ABSTRACT
Other economists have challenged the notion of economics as a value-free discipline, arguing that economics can never be completely distinct from ethics. Weston (1994) argues that acknowledging the existence of ethical values is not, in the fears of the positivists, a license to abandon critical scrutiny. Rather, by bringing those biases to the forefront economists can recognize the limitations of their analysis. For example, economists have been long concerned with the equity/efficiency tradeoff; yet, under the guise of objectivity, they tend to address only questions of efficiency. As Davis (2005) points out, the idea that efficiency, particularly Pareto efficiency, is value free ignores the moral philosophy underlying those concepts. In addition, the micro/macroeconomic distinction can also reflect different ethical considerations, as, among other things, the positivist microeconomic framework emphasizes individual responsibility while the macro/Keynesian framework stresses the social responsibility of the group (Best and Widmaier 2006). Teaching economics as a positive science implies that the economic theory and analysis students learn are independent of the professor’s perspective as well. However, the choice of curriculum and teaching methodology inevitably reflects the values of the professor. For example, when I first taught I was committed to teaching in the positivist tradition because of my experiences as a student. What I failed to realize was that, by choosing to spend a significant amount of class time analyzing the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 rather than on the Keynesian Cross, I was privileging some topics over others. These decisions reflected my views on what was important for my students to learn. In doing so, I made normative choices about what they should learn while holding on to the façade of objectivity. Presumably faculty have the expertise to make these decisions; doing so, however, violates in principle and in spirit the tenet of objectivity, particularly since professors make significantly different curricular choices for the same course. Similarly, how students are evaluated reflects, at least in part, the priorities and values of the professor teaching the course. Students also bring their own experiences, culture, race, and gender identity to the classroom. These students may have worldviews that conflict with the conception of the economic behavior taught in class. Their views, however, are given little credence in an environment where presumably there is only one correct way to understand economic behavior (Amariglio and Ruccio 1999). As a result, my decision to write this chapter in the first person is intentional. My perspective as a teacher is shaped by many factors including my experiences as a student, my colleagues, being a woman in a predominantly male discipline, and growing up Jewish in a bi-racial household in the United States.1 I share this information with my students because only by acknowledging our own standpoint can we hope to become more objective (Harding 1995). The examples used come from my own teaching experience and so have a U.S. macroeconomic perspective, although the ideas, I hope, are far more broadly applicable. One caveat: I realize that in writing this type of chapter I am guilty of making some of the same generalizations that I observe in the discipline. I recognize that not all women, students of color, or people from working class backgrounds respond
the same, any more than white male students and faculty are guilty of the behavior discussed in the article, but space constraints prevent me from presenting a more finely nuanced argument throughout.
