While it's true that abstract concepts such as mercantilism can "give a false unity to disparate events, to conceal the close up reality of particular times and particular circumstances..." that doesn't mean that the use of such concepts _always and everywhere_ leads to such confusion, excessive abstraction, or reification. We shouldn't give in to the abstract drive to reject abstractions.
We could see mercantilism as summarizing the shared characteristics of heterogeneous empirical phenomena -- while also noting the differences amongst the phenomena. Though we may need a long book like that of Hechscher to talk about mercantilism in all its variety, we could also learn something from the abstract summary at the beginning or end of that book. And leaving out those summaries -- in a vain effort ot avoid abstraction or reification -- would simply leave us with a bunch of disparate "facts" (a buzzing, blooming confusion) on which we'd impose our own pre-conceived theories rather than benefiting from the deductions of the author (with which we could agree or disagree). BTW, if I remember Heckscher's analysis correctly, he saw mercantilism as the economic side of absolutism, i.e., the effort by small feudal lords to unite bigger territories under their rule, to become kings running unified states. It didn't simply involve the violation of the canons of free trade theory as Smithians suggest (since trade was hardly "free" before mercantilism). In fact, it involved the breaking down of trade barriers (and such things as tax farming) _within_ the king's territory. It's a little like the creation of the European Common Market (or other trade blocs), which not only freed trade within its bounds but also raised the effective trade barriers vis-a-vis the non-ECM. ------------------------ Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > -----Original Message----- > From: Eubulides [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 11:41 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [PEN-L] quick question > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Carrol Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Eubulides wrote: > > > > > > Right but the dictionary entry is saying 1873. I'm > reading a review of > > > Heckscher's book [it's Tuesday and I don't have a tv :-)] and I'm > asking > > > in an historiographical and nominalist sense....... > > > > > > > OED Online gives first date as 1838. But I can't find their > bibliography > > of sources so I don't know what kind of asource they took the quote > > from. New Moral World 22 Dec. 142/2. I don't have the > foggiest idea what > > the New Moral World was. For mercantile system the earliest source > > given, as Michael says, is Smith. > > > > Carrol > > ==================== > > Thanks for the above Carrol. > > Here's a tidbit from one of Lars Magnusson's papers: > > Quoting a guy named D C Coleman: > > > "...what was this mercantilism? Did it exist? As a > description of a trend > in economic thought the term may well be useful. As a label > for economic > policy the term is not simply misleading, but actively confusing, a > red-herring of historiography. It serves to give a false unity to > disparate events, to conceal the close up reality of > particular times and > particular circumstances..." >
