Reading Practices in Political Economy: The Case of Adam Smith

IF 1.2 2区 历史学 Q3 ECONOMICS
Jocelyn Hickey
{"title":"Reading Practices in Political Economy: The Case of Adam Smith","authors":"Jocelyn Hickey","doi":"10.1215/00182702-10005760","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The main references of the social sciences and humanities are texts. Texts are the means by which social scientists communicate their ideas and the means through which we, as readers, access those same ideas. Consequently, reading can be regarded as one of the main tools in the social sciences and ultimately the cornerstone of academia. This minisymposium takes the idea of reading and reading practices as its central focus. More specifically, the minisymposium demonstrates a variety of ways in which the reading process is complex, varied, and subject to many influences. In addition to this shared consideration of reading practices, articles in this minisymposium are united in their discussions of Adam Smith. It is through the means of interrogating readings and receptions of Smith that each article brings to the fore a different aspect of the reading process. The four articles contained within the minisymposium were first presented in May 2020 at an Adam Smith workshop funded by Newcastle University's Political Philosophy Cluster, and they each represent a continuation of the contemporary revisionist discussions on Smith—put forward by the likes of Glory Liu, Warren Samuels, and Amartya Sen—that criticize and revise dominant interpretations of Smith's works. The articles offer a diverse range of thoughts on the complex and multifaceted nature of the reading process, on how we might interrogate our own reading practices and those of others, and, ultimately, why doing so is beneficial and worthwhile.","PeriodicalId":47043,"journal":{"name":"History of Political Economy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History of Political Economy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-10005760","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The main references of the social sciences and humanities are texts. Texts are the means by which social scientists communicate their ideas and the means through which we, as readers, access those same ideas. Consequently, reading can be regarded as one of the main tools in the social sciences and ultimately the cornerstone of academia. This minisymposium takes the idea of reading and reading practices as its central focus. More specifically, the minisymposium demonstrates a variety of ways in which the reading process is complex, varied, and subject to many influences. In addition to this shared consideration of reading practices, articles in this minisymposium are united in their discussions of Adam Smith. It is through the means of interrogating readings and receptions of Smith that each article brings to the fore a different aspect of the reading process. The four articles contained within the minisymposium were first presented in May 2020 at an Adam Smith workshop funded by Newcastle University's Political Philosophy Cluster, and they each represent a continuation of the contemporary revisionist discussions on Smith—put forward by the likes of Glory Liu, Warren Samuels, and Amartya Sen—that criticize and revise dominant interpretations of Smith's works. The articles offer a diverse range of thoughts on the complex and multifaceted nature of the reading process, on how we might interrogate our own reading practices and those of others, and, ultimately, why doing so is beneficial and worthwhile.
政治经济学中的阅读实践——以亚当·斯密为例
社会科学和人文学科的主要参考文献是文本。文本是社会科学家交流思想的手段,也是我们作为读者获取相同思想的手段。因此,阅读可以被视为社会科学的主要工具之一,并最终成为学术界的基石。这个小型会议以阅读和阅读实践为中心。更具体地说,小会议展示了阅读过程复杂、多样、受多种影响的多种方式。除了对阅读实践的共同考虑之外,本次小会议上的文章在对亚当·斯密的讨论中也是一致的。正是通过询问史密斯的阅读和接受,每一篇文章都突出了阅读过程的不同方面。小会议中的四篇文章于2020年5月在纽卡斯尔大学政治哲学集群资助的亚当·斯密研讨会上首次发表,每一篇文章都代表了当代修正主义对史密斯的讨论的延续,这些讨论是由Glory Liu、Warren Samuels、,以及Amartya Sen——他们批评并修正了对史密斯作品的主流解读。这些文章对阅读过程的复杂性和多面性,我们如何质疑自己和他人的阅读实践,以及最终为什么这样做是有益和值得的,提供了各种各样的想法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
14.30%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: Focusing on the history of economic thought and analysis, History of Political Economy has made significant contributions to the field and remains its foremost means of communication. In addition to book reviews, each issue contains original research on the development of economic thought, the historical background behind major figures in the history of economics, the interpretation of economic theories, and the methodologies available to historians of economic theory. All subscribers to History of Political Economy receive a hardbound annual supplement as part of their subscription.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信