Re: Heterodoxers are crackpots

["Forstater, Mathew" <forstaterm@xxxxxxxx>]

Mason - Many people do not like the term heterodox.  (Some don't like
the term "orthodox" either--someone on here once cleverly suggested
"homodox" in its place!).  But you should understand two things, at
least:

1) I am old enough to remember the pre-"heterodox" days. (I even
remember when there was no such term as "Sraffian"--it was
"neo-Ricardian" or subsumed under Post Keynesian).  There were Marxists,
neo-Marxists, Institutionalists, Post Keynesians, Austrians, Feminists,
Social economists, etc.  In other words, there was no term to bring the
various "non-mainstream" (that won't do, either) groups together.  And
for many reasons, many people--especially those whose economics was not
confined to one branch only--felt it was important for there to be an
umbrella to cover them all.
I don't know anyone who *loves* the term--but what is better?  Sorry,
but "modern" and "correct" don't quite do the job.  Our department often
uses "pluralism" (as does ICAPE, if I remember correctly) but that
really doesn't satisfy the same objectives (pluralism refers to
openness, and includes neoclassical).


2) It is too late. Once you have several organizations, conferences, an
on-line journal, etc., it is institutionalized.

Mat