1 Introduction
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Notes 1 Introduction 1. Shils 1985: 166–7. 2. Huxley 1871: 152–3. Original emphasis. 3. Durkheim 1982: 162. 4. Mills 1959. 5. Durkheim 2005; Weber 1949. 6. Tönnies 2001. 7. Abbott 1999; Cristobal Young 2009. Demonstrating the extent to which they still command the attention of scholars in the early twenty-first cen- tury, a number of new studies of classical generation thinkers have been published in the past decade. For example, on Weber see Radkau 2009 and Ringer 2005, whilst on Durkheim see: Schmaus 2004 and Alexander and Smith 2005. 8. Weber 1958. On Weber’s difficult relationship with German sociology, in particular the German Sociological Association, see: Proctor 1991: part 2, especially chapter 10. 9. For example: Giddens 1971. Indeed, interpreting the relationship between Marx and Weber is a crucial part of understanding how thinkers from dif- ferent sides of the political spectrum, such as Talcott Parsons and Perry Anderson, who are discussed shortly, have given quite different readings of not just Weber but classical sociology as a whole. 10. For more on Parsons, see: Hamilton 1983; Holmwood 1996. 11. Parsons 1937. Parsons’ translations of Weber were, however, conservative compared to those of Weber’s European translators. As a consequence, the American reading of Weber, which presents him as providing an alternative to Marx’s historical materialism, is frequently very different to European interpretations of Weber. For more on the mid-twentieth-century political context for these different readings see: Roy MacLeod 2006. 12. Martin Bulmer 1985: 15; Shils 1980: 182, n. 7; MacRae 1972: 47. Indeed, Tawney provided a foreword to Parsons’ translation of Weber’s The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. See: Weber 1958. For more on the importance of Durkheim to British anthropology, see: Stocking 2001. 13. Parsons 1937: part 1. For a more recent take on this view of British sociological thought as a tradition beginning with Hobbes, see: Levine 1995: chapter 7. 14. Anderson 1968. As Lawrence Goldman has recently noted, it can be no coin- cidence that this article appeared in 1968 – a year when left-leaning British academics were caught up in a frenzy of excitement for the seemingly revo- lutionary potential of the intellectual culture of their European neighbours. Goldman 2007: 431–2. Indeed, following on from notes 9 and 11, it should be noted that Anderson’s leftwing politics makes his reading of the clas- sical canon far more radical than those offered by Parsons and other, mainly American, writers, including Edward Shils. For an excellent contextualization 183 184 Notes of Anderson’s essay in terms of British leftwing and Marxist politics of the 1960s, see Collini 2006: chapter 8. See also Roy MacLeod 2006. 15. Goldman 1983, 1987; Kent 1981; Abrams 1968. 16. For a reply to the normative claims of scholars such as Anderson and Parsons, see: Goldman 2007. See also: Roger Smith 1997: 535. 17. Abrams 1968; Hawthorn 1976: chapter 8. Furthermore, as Goldman has recently observed, one should not look down upon the close relationship between social scientists, social reformers, and government in nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Britain because it was actually the cause of much envy from Europe, where such integration was hoped for but not achieved. See: Goldman 2003, 2007: 434–5. 18. Collini 1978, 1979; den Otter 1996. 19. Lepenies 1988; Halsey 2004. 20. See for example: Abrams 1968; Collini 1979; den Otter 1996; Halsey 2004. 21. Barnes 1948a: 604. 22. Halliday 1968. 23. As the conclusion outlines in greater detail this historiographic stance owes much to the insights offered by Niall Ferguson (1998) and Gregory Radick, John Henry, Steve Fuller, Peter Bowler, and Steven French in their contribu- tions to the recent focus section on counterfactual history in Isis (2008). For more on the problem of ‘precursors’ in the writing of history, see: Hodge 1990. 24. Shapin 2009, 2011. 25. Dear 2009. 26. Creath 2010; Fuller 2008, 2010; Erickson 2010a, 2010b; Fara 2010; Rouse 2010. 27. Secord 2004. 28. Golinski 1998: 9; Topham 2004: 432. 1 Political Economy, the BAAS, and Sociology 1. Ingram 1879: 642. 2. The Times, 23 August 1878, 10. 3. Abrams 1968: 177–95. 4. Koot 1987: 53–9. 5. Beatrice Webb 1926: 301–2, n.1. 6. Martin 1893: ii. 359. On Lowe’s career see: Briggs 1972: 232–63; Bryce 1903; Martin 1893; Maloney 2005; Winter 1976. 7. Cairnes 1873: 232–3. 8. Bagehot 1876: 215. 