Menu Expand

Bourgeois Knowledge: The Incomplete Closure of the Epistemological Break in the Work of Deirdre McCloskey

Dekker, Erwin | Kuchař, Pavel

Schmollers Jahrbuch, Vol. 140 (2020), Iss. 3-4: pp. 301–317

Additional Information

Article Details

Pricing

Author Details

Erwin Dekker, Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, United States.

Pavel Kuchař, Department of Political Economy, King’s College London, Bush House, North East Wing, 30 Aldwych, London, WC2B 4BG, United Kingdom.

References

  1. Boettke, P. J. 2012. Living Economics: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Oakland: The Independent Institute.  Google Scholar
  2. Boltanski, L. (1990) 2012. Love and Justice as Competences: Three Essays on the Sociology of Action. Translated by C. Porter. Cambridge: Polity Press.  Google Scholar
  3. Booth, W. C. 1988. The Company We Keep: An Ethics of Fiction. Berkeley: University of California Press.  Google Scholar
  4. Buchanan, J. M. 1964. “What Should Economists Do?” Southern Economic Journal 30 (3): 213 – 22.  Google Scholar
  5. Buchanan, J. M. 2000. “Economics as a Public Science.” In Economic Inquiry and Its Logic: Volume 12 of the Collected Works of James M. Buchanan, 44 – 51. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.  Google Scholar
  6. Caplan, B. 2002. “Systematically Biased Beliefs about Economics: Robust Evidence of Judgemental Anomalies from the Survey of Americans and Economists on the Economy.” Economic Journal 112 (479): 433 – 58.  Google Scholar
  7. Dekker, E. 2016. The Viennese Students of Civilization: The Meaning and Context of Austrian Economics Reconsidered. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Google Scholar
  8. Emmett, R. B. 2008. “The Religion of a Skeptic: Frank H. Knight on Ethics, Spirituality, and Religion during His Iowa Years.” History of Political Economy 40 (5): 315 – 37.  Google Scholar
  9. Friedman, M. 1953. “The Methodology of Positive Economics.” In Essays in Positive Economics, 3 – 46. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.  Google Scholar
  10. Gopen, G. D. 2004. Expectations: Teaching Writing from the Reader’s Perspective. New York: Longman.  Google Scholar
  11. Ignatieff, M. 2017. The Ordinary Virtues: Moral Order in a Divided World. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.  Google Scholar
  12. Klamer, A. 1996. “The Value of Culture.” In Value of Culture: On the Relationship Between Economics and Arts, edited by A. Klamer, 13 – 28. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.  Google Scholar
  13. Klamer, A., D. N. McCloskey, and R. M. Solow (eds.). 1988. The Consequences of Economic Rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Google Scholar
  14. Lanham, R. A. 2006. The Economics of Attention: Style and Substance in the Age of Information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.  Google Scholar
  15. Lavoie, D. 1990. “Hermeneutics, Subjectivity, and the Lester/Machlup Debate: Toward A More Anthropological Approach to Empirical Economics.” In Economics as Discourse: An Analysis of the Language of Economists, edited by W. J. Samuels, 167 – 87. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.  Google Scholar
  16. Lazear, E. P. 2000. “Economic Imperialism.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 115 (1): 99 – 146.  Google Scholar
  17. Lester, R. A. 1946. “Shortcomings of Marginal Analysis for Wage-Employment Problems.” American Economic Review 36 (1): 63 – 82.  Google Scholar
  18. Lucas, R. E. 1983. “Econometric Policy Evaluation: A Critique.” In Theory, Policy, Institutions: Papers from the Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, edited by K. Brunner and A. Meltzer, 257 – 84. Dordrecht: Elsevier.  Google Scholar
  19. Machlup, F. 1946. “Marginal Analysis and Empirical Research.” American Economic Review 36 (4): 519 – 54.  Google Scholar
  20. McCloskey, D. N. (1982) 1985a. The Applied Theory of Price. New York: Macmillan.  Google Scholar
  21. McCloskey, D. N. 1983. “The Rhetoric of Economics.” Journal of Economic Literature 21 (2): 481 – 517.  Google Scholar
  22. McCloskey, D. N. 1985b. The Rhetoric of Economics. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.  Google Scholar
