On The Rhetoric of Economics
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 9257158 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Ralph E Ancil (Michigan State University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 1987 |
| Volume | 45 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 259-275 |
| Publication date | 1987-12-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Review of Social Economy (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0034-6764 • E-ISSN: 1470-1162 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/00346768700000015 |
| OpenAlex | W2053293732 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 6 |
In applying the concept of rhetoric to economic literature, it is clear that one must define what rhetoric is. The most prominent school of rhetorical thought today is the so-called new or view. But this perspective is not the only position which can be or indeed has been taken. There are advocates of what may be called traditional or classical rhetoric. Naturally, within both of these schools there are bound to be sub-varieties of opinion and, further, the pragmatic school blurs certain distinctions between concepts, rendering them even more difficult to define. There are also areas of agreement and similarity which at first glance may render differentiation difficult. Nevertheless, the significant differences between these two schools are strong enough to allow for a meaningful separation. The purpose of this paper, then, is not to track every variety of opinion, every nuance of thought, but rather to delineate those essential features which most clearly characterize and distinguish the two modes of thought and which also have a definite and differential impact when applied to the rhetoric of economic literature. To this end I fir^t define and discuss the traditional school, relying mainly, but not exclusively, on one of its ablest spokesmen, Richard Weaver. Second, an exposition of modern rhetoric is given, based pri? marily, but again not exclusively, on one of the foremost advocates of that school, Wayne Booth. Then the rhetoric of Adam Smith is exam? ined from the viewpoint of each school, and the similarities and differ? ences between the critiques is discussed
Economics · Linguistics · Neoclassical economics · Political science · Positive economics · Rhetoric · Sociology · Complex Systems and Dynamics · Management Theory and Practice · Philosophy · Scientific Innovation and Industrial Efficiency
| Highly cited | No |
|---|