9. This summary glosses over a whole range of complicated issues from the history of late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century economic thought, including how much importance should be granted to Smith as the founder of political economy and whether classical political economists of the mid- nineteenth century actually continued a project outlined by Smith and then Ricardo. Regardless of these issues, the point remains that mid-nineteenth- century political economists saw themselves as working in the tradition of Notes 185 Smith and Ricardo, even if Smith and Ricardo may not have approved of the way in which they had modified their ideas. For more on these issues see: Schumpeter 1976; Blaug 1958; Hutchison 1978; Schabas 2003, 2005; Backhouse 1985, 2002. 10. Backhouse 1985: 26; 2002: 136–7. 11. For useful summaries of classical theory see: Hutchison 1978: chapters 2 and 3; Schabas 2003. 12. Hobsbawn 1999: 211. 13. Collini 1991, especially chapter 1; Goldman 2002; Backhouse 2002: chapter 7; Stigler 1965. Though, as Margaret Schabas notes, if university chairs are to be taken as a measure of prestige, political economy was ahead of chem- istry for most of the nineteenth century. Schabas 1997. 14. Political Economy Club 1882: 5. For more on the role of the Political Economy Club in British economics, see Henderson 1983; Tribe 2011. 15. Goldman 2002. 16. Robert Lowe, Speech to the House of Commons, 3 May 1865, ‘Second Reading of the Borough Franchise Extension Bill’, Hansard Parliamentary Debates, Third Series, Vol. 178, 21 March 1865– 8 May 1865, Col. 1426. Lowe’s speeches on this topic were collected and printed with a preface in Lowe 1867. 17. Lowe, Speech to the House of Commons, 3 May 1865, Cols. 1431–2. 18. Lowe 1867: 15. 19. Lowe 1867: 10. 20. Lowe, Speech to the House of Commons, 3 May 1865, (op. cit. n. 16), Col. 1439. 21. Church 1975: 76–8; and Mitchell 1988: 524. 22. See: Inkster, Griffin, and Rowbottom 2000, for example. 23. On wages, see: Church 1975: 71–5. On poor relief figures see: Local Government Board 1901–2: 312; on assessing and interpreting those figures see: Aschrott 1888: 282, n.1, who claimed that the real numbers were treble the official five per cent estimate; Sidney and Beatrice Webb 1906–29: II.ii. 1041–3; and Best 1985: 153–68. See Perkins 2000 for a useful summary on these and related issues. 24. Foxwell 1887: 84. 25. Campbell 1877: 186. 26. Morrell and Thackray 1981: 291–6. 27. The source for historians’ emphasis on Quetelet is Charles Babbage’s accounts of events. See: Goldman 1983: 592–3. 28. Goldman 1983. 29. Morrell and Thackray 1981: 267. 30. On Whewell, Ricardian political economy and the BAAS, see: Goldman 1983; Henderson 1994; Maas 2005: 64–70; Porter 1994. 31. Richard Jones 1831: vii. The Essay on rent was intended to be the first of a four-part series. However, the other three parts (wages, profits, and taxa- tion) were never published. For more on Jones and the content and context of historical arguments against Ricardian economics, see: Richard Jones 1831 and 1859; Koot 1987: 38–9; W. L. Miller 1971: 198–207; Backhouse 1985: 212–18. 186 Notes 32. On the foundation of the SSL see: Cullen 1975: 77–91; Goldman 1983; Hilts 1978; and Morrell and Thackray 1981: 291–6. 33. Whewell to Murchison, 25 September 1840, in Todhunter 1876: ii. 289. Also quoted in Howarth 1922: 87. On the Glasgow meeting see Morrell and Thackray 1981: 294–295; and Whewell’s letter to Lord Northampton, 5 October 1840, in Todhunter 1876: ii. 292–4. 34. Quoted in Howarth 1922: 87, source not cited. A similar quote appears in: Whewell to Northampton, in Todhunter 1876: ii. 294. 35. Morrell and Thackray 1981: 296. 36. Henry Dunning Macleod 1872–5, 1874–5. See also Backhouse 1985: chap- ters 4 and 18. 37. Harrison 1865, 1870; Cairnes 1870a, 1870b. See also: Adelman 1971. 38. Harrison 1865: 356. 39. Sidgwick 1887: 4. 40. Bagehot 1876: 216. 41. Price 1879: 116. 42. Rogers 1888: vii. 43. Sidgwick 1887: 4–5; Mill 1869: 517. 44. Leslie 1876: 294. 45. For a range of assessments of the ‘marginal revolution’ see the special issue in the 1972 volume of the History of Political Economy. See in particular: Black 1972. 46. Jevons 1863a, 1863b. On marginalism before 1871 see, for example: de Marchi 1972. On sales figures: Black 2004: 103. 47. J. S. Mill, Speech to the House of Commons, 17 April 1866, ‘Malt Duty Resolution’, Hansard Parliamentary Debates, Third Series, Vol. 182, 12 March 1866–26 April 1866, Col. 1525. 48. Sidgwick 1887: 5, citing as evidence: Brassey 1873. See also Gareth Stedman Jones 1971. 49. Giffen 1879. 50. Mitchell 1988: 524. 51. Mitchell 1988: 257. 52. See: Gooday 2000. 53. Cairnes 1873: 241. 54. Jevons 1879: xv–xvi. 55. Jevons 1876: 618. 56. Political Economy Club of London 1876: 5. 57. Political Economy Club of London 1876: 21. 58. Jevons 1876: 619. 59. Jevons 1876: 620. 60. Council of the British Association for the Advancement of Science 1878: xlix. The official records of the BAAS contain very few conclusive traces of this committee.