DOCSLIB.ORG

A Book Event with Deirdre Mccloskey Welcome and Introduction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Book Event with Deirdre Mccloskey Welcome and Introduction American Enterprise Institute Why liberalism works: A book event with Deirdre McCloskey Welcome and introduction: James Pethokoukis, AEI Discussion: Deirdre McCloskey, University of Illinois at Chicago James Pethokoukis, AEI 9:00–11:00 a.m. Tuesday, October 15, 2019 Event Page: https://www.aei.org/events/why-liberalism-works-a-book-event- with-deirdre-mccloskey/ James Pethokoukis: All right. I think we should get ready? Do I have official permission to get ready? That’s as official as it gets. Welcome. Thank you for coming by AEI this morning, bright and early after a long, three- day weekend, at least for some of us. Thanks for coming out for this wonderful event. Many in America today say that liberalism is in decline. And it seems that the word itself has become a dirty word on both sides of the aisle. On the left, we see a renewed interest in socialism and a greater skepticism toward free speech. And many on the right seem to have cooled on liberalism as well. The election of Donald Trump is the most obvious political example. But even many conservative intellectuals are having second thoughts about liberalism. Patrick Deneen has written a book, a conservative intellectual, called “Why Liberalism Failed.” So a prominent example of this field. But today we’re going to give a different perspective. We have, today, Deirdre McCloskey with us to make the opposite case, and her new book, “Why Liberalism Works,” which I happen to have a copy right here. Dr. McCloskey is a distinguished professor of economics, history, English, and communication at the University of Illinois at Chicago. She’s written many influential works of economic history, most recently including, her “Bourgeois” trilogy. This trilogy, as well as the book we’ll discuss today, argues that poverty and tyranny are the two biggest problems that face mankind. And liberalism is the only philosophy that sustainably combats both of them. She credits the rise of liberal ideas with starting what she calls “the Great Enrichment.” This enrichment dramatically increase the living standards and personal liberties of even the poorest among us. That enrichment lead Britain and then America and then the West more broadly to unprecedented prosperity. This prosperity continues today and has even been lifting inhabitants of Asia and Africa out of extreme poverty. It is these ideas that led to this prosperity that Dr. McCloskey defends, and it’s a delight to discuss it with her today. Excellent. Deirdre McCloskey: That’s an excellent summary, which is why I want Jim to do a book with me. He gets it. James Pethokoukis: And as I said, it would be my honor. I’m not sure what I could contribute. Well, let’s start definitionally for a moment. What distinguishes a liberal from a conservative or a progressive? Because these words have sort of been bandied about so much. What are the differences as you see them? Deirdre McCloskey: Well, I think it’s very easy. A liberal is someone who believes that there shouldn’t be any masters, no tyrants. Not husbands over wives, not masters over slaves, not politicians over citizens, no hierarchies. Whereas the other two, in their own charming way, delight in coercion, in masters. On the left, it’s the masterhood of the state over everyone. On the right, it’s the masterhood of the state over everyone. So, along the conventional left-right spectrum, we’re only arguing about how to use the massive power of the state. The idea that there shouldn’t be any massive power of the state is just off the table. Whereas we liberals, you know, starting with Adam Smith and Mary Wollstonecraft and Tom Paine and Thoreau and Mill — blah, blah, blah — Milton Friedman, we all think that the state should be small — competent but small. So we’re off of the scale. We’re not on the left-right scale. James Pethokoukis: I mean, I thought that what American conservatives were doing at least was protecting and preserving the liberalism of Adam Smith. Deirdre McCloskey: Well, and — James Pethokoukis: I’m not sure it’s doing that anymore. Deirdre McCloskey: Exactly. At 1789 Massachusetts Avenue, as George Will has argued, these American conservatives — as against the reactionaries of Europe, the Carl Schmitts and so forth — they’re protecting the Constitution, the separation of powers and so forth. And I’m fine with that. I asked George once, said, “Aren’t you really a liberal?” He said, “Yeah, I am. I have to admit it. I’m not a conservative. I’m a liberal.” James Pethokoukis: Which is quite a saying for someone who also just wrote a book called “Conservative Sensibility.” Deirdre McCloskey: I know. James Pethokoukis: A rather long summation of his lifetime of work. Deirdre McCloskey: It’s a very good book. I highly recommend it along with mine. And — James Pethokoukis: Not in that particular order. Deirdre McCloskey: Well, mine would make an excellent gift for your Christmas shopping. Buy the book — James Pethokoukis: Timely. Deirdre McCloskey: — I mean, your mom will be delighted to get a copy of my book. Whereas George’s is a little thick. But it’s a good book. James Pethokoukis: You call your sort of brand of liberalism, humane liberalism, I think, 2.0? So how is this different or how does it build upon the previous versions? And what — Deirdre