I guess nobody’s going to tell me what the academic tools of feminism are.
Maybe nobody knows.
This is why I like to work in the real world and leave the academics to their ivory towers.
Here, in the real world, the mechanical tools of feminism are clearly understood:
The bitchhammer, titwrench, and twatclamp, are in every progressive’s toolbox. Try fixing a Miata without them.
Um, Scylla, have you seen Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels? 
No.
Well then let’s just say that Hatchet Harry can be said to be wielding something way more gendered even than a titwrench.
Nobody’s going to tell me what the tools are, are they?
Scylla, you do realize that your asking for the definition of a term that was introduced, or so I recall, by december. Presumably “feminist academic tools” is a reference to research methods used by feminist scholars.
Though if this thread and the related thread demonstrates anything, it’s that december wouldn’t know a feminist research method if it hit him over the head with Hatchet Harry’s tool ;).
I was not the poster who introduced the oxymoron “feminist academic tools.” However, I think I do know one definition:
Feminist Research (noun) – Asseting something without proof, then attacking anyone who questions your assertion. 
Here are some quotes from Alexander Makedon
One needs to read the entire essay, but the above snippets provide a flavor. In fairness, Makedon is discussing science, rather than geography. Still, since he asserts that scientific truth isn’t absolute, but depends on our assumptions, why wouldn’t he think the same about geography?
**
I could toss out any number specific examples of bad, even embarrasing, feminist scholarship. While I don’t believe it would be productive, I can do so, if you like. However, every time someone points out evidence of bad scholarship, you respond by asking, “How does that impugn everything else?” You forget that I, at least, have never said there is no good feminist scholarship. What I have said is that there is a climate of acceptance of bad scholarship that damages the credibility of the entire field.
My original post concluded with an endorsement of the questions posed by Tranquilis One of which was, “How do you tell the difference between valid studies, junk studies, tripe, and misandry?” Your answer seems to be that there is no junk, tripe or misandry so there is no need to try and tell the difference.
Just so you don’t think I’m making it up, some of your colleagues do argue for a feminist physics. Here’s an illustrative excerpt from a description of one women’s studies course.
Obviously, I agree with your affirmation that an objective world view is possible in some areas. As you classify yourself as a feminist in the liberal tradition, I’m not surprised that you hold to this. Not all of your colleagues do, however.
Women’s studies is not about science studies?!? That is certainly a revelation to a great many feminist academics! While you may conclude that her radical perspectivism says nothing about science, I, for one, do her the courtesy of assuming that she says what she means to say. “All claims to disciplinary . . . objectivity” How can you assume that she actually only means “other non-science areas?” Is she unaware of radical perspectivism’s attack on scientific objectivity? Is she simply being sloppy? Perhaps she thought, “they like controversy in their journal, so why bother spelling out the qualifications?”. How can we tell?
But it does work that way. In its extreme form, it makes vigorous enquiry impossible and even pointless. Regardless of how vigorous the argument, there is no way to determine which position is “better” since “better” is ultimately defined subjectively. I cannot criticize, say, homeopathy as errant nonsense because there is no scientific Truth. You find this ridiculous, as do I. But you do admit, don’t you, that some feminist academics do not find radical perspectivism ridiculous when applied to science.
This attitude makes itself felt in more subtle – and arguably more dangerous – ways as well. For example, many feminist academics are willing to accept story as “evidence” for a proposition. Moreover, the validity of personal narrative cannot easily be challenged as one person’s experiences and perspective are just as valid as anyone else’s This fosters a climate where “evidence” cannot be weighed but must simply be accepted and where criticism becomes stigmatized as rudeness.
Do I feel a bit foolish? Not really. Do you feel a bit foolish for misparaphrasing the article on which you rely? Or do you not see a difference between more useful/less useful and right/wrong?
Don’t offer quotations and evidence to support your position that you don’t wish people to analyze. This is only a message board. I have no way of checking your sources absent a link. Until I have evidence to the contrary, I’m willing to take your quotations and parphrases at face value. The flipside of that is that criticizing them is fair game.
**
Odd. What makes you think I’m male? More to the point, why is my background at all relevant? It isn’t, only my ideas are relevant, unless, of course, you subscribe to radical perspectivism. In that case, my background is one of the most relevant things about me.
Nothing, as you already know what radical perspectivism is.
