scholarly journals The Luftmentsh as an economic metaphor for Jewish poverty: a rhetorical analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Vallois ◽  
Sarah Imhoff

. “Luftmentsh”, literally “air-person”, is a Yiddish word which refers to beggars, petty traders, peddlers and various kinds of paupers. The word appeared for the first time in Yiddish literature in the 1860's and began to be used in political and economic discourse in the 1880's-1890's. This article proposes a rhetorical analysis of the word Luftmentsh, considered as an economic metaphor for Jewish poverty. Our study thus contributes to the existing literature on economic metaphors in the history of economic thought. We also show that the economic character of the Luftmentsh popularized an influential yet ambivalent image of Jewish masculinity at work.

2010 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Serhat Kologlugil

The literature in economic methodology has witnessed an increase in the number of studies which, drawing upon the postmodern turn in social sciences, pay serious attention to the non-epistemological-discursive elements of economic theorizing. This recent work on the "economic discourse" has thus added a new dimension to economic methodology by analyzing various discursive aspects of the construction of scientific meanings in economics. Taking a similar stance, this paper explores Michel Foucault's archaeological analysis of scientific discourses. It aims to show that his archaeological reading of the history of economic thought provides an articulate non-epistemological framework for the analysis of the discursive elements in the history of economics and contemporary economic theorizing.


2006 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincent Barnett

In his Journal of the History of Economic Thought article, “A Suggestion for Clarifying the Study of Dissent in Economics,” Roger Backhouse usefully proposed some terminological clarifications with respect to studying the ideas of disagreement, controversy, and dissent in (Western) economic discourse, heterodoxy being defined as a more narrow category than dissent. Backhouse also wrote that “the ideas on which Marxist, Radical, and Post Keynesian economics are based were arguably never widely held” (Backhouse 2004, p. 265).


1991 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 145-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Mirowski

In writings about the history of the use of mathematical expression in economics, there seems to be a conviction that the movement towards its current flowering was cumulative, inevitable, and indeed, natural. While, such notions are widely held among practicing economists, I want to argue that they are not historically valid. The deployment of mathematical expression in economic discourse enjoyed neither an inexorable nor unhindered progress, but rather was characterized by two primary ruptures in the history of economic thought, episodes marking the inflection points in the rise of mathematical discourse. The main reason for such a disjointed narrative is that, in the evolution of economic thought, most of the participants were not convinced that the subject matter intrinsically demanded mathematical expression, while those so enamored experienced great difficulty in creating a community which could agree upon a formalism which was thought to be well-suited to economic issues.


2011 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
STEVEN G. MEDEMA

The Coase theorem has occupied a prominent place in economic discourse for the last half-century. The debate over the theorem and the uses to which it has been put are important moments in the history of modern economics, and the analysis of them by the historians of economics sheds light on certain of the tensions in contemporary historiography. This article discusses several aspects of the intellectual history of the Coase theorem, arguing that the study of this history illustrates the necessity of a pluralistic approach, and that attempts to write history from a singular historiographic perspective leave us with histories that are both misleading and incomplete.


2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter DeScioli

AbstractThe target article by Boyer & Petersen (B&P) contributes a vital message: that people have folk economic theories that shape their thoughts and behavior in the marketplace. This message is all the more important because, in the history of economic thought, Homo economicus was increasingly stripped of mental capacities. Intuitive theories can help restore the mind of Homo economicus.


2019 ◽  
pp. 135-145
Author(s):  
Viktor A. Popov

Deep comprehension of the advanced economic theory, the talent of lecturer enforced by the outstanding working ability forwarded Vladimir Geleznoff scarcely at the end of his thirties to prepare the publication of “The essays of the political economy” (1898). The subsequent publishing success (8 editions in Russia, the 1918­-year edition in Germany) sufficiently demonstrates that Geleznoff well succeded in meeting the intellectual inquiry of the cross­road epoch of the Russian history and by that taking the worthful place in the history of economic thought in Russia. Being an acknowledged historian of science V. Geleznoff was the first and up to now one of the few to demonstrate the worldwide community of economists the theoretically saturated view of Russian economic thought in its most fruitful period (end of XIX — first quarter of XX century).


2007 ◽  
pp. 73-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Nureev

The article provides a description of T. Veblen’s views, showing his place in the history of economic thought. The author analyzes the context of Veblen’s life and work and considers different aspects of his theoretical legacy. Special attention is paid to the discussion of Veblen’s role in the development of institutional economics. The author describes in detail the main trends in the development of institutionalism after Veblen.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document