McCloskey: I was just yesterday — and I’m going to go again this noon — over at Cato. And at Cato, there’s some of them — some of the Catoites are what you might call liberals 1.0. At least that’s how they think of themselves. And here’s how to express it. The late first century BCE, Jewish sage, Hillel of Babylon, expressed the golden rule this way: “Do not do unto others as you would not want to have done to yourself.” Shortly thereafter, in the early first century CE, another Jewish sage you may have heard of said, “Do unto others as you’d have done unto yourself.” The first is kind of liberalism 1.0. If you add the second, as I think you should, you get a rounded male and female — if you’ll allow me that distinction — way of looking at the world. The first Hillel way is “Don’t tread on me. I’m free. Go away. Leave me alone.” James Pethokoukis: Yes, leave me alone. Deirdre McCloskey: “You’re not my boss,” as the teenagers say. And the second is “Don’t pass by on the other side. Be a Good Samaritan. Be nice.” And the one you can think of is kind of boyish, and the other is kind of girlish. And the two make up a — the first guards against stupid, often ignorant, busybody, interfering by the tyrants. And the second acknowledges what I think we should all acknowledge — I think everyone here should acknowledge it — that we owe something to the poor. We owe something to the wretched of the earth — namely, allowing them to have a job, allowing them to advance in life. And that’s a liberal idea. And it was very new in the 18th century, both of those. You know, because the earlier agricultural societies were hierarchical. Everyone had a master, from the king down to the family dog. The king’s master was God herself, and then down to the family dog. By the way, dog — I’m a dog lover. Dog is God spelled backwards, think of that. Anyway, sorry, stupid. That’s how people thought things had to be. And alas, a lot of people still think so. Lots of conservatives want a society of hierarchy. Now those tend to be the other conservatives. As George says, they’re kind of European conservatives, not American. So I think you need both. James Pethokoukis: In your previous books — we mentioned this as we were talking earlier — in a way it seems to me almost like you’re doing a running dialogue with folks on the left, other academics, and scholars. Where you’re trying to sort of explain to them that, you know, with sort of great affection, here’s why you’re wrong. You’re very humble about it, but here’s why — please, please, I beseech you, consider the possibility that you may be wrong. Deirdre McCloskey: That you might be mistaken. James Pethokoukis: So is this book still meant for them alone? Because it seems like now you need to make the argument to folks on the left, but you also need to make this argument to the folks on the right. So are you doing that? So why do you have to do that? Deirdre McCloskey: I think so. I’m kind of panicked as many of us are. “Panic” wouldn’t be the word, but very worried about populism of the left and right, worldwide. You know, this, let’s try socialism, which some young people of goodwill in the United States keep saying. Every time I hear that, it hurts. As though it hasn’t been tried in the Soviet Union in 1917 or in Venezuela in 1999. But as you’re suggesting, there’s also a populism of the right. I was in Hungary a couple of weeks before the last election, which Orbán, surprise, surprise, won. And the anti-Semitism and the crazy anti-immigrant feeling was very thick on the ground, shockingly thick. But bear in mind — I think you understand this, Jim, that for a century and a half, liberalism has been under attack.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Barbara, the Market, and the State Nancy Folbre
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Economics Department Faculty Publications Series Economics 1998 Barbara, the Market, and the State Nancy Folbre Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/econ_faculty_pubs Part of the Economic Theory Commons Recommended Citation Folbre, Nancy, "Barbara, the Market, and the State" (1998). Feminist Economics. 106. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umass.edu/econ_faculty_pubs/106 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Economics at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Economics Department Faculty Publications Series by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. B ARBARA, THE M ARKET, AND THE STATE Nancy Folbre ABSTRACT Some re ections, in poetry and prose, on Barbara Bergmann’s contributions to economic theory. KEYWORDS Bergmann, discrimination, child care, feminist theory A FAIRY TALE People say that, once upon a time, there was an emperor, Fond of silks and satins, vain to a fault, fearful that his naked parts Did not measure up, who employed many a tailor to construct A wondrous wardrobe that could make him look greater than he was. Yet he also wanted to seem good and kind and true because His authority rested on the consent of those he ruled. The emperor’s objective function, economists would describe As positive and decreasing in all Z goods related to his own appearance And consumption; picture an indifference curve describing combinations Of virtue and privilege that would equally suit; equilibrium depends On the relative price of both, the noble budget line, and hence, It matters that honesty is by far the most expensive good.