Fact: Women’s studies HAS put out crap (feminist physics)
Fact: Women’s studies HAS NOT put out anything that any member of this thread is willing to claim is real science.
We’re running in to ye olde science vs. religion problem again. If you start from the postulate that phallocentric science is wrong, than you can’t prove anything at all, and your argument flames and dies. Similarly for when you must take the founding precepts of your worldview on faith.
Fact: Science has put out crap (cold fusion)
What’s your point?
I frankly don’t see a debate here.
Unless somebody can tell me what these academic tools and processes are that are unique or somehow special to Women’s studies, than there’s really know way to evaluate them, is there?
That’s really the point, Scylla, as perhaps you’re hinting. “Feminist academic tools” is a name that was useful in gaining positions and power. The actual tools come later, or maybe never.
It’s sufficient that a women’s studies “expert” is to say, "We have something to contribute (to whatever) because we bring to bear feminist academic tools.
That’s really the point, Scylla, as perhaps you’re hinting. “Feminist academic tools” is a name that was useful in gaining positions and power. The actual tools come later, or maybe never.
It’s sufficient that a women’s studies “expert” is to say, “We have something to contribute (to whatever) because we bring to bear feminist academic tools!”
december, Where does anything that Makedon says suggest that he’s against the map of Europe? Sorry, Big D., but I think that you’re the one having problems keeping in touch with reality.
**Truth Seeker **:“I could toss out any number specific examples of bad, even embarrasing, feminist scholarship. While I don’t believe it would be productive, I can do so, if you like.”
The problem is that so far you haven’t show any specific examples of feminist scholarship. The appearance is of someone making some very strong claims without any substantive familiarity.
"What I have said is that there is a climate of acceptance of bad scholarship that damages the credibility of the entire field. "
And what I have said is that I disagree–although I’m not sure what is meant here by “the entire field.” Is your target women studies? feminist scholarship wherever it happens to be practiced? sciences studies whether practiced by feminists or others? all of academia? It’s simply not clear.
In the areas within the humanities I know best there are now vibrant debates and discussions going on; many precisely to do with how to integrate the best insights from postmodernism with what is most desirable in the humanist paradigm. I think, depending on your interests, you would find this work rewarding. I know that I do.
““How do you tell the difference between valid studies, junk studies, tripe, and misandry?” Your answer seems to be that there is no junk, tripe or misandry so there is no need to try and tell the difference.”
Not in the least. I’ve said more than once that I have many bones to pick: on grounds style, content or both. My proviso was that my criticisms aren’t excluisvely aimed at feminist work.
Listen, academia tends towards polemics, particularly in the humanities where so much depends on interpretation. I tried to find (but couldn’t) an amusing quotation from Max Weber in which he claims that the great majority of his colleagues are doing useful, dreadful work (c. 1900).
Methods of judging between the valid and the invalid depend on one’s field. In history one can challenge an argument both on evidentiary and logical grounds; in philosophy it’s mainly the latter. In the social sciences much depends, I believe, on the reproducbility of one’s results.
“Just so you don’t think I’m making it up, some of your colleagues do argue for a feminist physics. Here’s an illustrative excerpt from a description of one women’s studies course.”
Thanks, Truth Seeker, for posting that interesting link to the philosophy offerings at Union College. What a wonderful variety of offerings! While searching for the course in question, I came across at least ten courses I’d like to sit in on: philosophy of mind, philosophy of law, science and evidence, Eastern philosophy. There are dozens of courses here, about 3 of which are devoted to issues of gender.
One of them–the one you cited–is a special topics course which mentions “feminist physics” as an example of the topics to be considered. Now we have no idea from this description how that topic is handled, and sitll less what those who call for a “feminist physics” have to say.
You seem to assume that a feminist physics is necessarily risible. Perhaps you are right. I don’t know enough about physics in toto to begin to extrapolate what feminists might have to say about it. But I cannot simply assume that it is risible; nor is it clear from this description that if it is dubious that its dubiousness isn’t pointed out by the instructor of this course. I often teach readings that I don’t entirely agree with: this gives students more space for some critical thinking of their own; they can say, she doesn’t entirely buy this, do I?
To my non-expert eye the philosophy department at Union looks great, and I have no reason, without specific evidence to the contrary, to believe than any particular course would be substandard.
