[PEN-L:6818] Re: Re: Re: Old "foggies"/"fogeys"

["J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>]

Michael,
     The problem is that the heterodox old fogeys
are not in positions of power in the main Ph.D.
granting institutions.  There are a few such
institutions that have heterodox economics programs.
But they are few in number and their graduates have
a great deal of trouble getting placed out of their
circle in such institutions.
Barkley Rosser
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Keaney <M.Keaney@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, May 14, 1999 12:46 PM
>Subject: [PEN-L:6815] Re: Re: Old "foggies"/"fogeys"


>On Fri, May 14, 1999, 2:42 pm, Tom Walker wrote:
>
>>>Michael Keaney wrote:
>>>
>>>>One possible advantage accruing from present circumstances - more an
>>>>unintended side effect - is that the so-called old fogeys preserve what
>>>>remains of heterodox teaching and research.
>>>
>>>On the other hand:
>>>
>>>"As with other marginal groups, a certain handful of [heterodox old
fogeys]
>>>are accorded higher status that they may perform a species of cultural
>>>policing over the rest. . . Such exceptions are generally obliged to make
>>>ritual, and often comic, statements of deference to justify their
elevation."
>>>
>>>I've paraphrased from Kate Millett's Sexual Politics (1969), substituting
>>>"heterodox old fogeys" for "women". By definition, a "heterodoxy" offers
a
>>>critique of the arbitrary selection and privileging of some discourses
>>>(orthodoxy) over others. But no critical discourse has the right to
exempt
>>>itself from its own critique. So we may suppose that certain heterodox
>>>positions are "more orthodox" -- that is to say, more _deferential_ to
the
>>>orthodoxy -- than others. And, we might suppose that it is those "less
>>>hetero" heterodoxies that are allowed by the orthodox to represent
>>>heterodoxy. Thus the "advantage" of preserving an old fogey heterodoxy
must
>>>not be assumed to accrue to heteroxy per se. Quite the contrary.
>
>I am not exempting  critical discourse from its own critique. Far from it -
>assuming the existence of a significant number of heterodox old fogeys in
>positions of relative power and influence, especially with regard to course
>development and delivery, doctoral supervision and faculty appointment,
then
>these would have a lot of answering to do as regards the shrinking
>opportunities for heterodox study in American and British universities.
>Similarly, what about the recruitment opportunities for heterodox
>youngsters? Those who espouse greater disciplinary or intellectual
pluralism
>do not seem to have had much impact regarding the nurturance of the
>provision of alternative perspectives. This observation becomes a criticism
>when it refers to those who could have made a difference.
>
>All of which is to say that my original point was that recruitment policies
>focusing primarily or significantly on the race, class or gender of
>applicants/candidates should also recognise the intellectual individuality
>of these individuals. Otherwise we can be as politically correct and as
>reflective of wider social composition as could be possible while the very
>ideology we would all indict as at least culpable in the legitimation and
>prolongation of our societal and international woes would be further
>propagated at the expense of any critical perspective. And then where would
>that leave us?
>
>Michael
>
>Michael Keaney
>Department of Economics
>Glasgow Caledonian University
>70 Cowcaddens Road
>Glasgow G4 0BA
>Scotland, U.K.
>
>