[PEN-L:11347] Male Chauvanist Mathematics

[James Devine <Jim_Devine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

it's always a pleasure to get a bunch of pen-l messages from Maggie C.

Concerning radical economists' use of econometrics, she writes:> Another
facet of this argument is that econometrics respresents the male ideal of
mathematical logic. As such, any use of econometrics is chauvanist by
definition--because it does not admit the validity of any other type of
logic (musical,
intuitive, artistic, etc.).<

>From the context, I am not sure whether or not this is your position,
Maggie, but no matter. It seems to me that it's reasonable to say that
mathematical logic is a masculine ideal in our society (though it's hard to
see when men are watching football). But that doesn't mean that we should
reject mathematical logic _root and branch_, i.e., that math is wrong. To
my mind, it says that mathematical logic gives us an incomplete (and
therefore incorrect) picture of the world and therefore needs to be
complemented by other forms of reasoning (e.g., intuitive, empirical, and
dialectical).

BTW, I don't see why econometrics _must_ "not admit the validity of any
other type of logic" and therefore is chauvanist. Why _can't_ econometrics
be used with other types of logic? Using the analogy of the blind folk
feeling the pachyderm for the umpteenth time, why can't they use their
fingers _and_ their noses _and_
their ears _and_ even their tongues (unifying these sensations in their
minds) in their efforts to figure out what this big thing is?

>... There are better ways to force the mainstream to debate their own
defective theories [than by introducing power into NC models, a la Bowles &
Gintis]. Doug's book is one example--I think debates where the mainstream
becomes defensive and makes wildly inaccurate attacks on the work of
economists seeking to
break the mold is much more productive **and interesting** than a polite
exchange of models. By placing the debates within their agenda, what gets
discussed is their agenda, not the agenda of intellectuals seeking to
change the world.<

I think it's important to remember that though he was mainstream, the
Barron's reviewer was not an economist. I'm afraid that most economists
simply won't read Doug's book. Hopefully, a more important group --
workers, nonacademics -- will read it, especially since it's so
well-written and IMHO so accurate. (Doug, do you think people will be put
off or made more interested by all the stuff about sex and Freud?)

BTW, Doug's book uses econometric results and mainstream theory as threads
of the tapestry that forms the entire book. Various ultra-apologist
theories are rejected by citing econometric research (along with case
studies, etc.), while mainstream theories such as adverse selection and
moral hazard are used critically. He even looks for the "rational core" in
the work of such reactionaries as Michael Jensen.

>It seems to me that using mathematical models which have been used to
prove that women chose to be discriminated against in an attempt to
disprove women's desires for discrimination falls into the same
hypocritical pattern.<

Why can't mathematical models be used to show the inconsistency,
incompleteness, etc. of the mainstream models as _part of_ the war against
mainstream economics. Can't it be a multi-front war? (sorry about the
masculine metaphor!) For example, when Michael Reich and I produced a
mathematical model to represent conflict within capitalist production (in
the RRPE, 1981), we weren't aiming to _replace_ research of the sort that
Marglin did ("What do Bosses Do?") Rather, the aim was to supplement or
complement that kind of work.

I think that one problem with the left is how academic it is. In addition
to overspecialization, there's poor communication and competition amongst
various left academics. Author X does econometrics and nothing else, while
Y does mathematical economics and nothing else, while Z does "soft"
historical research. Often X, Y, and Z think that their way of doing
research is the _only_ kind that's really valid -- or Z sees X's or Y's
methodologies as repudiation of his or her own problematic. They're all
trying to rise up the academic hierarchy
in competition with others, so the competitive relationship gets imposed on
even those who aren't really in competition.

Academic journals impose certain styles on people's research: articles must
be short, mathematical, and analytical rather than synthetic. Academics
also must publish or perish, so that the quantity of publications takes
over from concern with quality. Etc.

>The addition of power to econometric models does not accurately reflect
the subtle ways in which power is used in our society. As with all other
variables, power can only fluctuate within narrowly defined limits in a
mathematical model, and therefore these models do not accurately
incorporate the power they seek to
represent.<

I think one of the problems is that the meaning of "power" is a bit
squishy, and varying with context. The micro-level power of the manager
over workers is quite different from the power of the capitalist class as a
whole, even though these two types of power are related and affect each
other. The power of men over women is different from that of capitalists
over workers and that of whites over blacks. Etc.

A key problem is reification: people think of "power" as a thing rather
than a social relationship.

-- Jim Devine