  23. McCloskey, D. N. 1990. If You’re So Smart: The Narrative of Economic Expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.  Google Scholar
  24. McCloskey, D. N. 1994. Knowledge and Persuasion in Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Google Scholar
  25. McCloskey, D. N. 1996. The Vices of Economists: The Virtues of the Bourgeoisie. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.  Google Scholar
  26. McCloskey, D. N. 1998. “The Good Old Coase Theorem and the Good Old Chicago School: A Comment on Zerbe and Medema.” In Coasean Economics Law and Economics and the New Institutional Economics, edited by S. G. Medema, 239 – 48. Dordrecht: Springer.  Google Scholar
  27. McCloskey, D. N. 1999. “Jack, David, and Judith Looking at Me Looking at Them.” In What Do Economists Know? New Economics of Knowledge, edited by R. F. Garnett, 60 – 4. London: Routledge.  Google Scholar
  28. McCloskey, D. N. 2006. The Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for an Age of Commerce. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.  Google Scholar
  29. McCloskey, D. N. 2010. Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can’t Explain the Modern World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.  Google Scholar
  30. McCloskey, D. N. 2016. Bourgeois Equality: How Ideas, Not Capital or Institutions, Enriched the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.  Google Scholar
  31. McCloskey, D. N. 2019. Why Liberalism Works: How True Liberal Values Produce a Freer, More Equal, Prosperous World for All. New Haven: Yale University Press.  Google Scholar
  32. McCloskey, D. N. and A. Klamer. 1995. “One Quarter of GDP Is Persuasion.” American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings 85 (2): 191 – 5.  Google Scholar
  33. Mill, J. S. 1989. ‘On Liberty’ and Other Writings. Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought, edited by S. Collini. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Google Scholar
  34. Pinker, S. 2018. Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. New York: Penguin.  Google Scholar
  35. Rosling, H., A. Rosling Rönnlund, and O. Rosling. 2018. Factfullness: Ten Reasons We’re Wrong About the World–and Why Things Are Better Than You Think. New York: Flatiron Books.  Google Scholar
  36. Ruccio, D. F. and J. Amariglio. 2003. Postmodern Moments in Modern Economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.  Google Scholar
  37. Schelling, T. C. 1969. “Models of Segregation.” American Economic Review 59 (2): 488 – 93.  Google Scholar
  38. Stigler, G. J. and G. S. Becker. 1977. “De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum.” American Economic Review 67 (2): 76 – 90.  Google Scholar
  39. Wobker, I., P. Kenning, M. Lehmann-Waffenschmidt, and G. Gigerenzer. 2014. “What Do Consumers Know about the Economy? A Test of Minimal Economic Knowledge in Germany.” Journal für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit 9: 231 – 42.  Google Scholar

Abstract

One of the defining features of modern social science and economics in particular is the hard break it posits between everyday and scientific knowledge. French philosophers have called this characteristic the epistemological break. One of the key consequences of this break is that scientists have access to superior knowledge and are in a position to inform and steer the behavior of individuals. We believe that a large epistemological break is incompatible with science in a liberal democratic society. In this paper we analyze the extent to which the writings of Deirdre McCloskey contributed to bridging the epistemological break given that her early work, and the work of some members of younger Chicago School of economics more generally, was strongly influenced by the epistemological break. In the first decade after The Rhetoric of Economics McCloskey did much to strip scientific knowledge of its special elevated status. In her later work on the bourgeoisie there is also a renewed appreciation for everyday knowledge of economic actors. Yet important tensions remain, the appreciation for bourgeois knowledge has not been generalized to an appreciation for all everyday economic knowledge. And the tension between the economist as teacher, and the economist as student of society, which is already present in the Chicago tradition, is still visible.