    [Show full text]
  • Raising up Private Max U
    Concluding essay in Wilfred Dolfsma and Ioana Negru, eds. The Ethical Formation of Economists, Unpublished as yet. Draft of September 17, 2018 Raising Up Private Max U Deirdre Nansen McCloskey Because orthodox economists no longer study philosophy in graduate school, or because the philosophy they might have studied as undergraduates is itself fiercely anti-ethical—a course in symbolic logic, say, or a course in social-science methodology beginning and ending with logical positivism c. 1920—they are thoughtless about ethics. Or, as Mark White observes in the introductory essay here, they have merely two thoughts: Pareto and Kaldor-Hicks. That is, if all relevant people are bettered by a project, it should go through. (But which people are relevant?). Or, much more weakly, if the winners could hypothetically compensate the losers, it should go through. (But why “could”? Why not actual compensation?). Kaldor-Hicks, formulated in the 1940s, says, in other words, that if GDP per head goes up, we should celebrate. A lucid exposition of the orthodox argument is a classic article by A. C. Harberger in 1971. I am not outraged by the orthodox argument, as are many of my leftish friends, for example many here. The leftists say, “Look at who is hurt by your so-called progress!” An extended example of the left’s complaint is an otherwise fine collection of their newspaper articles by the historians Kenneth Pomeranz and Steven Topik, The World That Trade Created: Society, Culture, and the World Economy 1400 to the Present (2006). Pomeranz and Topik, honorable men of the left, tell skilful tales of the losers from scores of historical rises in GDP that might satisfy Kaldor-Hicks, if not Pareto.
    [Show full text]
  • Professor Deirdre Mccloskey
    The Department of Economics and The Department of Philosophy Invite You to a Presentation by Professor Deirdre McCloskey Distinguished Professor of Economics, History, English, and Communication (University of Illinois at Chicago) Professor of Economic History (Gothenburg University, Sweden) Honorary Graduate of SIU Carbondale The Great Enrichment, 1800 to the Present, and What It Means for Economics and Politics September 12, 2013 5:00 PM Shryock Auditorium Deirdre N. McCloskey has been since 2000 UIC Distinguished Abstract: Professor of Economics, History, English, and Communication at The usual explanations the University of Illinois at Chicago and was Visiting Tinbergen Professor (2002-2006) of Philosophy, Economics, and Art and for the astounding Cultural Studies at Erasmus University of Rotterdam. Trained at increase in world income Harvard as an economist, she has written fourteen books and 1800 to the present are, edited seven more, and has published some three hundred and from the left, exploitation sixty articles on economic theory, economic history, philosophy, rhetoric, feminism, ethics, and law. She taught for twelve years in and, from the right, Economics at the University of Chicago, and describes herself now saving and as a "postmodern free-market quantitative Episcopalian feminist investment. Neither is Aristotelian." Her latest books are How to be Human* *Though an correct. A new liberty Economist (University of Michigan Press 2001), Measurement and Meaning in Economics (S. Ziliak, ed.; Edward Elgar 2001), The and dignity for ordinary Secret Sins of Economics (Prickly Paradigm Pamphlets, U. of people made for Chicago Press, 2002), The Cult of Statistical Significance: How the innovation, and that is Standard Error Costs Us Jobs, Justice, and Lives [with Stephen Ziliak; University of Michigan Press, 2008], and The Bourgeois why we are now rich.
