I can’t speak for the author, but I think it just depends on how narrow you define economic history. Who gets to say define its boundaries and determine what constitutes the contents of “economic” in history?
If you want the field of Economic History to be taken seriously, this type of article should be outside the boundaries.
It is an ideological polemic.
The absence of economic equality is not evidence of a legacy of slavery or racism or white supremacy. It has been the outcome of every society since the invention of agriculture except Hunter Gatherers. There is no reason to expect equal outcomes between individuals or groups.
I appreciate you’re comment, which is a reflection of how much you care about a field, and how much you’ve invested in an idea of what it is; but I think a broader and more flexible understanding of economic history widens our intellectual range and creates more opportunities to ask a more diverse range of questions. Isolating “economic” from other genres of thinking is unnecessarily confining. Why confine our thinking just to conform to academic convention?
Because it undermines the legitimacy of the entire field, and it undermines the utility of the field for humanity. Investigating the causes of economic growth is extremely important. Changing the definitions of words helps no one.
People can get ideological polemics anywhere.
This article is not “asking a more diverse range of questions.” The answer was obviously determined before any investigation took place. It is justifying a pre-existing ideology that has been around for centuries.
Nor is it “widening our intellectual range” or making it “broader and more flexible.” It is just another ideological polemic. Ideological polemics narrow our intellectual range, because that is their goal.
Worse these kind of disguised polemics are happening all across the social sciences so it threatens all serious investigation. It is a big part of the reason why the credibility of academia is collapsing with the public.
This is particularly odd coming from a Substack entitled “Economic Historian.”
Again, I appreciate your comments here, but you’re taking an incredibly narrow view of economic history. You’re also arguing that widening the way we understand it undermines the entire project of economic history. That’s just an assumption you’re making, which I definitely don’t agree with. Your comment suggests two things: that economic history is only the study of economy growth, and that economic history is ideologically neutral. I wholeheartedly disagree on both counts, and just saying “this is what economic history is and anyone who says otherwise is undermining the entire project” seems a little like an evangelical preacher telling everyone what Christianity is and what it means to be a Christian. You’re welcome to preach, but that doesn’t mean everyone else is misguided if they don’t embrace what you’re preaching.
I’d be happy to continue this conversation in a message, so feel free to send one if you’d like to discuss further.
Thanks again for the interesting comments! Keep ‘em coming on other articles too!
I never gave a definition of economic history, I just explained why the pursuing knowledge in the field is important and why ideological bias undermines it.
I am not a Christian preacher. This article is the one doing the preaching, and that seems to be why you like it. An article with conflicting ideological bias would be rejected. That is why ideology poisons intellectual inquiry. It starts with acceptable conclusions and then searches for supporting ammunition in the facts.
If you “wholeheartedly disagree” that the study of economic history should be ideologically neutral, then you clearly want polemics that fit your ideology.
I thought I was subscribing to a serious Substack on Economic History (because its name). I guess that I was wrong.
east asians. ashkenazi jews.
Do you seriously consider this to be Economic History?
I can’t speak for the author, but I think it just depends on how narrow you define economic history. Who gets to say define its boundaries and determine what constitutes the contents of “economic” in history?
If you want the field of Economic History to be taken seriously, this type of article should be outside the boundaries.
It is an ideological polemic.
The absence of economic equality is not evidence of a legacy of slavery or racism or white supremacy. It has been the outcome of every society since the invention of agriculture except Hunter Gatherers. There is no reason to expect equal outcomes between individuals or groups.
I appreciate you’re comment, which is a reflection of how much you care about a field, and how much you’ve invested in an idea of what it is; but I think a broader and more flexible understanding of economic history widens our intellectual range and creates more opportunities to ask a more diverse range of questions. Isolating “economic” from other genres of thinking is unnecessarily confining. Why confine our thinking just to conform to academic convention?
Because it undermines the legitimacy of the entire field, and it undermines the utility of the field for humanity. Investigating the causes of economic growth is extremely important. Changing the definitions of words helps no one.
People can get ideological polemics anywhere.
This article is not “asking a more diverse range of questions.” The answer was obviously determined before any investigation took place. It is justifying a pre-existing ideology that has been around for centuries.
Nor is it “widening our intellectual range” or making it “broader and more flexible.” It is just another ideological polemic. Ideological polemics narrow our intellectual range, because that is their goal.
Worse these kind of disguised polemics are happening all across the social sciences so it threatens all serious investigation. It is a big part of the reason why the credibility of academia is collapsing with the public.
This is particularly odd coming from a Substack entitled “Economic Historian.”
Again, I appreciate your comments here, but you’re taking an incredibly narrow view of economic history. You’re also arguing that widening the way we understand it undermines the entire project of economic history. That’s just an assumption you’re making, which I definitely don’t agree with. Your comment suggests two things: that economic history is only the study of economy growth, and that economic history is ideologically neutral. I wholeheartedly disagree on both counts, and just saying “this is what economic history is and anyone who says otherwise is undermining the entire project” seems a little like an evangelical preacher telling everyone what Christianity is and what it means to be a Christian. You’re welcome to preach, but that doesn’t mean everyone else is misguided if they don’t embrace what you’re preaching.
I’d be happy to continue this conversation in a message, so feel free to send one if you’d like to discuss further.
Thanks again for the interesting comments! Keep ‘em coming on other articles too!
I never gave a definition of economic history, I just explained why the pursuing knowledge in the field is important and why ideological bias undermines it.
I am not a Christian preacher. This article is the one doing the preaching, and that seems to be why you like it. An article with conflicting ideological bias would be rejected. That is why ideology poisons intellectual inquiry. It starts with acceptable conclusions and then searches for supporting ammunition in the facts.
If you “wholeheartedly disagree” that the study of economic history should be ideologically neutral, then you clearly want polemics that fit your ideology.
I thought I was subscribing to a serious Substack on Economic History (because its name). I guess that I was wrong.
Unsubscribing.