This post provides a transcription of Wesley Clair Mitchell’s original reply to methodological questions posed to him by his younger Columbia colleague John Maurice Clark in 1928. Clark was so impressed with Mitchell’s reply that he had it published in 1931 and later then reprinted in 1952 (see links below). For autobiographical context I have included a brief statement by Mitchell, one of Decatur, Illinois’ favorite sons, that was written shortly after his methodological reflections.
Fun Fact: Adolph C. Miller, who was one of Mitchell’s teachers at the University of Chicago and later his colleague at Berkeley, was married to Mary Sprague, older sister of Mitchell’s wife, Lucy Sprague.
Coming attraction: We will learn more about Wesley Clair Mitchell’s parents and the Baptist grand-aunt who raised his mother in a later post.
______________________
Decatur Herald (Decatur, Illinois)
7 July 1929, p. 44
Mitchell One of First To Prove Business Cycle
Every business man in the United States is familiar now with the theory of the business cycle. Comparatively few, even in Decatur, probably know that it was a former Decaturian, Dr Wesley C. Mitchell, who did the pioneer work in economic research establishing the theory of a business cycle.
“My father and mother were John Wesley Mitchell and L. Medora McClellan Mitchell.
“After living several years opposite the Stapps Chapel, we moved out to a ten-acre place on what later became Leafland avenue. There were seven children and we all went through Decatur schools. My High school class was 1893; but I dropped out in the fourth year in order to push more rapidly my preparation for taking college entrance examinations. In that way I entered the University of Chicago in the autumn of ’93. From that time forward I returned to Decatur only during vacations until the time when my parents moved to Louisiana about 1902.
Studied In Germany
“My undergraduate work was done at the University of Chicago. Graduating in 1896, I received a fellowship which permitted me to go on immediately with postgraduate work. The year ’97-98 I spent on a traveling fellowship in Germany and Austria. The next year I was back at Chicago receiving the degree of Doctor of Philosophy summa cum laude in ’99. My chief subjects were economics and philosophy.
“No more congenial opening turning up, I spent 1900 in the Census Office at Washington in a small Division of Analysis and Research presided over by Walter F. Willcox of Cornell. Next year I was appointed instructor at the University of Chicago and taught there in 1900-02. The end of this period I published my first book, “A History of the Greenbacks.”
“One of my teachers at Chicago, Professor A. C. Miller, now a member of the Federal Reserve board, was called to the University of California as head of the Department of Economics. He asked me to go with him. As a result I lived from 1902 to 1912 in Berkeley as an assistant, associate and finally full professor of economics. While there I published a second volume of my monetary studies called “Gold Prices and Wages in the United States”(1908), and also a book called “Business Cycles” (1913). I also spent one of these years lecturing at Harvard.
Helped to Launch School
“In 1912 I married Lucy Sprague a daughter of Otho S. A. Sprague of Chicago. We went to Europe for a year and then came to live in New York city where I became attached to Columbia University. During the war I was chief of the Price Section in the Division of Planning and Statistics in the War Industries board. After the war I helped organize the New School for Social Research in New York and later the National Bureau of Economic Research, with which I am still connected as one of the directors.
“In these later years my investigations have been carried on very largely in conjunction with the National Bureau’s programs. My latest book, “Business Cycles: The Problem and Its Setting,” was published in 1927, and I am now working upon the supplementary volume to be called “Business Cycles: The Rhythm of Business Activity.”
“It is many years since I have been in Decatur or had an opportunity to talk with any of my old friends, aside from Will Westerman who graduated from the Decatur High school a little before my time, and who is now one of my colleagues at Columbia, where he is a professor of ancient history.
“It will be a great pleasure to get the records of other old friends which your Centenary number will doubtless contain. Accept my congratulations upon this enterprise.
WESLEY C. MITCHELL
______________________
NBER Memorial Volume
for Wesley Clair Mitchell
Wesley Clair Mitchell: The Economic Scientist, National Bureau of Economic Research, New York, 1952.
______________________
Backstory:
Memorial Address
by John Maurice Clark.
