Randy Wray — Breaking into the Mainstream: Can Heterodoxy Do It?

Here’s a short but thoughtful piece on heterodox economics by a researcher at the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.

Nice thoughts based on what happened a while back in the economics department at Notre Dame, when the heterodox element was all but eliminated.

Economics as it is practiced is not science. It is a cultural myth that justifies a particular way of life that can be broadly characterized as neoliberalism, that is, the view that the neoclassical economic paradigm is the natural basis for a society and it's institutions, underlies democracy, and is the basis for globalization. Heterodox economists that attack the paradigm from the periphery do not contest the foundations of the core, which is liberalism. Without critiquing liberalism there is no solid foundation to stand on.

For example, the same signs function as different symbols in different contexts embedded in different worldviews. When the same terms don't even mean the same thing intentionally how can there be a debate. From the logical point of view, debate requires criteria, and criteria are not independent of the system whose boundaries they delineate. 

Orthodox and heterodox economics are not so much different methods of approach in economics as they are different ways of interpreting the same data as different information. This is a clash of worldviews including different criteria expressed as norms and values. Each is a conceptual model of a way of life that forms the basis of cultural myth that gives rise to a narrative context in terms of which information get structured. From the logical, anthropological and sociological points of view, "reality" is a social construct. The question is not what constitutes reality but rather how different realities get constructed from the same given, and the difference these differences make.

The fundamental philosophical (foundational) questions since ancient times have been about living a good life in a good society. Until that critique is undertaken seriously by the participants, the debate will lack a solid foundation and any economics built on it will rest on sand. Therefore, even if heterodox economics does break into the mainstream, it will be unable to do much more than tinker at the edges of the fundamental issues unless it can change the universe of discourse. 

Orthodox economists exclude heterodox economists not because they think themselves "right" about the science and the others "wrong." Rather, they view heterodoxies as an existential threat to their worldview as the prevailing socio-economic, political and ethical cultural myth, which happens to favor certain interests over others and justifying this as the outcome of a self-organizing and self-regulating natural system. In this view, any thing less than operation at maximal efficiency resulting in meritocracy and just deserts is the result of artificial inefficiencies that need to be reduced and ideally eliminated. Therefore, any outcome that calls the paradigm into question is not considered an anomaly but rather is explained as the evidence of an inefficiency having been introduced that needs to be excised.

Orthodox economists tightly control the universe of discourse. That's dogma, the antithesis of science. What's needed is a thorough reformation of the discipline and a new universe of discourse that results in a cultural myth that is suitable for the times.

Economonitor — Great Leap Forward
Breaking into the Mainstream: Can Heterodoxy Do It?

L. Randall Wray | Professor of Economics, University of Missouri at Kansas City

See also John Kozy, What Evil Lurks in the Hearts of Men.

In fact, no culture was ever created to discover and disseminate truth. None exists for that purpose today. A culture exists to promote a group’s existence. Cultures are instruments of preservation. Cultures are defined by myths. Unless a culture’s myths are known, it’s nature cannot be understood. 

The myths, although obviously false, are often considered as historical truths, and a culture’s institutions are used to inculcate them. Once inculcated in the minds of people, the myths are almost impossible to expunge. Ears are deafened and eyes are blinded. The social critic is neither heard nor seen. The culture uses its ability to ignore the social critic as a defensive tactic. Ignorance defends the culture, and the culture’s educational institutions promote the ignorance. The institution cannot be divorced form its culture.…