From: Dave Zachariah (davez@KTH.SE)
Date: Tue Feb 05 2008 - 16:19:59 EST
Hi Martin,
I agree, labeling your opponent in a debate is counterproductive. I
wrote this related post not long ago:
http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/OPE/archive/0710/0249.html
My labeling of "bourgeois" in the context of SSE is not directly related
to the issue of "pluralism" or "monolithic ideas". Surely, there can be
a plethora of economic theories formed in bourgeois ideology.
One note on your comment though:
> I think students accept many of the things they are taught because
> they feel it is "common sense" stuff, that conforms with everyday
> experience and their intellect. (By the way one of the corner stones
> in the Scottish englightenment).
While I agree with the general point, I think one has to realize that
what is considered "common sense" about social affairs is an expression
of ideology.
E.g. take the notion of a 'Swede', it is "common sense" that there are
and has to be 'nations' and that they must each have their own state.
Well, it is common sense to any subject of a nationalist ideology. Or
take a group of students aspiring to become CEO:s or financial analysts,
to them it is common sense that the stock market is beneficial to a
society. If a teacher tells them so, well that just affirms the ideology
that they subscribe to already.
//Dave Z
on 2008-02-05 13:46 Martin Kragh wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> Perhaps you are right, I wouldn't know. Tests have shown that students
> who finish their studies at the school are more egoistic and less risk
> averse than when they entered. But I'm not sure what that means, if it
> is due to the school, or some other factors as well. For example, the
> USSR was, by and large, the largest ideological apparatus for 70
> years, but that did not prevent its citizens from protesting until the
> regime collapsed. I think students accept many of the things they are
> taught because they feel it is "common sense" stuff, that conforms
> with everyday experience and their intellect. (By the way one of the
> corner stones in the Scottish englightenment).
>
> The reason I ask in the first place is that professional economists in
> the mainstream most likely never think about questions on ideology in
> relation to their work, they are way to focused on their very narrow
> research field, and try to produce papers that journals will accept.
> There are teachers who are explicitly political, and in the case of
> SSE, right wing political, but they often have troubles with their
> colleagues. I think that in putting labels on things, such as a school
> (an institution as you say), one should try to use a terminology that
> your opponents can be lead to accept. And if you want to build a
> critique, one should do so from that point of view, otherwise very few
> will care to listen because they will feel alienated. If you tell
> people that they belong to a "bourgeois institution", and that that is
> the reason you don't care for what they do, this is a dead end street.
>
> As regards alternative places to study economics, it seems to me
> that there are fewer alternatives now than before to the
> particular economics institutions. This is an outrage, since it means
> fewer alternative versions of economics.
>
> Kind regards
> Martin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 29 2008 - 00:00:03 EST