    [Show full text]
  • The Secret Sins of Economics
    The Secret Sins of Economics Deirdre McCloskey PRICKLY PARADIGM PRESS CHICAGO 1 What’s sinful about economics is not what the average anthropologist or historian or journalist thinks. From Copyright © 2002 Prickly Paradigm Press, LLC the outside the dismal science seems obviously sinful, if All rights reserved. irritatingly influential. But the obvious sins are not all that terrible; or, if terrible, they are committed anyway Prickly Paradigm Press, LLC by everybody else. It is actually two particular, non- 5629 South University Avenue obvious, and unusual sins, two secret ones, that cripple Chicago, Il 60637 the scientific enterprise—in economics and in a few other fields nowadays (like psychology and political www.prickly-paradigm.com science and medical science and population biology). ISBN: 0-9717575-3-4 Yet a sympathetic critic who says these things and LCCN: 2002 102650 wishes that her own beloved economics would grow up and start focusing all its energies on doing proper science (the way physics or geology or anthropology or history or certain parts of literary criticism do it) finds 2 3 herself sadly misunderstood. The commonplace and we call English, certain Dutchmen) wanted most to venial sins block scrutiny of the bizarre and mortal know How Much. It was an entirely novel obsession. ones. Pity the poor sympathetic critic, construed regu- You might call it bourgeois. How Much will it cost to larly to be making this or that Idiot’s Critique: “Oh, I drain the Somerset Levels? How Much does England’s see. You’re one of those airy humanists who just can’t treasure by foreign trade depend on possessing stand to think of numbers or mathematics.” Or, “Oh, I colonies? How Much is this and How Much that? see.
    [Show full text]
  • Mccloskey's Rhetoric
    McCloskey’s Rhetoric The rhetoric of economics has long claimed scientific objectivity; however, the late great economist Joan Robinson argued that “the purpose of study- ing economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” This unique book examines the use of rhetoric in economics, focusing on the work of Deirdre McCloskey as well as other major economic philo- sophers. Benjamin Balak utilizes the views of Derrida and Foucault amongst others to analyze McCloskey’s major texts and critically evaluates the linguistic, literary, and philosophical approaches they introduce. This book will be of interest to both philosophers and economists alike. Benjamin Balak is Assistant Professor of Economics at Rollins College, USA. Routledge INEM advances in economic methodology Series edited by D. Wade Hands, Professor of Economics, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, USA. The field of economic methodology has expanded rapidly during the last few decades. This expansion has occurred in part because of changes within the discip- line of economics, in part because of changes in the prevailing philosophical con- ception of scientific knowledge, and also because of various transformations within the wider society. Research in economic methodology now reflects not only devel- opments in contemporary economic theory, the history of economic thought, and the philosophy of science; but it also reflects developments in science studies, historical epistemology, and social theorizing more generally. The field of eco- nomic methodology still includes the search for rules for the proper conduct of economic science, but it also covers a vast array of other subjects and accommo- dates a variety of different approaches to those subjects.
    [Show full text]
  • What Quantitative Methods Should We Teach To
    Forthcoming 2019 in David Colander, ed., symposium in teaching econometrics in the Journal of Economic Education. What Quantitative Methods Should We Teach to Graduate Students? A Comment on Swann’s “Is Precise Econometrics an Illusion?” Deirdre Nansen McCloskey [email protected] deirdremccloskey.org and Stephen T. Ziliak [email protected] https://blogs.roosevelt.edu/sziliak/ Our answer to Professor Swann’s question is “yes,” with a big, big amendment. It is not Swann’s conventional notion of “precision” that is the illusion, not the biggest one, but the notion embodied in the present practice of quantitative methods in economics that researchers should grind away at theoretical econometrics, despite its evident and sharply diminishing returns. Econometrics, understood as regression analysis with null hypothesis significance testing in the absence of a substantive loss function, has yielded no major economic finding since its invention in the 1940s. By contrast, other quantitative methods, such as crude or not so crude simulations (such as Harberger triangles), historical inquiries (such as The Monetary History of the United States), massive experiments (such as episodes of hyperinflation in Israel or Argentina), or the scatter plots Professor Swann uses (such as the Phillips Curve when first articulated) have changed scientific opinions repeatedly and, in another sense, significantly. Swann writes, “What is to be done? Some econometricians have told me they recognize [a problem, in Swann’s case the assumption of independence in error terms] . , but believe it can and will be solved by further incremental innovations in 1 econometric method and data collection. I hope they are right, but there is a very long way to go.” You’re telling us.
