kids v. economists

Lisa & Ian Murray seamus at accessone.com
Fri Feb 23 16:37:35 PST 2001


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



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list