“I had undertaken to analyze his methods of studying business cycles, for a volume of such analyses, edited by Stuart Rice; and as part of my preparations I had written to Mitchell, asking him some rather searching questions. In reply, he sent me an autobiographical sketch of his intellectual development, starting with his adolescent arguments over theology with his grandaunt. The letter was close to three thousand words long and so beautifully written as to be fit for publication without the change of a comma. Much against his desires, Mitchell was persuaded to allow this correspondence to be published, as part of the study which had occasioned it.* Its great value, naturally, lay in the fact that it had been written without a thought of publication, merely in a characteristically generous response to my request for inside information. More than anything else I know in print, it gives not only his typical mental attitudes, but the flavor of his genially pungent personality.”
*Appendix: “The Author’s Own Account of His Methodological Interests” to John Maurice Clark’s “Preface to Social Economics” in Methods in Social Science: A Case Book. Edited by Stuart A. Rice for the Social Science Research Council, Committee on Scientific Method in the Social Sciences. University of Chicago Press, 1931. Pages 673 ff.
______________________
Typed copy of Wesley Clair Mitchell’s Response to Questions
posed him by John Maurice Clark
[Handwritten note: “Revised Feb 11, 1929”]
Huckleberry Rocks, Greensboro, Vt.
August 9, 1928.
Dear Maurice:
I know no reason why you should hesitate to dissect a colleague for the instruction, or amusement, of mankind. Your interest in ideas rather than in personalities will be clear to any intelligent reader. Nor is the admiration I feel for you skill as an analyst likely to grow less warm if you take me apart to see how I work. Indeed, I should like to know myself!
Whether I can really help you is doubtful. The questions you put are questions I must answer from rather hazy recollections of what went on inside me thirty and forty and more years ago. Doubtless my present impressions of how I grew up are largely rationalizations. But perhaps you can make something out of the type of rationalizations in which I indulge.
* * * * * * * * * * *
Concerning the inclination you note to prefer concrete problems and methods to abstract ones, my hypothesis is that it got started, perhaps manifested itself would be more accurate, in childish theological discussions with my grand aunt. She was the best of Baptists, and knew exactly how the Lord had planned the world. God is love; he planned salvation; he ordained immersion; his immutable word left no doubt about the inevitable fate of those who did not walk in the path he had marked. Hell is no stain upon his honor, no inconsistency with love. — I adored the logic and thought my grand aunt flinched unworthily when she expressed hopes that some back-stairs method might be found of saving from everlasting flame the ninety and nine who are not properly baptized. But I also read the bible and began to cherish private opinions about the character of the potentate in Heaven. Also I observed that his followers on earth did not seem to get what was promised them here and now. I developed an impish delight in dressing up logical difficulties which my grand aunt could not dispose of. She always slipped back into the logical scheme, and blinked the facts in which I came to take a proprietary interest.
I suppose there is nothing better as a teething-ring for a child who likes logic than the garden variety of Christian theology. I cut my eye-teeth on it with gusto and had not entirely lost interest in that exercise when I went to college.
There I began studying philosophy and economics about the same time. The similarity of the two disciplines struck me at once, I found no difficulty in grasping the differences between the great philosophical systems as they were presented by our text-books and our teachers. Economic theory was easier still. Indeed, I thought the successive systems of economics were rather crude affairs compared with the subtleties of the metaphysicians. Having run the gamut from Plato to T. H. Green (as undergraduates do) I felt the gamut from Quesnay to Marshall was a minor theme. The technical part of the theory was easy. Give me premises and I could spin speculations by the yard. Also I knew that my “deductions” were futile. It seemed to me that people who took seriously the sort of articles which were then appearing in the Q.J.E. might have a better time if they went in for metaphysics proper.
Meanwhile I was finding something really interesting in philosophy and in economics. John Dewey was giving courses under all sorts of titles and every one of them dealt with the same problem — how we think. I was fascinated by his view of the place which logic holds in human behavior. It explained the economic theorists. The thing to do was to find out how they came to attack certain problems; why they took certain premises as a matter of course; why they did not consider all the permutations and variants of those problems which were logically possible; why their contemporaries thought their conclusions were significant. And, if one wanted to try his own hand at constructive theorizing, Dewey’s notion pointed the way. It is a misconception to suppose that consumers guide their course by ratiocination — they don’t think except under stress. There is no way of deducing from certain principles what they will do, just because their behavior is not itself rational. One has to find out what they do. That is a matter of observation, which the economic theorists had taken all too lightly. Economic theory became a fascinating subject — the orthodox types particularly — when one began to take the mental operations of the theorists as the problem, instead of taking their theories seriously.