    [Show full text]
  • Language and Interest in the Economy: a White Paper On
    Language and Interest in the Economy: A White Paper on “Humanomics” Deirdre N. McCloskey1 Economics ignores persuasion in the economy. The economics of asymmetric “information” or common “knowledge” over the past 40 years reduces to costs and benefits but bypasses persuasion, “sweet talk.” Sweet talk accounts for a quarter of national income, and so is not mere “cheap talk.” The research would direct economics and the numerous other social sciences influenced by economics back towards human meaning in speech—meaning which has even in the most rigorously behaviorist experiments been shown to matter greatly to the outcome. Sweet talk is deeply unpredictable, which connects it to the troubled economics of entrepreneurship, discovery, and innovation. The massive innovation leading to the Great Fact of modern economic growth since 1800 is an important case in point. Some economic historians are beginning to find that material causes of the Great Fact do not work, and that changes in rhetoric such as the Enlightenment or the Bourgeois Revaluation do. A new economic history emerges, using all the evidence for the scientific task: books as much as bonds, entrepreneurial courage and hope as much as managerial prudence and temperance. A worrying feature of economics as presently constituted is that it ignores language working in the economy. To put it another way, economics has ignored the humanities and related social sciences, such as cultural anthropology, with their studies of human meaning. Adam Smith spoke often of “the faculty of speech,” and considered meaning, but his followers gradually set them aside. Until the 1930s the setting aside was gentle and non-dogmatic, allowing for occasional intrusions of human meaning such as Keynes on animal spirits or Dennis Robertson on economized love.
    [Show full text]
  • In .Pdf Format
    THE CHRONICLE REVIEW The Lives of Deirdre McCloskey Her gender change may be the least iconoclastic thing about her By Alexander C. Kafka MARCH 20, 2016 W illiam Shakespeare, an excitable Norwich terrier, keeps wary watch from the top of the steps, near the voluminous shelves, the reading futon, and the two standing desks. At the bottom landing, Virginia Woolf, a hound mix, surveys the condos out the window across South Federal Street. At the expansive dining-room table, Deirdre McCloskey works her laptop and her phone. She coordinates forthcoming lecture trips to the International Monetary Fund and to Europe. She tries to help her 93-year- old mother move from Naples, Fla., to a home in Chicago. She tries, also, to figure out how humanity grew so prosperous. Her 3,000-square-foot loft in the Printer’s Row neighborhood of Chicago’s South Loop used to be part of the Franklin printing factory. Now it’s a reading and writing factory where McCloskey, who retired from teaching last year, pores through her 8,000-volume library for insights and evidence from economics, history, literature, theology, law, psychology, sociology, philosophy, rhetoric, communications, and anthropology. "My theory," she says in a warm and raspy voice that always seems on the verge of vanishing, "is that she who dies with 10,000 books wins." She approvingly cites the late Umberto Eco’s attitude that it’s the as-yet unread books that are most valuable. RELATED CONTENT In Her Own Words: 'Been There, Done That' Leading Economist Stuns Field by Deciding to Become a Woman Scholars Talk Writing: Deirdre McCloskey Twenty years ago, the former Donald McCloskey made headlines when he changed gender, a liberating but physically, professionally, and socially harrowing transition, which McCloskey detailed in her 1999 memoir, Crossing.
    [Show full text]
  • Aunt Deirdre's Letter to a Graduate Student Eastern Economic Journal; Spring 1997 Deirdre N Mccloskey; Copyright Eastern Economic Association
    Other things equal: Aunt Deirdre's letter to a graduate student Eastern Economic Journal; Spring 1997 Deirdre N McCloskey; Copyright Eastern Economic Association Dear Mr. Smith, you wanted to believe), was going to be the way that economics was expressed in the future. A lot I got your eloquent e-mail [asking whether or not like game theory now. So I know how to solve a first-year PhD economic-theory courses have any linear programming problem better than anyone value]. In the past few years, it may comfort you ten years younger than I am. Why don't younger to know, I've heard from a lot of graduate people know how to solve such problems? students with the same question. They ask me Because in five or ten years after I learned it because they hear I criticize the establishment in activity analysis was dead. The residue is that I economics (comfort the afflicted and afflict the still talk in metaphors of "slack variables" and comfortable!) I refer them to Arjo Klamer and the like, translating marginal productivity into David Colander's book of interviews with linear algebra for no scientific gain. The only graduate students, The Making of an Economist. result is that we old folks can communicate with Every intending graduate student should read the each other over coffee (decaffeinated). book. It's comforting to know that EVERYONE feels that the first year of graduate study in But don't laugh too hard. You know how to economics is a waste of time, demoralizing and translate market analysis into game theoretical unscholarly; it's comforting, but realistic-you terms for no scientific gain.
