You must have javascript enabled to view this website. Please change your browser preferences to enable javascript, and reload this page.
<a onClick="window.open('/olcweb/cgi/pluginpop.cgi?it=jpg::::/sites/dl/free/0070916543/120413/AETbanner_486_44.jpg','popWin', 'width=536,height=114,resizable,scrollbars');" href="#"><img valign="absmiddle" height="16" width="16" border="0" src="/olcweb/styles/shared/linkicons/image.gif"> (9.0K)</a>
McCloskey and Her Influence American economist Deirdre McCloskey was trained as an economic historian at the University of Chicago. She then pursued an interest in literary theory and rhetoric (the art of argument) as a professor at the University of Iowa. Here, a group of scholars from various fields have been involved in the study of how language is applied in a variety of subjects. McCloskey played an important part in this project, and has written extensively on the use of rhetoric in economics. In addition, her professional interests include the importance of gender in economic analysis, a subject on which she has a wide-ranging perspective, given the gender change she underwent in 1995. (Many of her writings are under her former name of Donald N. McCloskey.)
Language and Economics Whether or not economics is considered a science in the same league as physics or chemistry, one thing is certain: economic reasoning is based not just on mathematics, but also on language. While language's effect on economic thinking is often overlooked, this link has been stressed by McCloskey. Like any field of enquiry, she says, economics uses four main tools of argument: fact, logic, metaphor, and story. Economists highlight the first pair in this foursome, fact and logic, which are the foundations of the scientific method. But, whether they know it or not, economists also employ the other pair of tools, metaphor and story.
McCloskey gives examples of the metaphors and stories found in economics. Metaphors (which are analogies or comparisons) occur in terms such as 'human capital', a case where an intangible body of skills and knowledge is implicitly compared with a durable capital good such as a machine. Stories are employed when economists introduce time into their models: for example, in analyzing the dynamics economic growth or in examining the process whereby a market reaches equilibrium.
Does the use of such literary devices make a discipline such as economics less logical? Not at all, says McCloskey:
To admit now that metaphor and story matter also in human reasoning does not entail becoming less rational and less reasonable, dressing in saffron robes or tuning into "New Dimensions." On the contrary it entails becoming more rational and more reasonable, because it puts more of what persuades serious people under the scrutiny of reason.1
Indeed, all sciences make liberal use of the tools of argument, metaphor and story included: "science is after all a matter of arguing."2 In this regard, an economic argument is no different from any other. It can be judged not just by the rigour of its logic, but by its overall persuasiveness. This raises a range of questions. How appropriate is a particular economic metaphor? (For metaphors can both reveal and distort reality.) What allusions are being made in a certain economic story? Is the story's plot complete? If not, what is absent?
Such an approach raises a more basic issue. Any story reflects the perspective of its author. Like other critics of mainstream economics, McCloskey disagrees with its rigid distinction between positive and normative statements: between 'is' versus 'ought'. She contends that it is often impossible to disentangle a statement's apparent meaning from the values that inform it, especially in a social discipline such as economics, where disagreement over values is common. For example, a simple declaration of a country's current unemployment rate (a positive statement, as far as mainstream economics is concerned) is not so straightforward once account is taken of the subjective decisions made in calculating such a statistic.
Gender and Economics McCloskey’s stress on the subjectivity of story-telling within economics also leads her to highlight the role of gender. She sees male bias as at least partly responsible for the discipline's high level of abstraction:
The notion that one can prove or disprove a great social truth by standing at a blackboard is a peculiarly masculine delusion. The women can do the math, of course. But they are less inclined to accept it as all there is. It is something of which women students of economics are disproportionately skeptical, I think, though usually silent in their skepticism. Men, especially young men, are typically able to believe any crazy abstraction about society, and stand ready to impose it by force of arms because they do not know what a 'society' is. Many more women know, even when young, and are appalled by the shallow summaries of society displayed in the words and graphs and mathematics of economics. Perhaps this contributes to their lack of enthusiasm for economics as presently taught.3
This is not the only harm caused by male dominance in economics, says McCloskey. Our conception of economic actors is also affected. She argues that the decision-maker found in economic models is a masculine caricature more interested in competitiveness than cooperation: "a cross between Rambo and an investment banker."4 'Economic man' is willing to act in a way that harms others, and shows little of the social solidarity found in 'economic woman'. McCloskey believes this view need not be permanent, because, as more women become economists, they are helping create a more balanced perspective. An economics shorn of its male bias, according to McCloskey, will have a closer connection with social realities. In the process, the discipline will be humanized and its scope of enquiry enlarged.
Contemporary Relevance Not surprisingly, McCloskey’s criticisms of economics have sparked controversy. Her detractors suggest that she goes too far in her literary treatment of economic reasoning. While some economic terms are undoubtedly metaphorical, often this feature adds little to our understanding. For example, to call a demand curve a metaphor (as McCloskey does) has little economic relevance. Indeed, the connection she makes between economic theories and storytelling is itself a metaphor, which is appropriate only in particular cases.
McCloskey's feminist views on gender and economics are also sometimes criticized. Are the theories of female economists all that different from those of their male counterparts? In practice, this is not necessarily the case. As for the emphasis on competitiveness in traditional economics, it is possible to argue that this has arisen not because most economists have been men, but because economics by its very nature highlights the marketplace, in which self-interested behaviour is the norm for both men and women.
Regardless of these controversies over her work, McCloskey is respected by most economist, admirers and critics alike, as a lively and provocative thinker. Moreover, by her example, she has proven just how innovative and unconventional modern-day economists can be.
