******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
Historians have been addressing this question for a long time. To be fair to the economists, sociologists and others, historians don't read each other either. The old notion of "keeping up with the literature" is a hangover from the 1950s when much of the profession--or someone in their circle--was at least acquainted with virtually everyone else in the field. The expression has rather evolved to become "keeping up with the most important works being added to the literature." And this is largely a matter of keeping track of what the newly minted scholars are producing in the elite universities. Yes, class does apply here, as well. For this reason, scholars continually reinvent the wheel. Or is it rediscovered? And is it rediscovery if we are unsure about the previous incarnations of the concept? Is it round or merely circular with dimensionality? And is it still really a wheel if it's not part of a set of similar such artifacts? And is it the wheel that's important or our idea about the identity of the wheel that we find so moving? Solidarity! Mark L. _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