    [Show full text]
  • “How Growth Happens: Liberalism, Innovism, and the Great Enrichment”
    Economic History Seminar Northwestern University Kellogg Global Hub, 3301 4:30-6:00, Thursday, November 29, 2018 Preliminary version of “How Growth Happens: Liberalism, Innovism, and the Great Enrichment” Deirdre Nansen McCloskey Distinguished Professor of Economics and of History Emerita Professor of English and of Communication Emerita University of Illinois at Chicago [email protected] deirdremccloskey.org Dear Reader: I am summarizing the core economics and economic history from The Bourgeois Era trilogy (University of Chicago Press 2006, 2010, 2016), with some further thoughts. I want your help in shaping the paper into an article directed at economists. If you can offer me some dazzling technical bells and whistles, I will be greatly in your debt. The version is not to be taken as complete in its rehearsal of the arguments in the trilogy or in later papers. A core is not the whole apple, or even the most nutritious part! The trilogy has more argument and evidence— qualitative and quantitative, philosophical and empirical, literary and economic. (Besides, it’s cheap on Amazon.com, and is even in audiobooks, 1,700 pages in 30 hours, read brilliantly. What are you waiting for?) Serious growth happened only after 1800, at first in northwestern Europe, 2% per capita in PPP conventionally adjusted for inflation, as in the USA 1800–present, and now the world. Its magnitude is enormous, the Great Enrichment. It was a rise from $2 or $3 a day to over $100, a factor of 30. (I recently had to explain to a justly famous anthropologist that [(30– 1) / 1] x 100 is 2,900%, or about 3,000%.
    [Show full text]
  • The Great Enrichment: a Humanistic and Social Scientific Account
    Forthcoming: Scandinavian Economic History Review, spring 2016 The Great Enrichment: A Humanistic and Social Scientific Account Deirdre Nansen McCloskey1 Abstract: The scientific problem in explaining modern economic growth is its astonishing magnitude—anywhere from a 3,000 to a 10,000 percent increase in real income, a “Great Enrichment.” Investment, reallocation, property rights, exploitation cannot explain it. Only the bettering of betterment can, the stunning increase in new ideas, such as the screw propeller on ships or the ball bearing in machines, the modern university for the masses and careers open to talent. Why, then, the new and trade-tested ideas? Because liberty to have a go, as the English say, and a dignity to the wigmakers and telegraph operators having the go made the mass of people bold. Equal liberty and dignity for ordinary people is called “liberalism,” and it was new to Europe in the eighteenth century, against old hierarchies. Why the liberalism? It was not deep European superiorities, but the accidents of the Four R’s of (German) Reformation, (Dutch) Revolt, (American and French) Revolution, and (Scottish and Scandinavian) Reading. It could have gone the other way, leaving, say, China to have the Great Enrichment, much later. Europe, and then the world, was lucky after 1900. Now China and India have adopted liberalism (in the Chinese case only in the economy), and are catching up. Keywords: economic growth, growth theory, Great Enrichment, liberalism, liberty, dignity, humanities JEL codes: N00, O12, O31, O40, P12 From 1800 to the present the average person on the planet has been enriched in real terms by a factor of ten, or some 900 percent.
    [Show full text]
  • Interview on a Historian's Life
    Interview on a Historian’s Life For a collection of such interviews by Mauricio Meglioli July 1, 2018 1. What can you recall about History as being part of your early life and your first studies? I read popular history books as a child, especially those directed at a previous generation of children, such as H. G. Wells and the historical matter in the old children’s encyclopaedia The Book of Knowledge, and got a taste for dead people. My father was a constitutional historian at Harvard, and both my parents had a respect for the glorious dead as interlocutors, a respect that stayed with me. I remember my father and mother, both fierce agnostics, reading and discussing intensely, for example, the English Cardinal Newman’s Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1854). I attended a good private day school in Cambridge called Browne and Nichols that got me writing history in a high-schooler’s way from age 14 on. What would have been my senior year of high school was spent not going to school, wandering with my parents in Italy and England --which gave me a lifetime love of Englishry. I went to Harvard College in 1964, intending in fact to major in history. A course on U.S. history from Frank Freidel and one on 19th-century Europe from William Langer did not fascinate me. Furthermore I found that being a history major required you to read an awful lot—and to withhold your political judgments, too (the year 1961 was before the age of candidly politically engaged history).
    [Show full text]