| My aim in this thesis is both to explore the role played by metaphors in economic theory, and to assess Donald McCloskey's controversial view of their significance. McCloskey, on my view, is correct to point out that economists frequently appeal to metaphors in their arguments, and to suggest that these metaphors are highly important components of the theories in which they appear. He makes a more questionable claim, however, when he asserts that the study of economic rhetoric (including metaphors) ought to be a descriptive or non-normative enterprise that has little impact on the substance of economic discourse itself. Against McCloskey, I argue that the explicit evaluation of economic metaphors is both possible and desirable. My position is based on an examination of the cognitive role that metaphors play, along with a consideration of the implications this has for the way we think about economic theory.;Explanations of economic phenomena, I argue, depend in part on the metaphorical redescription of one domain in terms directly or literally applicable to another. I claim that this sort of redescription is neither decorative nor strictly psychological in function, but has a great deal of cognitive import. I attempt to substantiate my claims through a discussion of the significance of Leon Walras's famous auction metaphor, pointing out the intrinsic role it plays in the arguments of his Elements of Pure Economics. Finally, I argue that because they do play a fundamental cognitive role, the analysis and criticism of economic metaphors is directly relevant to the evaluation of the theories in which they are involved. (Abstract shortened by UMI.). |
