Reading “Homoeconomicus”, The Subject of Male-Stream Economics, With Gender Perspective

Abstract

In this study, it is aimed to make a critical reading of “homoeconomicus”, which is the acting imagination of neo-classical economics, and which is also described as man-stream economics by feminist thinkers, with gender perspective. For this purpose, first of all, how “homoeconomicus” is positioned within the discipline of male-stream economics will be briefly explained with reference to the relevant literature, then a criticism of the “homoeconomicus” abstraction from the perspective of feminist economics will be presented after mentioning the incompatible aspects of the “homoeconomicus” abstraction with real life. Reading "Homoeconomicus" through the perpective of gender will also mean deciphering the masculine gendered structuring of man-stream economics. For this reason, the study will also include discussions on the method and subject of man-stream economics, and in line with these considerations, not only the subject "homoeconomicus", but also the masculine gender bases of the man-stream economics discipline as a whole will be revealed. It is hoped that this study will contribute to the relevant literature in terms of revealing the masculine gender biases of the male-stream economics in general and “homoeconomicus”, which is placed in the subject position, in particular, and presenting determinations on how women and women's experiences can be included in the discipline of economics together with all the marginalized.

Keywords

• Homoeconomicus
• Gender
• Feminist Economics

Adam-Akım İktisadın Öznesi “Homoeconomicus”u Toplumsal Cinsiyet Gözlüğü ile Okumak

Abstract

Bu çalışmada feminist düşünürlerce adam-akım iktisat olarak da nitelenen neo-klasik iktisadın eyleyen tahayyülü olan “homoeconomicus”un toplumsal cinsiyet gözlükleriyle eleştirel bir okumasının yapılması amaçlanmaktadır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda öncelikle “homoeconomicus”un adam-akım iktisat disiplini içinde nasıl konumlandırıldığı ilgili literatüre atfen kısaca aktarılacak, ardından “homoeconomicus” soyutlamasının gerçek yaşamla bağdaşmayan yönlerine değinildikten sonra feminist iktisat perspektifiyle eleştirisi sunulmaya çalışılacaktır. “Homoeconomicus”u toplumsal cinsiyet gözlüğüyle okumak, aynı zamanda adam-akım iktisadın eril toplumsal cinsiyetçi yapılandırılışını da deşifre etmek anlamına gelecektir. Bu nedenle çalışmada adam-akım iktisadın yöntemi ve konusuna ilişkin irdelemelere de yer verilecek, bu irdelemeler doğrultusunda yalnızca özne konumundaki “homoeconomicus”un değil, aynı zamanda adam- akım iktisat disiplininin bir bütün olarak eril toplumsal cinsiyetçi dayanakları böylece su yüzüne çıkarılabilecektir. Bu çalışmada genelde adam-akım iktisat disiplininin, özelde ise özne konumuna yerleştirilen “homoeconomicus”un eril toplumsal cinsiyetçi yanlılıklarını gözler önüne serilerek, kadınların yanı sıra tüm ötekileştirilenlerin deneyimlerinin iktisat disiplinine nasıl dahil edilebileceğine ilişkin ipuçları sunarak ilgili literatüre katkı sağlaması temenni edilmektedir.

Keywords

• Homoeconomicus
• Toplumsal Cinsiyet
• Feminist İktisat

References

1. Agenjo‐Calderón, A., & Gálvez‐Muñoz, L. (2019). Feminist economics: Theoretical and political dimensions. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 78(1), 137-166.
2. Aksoy, N. ve Aksoy, B. (1992). “İki Aydınlanma”, Birikim, sayı 3, s.58-61, Ocak.
3. Alter, M. (1982). Carl Menger and ‘homo oeconomicus’: Some thoughts on Austrian theory and methodology. Journal of Economic Issues. 16(1), 149-160.
4. Beed, C. (1991). Philosophy of Science and Contemporary Economics: an overview. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Yaz. s.459-489.
5. Bergmann, B. R. (1990). Feminism and Economics. Women's Studies Quarterly 18, no. 3: 68-74.
6. Bordo, S. (1987). The flight to objectivity: Essays on Cartesianism and culture. Suny Press.
7. Cremaschi, S. (2012). Review: A History of Homoeconomicus, History of Economic İdeas, 20(3), 172-75.
8. Çelebi, İ. (2019). Yeni Kurumsal İktisat Neoklasik Kurumsal İktisat mı? Kurumsal İktisat Perspektifiyle Yeni Kurumsal İktisat Üzerine Bir İrdeleme. Gazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Basılmamış Doktora Tezi.