"Obviously, I agree with your affirmation that an objective world view is possible in some areas. As you classify yourself as a feminist in the liberal tradition, I’m not surprised that you hold to this. "
Some clarification here. I didn’t say that “an objective world view is possible in some areas.” I agreed with you that some things in the world aren’t culturally constructed. Looking back I can see how the misunderstanding arose. Let me explain then. I agree that there are physical processes that are readily subject to empirical analysis: e.g., the boiling point of water, the color of the sky, and yes, december, the physical location of Switzerland, etc. etc., etc.
However, proof of one’s “objective worldview” doesn’t necessarily follow from this. For example, one might say: it is undisputable that the sky is blue; on the same empirical grounds it is undisputable that economic activities are guided by an invisible hand.
Both claims are drawn on reported observations about the material world; but the second is much more debatable than the first. Now I have argued in other threads that Adam Smith’s beliefs have been distorted, that many who today subscribe to neo-liberal economic dogmas are, in effect, fundamentalists whose beliefs are founded on a quasi-religious belief in the free market, on faulty assumptions about human behavior, and on an incomplete reading of Smith and others.
In truth I believe my position is more objective. But those who disagree will typically believe that their view of the matter is more objective. Do I occupy the same worldview as them?
Try telling someone who is deeply religious that their worldview isn’t as objective as your own.
That doesn’t mean that I just toss up my hands and say, Oh it’s all relative anyway. On the contrary, it means I try harder and harder to put across the claims for my position. (Perhaps you know what I mean ).
" Women’s studies is not about science studies?!? That is certainly a revelation to a great many feminist academics!"
Really who?
I’d guess–just a guess mind you–that fewer than 5% of women studies faculty members are doing science studies. OTOH, I’d guess–just a guess mind you–that more than 50% of people doing science studies are interested in gender issues.
There’s alot of stuff going on, Truth Seeker!
Back to the feminist political philosopher in the Yale Journal of Criticism:
“How can you assume that she actually only means “other non-science areas?” Is she unaware of radical perspectivism’s attack on scientific objectivity? Is she simply being sloppy? Perhaps she thought, “they like controversy in their journal, so why bother spelling out the qualifications?”. How can we tell?”
We can tell by reading the article! (Fall 1999, Vol. 12. No. 2) The excerpt is part of a very specific set of arguments about multiculturalism and liberal political theory. There is no discussion of science whatever.
“In its extreme form, [the postmodernist position] makes vigorous enquiry impossible and even pointless.”
I know that you feel this way, but please provide an example of a reputable feminist scholar engaged in such extremism.
“But you do admit, don’t you, that some feminist academics do not find radical perspectivism ridiculous when applied to science.”
I don’t feel as though I can offer an informed opinion here. Other than Harraway I don’t know any feminist science studies; I also don’t know what other feminist scholars think about these works. I also think there are postmodernist analyses of science that aren’t “ridiculous”.
Let’s take a very famous and influential example (though not a feminist one): Michel Foucault’s History of Sexuality. Foucault provides a very unorthodox view of the human and medical sciences (e.g., psychology, sexology) as they arose over the course of the nineteenth century. He argues that these exerted a profound influence over the way people think and behave. As many have argued, and as I agree, Foucault goes too far and, in doing so, deprives human beings of the potential for critical thinking.
On the other hand, reading his work is illuminating. On every page I find thought-provoking claims alongside claims I would tend to reject. But I do not find the book in the least ridiculous. Now, for a while Foucault was hugely influential and sometimes his ideas were applied reflexively. Sometimes that resulted in derivative scholarship that I could have lived without. But, IME, that happens less and less.
“For example, many feminist academics are willing to accept story as “evidence” for a proposition. Moreover, the validity of personal narrative cannot easily be challenged as one person’s experiences and perspective are just as valid as anyone else’s This fosters a climate where “evidence” cannot be weighed but must simply be accepted and where criticism becomes stigmatized as rudeness.”
The problem is that I don’t recognize this bind. If results aren’t reproducible, then they aren’t reproducible.
Personal narratives can be interesting in their own right. If someone is making large claims based on such narratives then the claims themselves can be questioned and tested. That is my understanding of the social sciences (limited though it is). In my field people do not fear being stigmatized as rude: they sometimes passionately disagree, in writing, at conferences, etc.
" Do you feel a bit foolish for misparaphrasing the article on which you rely? Or do you not see a difference between more useful/less useful and right/wrong?"
I don’t believe that I did misparaphrase. Of course I see a difference between “less useful” and wrong: but in the matter of liberal political theory, with so much room for debate, it’s not likely to be a matter of right or wrong.
Speaking for myself, I would say that postmodernism–defined as a large body of philosophical ideas with roots back to the nineteenth century–has more and less useful aspects depending on where and how it is applied. An example: Jean Baudrillard’s postmodern philosophy which I think was brilliantly adopted for a popular audience by the people who made The Matrix.
Right and wrong? It’s wrong to make assumptions about things you haven’t read. It’s wrong to close your mind to new ideas. It’s right to consider a position carefully before rejecting it out of hand. That’s what objectivity means to me.
“I have no way of checking your sources absent a link.”
Do you have internet access through a university or college library? If so you can probably read articles from YJC online. I can provide the link if you like, but you won’t be able to open it. A first-rate public library will probably also have that journal.
** “What makes you think I’m male?”**
Actually, only one of my questions (the ex-husband) makes that assumption. There are reasons why I’m more prone to think you’re male than female, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on either, I assure you.
" More to the point, why is my background at all relevant? It isn’t, only my ideas are relevant, unless, of course, you subscribe to radical perspectivism. In that case, my background is one of the most relevant things about me."
Your background would be considered a relevant context for your ideas in any number of traditional social-scientific disciplines including sociology, anthropology, and psychology.
As it happens, your ideas–as I deem them–are distorted, inaccurate, riddled with inconsistency, and based on almost no factual evidence whatever. You appear to have an axe to grind. That’s the only “background” that interests me at present.
The Gilligan example is fairly notorious for it’s sloppy methodology and unsupported conclusions and yet Gilligan’s assertions have become a defacto “truth” for many feminists because what Gilligan says about the difference between boys and girls resonates so powerfully for many that it must be true regardless of how thin the actual results are supporting that conclusion.
When people (primarly female researchers) started trying to replicate Gilligan’s research and asked for copies of her results and field work (with appropriate cautions taken to protect privacy) they were stonewalled with Gilligan going to ridiculous lengths not to release any data. And yet, as Apos noted, Gilligan is still “huge” in the Pantheon of feminist academia based almost entirely on her unsupported conclusions as to the differences between the socialization of boys and girls.
It’s embarrassing for feminist academia in one sense because it points to a willingness among some players to overlook methodological accountability so long as what Gilligan says sounds true. There are careers (and not just Gilligans) invested in the existence of these “differences” so it’s not a brain teaser as to why some academics will (and have) defended her conclusions regardless of her unwillingness to provide primary data about the basis for these conclusions.
On the flip side it’s primarily female academics in the social sciences that have taken Gilligan to task for this lack of accountability. For whatever reason, male academics have demonstrated a noted lack of appetite for taking Gilligan on.
Does the Gilligan example say something specific about (mainly older) “feminist academia” and it’s willingness to too readily accept, defend and propagate a questionable and poorly supported hypothesis because it “sounds so right”? While Gilligan is still part of the canon in many Womens Studies courses she is not regarded seriously by other (male and female) social scientists in other departments.
See the linked articles below for reference
Scylla: Science has proven adept at culling out its own crap, and producing hot fusion. Has women’s studies done either?
And no justifying this within the paramaters of women’s studies.
My beef: Can’t we just call this field gender-based differential sociology or something? Studying the differences between the genders? Great! Studying just the woman’s perspective makes as little sense as just studying the man’s. Why are there no classes in Men’s studies?
Also, sociology/anthropology are no more sciences than history is. My dad’s been a sociologist for 37 years, and I have (hah) observed him for 18. A scientist, he aint.
Rob:
The bottom line is that women’s studies isn’t really science. It’s humanities. It teaches different perspectives and critical thinking. I was actually that guy that registered late and had to take a Woman’s Studies course. It was good. At Tulane University this particular course was a lot better than the psychology course I took, but I think that had a lot to do with the instructor.
The reason there are no courses on men’s studies is because most humanities courses are all about men’s studies. For a long time women were precluded from participating in the fruits of society.
How things used to be, the woman’s role in society past and present, and how society has benefitted as a whole from the participatory evolution it’s undergone is a valid topic of study in and of itself as well as an object lesson.
