[PEN-L:11359] Chauvinist--Male and Otherwise--Economics

["James Michael Craven" <CRAVJM@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 10:45 AM 7/20/97 -0700, Jim Devine wrote:
>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?


A good question, indeed.  The way I see it is not the use of mathematical
models in general, but the use of certain kinds of mathematical models - and
that, of course, is not limited to economics.  A good example is the use of
factor analysis (linear equations).  The method has been traditionally used
to identify one common factor (the principal component), although the number
of factors to be identified is set a priori by the researcher.  Yet, the
single-factor models are much more popular than multi-factor models
supposedly for the considerations of parsimony.

However, Stephen Jay Gould has another explanation: one-dimensional models
are much more useful in ranking people into classes and hierarchies than
multi-dimensional ones.  If A scores higher on a single measure of
intelligence, efficiency or what not than B, there is no question that A
ranks above B.  If, on the other hand, A scores higher than B on measure p,
but lower than B on measure q, then ranking becomes blurred, if at all possible.

Response (Jim C): Personally I think this is right on. "Reasoning"(in
common parlance finding the "reasons" for phenomena), involves
various analytical/epistemological approaches--paradigms--
(hypothetico-deductivism, historical materialism, positivism,
falsificationism etc;  tools (math etc), starting-point notions
(intuitive and otherwise) of salient variables, useful levels of
abstraction and parameters of analysis; notions of linear
unidirectional causality vs non-linear multidimensional causality
governing phenomena; notions of what is worth reasoning about;
notions of "reliable" vs "unreliable" data/data sources/adductive
methodologies; etc. etc. I personally do not use the terms "intuitive
reasoning", "dialectical reasoning" or even "empirical reasoning";
rather, I consider intuition, established--and evolving--empirical
methods, dialectical approaches, modeling, mathematics, deduction,
adduction etc to be tools/elements/approaches to overall reasoning.
Reasoning may utilize rules of valid deduction to establish
"inexorable" (tautologically "true" and "proven"
implications/conclusions from given assumptions like A=B, B=C, ergo
A=C (the only possible/deductively "valid" conclusion from the
premises); or reasoning may incorporate/utilize "established" methods
of adduction (provisionally supporting inferences/generalizations
from given data, data-gathering methodologies etc); or reasoning may
involve logical fallacies ("bad" reasoning is still reasoning);
reasoning may use/misuse mathematical formalism etc.


Wojtec Sokolowski wrote:
Is this a typical "male thing" to do, as Maggie C. & some feminists suggest?
While it is a well known fact that males are more likely than females to
form hierarchical relations with others, that seems to be an effect of
social interaction rather than testosterone.  When females enter the
positions of power previously reserved for men only, their behaviour tends
to resemble that of their male colleagues.  Thus, the male chauvism
explantion does no sound too convincing.


Response (Jim C): Is it a "well known fact" (what are facts and how
are facts established/tested/refuted?) that males are more likely
than females to form hierarchical relations with others or is it
possible that females simply form different kinds/forms of
hierarchical relations with others? Given that certain
forms/levels/positions of power under capitalism--and other systems--
necessitate/imply certain imperatives of survival, success, effective
power/control, perhaps the behavior one sees in males occupying
positions of power mostly reserved for males, is behavior that it
position/system/imperatives driven rather than Y-Chromosome-driven
(perhaps this might also explain why the few women in those positions
behave largely like the males in those positions). Further, and this
is reiteration, power and powerlessness are multi-dimensional
creatures and victims of those few in power--mostly white males and a
few female wannabes--are also males (yes even white ones) along with
males of various races, females, children. Assuming one can at least
qualify or ordinally rank in some cases degrees of oppression, there
are some males along with females and children who probably (just a
guess not a blind assertion) suffer forms of oppression far more
degrading and brutal than any woman reading the stuff on pen-l.
For example, with a Y-Chromosome one get's the special honor of being
eligible for being drafted in the military and also the special honor
of being assigned to combat. There are males (miners, sharecroppers,
migrant farmworkers) whose wives suffer additional forms of
oppression--in addition to those suffered by the males--but whose
forms and levels of oppression are far more extreme than that
typically suffered by tenured female academics.


Wojtec Sokolowski wrote:
My own view is that neo-classical economics, as well as other disciplines
based on external-control-rat-choice model of behaviour (cf. behaviourism),
uses a fundamentally different paradigm of scientific truth than other
social, and not only, sciences.  For most sciences, the main object of
inquiry is to discover how things are related to one another (cf. "causes"
and their "effects"), but NC does not give a shit about that.  The primary
object of the NC, and rat-choice models in general, is not to find out how
people make decisions, but to provide an easy to manipulate tool to make
decisions by those endowed with decision making authority.  The beavioral
psychologist does not care about the cognitive processes of his subjects,
all he cares is making his subject run the maze the way he wants them to.
In the same vein, NC economists does not care about cognitive processes
affecting people's decisions, all he cares is how to make them choose what
he wants them to.

Stated differently, whereas most sciences answer the question "why things
are they way they are?" the rat-choice approach answers the question "what
needs to be done to make people bevave in a desired way?"  An authority
figure does not give a shit what other people do and why, all he cares is
how to make them follow his directions, to make things happen.  The
rat-choice model (and theories built on it) gives a crude but easy to use
policy making tool: "if I want to do them this, then I need to push the
incentive buttons #3 & #11, and the punshiment button #37, it should work in
most cases. If it does not, then I will send the Marines."

If the rat-choice model and its derivatives reveal anything about human
nature, it is the nature and the thought process of an authority figure, a
decision makes, a social engineer who has the power of making things happen.
>From that standpoint, all NC is about is power (or knowledge-power as
Foucault put it): it is about what a decision-maker needs to know adn do to
make other behave in the way he wants them to. It does not axpain anything,
I merely tells the authority figure what to do to get the results, before
resorting to brute force.

That explains the popularity of NC economics among the corporate and
government types, as well as its lack of interest in empirical research.
However, this authoritarian slant is not defensible in a society ostensibly
built on democratic principles.  Hence NC economists pretend they are
explaining something (rather than merely telling the rulers what to do), and
for that end they manufacture the anecdotal world which then they "explain"
with their models.

In that respect, the rat-choice cum its derivatives are a form of literary
fiction which the government and executive types follow to mold the lives of
other people.  An if the blue prints spelled out in that fiction do not
bring the desired results, the Marines are sent in to force the compliance
with the rulers' plans.

Response (Jim C): What can I say? Right On and beautifully put!.


regards,

wojtek sokolowski
institute for policy studies
johns hopkins university
baltimore, md 21218
sokol@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
voice: (410) 516-4056
fax:   (410) 516-8233

POLITICS IS THE SHADOW CAST ON SOCIETY BY BIG BUSINESS. AND AS LONG AS THIS
IS SO, THE ATTENUATI0N OF THE SHADOW WILL NOT CHANGE THE SUBSTANCE.
- John Dewey


Jim Craven


*------------------------------------------------------------------*
*  James Craven             * " The philosophers have only         *
*  Dept of Economics        * interpreted the world in various     *
*  Clark College            * ways; the point, however, is to      *
*  1800 E. Mc Loughlin Blvd.* change it." (Karl Marx)              *
*  Vancouver, Wa. 98663     *                                      *
*  (360) 992-2283           *                                      *
*  jcraven@xxxxxxxxx        *                                      *
* MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION *