Home > Uncategorized > My evening with Joan Robinson and the Tractatus

My evening with Joan Robinson and the Tractatus

from Edward Fullbrook

The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money was the first book I ever read with pleasure.  I was 22.

From age five to sixteen the school system had me classified as borderline mentally retarded.  My luck changed in my penultimate year of high school when a non-conformist English teacher gave me the chance to pretend I was not mentally deficient.  She also taught me how to write a sentence, after which, inflated with fantasises of normality, I taught myself how to read textbooks and take exams, and soon became academically proficient and for a long time thereafter very neurotic.

As an undergraduate I cut classes as often as I attended them and waited till the night before an exam to open the textbook.  Sometimes I only managed a C but in economics it was always an A and that was the only reason I had for becoming an economics graduate student.

Till then mine had been an all-American, all-textbook education.  The textbook genre requires its authors to pretend to know it all and talk down to their readers.  Reading The General Theory, I encountered for the first time an author who was openly struggling to understand what he was writing about.  I too was struggling and so I – and what could have been more preposterous – immediately identified on an existential level with John Maynard Keynes.  It meant that for the first time ever while reading a book my resentments and fears from my educational past receded to the background.  And when they did the most astonishing thing happened.  My brain started giving me an intensity of pleasure that, except for sex, I hadn’t thought possible.  So it was that an intellectual was born. 

I had read the whole of The General Theory before I opened Alvin Hansen’s A Guide to Keynes, the book we had been assigned to help us understand the original work.  Reading it was a shock.  Either Hansen was in some way corrupt or when it came to economics one of us was rather more intelligent than the other.  Given my history, the second possibility was extremely worrying.  But my emerging new self was saved when a fellow grad student loaned me a copy of Joan Robinson’s Introduction to the Theory of Employment.  It both confirmed my reading of Keynes and offered me one that was much deeper.  Because of that and because Robinson’s brilliance made serious inroads against my inherited sexist bigotry, she along with Keynes became one of my first two intellectual heroes.

Not long after my intellectual birth a conversational experience and its aftermath turned me off economics – and I thought forever.  Having from five onwards been marginalized at school, I had compensated by outside of school organizing my peers in games, fort-building, expeditions, clubs, teams, a league, hell-raising and minor pranks.  These organizing inclinations continued into my twenties, and as a graduate student I gathered some of my new peers into a discussion group.  Once a month we would meet with a case of beer and a guest professor in one of our basement apartments.  One month our guest was a young professor whom I liked and who was soon to make millions off his textbook.  Halfway through our case of beer someone asked him, “What do you do if after you’ve been working on your dissertation for a year or longer you discover that the data you’ve collected doesn’t support your hypothesis?”  You reselect the data was his answer.  “How do you do that?”  The professor volunteered to hold a short series of seminars to show us how.  When the time came for the first one, I couldn’t make myself go.  My peers came away from it enthused.  Likewise for the second and third.  I decided economics was not for me.

With a backpack half-full of books – I was reading widely and seriously now – I set off to see the world.  Sixteen years and many adventures and misadventures later, I found myself living in Cambridge UK.  One day walking on a back street near the centre, a shop window caught my eye.  It was a photographer’s shop belonging to the widow of Frank Ramsey, the philosopher, mathematician and economist who back in the 20s died at the age of 26.  The shop window was full of old black-and-white photos, and soon I was recognizing faces from the Bloomsbury Group: Virginia and Leonard Woolf, Duncan Grant, Keynes and others.  One photograph was larger than all the others and the longer I stood there, although I didn’t recognize the subject, the more I found myself looking at it: a woman in her early to mid-twenties in an oddly patterned dress sitting on a sofa with her legs folded under her.  It wasn’t that she was particularly good-looking but rather that there was more character in her face than you would expect in someone her age.  Eventually I leaned down to read the small print on the bottom of the frame: “Joan Robinson”.

A few nights later I was at a chamber music concert.  It had yet to begin and I was watching people taking their seats.  An elderly couple, entering arm-in-arm, caught my eye.  The woman sitting next to me appeared to recognize them, so I asked her who they were.  “They’re famous economists: Piero Sraffa and Joan Robinson.”

