplines that have a *permanent possibility* of substantive immanent radical change with potentially huge spillover effects in the wider society?
Ian