Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom and John Maynard Keynes's General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money may be the two most important books on economics written in the twentieth century. Each is written by a brilliant, renowned economist. Each remains highly influential to this day -- within the "science" of economics, as well as in the worlds of politics, policy, and public debate.
And when you read them side by side, even though they're both works of "economics," you might wonder if they're talking about the same thing at all. Latour, following Kuhn, might argue they're not. Keynes and Friedman represent, respectively, two incommensurable paradigms. (Because we're in a crisis of revolutionary science, and neither paradigm has a solid claim on being simply "real," both have acquired well-known names: "Keynesianism," and either "neoclassicism" (if you like it) or "neoliberalism" (if you don't).) Each paradigm asks (and doesn't ask) different questions, uses (and doesn't use) different seeing devices, looks at (and doesn't look at) different data, has a very different conception of who/what the important human and non-human agents are (and aren't), and ultimately, has a very different understanding of what it is -- and is not -- studying.
All fine and good -- we liberals love multiple perspectives! -- except that they're talking about something real. With a lot of real consequences. For a lot of real people. (Not to mention cows and corn stalks.) No matter which side you're on -- and there are of course more than just these two sides -- defending the correct paradigm of economics is tantamount to defending truth, justice, freedom, equality, and the good life. (This is very clear in Friedman. Somewhat less so in Keynes. Relevant.) There is no "neutral."
In this blog post, we'd like you to take and defend a position on the following question: based on what we've read of The Omnivore's Dilemma, which economic paradigm -- Keynesian or neoclassical/neoliberal -- better describes the "reality" (which we do believe in...) of the contemporary U.S. industrial food economy?
Exhortation #1: Take a strong stand and argue for it. No "this one's kinda right over here; that one's kinda right over there" -- we're dealing with radically different worldviews! And take the space you need to make a good argument -- you'll probably need at least 350-400 words to do your argument justice.
Exhortation #2: Note that we're not asking you which one you like better, or which one you think is nicer or fairer or happier; we're asking you which one is (more) real. This is as "pure" science as it gets. (Which of course is not pure at all.)
Exhortation #3: Ground your answer -- obviously -- in your reading of Friedman and Keynes, and of Posner and Pollan (and possibly even Latour) as secondary sources. Cite texts, cases, and examples -- be specific. And as in all good arguments, be sure to consider, and refute, the opposing position. In other words: whichever paradigm you're arguing for, you've got to deal seriously with both.
Enjoy. This may be challenging. But you're up to it. Class gonna be fun...
No comments:
Post a Comment