Of course Veblen fitted perfectly into this set of notions. What drew me to him was his artistic side. I had a weakness for paradoxes — Hell set up by the God of love. But Veblen was a master developing beautiful subtleties, while I was a tyro emphasizing the obvious. He did have such a good time with the theory of the leisure class and then with the preconceptions of economic theory! And the economists reacted with such bewildered soberness: There was a man who really could play with ideas! If one wanted to indulge in the game of spinning theories who could match his skill and humor? But if anything were needed to convince me that the standard procedure of orthodox economics could meet no scientific tests, it was that Veblen got nothing more certain by his dazzling performances with another set of premises. His working conceptions of human nature might be a vast improvement: he might have uncanny insights; but he could do no more than make certain conclusions plausible — like the rest. How important were the factors he dealt with and the factors he scamped was never established.
That was a sort of problem which was beginning to concern me. William Hill set me a course paper on “Wool Growing and the Tariff.” I read a lot of the tariff speeches and got a new sidelight on the uses to which economic theory is adapted, and the ease with which it is brushed aside on occasion. Also I wanted to find out what really had happened to wool growers as a result of protection. The obvious thing to do was to collect and analyze the statistical data. If at the end I had demonstrated no clear-cut conclusion, I at least knew how superficial were the notions of the gentlemen who merely debated the tariff issue, whether in Congress or in academic quarters. That was my first “Investigation” — I did it in the way which seemed obvious, following up the available materials as far as I could, and reporting what I found to be the “facts.” It’s not easy to see how any student assigned this topic could do much with it in any other way.
A brief introduction to English economic history by A. C. Miller, and unsystematic readings in anthropology instigated by Veblen reenforced the impressions I was getting from other sources. Everything Dewey was saying about how we think, and when we think, made these fresh materials significant, and got fresh significance Itself. Men had always deluded themselves, it appeared, with strictly logical accounts of the world and their own origin; they had always fabricated theories for their spiritual comfort and practical guidance which ran far beyond the realm of fact without straining their powers of belief. My grand aunt’s theology; Plato and Quesnay; Kant, Ricardo and Karl Marx; Cairnes and Jevons, even Marshall were much of a piece. Each system was tolerably self-consistent — as if that were a test of “truth”! There were realms in which speculation on the basis of assumed premises achieved real wonders; but they were realms in which one began frankly by cutting loose from the phenomena we can observe. And the results were enormously useful. But that way of thinking seemed to get good results only with reference to the simplest of problems, such as numbers and spatial relations. Yet men practiced this type of thinking with reference to all types of problems which could not be treated readily on a matter-of-fact basis — creation, God, “just” prices in the middle ages, the Wealth of Nations in Adam Smith’s time, the distribution of incomes in Ricardo’s generation, the theory of equilibrium in my own day.
There seemed to be one way of making real progress, slow, very slow, but tolerably sure. That was the way of natural science. I really knew nothing of science and had enormous respect for its achievements. Not the Darwinian type of speculation which was then so much in the ascendant — that was another piece of theology. But chemistry and physics. They had been built up not in grand systems like soap bubbles; but by the patient processes of observation and testing — always critical testing — of the relations between the working hypotheses and the processes observed. There was plenty of need for rigorous thinking, indeed of thinking more precise than Ricardo achieved; but the place for it was inside the investigation so to speak — the place that mathematics occuped in physics as an indispensable tool. The problems one could really do something with in economics were problems in which speculation could be controlled.
That’s the best account I can give off hand of my predilection for the concrete. Of course it seems to me rather a predilection for problems one can treat with some approach to scientific method. The abstract is to be made use of at every turn, as a handmaiden to help hew the wood and draw the water. I loved romance — particularly William Morris’ tales of lands that never were — and utopias, and economic systems, of which your father’s when I came to know it seemed the most beautiful; but these were objects of art, and I was a workman who wanted to become a scientific worker, who might enjoy the visions which we see in mountain mists but who trusted only what we see in the light of common day.
* * * * * * * * * * *
Besides the spice of rationalizing which doubtless vitiates my recollections — uncontrolled recollections at that — this account worries me by the time it is taking yours as well as mine. I’ll try to answer the other questions concisely.
