Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T14:31:17.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gender, Metaphor, and the Definition of Economics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Julie A. Nelson
Julie A. Nelson
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Let me make it clear from the outset that my main point is not either of the following: one, that there should be more women economists and research on “women's issues” (though I think there should be), or two, that women as a class do, or should do, economics in a manner different from men (a position with which I disagree). My argument is different and has to do with trying to gain an understanding of how a certain way of thinking about gender and a certain way of thinking about economics have become intertwined through metaphor – with detrimental results – and how a richer conception of human understanding and human identity could broaden and improve the field of economics for both female and male practitioners.

Type
Essays
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , April 1992 , pp. 103 - 125
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Becker, Gary S. 1976. The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bern, Sandra Lipsitz. 1981. “Gender Schema Theory: A Cognitive Account of Sex Typing.” Psychological Review 88:354–64.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla. 1987. “The Generalized and the Concrete Other: The Kohlberg-Gilligan Controversy and Moral Theory.” In Women and Moral Theory, edited by Meyers, Diana and Kittay, Eva Feder, pp. 154–77. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Bergmann, Barbara R. 1987. “The Task of a Feminist Economics: A More Equitable Future.” In The Impact of Feminist Research in the Academy, edited by Farnham, Christie, pp. 131–47. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Bleier, Ruth (editor). 1986. “Sex Differences Research: Science or Belief?” In Feminist Approaches to Science, pp. 147–64. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Bordo, Susan. 1986. “The Cartesian Masculinization of Thought.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 11:439–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boulding, Kenneth E. 1986. “What Went Wrong with Economics.” American Economist 30:5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Lisa Jo. 1989, December. “Gender and Economic Analysis: A Feminist Perspective.” Paper prepared for the annual meetings of the American Economic Association, Atlanta.Google Scholar
Caldwell, Bruce J., and Coats, A. W.. 1984. “The Rhetoric of Economists: A Comment on McCloskey.” Journal of Economic Literature 22:575–78.Google Scholar
Chodorow, Nancy Julia. 1980. “Gender, Relation, and Difference in Psychoanalytic Perspective.” In The Future of Difference, edited by Eisenstein, Hester and Jardine, Alice, pp. 3–19. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Cooter, Robert, and Rappoport, Peter. 1984. “Were the Ordinalists Wrong about Welfare Economics?” Journal of Economic Literature 22:507–30.Google Scholar
Davis, Philip J., and Reuben, Hersh. 1987. “Rhetoric and Mathematics.” In The Rhetoric of the Human Sciences, edited by Nelson, John S. et al., pp. 53–68. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Dimen, Muriel. 1989. “Power, Sexuality, & Intimacy.” In Gender/Body/Knowledge: Feminist Reconstructions of Being and Knowing, edited by Jaggar, Alison M. and Bordo, Susan R., pp. 34–51. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, Vernon. 1970. “The Diunital Approach to ‘Black Economics.’” American Economic Review 70:424–29.Google Scholar
Dixon, Vernon. 1977. “African-Oriented and Euro-American-Oriented World Views: Research Methodologies and Economics.” Review of Black Political Economy 7:119–56.Google Scholar
Easlea, Brian. 1986. “The Masculine Image of Science with Special Reference to Physics: How Much Does Gender Really Matter?” In Perspectives on Gender and Science, edited by Harding, Jan, pp. 132–58. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Ely, Richard T. 1936. “The Founding and Early History of the American Economic Association.” American Economic Review 26:141–50.Google Scholar
England, Paula, and Kilbourne, Barbara S.. 1990. “Feminist Critiques of the Separative Model of Self: Implications for Rational Choice Theory.” Rationality and Society 2:156–71.Google Scholar
Fee, Elizabeth, 1983. “Women's Nature and Scientific Objectivity.” In Women's Nature: Rationalizations of Inequality, edited by Lowe, Marian and Hubbard, Ruth, pp. 9–27. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Feiner, Susan F., and Bruce, Roberts. 1990. “Hidden by the Invisible Hand: Neoclassical Economic Theory and the Textbook Treatment of Race and Gender.” Gender and Society 4:159–81.Google Scholar
Ferber, Marianne A. 1990. “Gender and the Study of Economics.” In The Principles of Economics Course: A Handbook for Instructors, edited by Saunders, Phillip and Walstad, William, pp. 44–60. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Ferber, Marianne A., and Birnbaum, Bonnie G.. 1977. “The ‘New Home Economics’: Retrospects and Prospects.” Journal of Consumer Research 4:19–28.Google Scholar
Ferber, Marianne A., and Nelson, Julie A. (editors). 1991. “Beyond Economic Man: Feminist Theory and Economics.” Manuscript.Google Scholar
Folbre, Nancy. 1992. “How Does She Know? Feminist Theories of Gender Bias in Economics.” Forthcoming in History of Political Economy.Google Scholar
