Scholarship versus Ulterior Purpose: A Response to S. G. Mestrovic
A response to Stjepan G. Mestrovic's "Appreciating Veblen without Idealizing or Demonizing Him" (2002). Mestrovic's contention that the authors have previously attempted to defend Thorstein Veblen's thought against his critics or delineate him as an idealized, saintly figure...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | International journal of politics, culture, and society culture, and society, 2002-10, Vol.16 (1), p.159-163 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | A response to Stjepan G. Mestrovic's "Appreciating Veblen without Idealizing or Demonizing Him" (2002). Mestrovic's contention that the authors have previously attempted to defend Thorstein Veblen's thought against his critics or delineate him as an idealized, saintly figure is deemed unfounded. In addition, problems with Mestrovic's treatment of the authors as texts & subsequently deconstruction of them are identified. The numerous difficulties that critic Joseph Dorfman created for subsequent generations of Veblen scholars are then considered. Mestrovic's contention that people who occupy ethnic minorities are always aware of their marginal status is then refuted by referring to Veblen's life. The authors' principal motivation for engaging Veblen -- to correct inconsistent representations of Veblen's life & intellectual achievements perpetrated by other critics -- is restated. J. W. Parker |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0891-4486 1573-3416 |
DOI: | 10.1023/a:1016542730342 |