I remember reading “A room of her own,” a short essay by Virginia Wolfe, and how that kind of opened my eyes. Recall how the works of Emily Dickinson come to us only by luck. She would not have been published during her life because she was a women and she’s a poet to rival any the world has seen.
Ever hear of someone called George Eliot? He’s a she. Had to mascarade and hide her real name so that she could be published.
Think for a moment of the great minds we have had, the great leaders, inventors, revolutionaries. The vast majority have been men. Think how many more we would have had, and maybe how much better the world would be if women had had the same opportunities for advancement that men have had.
It’s a valid topic for study. There are things to be said, and things to be learned.
Like all humanities subjects, there’s a lot of academic bullshit that gets put out in women’s studies. It does seem that women’s studies puts out more than it’s fair share. Partly that’s because it’s a target. Nobody gives a shit if some philosophy professer falls on his ass with some silly statements. He’s merely eccentric. A radical feminist falls on her ass with stupid unsupportable bullshit, and it’s news.
Okay, here I come in to finally get to use the term paradigm. Science fields are generally considered “high-paradigm” (Thomas Kuhn will forgive me if I don’t get his terms exactly right) which means, relatively speaking, there is a lot of agreement about truth, methods, etc. That’s why there isn’t “feminist physics” (although it’s interesting to note some people think there ought to be).
Feminist frameworks are more likely to be applied to low-paradigm fields like the social sciences and the humanities, where there are still a lot more questions about what is truth, what is valid, and what different perspectives can bring to our understanding of problems, ideas, and phenomena.
The fact that these fields are low-paradigm and lend themselves to feminist perspective does NOT meant they are somehow less valid or more prone to crackpot scholarship. Science can be wrong, too. It’s just that more people tend to be stampeding down those wrong paths when they happen, and scientists find out faster and agree sooner about that (whether or not their judgments are ultimately correct).
There’s some truth in this point, cranky. Still, the fact that scientists find out faster actually does mean that “low-paradigm” fields are more prone to crackpot scholarship. The crackpot stuff hangs around a lot longer and at any point in time constitutes a higher percentage of the current beliefs.
More serious than the speed are two issues addressed earlier:
– Can they find out at all whether some theory is bogus?
– How motivated are they to find out?
My answers are Not Really and Not Very Much. YMMV
There’s some truth in this point, cranky. Still, the fact that scientists find out faster actually does mean that “low-paradigm” fields are more prone to crackpot scholarship. The crackpot stuff hangs around a lot longer. At any point in time ti will constitute a higher percentage of the current beliefs.
More serious than the speed are two issues addressed earlier:
– Can they find out at all whether some theory is bogus?
– How motivated are they to find out?
—Is there a good link on CG, Apos?—
I was going to post some after googling, but I decided that you can probably make out better on your own, without me picking and choosing. There’s plenty of stuff out there, though no substitute for reading her actual work or those of her critics.
Gilligan may be psychologist, but her work is directed, like much psychology these days, primarily towards it’s social science implications. That’s why she’s such a major cite in feminist works on the socialization of girls. She’s of particular interest to me now that she’s left Harvard and is on her way to NYU (which I’m now attending).
—In what sense is the work considered “sloppy and baseless by academia in general.”—
In primarily the senses I explained, and someone here later supplemented: her work makes grand conclusions from small sample sizes, and most of her methodology is unpublished (including how she even selected her samples!). Her published work is mostly anecdotal and even those anecdotes are heavily interpreted by her. She also made her case largely by appeal to the public in books, as opposed to it facing critical peer review as research.
Her conclusions also face serious and still unanswered challenges from several threats to internal and extenal validity. Worse, criticism of her ideas and methods is pre-emptively attacked as being, as usual, the reactive, octupussian patriarchy at work.
—Who is “academia in general” in this characterization?—
The psychology disciplines, largely.
