Rhetoric and Economics, Analysis and History

In the 1980s, Deirdre McCloskey argued that economists should look beyond their mathematical formulas and their positivist methodologies. If “economic style appeals in various ways to an ethos worthy of belief,” then economists should “give up their quaint modernism and open themselves to a wider range of discourse... . [They should] examine their language in action and converse more politely with others in the conversation of humanity” (McCloskey Rhetoric, 11, 167). Much broader than her original “rhetoric of economics,” McCloskey’s recent “humanomics,” asks us to consider cultural as well as economic forces when investigating human prosperity (Bourgeois, 553–559). McCloskey’s humanomics is one example of the rhetoric of economics clearing the way for new scholarly efforts in the social sciences. The articles in this special collection move in another direction, towards rhetorical analysis and historical inquiry. Like McCloskey’s humanomics, the historical inquiry into rhetoric and economics is a worthy sequel to McCloskey’s pioneering efforts. Robert McDonald’s “From “Incentive Furie” to “Incentives to Efficiency,” or theMovement of “Incentive” in Neoclassical Thought,” for instance, rhetorically analyzes works by Jeremy Bentham, Alfred Marshall, and Paul Samuelson. Echoing McCloskey’s rhetoric of economics, McDonald suggests a modest disciplinary conclusion about the rhetorical constitution of economic science. He notes the “poetical” quality of incentives, their “call to act rationally,” and their rhetorically objectified constitution as “the desired object that provides the key to unlocking a universal analysis of social reality” (this issue). But, instead of drawing conclusions about the discipline of economics or rhetoric’s economic function,McDonald asks:What does poetically constituted “incentive” do in our common conversations and our daily deliberations? The “rhetoric of economics” was a critical inquiry, part of the larger Project on the Rhetoric of Inquiry that McCloskey and others began (1980) at the University of Iowa. McCloskey’s humanomics is a human science including cultural criticism, philosophical rumination, and statistical formulas. McDonald’s critical analysis of economic arguments is an historical inquiry into the local constitution and the specific function of public discourse. Like McDonald, the authors featured in this special issue share McCloskey’s two key insights. We all agree that economics is rhetorically constituted, and rhetoric is economically effective. But we attend to specific arguments, their rhetorical form, and their historical function.