A month later I was at a dinner party.  Sitting opposite me was an Indian woman who was a Cambridge English don.  We mostly talked literature until we got to the cheese course when she asked what I “read” in university.  “Oh”, she replied, “I too did a degree in economics. After my undergraduate degree in English I decided to get one in economics before going on for my doctorate in English.”  She said she still kept up her economics contacts and occasionally had “econ evenings” and would invite me to the next one.

I had zero interest in economics, but when a few weeks later I received the promised invitation I thought it might be interesting as a social occasion.  So, more than a little nervous, I went along.

I was the last to arrive.  Entering a large sitting room, there in an armchair directly in front of me was Joan Robinson.  The gathering had been forewarned that an odd American was coming, and I had barely crossed the threshold when the great woman, with the whole room listening, asked me a question about the current state of the American economy.  She did so with the kindest possible face, but I had not read anything about any economy for over a decade, and I froze.  Thankfully, Sita, the hostess, covered for me and dinner was served.

After dinner – by now I had had a couple of glasses – I decided I had to make something of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to engage with one of my heroes.  Joan – there was absolutely no edge to the woman so it already seemed natural to think of her as Joan – was in the armchair again, and I sat down on the floor facing her at her feet.  I began by asking her what it was like being a student at Cambridge back in the Twenties.  After recalling the lectures of the literary critic I. A. Richards, she moved on to Wittgenstein and Sraffa and their weekly one-on-one discussions over tea.  It was one  of those discussions – and in her raspy voice she repeated Sraffa’s account of it – that led to Wittgenstein’s famous turn from belief in a world comprised of atomistic sets of propositional facts to one where meaning depends on the anthropological setting in which propositions are conveyed.  At this point Sita, who was now sitting on the floor beside me, sought to bring the whole room into the conversation by making a broad and potentially contentious statement about the meaning of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus.  I still had not read the book, but had read one or more books about it, and suspecting it was likewise with Sita, I decided as a way of becoming friends with her to argue against her.  It was immediately obvious that she liked my challenge and soon the whole room of economists was debating the meaning of Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. And, bizarrely, something was about to happen that would change the course of my life.

As the debate continued it occurred to me that perhaps no one in the room had really read the Tractatus.  Joan Robinson stayed out of the debate and, although I was still sitting at her feet, I now had my back to her.  Then suddenly from behind me her loud raspy voice broke into the conversation.  Here are her exact words.

The world is all that is the case.  The world is the totality of facts, not of things.  The world is determined by the facts, and by their being all the facts.  For the totality of facts determines what is the case, and also whatever is not the case.  Those are the first four propositions of the Tractatus.  I’ve never been able to understand them.

With her eyes turned away from us and into her thoughts, she tried to explain what she couldn’t understand.  She was not arguing; she was making a confession.  Except for maybe herself, the singularity of her behaviour was lost on no one in the room.  It was a magic moment for me – the relaxed integrity of her intellect was so plain to see.  And such a contrast to the outcome of my conversation sixteen years before.  I wasn’t yet in a position where I could change my life’s course, but in time I was, and if it hadn’t been for that evening with Joan Robinson and the Tractatus I would never have become an economist.

Excerpt from, What is Heterodox Economics: Conversations with Leading Economists,
Sebastian Berger, Andrew Mearman and Danielle Guizzo, (eds), Routledge, forthcoming.
  1. rjw
    October 25, 2017 at 12:06 pm

    I had the good fortune to do my undergraduate degree in economics at Cambridge, more than 20 years ago, and I still benefit from what I learnt. Not so much on the substance, but on the need to think things through for yourself. And the mindset that you have a responsibility to develop critical thinking skills, and a broad range of analytical skills, of if you are to be a (good) economist. I also learnt that very smart people can, and do, make stupid arguments in economics, because it can be a conceptually hard subject. That taught me a respect for the quality of argument and instinctive disrespect for the conventional wisdom. I have been grateful ever since.

  2. spender7
    October 25, 2017 at 1:32 pm

    Great revelations of the happenstances that shape one’s intellectual – and thus political –
    identity. Also an illustration of how nothing like that happens without a great deal of preliminary hard work, often under-structured, wandering in the stacks and reading whatever falls to hand. Seems a long way from the life of PhD students today, their lives overly structured and filled with make-work, such as consulting on contracts that feed the professoriate and/or the university. So little time spent gazing into the middle distance – just as psychologists are now concerned about ‘the young’ gazing at their mobiles instead of ‘dreaming’ and letting their imaginations develop.

    • robert locke
      October 25, 2017 at 2:09 pm

      When I decided to switch from French history to German, I did so not because of an aroused interest in the subject, but an aroused interest in a German woman, who I followed to her home city. Is that an intellectual decision?

      • charlie
        October 25, 2017 at 11:49 pm

        well did you think about it? did you weigh the possible future outcome? etc. if so even if you turned out to be hopelessly irrational i would guess it was an intellectual decision.

  3. Nick
    October 25, 2017 at 4:29 pm

    i would say (in all cases – to make it interesting and ‘worth your while’) it was either reification via language of ‘intellect’ or post-rationalization of more complex process that for ‘political/status’ reasons best not to acknowledge

    Anyway – Desire and Knowledge are both ‘subject-in-pursuit-of-object’ or knowledge is desire sublimated…

  4. Risk Analyst
    October 25, 2017 at 5:59 pm

    Since it was designed to “give Donald Trump nightmares,” I’ll pass. I’m thrilled with him right now. What a great guy. This morning his administration announced they will not support the California Tunnels project, which is a ridiculously expensive boondoggle meant to send more of Northern California’s water to Southern California to mostly make sure they have green lawns in their dry climate. Mustn’t let overpopulation growth get in the way of green lawns. Meanwhile it would drastically change the quality and salinity of Northern California water and be a setback for the environment and Northern California farmers. The democratic Gov. Brown seems to be lobbying for it because of huge amounts of money sloshing around from the developers. Now, if Trump can end the idiotic bullet train project, again backed by a tsunami of cash from developers in the state, I’ll dance around my kitchen with my dog. Oh yeah, and I forgot to point out that many here seem to live in some kind of 1950’s western movie with good and bad guys wearing white and black hats.

  5. October 25, 2017 at 6:32 pm

    Well done, Edward. From a shaky educational beginning, you climbed the heights and left some of the ropes and anchors behind for others to follow. I look forward to the forthcoming…

    For readers who want to explore some the intellectual range of our Editor, I read “Sex and Philosophy: Rethinking De Beauvoir and Sartre” this summer, surely one of the rare publishing events, written by a husband-wife team, Edward with Kate Fullbrook. A risky venture if ever there was one, to push Sartre off his throne just a bit. Well, more than just a bit, with all the ambiguity of unraveling two thinkers who were lovers, companions and competing thinkers and writers. Half intellectual history, a good primer in existentialism, and half detective mystery, having to uncover all the false trails and leads thrown out by De Beauvoir, done for self-protection and perhaps unnecessarily, to protect Sartre…at her own expense.

    Soon, I hope to be on to the seven hundred pages of “The Second Sex.”

  6. charlie
    October 25, 2017 at 11:52 pm

    bravo … now I remember why I ‘follow’ this blog thank you

    • charlie
      October 25, 2017 at 11:53 pm

      edit above here i am commenting on the original Edward Fullbrook posting

  7. October 27, 2017 at 3:10 pm

    Most interesting post. Had me re-reading such Joan Robinson as I have – ‘Economic Philosophy’ (1964) and ‘Economics – an Awkward Corner’ (1966). From the first, given my belief the system needs a bit of slack to remain ‘economics’, this paragraph stood out for me.

    “The Keynesian revolution broke through the pretended internationalism of Free-Trade doctrines and helped introduce a genuine internationalism into our thinking. The post-war international agreements, though strongly influenced by Free-Trade ideals, left escape clauses for countries suffering from balance of payments difficulties, and for under-developed countries; and they permitted home employment policy to take precedence over international obligations. In principle, though very little has been done about it, regulation of trade in primary commodities is accepted as an objective of policy (though Free-Trade fanatic still decry it) and when our own balance of payments improves by impoverishing primary producers, at least we recognised that is nothing to be proud about”.

    Re “Hope’s book … reveals how Joan Robinson was regarded at Berkeley”, I note that my UK Pelicans (respectively 3/6d and 8/6d on our old money: about 25 cents and 60 cents in US dollars) warn: “For copyright reasons this edition is not for sale in the U.S.A.”. Did the US actually let JR in, then, or (with economics books now typically priced at around $150) rely on pricing her out of the lay reader market?

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.