The quest for a prime mover: a critique of Deirdre McCloskey's theory of change

Abstract

Within a framework of history of political thought, this essay examines the original, albeit questionable, account furthered by Chicago economist Deirdre McCloskey. First, I will present an intellectual profile of the author in order to provide a broader perspective on her thoughts about ethics, politics and economics, and to show how her position in these areas intertwines with the main thesis expressed in the Bourgeois trilogy. Secondly, I will propose, on the basis of an alternative reading of historical materialism, that Marx’s theory of change is more complex than she admits. Finally, I will show the problematic aspects of McCloskey’s theory of historical change. My main point is that McCloskey’s account is motivated by her polemic intent against Marxism –as her intellectual background shows –and because of that she ignores alternative readings of historical materialism. As a consequence, her theory of historical change presents a few flaws. In fact, the “revolution of ideas” which McCloskey indicates as a direct cause of the Industrial Revolution, may appear as an attempt to replace the accumulation theory of the Marxist tradition with another all-purpose label. It is risky to rely on a theory that seeks a single cause for historical change, because it entails a linear conception of history rather than a more complex and comprehensive one. In short, I maintain that strict causal monism cannot explain the evolution of society.