James Craven Clark College, 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. Vancouver, WA. 98663 (360) 992-2283; Fax: (360) 992-2863 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.home.earthlink.net/~blkfoot5 *My Employer Has No Association With My Private/Protected Opinion* -----Original Message----- From: Yoshie Furuhashi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 4:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:10512] Re: RE: Re: "Co-optation" and "Heterodoxy" Hi Jim: >Actually I wasn't myself so much inveighing against "counterculture" as >wondering what it is exactly and wondering how much of what is called >Heterodox economics is ersatz or is a co-opted caricature of some other >"real thing"; or, perhaps, a self co-opted caricature of other >"non-heterodox" caricatures that have been at least partially accepted in >that the proposed refutations address and react to other "non-heterodox" >caricatures and in doing so create another caricature. > >It was just some random musings on taking the model to another level and >across disciplines. I think it would be worth doing the Baffler-type dialectical criticism in economics, because I don't think such a thing is done very often (if at all) in this discipline. (My criticism was only meant to apply to Thomas Frank and his repetition; also I think that what's worth doing once in a while is not necessarily worth doing all the time. Perhaps I was unclear) If you have a dialectical criticism of "heterodox" economics, I will be all ears. Yoshie Yoshie: David Colander and some others began to do more work in "The Spread of Economic Ideas" and by whom and how orthodoxies are defined, spread and fall; how and by whom heterodoxies in turn are defined, spread and become the new "orthodoxies" and then fall (sort of like Thesis-->Antithesis-->Synthesis--->Thesis) I remember at a conference in Vancouver BC at a session on applying core concepts of "mainstream" economics and presumably "heterodox" economics as well, (homo oeconomicus, opportunity cost, maximization and calculation on the margin, etc) to what economists do: the subjects chosen, methodologies, defining orthodox versus heterodox, mainstreaming versus marginalizing/demonizing, academic placement and promotions, tenure criteria, criteria for publishability, "permissible" versus heretical concepts/methodologies/media etc.)there wasn't much enthusiasm for "introspection" and self-examination as I remember. Certainly some of the economists I met appeared to fit the Homo Oeconomicus model (crude or "refined") to a tee such that the model itself and their heavy reliance on it, appeared to be a form of Freudian projection--they were describing and legitimating themselves. I think that any dialectical examination of orthodoxy or heterodoxy would have to include the concept of cognitive dissonance (contradictions between fact vs belief, fact vs emotion, emotion vs belief create mind/physiology disturbing dissonances in need of resolution via altering either facts, emotions or beliefs to resolve contradictions or dissonance) I think that any dialectical examination of orthodoxy or heterodoxy in academia would have to include an examination of institutional imperatives and mechanisms of survival, success and influence in academia, government or "private" sectors: toadying and whoring, sycophancy, scholar despotism, networking, mentoring, rhetorical intention dressed up as "value free", self-censorship, Faustian bargains and forms of rationalizing them etc. Also who and on what basis is "orthodoxy" versus "heterodoxy" defined? Is there any generalizable definition of "heterodox"? Is there such a thing as a uniform "heterodox" paradigm? Is "heterodox" just a general concept for all those subjects, methodological approaches, sources and authorities considered "taboo" by the old fools--and their younger whores/toadies--who dominate the usual associations and conventions? Who are the "leaders" of heterodoxy and how and by whom did they become defined/accepted as leaders? To what extent do they mirror, in reacting to orthodoxy, the very orthodoxy to which they have reacted thus creating the notion of a heterodoxy? Is heterodox synonomous with anti-orthodox or with reformed orthodox? To what extent, in accepting and applying some of the methodologies and tools utilized/over-utilized by the "orthodoxy", have the heterodox sought approval from or at least a truce with orthodoxy, at the expense of relevance,impact and accessibility for those who are the professed objects of concern/research of the heterodox--poor, oppressed etc? Are the heterodox mimicking the orthodox in terms of insulation, criteria for accceptability of research for publication, notions of "permissibility" versus taboo in subjects and venues? Is heterodox some kind of marketing gimmick to get new undergrad/grad students--in the face of declining enrollments/revenues--with no mind or stomach for the ultra-math (mathurbation) and reductionism/positivism and irrelevance of orthodoxy? These are but some of the questions that should be raised in any dialectical examination of "heterodoxy" in economics or any other discipline. Jim C
