ArticlePublisher preview available

“Why historians have failed to recognize Mises’s Theory and History”

Authors:
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the author.

Abstract

Theory and History is often said to be Ludwig von Mises’ least read and least appreciated book. This article argues that historians in the Anglo-American world generally did not understand the German and Austrian traditions that Mises drew on, and that their early reviews of the book therefore fundamentally misunderstood its purpose. Most saw it as a political tract. Some commented on Mises’ contribution to the debate about the autonomy of the discipline of history. Few, however, understood Mises’ apriorism or logical approach. To understand why Theory and History has not been recognized for its a contribution to historical methodology, we must first understand Mises’ place as an outsider in the debates on historiography in the 1950s.
BWhy historians have failed to recognize Misess
Theory and History^
Michael Douma
1
Published online: 3 June 2017
#Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017
Abstract Theory and History is often said to be Ludwig von Misesleast read and
least appreciated book. This article argues that historians in the Anglo-American world
generally did not understand the German and Austrian traditions that Mises drew on,
and that their early reviews of the book therefore fundamentally misunderstood its
purpose. Most saw it as a political tract. Some commented on Misescontribution to the
debate about the autonomy of the discipline of history. Few, however, understood
Misesapriorism or logical approach. To understand why Theory and History has not
been recognized for its a contribution to historical methodology, we must first under-
stand Misesplace as an outsider in the debates on historiography in the 1950s.
Keywords Mises .Theory and history .Popper .Historiography
JEL codes B25 .B53
Although Ludwig von Misesbook Theory and History has been reprinted
many times since the books original publication by Yale University Press in
1957, this must be ascribed not to the strength or popularity of the book, but
rather to the success of Misesother works and the general revival in Austrian economics.
1
Rev Austrian Econ (2018) 31:359372
DOI 10.1007/s11138-017-0390-3
1
It was then printed in London, England in 1958 by Jonathan Cape. Yale put out a second edition in 1963. It
was also reprinted by Arlington House in New Rochelle, New York in 1969, New Yorks Garland Publishers
issued it in 1984, and the Ludwig von Mises Institute put out a version in 1985, in 2007. A chinese translation
appears in 1973, and a Spanish edition came out in 1964 in Mexico, and in 1975 in Spain. This latter edition
was reprinted in 2003 and in 2010. Liberty Fund issued a version in2005, reprinted it in 2010. Martino Fine
Books published it in 2012.
*Michael Douma
michaeljdouma@gmail.com
1
Georgetown Institute for the Study of Markets and Ethics, McDonough School of Business,
Georgetown University, P.O. Box 48, Bloomery, WV 26817, USA
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Chapter
Daß zur Entwicklung der Soziologie in den vergangenen Jahren auch »eine nicht zu übersehende Historisierung der Theorie« gehört habe, ist unlängst mehrfach festgestellt worden. Ob es sich dabei um so kompetente Beobachter wie René König in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Charles Tilly in den Vereinigten Staaten und Eric Hobsbawn in Großbritannien handeln mag — sie alle stimmen in diesem Punkt überein und sehen zugleich die vermutlich wichtigste Ursache in den Bedürfnissen jener sozialwissenschaftlichen Analysen, die den Problemen unentwickelter Länder nachspüren1. Denn ohne die historische Dimension sozialen Wandels, ohne die Berücksichtigung langfristiger sozialökonomischer, kultureller und politischer Transformationsprozesse lassen sich hier — das hat das naive Hantieren mit wenigen gegenwartsbezogenen Variablen doch wohl ergeben — die entscheidenden Fragen gar nidit beantworten, ja vielleicht nicht einmal stellen. Von dieser Erfahrung sind seit den 1950/60er Jahren unleugbare Rückwirkungen auf die Theoriediskussion der Soziologen ausgegangen, so sehr auch noch in ihrer Praxis der geschichtsfeindliche positivistische Betrieb vorherrschen mag. Zu Recht wird aber gegen diese empirische Praxis, die nicht nur im Hinblick auf die Entwicklungsländer, sondern auch auf zentrale gesellschaftliche Probleme der »entwickelten« Industrieländer notwendig in eine Sackgasse führt, die Aufforderung gerichtet, durch eine »Rehistorisierung der Gesellschaftsanalyse« die sie hemmenden Schranken zu durchbrechen2.