I found this an interesting critique of economists...
"Klamer compares the conversation of economists with that of a group of Italian men arguing vehemently in small closed clusters on a square:
I wanted to join in, argue politics, offer my opinion on the Bologna soccer team. But, even apart from my bad Italian, I knew I couldn’t. Each group had a history I was not privy to, referenced past conversations, called upon anecdotes that would have been lost on me. Even if I had managed to worm my way into one of the groups, I would have been immediately found out. I can’t talk with my hands […] No matter what, I was not part of any conversations taking place in the square. I had a similar feelin when I went to my first economics conference (Klamer 2007, 16)."
This is from the Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics book review of Arjo Klamer’s Speaking of economics: how to get into the conversation. Link to book review. Link to book.
This is true of most specialized fields. The whole idea of the biblical shibboleth comes to mind here. We all tend to speak the language of the tribe with passion and a tendency to forget that others can't follow it or sense why we're so excited or possessive. You should see the theory heads in the Modern Language Association (MLA) get going! Oi Vey!
ReplyDelete