Folbre, Nancy, and Hartmann, Heidi. 1988. “The Rhetoric of Self-interest: Ideology and Gender in Economic Theory.” In The Consequences of Economic Rhetoric, edited by Klamer, Arjo, McCloskey, Donald N., and Solow, Robert M., pp. 184–203. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Frank, Francine Wattman, and Treichler, Paula A.. 1989. Language, Gender and Professional Writing: Theoretical Approaches and Guidelines for Nonsexist Usage. New York: The Modern Language Association of America.Google Scholar
Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas. 1971. The Entropy Law and the Economic Process. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a Different Voice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gilligan, Carol. 1986. “Reply.” Signs 11:324–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Robert Aaron. 1976. “Rigor and Relevance in a Changing Institutional Setting.” The American Economic Review 66:1–14.Google Scholar
Grassi, Ernesto. 1980. Rhetoric as Philosophy: The Humanist Tradition. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Harding, Jan (editor). 1986. Perspectives on Gender and Science. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1986. The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1987. “The Curious Coincidence of Feminine and African Moralities: Challenges for Feminist Theory.” In Women and Moral Theory, edited by Meyers, Diana and Kittay, Eva Feder, pp. 296–315. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra, and O'Barr, Jean F. (editors). 1987. Sex and Scientific Inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Harrison, Karey, and Strassmann, Diana. 1989, November. “Gender, Rhetoric and Economic Theory.” Paper prepared for the annual meetings of the Southern Economic Association, Orlando.Google Scholar
Heilbroner, Robert L. 1986. The Worldly Philosophers: The Lives, Times and Ideas of the Great Economic Thinkers. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Heller, Walter W. 1975. “What's Right with Economics.” The American Economic Review 65:1–26.Google Scholar
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, Catherine. 1986. From a Broken Web: Separation, Sexism, and Self. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1985. Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1988a. “Demarcating Public from Private Values in Evolutionary Discourse.” Journal of the History of Biology 21(2. Summer):195–211.Google Scholar
Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1988b. “Feminist Perspectives on Science Studies.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 13:235–49.Google Scholar
Klamer, Arjo. 1989, November. “On Interpretive and Feminist Economics.” Paper prepared for presentation at the annual meetings of the Southern Economic Association, Orlando.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas, 1962 (2nd edition 1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Margolis, Howard. 1987. Patterns, Thinking, and Cognition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McCloskey, Donald N. 1985. The Rhetoric of Economics. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
McCloskey, Donald N. 1988. “Some Consequences of a Feminine Economics.” Mimeo, Project on the Rhetoric of Inquiry. December 1989 version prepared for presentation at the annual meetings of the American Economic Association, Atlanta.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Julie A. 1992. “A Picture of Gender.” Forthcoming in Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy.Google Scholar
Ortony, Andrew. 1979. “Metaphor: A Multidimensional Problem.” In Metaphor and Thought, edited by Ortony, Andrew, pp. 1–16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Robbins, Lionel. 1935. An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. London: Macmillan. (Excerpted in The Philosophy of Economics: An Anthology, edited by Daniel M. Hausman, 1984, chap. 4, pp. 113–40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.)Google Scholar
Ruddick, Sara. 1987. “Remarks on the Sexual Politics of Reason.” In Women and Moral Theory, edited by Meyers, Diana and Kittay, Eva Feder, pp. 237–60. Totowa, NJ: Row-man and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Ruddick, Sara. 1989. Maternal Thinking: Toward a Politics of Peace. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Seiz, Janet A. 1991. “Gender and Economic Research.” Forthcoming in The Methodology of Economics, edited by de Marchi, Neil. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya. 1984. Resources, Values, and Development, chap. 13. Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Solow, Robert M. 1988. “Comments from inside Economics.” In The Consequences of Economic Rhetoric, edited by Klamer, Arjo et al., pp. 31–36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weinreich-Haste, Helen. 1986. “Brother Sun, Sister Moon: Does Rationality Overcome a Dualistic World View?” In Perspectives on Gender and Science, edited by Harding, Jan, pp. 113–31. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Whitehead, Alfred North. 1925. Science and the Modern World. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Wilshire, Donna. 1989. “The Uses of Myth, Image, and the Female Body in Re-visioning Knowledge.” In Gender/Body/Knowledge: Feminist Reconstructions of Being and Knowing, edited by Jaggar, Alison M. and Bordo, Susan R., pp. 92–114. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar