Charles Brown wrote:
>I think they are of equal importance.
>
>People probably write about them less here, because the name of this
>list has "Economists" in it.
There's plenty to talk about with respect to the economics of
sex/gender, but for some reason that happens in feminist forums, and
rarely among "progressive" or "radical" economists. And a lot of
feminist economists don't like to talk much about class. This split
is bad for both camps.
But progressive/radical economists should also do more to challenge
the obscene narrowness of their discipline, which is cut off - often
proudly - from sociology, politics, psychology, anthropology,
culture, history....you name it. It's bad enough when mainstreamers
do this, when Krugman says something like bad economists are
reincarnated as sociologists. I don't see enough evidence that
radical economists are taking exception to this disicplinary rule. In
fact, the entire sterile apparatus of Marxian value theory is a
double of the mainstream's sterility.
Doug
