"Political Economy".... think about it... Political comes first and Economy comes second. Now if it was Economic Polity, that would give it a whole new meaning. Unfortunately, I hadnt thought of this six months ago while enroling for the masters programme.
It is just inherently asssumed in Political Economy that the order of the words is to be the order of importance, the direction of flow, the core and periphery respectively.
Political Economists, intrinsically and by virtue of being political economists subordinate economics to politics,and if an infidel is bold enough to proclaim otherwise... well.. he/she bears the consequences of infidelity.
Unfortunately (or not), I am one of "them" infidels! There I come out and Ive said it. I am not loyal to PE. I am an Economic POliticist in the garb of an political economist. My soul purpose is to corrupt PE at its very core and work from within it to corrupt it into EP- almost like a computer virus, or a mole, or a Quisling.
But the question I intend on raising is- am I supposed to be restricted to politics and keep the economics within check in my work? Am I supposed to attempt to not "stray into the field of Economics" while writing of Political Economy? If so- then whatever happened to academic freedom?!?
If not, why is it that I am warned repeatedly by my "mentors" to not stray away from the field of politics into the field of economics?!?
MY answer would then be- I am not straying at all. I just never really was all in the field of politics. i am simply attempting to drag political variables into my chartered territory of economics.
It is the woe of the political economists that they are the jacks of both disciplines and masters of neither. BUt they are better jacks of politics than they are of economics ( I am taking the liberty of generalizing, even though this may not be true for a few in the field).
When I sit in this class of political jacks, being the sole economic jack, and worse- a liberal economic jack!!! ( sheesh, noone but the bloody Americans can be that.), I do feel the alienation.
Often I feel the controversy, and almost always I am made acutely aware of stringent disagreement.
Now that is fine. disagreement after all, among academic circles is given teh distinguished term "academic discourse". So I engage in discourse. But is it all just "discourse"?
Not quite. If you are a realist, you'd understand power asymmetries. And I dont hesitate in saying that these power asymmetries are seldom as pronounced as in a classroom. The professor almost always has teh last word (literally and metaphorically), the discourse is at his mercy. If he/ she is 'academically kind', your deviant (rogue) opinion/stand might be accepted, if not- you are doomed!
But whether or not it is accepted, there shall be a constant attempt to mould you/ to change you, the way you think, and to change, as my professors would put it- your epistemology.
I do not have the absolute freedom as a student of political economy to have economics as my epistemological basis.
This is not true of all my professors (and thank god for that!), but it is true for a third.
Back in the days, being liberal was the way to be. Today if I go out as a (deep breath) liberal economic politicist, I am almost seen in myself as the "axis of evil". Believeing in economism, means being simply- unsensitive, avariced, money minded, inhumane, and a critical ally of the evil faceless corporations!!!
How did so many identities get attached to me? I am all of 20 years old (21 tomorrow)... how did I simply by virtue of my thoughts become all those things? I never will really know.
At the end of teh day my professor is still disgruntled that I believe in economics far more than I do in politics.... and I scored the pits on my essay!!!