How the Dismal Science Got Its Name: Classical Economics and the Ur-Text of Racial Politics

by David M. Levy

It is widely asserted that the Victorian sages attacked classical economics from a humanistic or egalitarian perspective, calling it "the dismal science," and that their attack is relevant to modern discussions of market society. David M. Levy here demonstrates that these assertions are simply false: political economy became "dismal" because Carlyle, Ruskin, and Dickens were horrified at the idea that systems of slavery were being replaced by systems in which individuals were allowed to choose their own paths in life. At a minimum, they argued, "we" white people ought to be directing the lives of "them," people of color.Economists of the time argued, on the other hand, that people of color were to be protected by the rule of law--hence the moniker "the dismal science."A startling image from 1893, which is reproduced in full color on this book's jacket, shows Ruskin killing someone who appears to be nonwhite. A close look reveals that the victim is reading "The Dismal Science."Levy discusses this image at length and also includes in his text weblinks to Carlyle's "Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question" and to Mill's response, demonstrating that these are central documents in British classical economics. He explains Adam Smith's egalitarian foundations, contrasting Smith's approach to the hierarchical alternative proposed by Carlyle. Levy also examines various visual representations of this debate and provides an illuminating discussion of Smith's "katallactics," the science of exchange, comparing it with the foundations of modern neoclassical economics.How the Dismal Science Got Its Name also introduces the notion of "rational choice scholarship" to explain how attacks on market economics from a context in which racial slavery was idealized have been interpreted as attacks on market economics from a humanistic or egalitarian context. Thus it will greatly appeal to economists, political scientists, philosophers, students of Victorian literature, and historians.David M. Levy is Associate Professor of Economics and Research Associate, Center for Study of Public Choice, George Mason University.

336 pages, Paperback

First published September 7, 2001

Reviews

[Vipul Vivek M-D · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[John · Rating 1 out of 5]

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.