9. Davis, J. B. (2012). The homo economicus conception of the individual: An ontological approach. In U. Mäki (Ed.). Philosophy of economics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 459-482.
10. Elahi, K. (2014). Behavioral controversy concerning homo economicus: A human perspective. The Journal of Philosophical Economics, 7(2), 2-29.
11. Elahi, K. (2015). Homo economicus in neoclassical economics: Some conceptual curiosities about behavioural criticisms. Homo Oeconomicus, 32(1), 23-51.
12. Elster, J. (1989). The cement of society: A study of social order. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. England, P. (1993). The separative self: Androcentric bias in neoclassical assumptions. Readings in economic sociology, 154.
13. Ferber, M. A., & Nelson, J. A. (Eds.). (1993). Beyond economic man: Feminist theory and economics. University of Chicago Press.
14. Folbre, N. & Hartmann, H. (1988). The Rhetoric of Self-interest: Ideology and Gender in Economic Theory. Klamer, A., Mccloskey, D. N.& Solow, R. M. (eds.) The Consequences of Economic Rhetoric, 184-203.
15. Folbre, N. (1991). The unproductive housewife: Her evolution in nineteenth-century economic thought. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 16(3), 463-484.
16. Folbre, N. (1994). Who pays for the kids?: Gender and the structures of constraint. Routledge.
17. Gintis, H. (2000). Beyond Homo economicus: evidence from experimental economics. Ecological economics, 35(3), 311-322.
18. Grapard, U. (1995). Robinson Crusoe: The quintessential economic man?. Feminist economics, 1(1), 33-52.
19. Grapard, U., & Hewitson, G. (Eds.). (2012). Robinson Crusoe's Economic Man. Taylor & Francis.
20. Güçlü, A., Erkan–Uzun, S. Y., & Ümit Hüsrev (2008). Felsefe Sözlüğü. Bilim ve Sanat Yayınları, Ankara.
21. Harding, S. (Ed.). (1993). The" racial" economy of science: Toward a democratic future. Indiana University Press.
22. Harding, S. G. (1986). The science question in feminism. Cornell University Press.
23. Hewitson, G. (1994). Deconstructing Robinson Crusoe: a feminist interrogation of ‘rational economic man’. Australian Feminist Studies, 9(20), 131-149.
24. Işık, E. (2020). Kadın Emeği (Farklı Feminizm ve Feminist İktisat Anlayışları Temelinde Bilgi Kuramsal Bir İrdeleme). Yetkin Yayınevi: Ankara.
25. Jennings, A. (1999). Dualisms. The Elgar companion to feminist economics, Peterson, J. y M. Lewis, (eds.) 142-153.
26. Jevons, W. S. (1879). Logic, New York: D. Appleton & Co. Publishers.
27. Jevons, W. S. (1886). Letters and Journal of W. Stanley Jevons, ed. Harriet A. Jevons, London: Macmillan and Co.
28. Kahneman, D. Tversky, A. (1979). “Prosoect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk” Econometrica, vol. 47, no.2, ss. 263-292.
29. Keller, E.F. (2007). Toplumsal Cinsiyet ve Bilim Üzerine Düşünceler. Metis Yayınları: İstanbul.
30. Keller, E. F., & Grontkowski, C. R. (1983). The mind’s eye. In Discovering reality (pp. 207-224). Springer, Dordrecht.
31. Kırmızıaltın, E. (2018). “Davranışsal İktisat”, İktisat Sosyolojisi (der. Ahmet Arif Eren ve Eren Kırmızıaltın) içinde, Heretik: Ankara.
32. Kurz, H. D. (2018). “Klasik Politik Ekonomi”, İktisat Sosyolojisi (der. Ahmet Arif Eren ve Eren Kırmızıaltın) içinde, Heretik: Ankara.
33. Leibenstein, H. (1976). Beyond Economic Man: A New Foundations For Microeconomics Harvard University Press.