—The reason I say that is that many feminists–myself included–dispute that kind of thinking (girls reason differently, etc.), at least when its attributed to genetic or other biological causes.—
Gilligan’s major thesis is not outwardly genetic, though there is a hint of such (which I will explain later). It is that girls are universally at risk for being “silenced”: their voices taken away from them, their unique girlness quashed by society. She doesn’t come out and say that this “unique girl spirit” is genetic, but there are strong implications that it is superior to whatever she happens to be setting it in contrast to, and indeed, when her attention turns to boys, she is quite explicit in the idea that boys could benefit from being more like whatever it is she thinks girls have (prior, of course, to being “silenced”). Gilligan’s work has been fundamental in creating a perceived psychological, social, and academic crisis among the fortunes of American teenage girls: despite the fact that, if gender is even a good way to break it down at all, it is boys that are in serious crisis (from almost four times the dropout rate, failure to pursue higher education, much higher incidence of psychological problems, criminality, etc.) Indeed, one of Gilligan’s favorite statistics: that boys recieve more teacher attention than girls, actually points in the direct opposite of her preferred conclusion. Boys get more teacher attention largely because they are almost always doing worse in class, and are more likely to be disrupting the class or haveing other disciniplinary problems. The problem is not that Gilligan’s point is false (that girls get less teacher time) it is that without the context of WHY (aside from her glib and unfounded assertion that it is simply because teachers think boys are more important), her claims become a very highly skewed an incomplete picture of the situation.
Full disclosure: I considered myself a feminist until I decided that such a term was too ideological, or, at least, too generalized. I support most of the causes that people who indentify as feminists do. But I feel that progressive left has spent the last few decades shooting itself in the foot and virtually handing over the reigns of both serious scholarship and politics to the far better prepared and vicious right-wing.
I used to be part of the mainstream feminist activist movements, but I sort of dropped out somewhat after Washington NOW conferance in 1997, fairly disallusioned with the predominance of “theory” used in interpreting various social matters, most of which I found to be often tenuous at best. I was also really saddened by the degree to which the participation of men has evaporated from organizations like NOW, largely because of change in focus from advancing broad principles to a much narrower ideological spectrum. When I noted that feminist scholarship has gotten more extreme, I meant this: that it has made grander and grander conclusions about all of society on less and less evidence, many of these claims self-sealing (i.e. arguing that criticism only demonstrates the truth of the claim of how pervasive, say, patriarchy is). Cetainly feminist acitivism has gotten more and more extreme: as women’s fortunes advanced considerably, activists became more and more angry at, critical of, and disgusted with society, subjecting it to more and more tendentious critiques and accusing it of being worse and worse for women (and men). The result has been, by and large, the marginalization of feminism in the political discourse, allowing people like Rush and O’Reily to basically write off many of its more legitimate beefs by pointing to some of its outrageously silly extremes.
The commonly cited figure of how much women make compared to men is one example. This statistic is SO easy to pick apart as highly deceptive by any intelligent critic: and yet it is used without good analysis (it’s not a totally useless comparison, it just needs to be explained that sexism just isn’t the only factor, or even directly the key factor, but is definately A factor) time and time again by feminist speakers and academics.
I don’t think by any means that all feminist scholarship is bunk, though I do think that an uncomfortably large part of it involves sloppy scholarship with a very uncritical academic atmosphere (in sharp contrast to, say, disciplines like intellectual history). While not much of a conservative myself, I also think it is scandelous that feminist academia is essentially still a left-wing enterprise with high-barriers to conservative viewpoints based on, in my opinion, very political, rather than academic biases. However, there are some fantastic and vital women’s studies professors and other feminist academics out there.
However, I do think that the eventual goal in liberal academia should be for the elmination of explicitly feminist studies: what we need in the end are not more “feminist” readings of various social phenomenon, but better, more thoughtful and inclusive readings in general. Feminism as a movement has done much to fix terrible assumptions and disciniplinary neglect in many areas: but I do not think a particular ideology should have an established place in a discipline of knowledge.
—Now I have argued in other threads that Adam Smith’s beliefs have been distorted, that many who today subscribe to neo-liberal economic dogmas are, in effect, fundamentalists whose beliefs are founded on a quasi-religious belief in the free market, on faulty assumptions about human behavior, and on an incomplete reading of Smith and others.—
This is totally off-topic, but thank goodness some people are aware of this travesty. I can’t even count the number of people who think that they are experts on what Smith had to say about capitalism and human nature because they’ve skimmed The Wealth of Nations. Most have never even heard of The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Few understand the distinction between self-interest and selfishness.
This, I think, is largely because of modern Think-Tanks, particularly conservative, which have proclaimed themselves to be the pre-eminent defender of free-market economics, despite the fact that their ideology stands in market contrast to even the hard-line conservative economists. Everyone speaks of the invisible hand: no one speaks of the inevitable cartel of plotters working against it. Few even have a clue what an externality is.