Feminist Economics = oxymoronic?
30 Mar 2005 09:34 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kangeikoYesterday, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
athena25's boy and I had a row. It was really good. Both of us have an economics background, so when I said, "I'm writing an essay on feminist economics and problems in certain strands of economic orthodoxy", well, it was like a declaration of war. What followed was a good hour and a half of impassioned 'speaking with conviction' (read=shouting in frustration) because neither of us could make ourselve sunderstood, despite speaking the same language, using the same vocabulary and even having the same economic background. What gives?
Imagine all the red faces when the boy finally said, "but we're progressing towards The Truth!" and my head exploded.
I'd been having a postmodern 'discussion' with someone who believes in an Ultimate Truth, True Reality and Linear Progression In The Entire World, What Of It?
No wonder we had no idea what the other person was talking about. We had this fundamental disagreement about the role, function and, indeed, very idea of economics, and there was no way to resolve it, problematise it, or even feel comfortable that we're actually talking about the same thing.
athena25 was tearing her hair out in the background during the economic!speak, and tossing out helpful bitesize definitions to problematic concepts such as 'essentialising=bad'.
Boy: "...and, really, you keep saying that such and such essentialises this worker or that gender or this concept or such and such, and I've just realised that I've no idea what 'essentialising' actually means. Why's it bad?"
ME: *head!explode*athena25!! Explain!!"
athena25 explains.
*pause*
Boy: "Yeah, OK, I still think you're completely wrong, you see, because you need to abstract in order to model, and..."
Me: *death through frustration* "That's what I've been saying! Again! And again! And again! That's the point!"
At any rate, it made me all fuzzy and glowy inside. I actually think that there may be fundamental disconnect (see, slang usage in academic thought, I'm down with the kids) between certain strands of feminism (particularly those heavily influenced by postmodernism) and certain economic orthodoxies... perhaps even with the very idea of economics itself. This leaves us in a place without conventional econometrics-based economics. This is not a bad place. Everyone hug your nearest Amartya Sen right now.
Who says you need maths to be economist?
athena25's boy and I had a row. It was really good. Both of us have an economics background, so when I said, "I'm writing an essay on feminist economics and problems in certain strands of economic orthodoxy", well, it was like a declaration of war. What followed was a good hour and a half of impassioned 'speaking with conviction' (read=shouting in frustration) because neither of us could make ourselve sunderstood, despite speaking the same language, using the same vocabulary and even having the same economic background. What gives? Imagine all the red faces when the boy finally said, "but we're progressing towards The Truth!" and my head exploded.
I'd been having a postmodern 'discussion' with someone who believes in an Ultimate Truth, True Reality and Linear Progression In The Entire World, What Of It?
No wonder we had no idea what the other person was talking about. We had this fundamental disagreement about the role, function and, indeed, very idea of economics, and there was no way to resolve it, problematise it, or even feel comfortable that we're actually talking about the same thing.
athena25 was tearing her hair out in the background during the economic!speak, and tossing out helpful bitesize definitions to problematic concepts such as 'essentialising=bad'. Boy: "...and, really, you keep saying that such and such essentialises this worker or that gender or this concept or such and such, and I've just realised that I've no idea what 'essentialising' actually means. Why's it bad?"
ME: *head!explode*
athena25!! Explain!!" athena25 explains. *pause*
Boy: "Yeah, OK, I still think you're completely wrong, you see, because you need to abstract in order to model, and..."
Me: *death through frustration* "That's what I've been saying! Again! And again! And again! That's the point!"
At any rate, it made me all fuzzy and glowy inside. I actually think that there may be fundamental disconnect (see, slang usage in academic thought, I'm down with the kids) between certain strands of feminism (particularly those heavily influenced by postmodernism) and certain economic orthodoxies... perhaps even with the very idea of economics itself. This leaves us in a place without conventional econometrics-based economics. This is not a bad place. Everyone hug your nearest Amartya Sen right now.
Who says you need maths to be economist?
