What do you think?
Rate this book
How the Dismal Science Got Its Name: Classical Economics and the Ur-Text of Racial Politics by David M. Levy
Excellent Book
Paperback
First published September 7, 2001
29 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
November 16, 2015
Brilliant. For all those idiots who think 'dismal' means the discipline is boring, uninterested in human affairs, satisfied with staid numbers. Won't spill the beans but will give you a hint that the discipline was branded thus for its progressive attitude.
April 30, 2011
I learned about this book in an essay by William McGurn in Imprimis, the newsletter of Hillsdale College. It was actually an abbreviated version of a speech McGurn had given.
I understood what the book was about much better from McGurn's essay than from the book itself. I read the preface and the first two chapters, and I doubt that I'll read more.
The premise, as I understand it (mostly from McGurn): Economics was first labeled the dismal science by Thomas Carlyle in 1853. Carlyle was pitting the dismal science against the gay science at a time when the word "gay" had nothing to do with sexual orientation. The gay science was poetry. Here's the surprise: the poets and "humanitarians" were apologists for slavery; it was the economists who opposed slavery.
It made for a provocative essay and it could make for a provocative book. But from the moment I started reading Levy's book, I felt like I'd come into a lecture that was halfway over, or was attending my first class at almost the end of the semester (this sometimes happens in my dreams). This no doubt reflects on my dismal understanding of the dismal science. But I think Mr. Levy could have made his case more clearly. And the book wasn't well-edited. Some sentences have words missing, others have extra words inserted.
I think there are probably interesting things to learn from this book, but I don't think I'm going to invest further effort in it.
I understood what the book was about much better from McGurn's essay than from the book itself. I read the preface and the first two chapters, and I doubt that I'll read more.
The premise, as I understand it (mostly from McGurn): Economics was first labeled the dismal science by Thomas Carlyle in 1853. Carlyle was pitting the dismal science against the gay science at a time when the word "gay" had nothing to do with sexual orientation. The gay science was poetry. Here's the surprise: the poets and "humanitarians" were apologists for slavery; it was the economists who opposed slavery.
It made for a provocative essay and it could make for a provocative book. But from the moment I started reading Levy's book, I felt like I'd come into a lecture that was halfway over, or was attending my first class at almost the end of the semester (this sometimes happens in my dreams). This no doubt reflects on my dismal understanding of the dismal science. But I think Mr. Levy could have made his case more clearly. And the book wasn't well-edited. Some sentences have words missing, others have extra words inserted.
I think there are probably interesting things to learn from this book, but I don't think I'm going to invest further effort in it.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews