[PEN-L:6867] RE: Old "foggies"/"fogeys"

[knowware@xxxxxxxx (Tom Walker)]

Peter Dorman wrote:

>I don't think this is a useful analysis, for two reasons.

I don't think it's even an analysis. It's a harrumph that refers sketchily
to the rudiments of an analysis. My analyses are usually at least four typed
pages, single spaced.

>1. It assumes a stark opposition between neoclassical economics and
>Marxism

There's one thing I can't stand: replies that start off, "you ASSUME da da
da. . ." Does this "assumption" seem to emanate from my two paragraph
comment or from a broader reading of my posts to Pen-L?

>(It sure doesn't describe me.)

Nor was it intended to. (Beats me why it should put you on the defensive.;-))

>2. It's use of ideology critique (explanation of the hegemony of certain
>ideas according to the interests they reflect) is too abstract.

That's a reckless charge to be throwing at a two paragraph comment.
Actually, I don't do ideology critique, I do narrative analysis (which is
related to ideology critique). Elements of the narrative analysis of the
problem have appeared on pen-l over the past six months or so in my postings
on the lump-of-labour fallacy. I believe that I've presented a substantial
amount of concrete material, although I don't pretend to have told the whole
story.

In a nutshell the story goes something like this: there are these two
intellectual scandals on the scale of a Piltdown man or a Cyril Burt IQ scam
and the discipline takes no notice. I've got no objection to being shown
where my evidence or my interpretation is _wrong_. But to be told my
critique is "too abstract" is to beg the question: what could possibly ever
count as concrete evidence?

>I'm not sure we have a good explanation for the sheer intellectual
>arrogance displayed by mainstream economics.  It is more intense than
>one finds in other fields, and academics who are not economists
>generally find it objectionable.

Except for the academics in other fields who, over the past 15 or 20 years
have emulated the intellectual arrogance of mainstream economics, typically
using "economic" rationales for doing so.

>Incidentally, the fetishism of technique that so many on this list
>complain about is not specific to economics.  It seems to be a general
>characteristic of academic work in all disciplines and probably has
>something to do with the institutional incentives of the modern
>university.  (Is it heresy to say that Robert Lucas and Judith Butler
>have something fundamental in common?)

Which comment makes it look to me like we agree.

regards,

Tom Walker
http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/covenant.htm