34. Meeks, J. G. T. (Ed.). (1991). Thoughtful economic man: Essays on rationality, moral rules and benevolence. Cambridge University Press.
35. Nelson, J. (1992). Gender, Metaphor, and the Definition of Economics. Economics and Philosophy 8, no. 1: 103-125.
36. Nelson, J. (1993). The study of choice or the study of provisioning? Gender and the definition of economics‖ in Marianne Ferber and Julie Nelson (eds.) Beyond Economic Man., Chicago: Chicago University Press. 23-36.
37. Nelson, J. (1996). Feminism, objectivity and economics. Routledge.
38. Nelson, J. (1999). Economic man. Peterson, J. y M. Lewis, (eds). The Elgar Companion to Feminist Economist, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 284-289.
39. O’Boyle, Edward J. “Requiem for Homo Economicus”, Journal of Markets and Morality, Volume 10, Number 2, Fall 2007, ss. 321-337.
40. Oakley, A. (1994), Classical Economic Man: Human Agency and Methodolgy in The Political Economy of Adam Smith and J. S. Mill. Edward Elgar Publishing.
41. Pateman, C. (1989). The disorder of women: Democracy, feminism, and political theory. Stanford University Press.
42. Persky, J. (1995). Retrospectives: The ethology of homo economicus. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(2), 221-231.
43. Pujol, Mi. A. (1992). Feminism and Anti-Feminism in Early Economic Thought. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
44. Rankin, D. J. (2011, January). The social side of homo economicus. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 26(1), 1-3.
45. Rodriguez-Sickert, C. (2009). Homo economicus. In J. Peil and I. van Stareven(Eds.). Handbook of economics and ethics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp.223-229.
46. Samson, M. (1995). Towards a'Friday'model of international trade: A feminist deconstruction of race and gender bias in the Robinson Crusoe trade allegory. Canadian Journal of Economics, 143-158.
47. Seiz, J. (1993). "Feminism and the history of economic thought." History of Political Economy 25, no. 1: 185-201.
48. Serdaroğlu, U. (2010). “Feminist İktisat’ın Bakışı (Postmodernist mi?)”, Ankara, Efil Yayınevi.
49. Simon, H. (1959). “Theories of Decision-Making in Economics and Behavioral Science” The American Economic Review, vol. 49, no.3, ss. 253-283.
50. Söllner, F. (2016). The use (and abuse) of Robinson Crusoe in neoclassical economics. History of Political Economy, 48(1), 35-64.
51. Strober, M. (1994) Can Feminist Thought Improve Economics? Rethinking Economics Through a Feminist Lens, American Economic Review,84(2):143-147.
52. Tesler, P. H. (2009). Good-bye homo economicus: Cognitive dissonance,brain science and highly effective collaborative practice. Hofstra Law Review, 38(2), 635-684.
53. Thaler, R. (1980). “Toward A Positive Theory of Consumer Choice”, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, vol.1, no.1, ss. 39-60.
54. Tversky, A Kahneman, D. (1986). “Rational Choice and the Framing of Decision” The Journal of Business, vol.39, no.4, part.2, ss.251-278.
55. Tversky, A. Kahneman, D. (1974). “Judgement Under Uncertainity: Heuristics and Biases” Science, vol. 185, no.4157, ss.1124-1131.
56. Walker, D. A. (2006). Walrasian Economics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
57. Walras, L. (1896/2010). Studies in Social Economics, çev. Jan van Daal ve Donald Walker, Oxon: Routledge.
58. Yılmaz, Ş. (2006). Homoeconomicus. Çiçek Yiyen İnek (içinde, der. Şiir Erkök Yılmaz). Yapı Kredi Yayınları: İstanbul.