Business cycles turned up as a problem in the course of the studies which I began with Laughlin. My first book on the greenbacks dealt only with the years of rapid depreciation and spasmodic wartime reaction. I knew that I had not gotten to the bottom of the problems and wanted to go on, so I compiled that frightful second book as an apparatus for a more thorough analysis. By the time it was finished I had learned to see the problems in a larger way. Veblen’s paper on “Industrial and Pecuniary Employments” had a good deal to do with opening my eyes. Presently I found myself working on the system of prices and its place in modern economic life. Then I got hold of Simmel’s Theorie des Geldes — a fascinating book. But Simmel, no more than Veblen, knew the relative importance of the factors he was working with. My manuscript grew — it lies unpublished to this day. As it grew in size it became more speculative. I was working away from any solid foundation — having a good time, but sliding gayly over abysses I had not explored. One of the most formidable was the recurring readjustments of prices, which economists treated apart from their general theories of value, under the caption “Crises.” I had to look into the problem. It proved to be susceptible of attack by methods which I thought reliable. The result was the big California monograph. I thought of it as an introduction to economic theory.
* * * * * * * * * * *
This conception is responsible for the chapter on “Modern Economic Organization.” I don’t remember precisely at what stage the need of such a discussion dawned upon me. But I have to do everything a dozen times. Doubtless I wrote parts of that chapter fairly early and other parts late as I found omissions in the light of the chapters on “The Rhythm of Business Activity.” Of course, I put nothing in which did not seem to me strictly pertinent to the understanding of the processes with which the volume dealt. That I did not cover the field very intelligently, even from my own viewpoint, appears from a comparison of the books published in 1913 and 1927. Doubtless before I am done with my current volume, I shall be passing a similar verdict upon the chapter as I left it last year.
* * * * * * * * * * *
As to the relation between my analytic description and “causal” theory I have no clear ideas — though I might develop some at need. To me it seems that I try to follow through the interlacing processes involved in business expansion and contraction by the aid of everything I know, checking my speculations just as far as I can by the data of observation. Among the things I “know” are the way in which economic activity is organized in business enterprises, and the way these enterprises are conducted for money profits. But that is not a simple matter which enables me to deduce certain results — or rather, to deduce results with certainty. There is much in the workings of business technique which I should never think of if I were not always turning back to observation. And I should not trust even my reasoning about what business men will do if I could not check it up. Some unverifiable suggestions do emerge; but I hope it is always clear that they are unverified. Very likely what I try to do is merely carrying out the requirements of John Stuart Mill’s “complete method.” But there is a great deal more passing back and forth between hypotheses and observation, each modifying and enriching the other, than I seem to remember in Mill’s version. Perhaps I do him injustice as a logician through default of memory; but I don’t think I do classical economics injustice when I say that it erred sadly in trying to think out a deductive scheme and then talked of verifying that. Until a science has gotten to the stage of elaborating the details of an established body of theory — say finding a planet from the aberrations of orbits, or filling a gap in the table of elements — it is rash to suppose one can get an hypothesis which stands much chance of holding good except from a process of attempted verification, modification, fresh observation, and so on. (Of course, there is a good deal of commerce between most economic theorizing and personal observation of an irregular sort — that is what has given our theories their considerable measure of significance. But I must not go off into that issue.)
* * * * * * * * * * *
Finally, about the table of decils. One cannot be sure that a given point on the decil curves represents the relative price of just one commodity or the relative wage of just one industry. For it often happens, particularly near the center of the range covered, that several commodities and industries have identical relatives in a certain year and these identical relatives may happen to be decil points. But I think the criticisms you make of my interpretations of the movements of the decils are valid. Frederick C. Mills makes similar strictures in his Behavior of Prices, pp. 279 following, particularly p. 283 note. The fact is that when writing the first book about business cycles I seem to have had no clear ideas about secular trends. The term does not occur in the index. Seasonal variations appear to be mentioned only in connection with interest rates. Of course certain rough notions along these lines may be inferred; but not such definite ideas as would safeguard me against the errors you point out. What makes matters worse for me, I was behind the times in this respect. J.P. Norton’s Statistical Studies in the New York Money Market had come out in 1902, I ought to have known and made use of his work.
That is only one of several serious blemishes upon the statistical work in my 1913 volume. After Hourwich left Chicago, and that was before I got deep into economics, no courses were given on statistics in my time. I was blissfully ignorant of everything except the simplest devices. To this day I have remained an awkward amateur, always ready to invent some crude scheme for looking into anything I want to know about, and quite likely to be betrayed by my own apparatus. I shall die in the same sad state.
* * * * * * * * * * *
I did not intend to inflict such a screed upon you when I started. Now that I have read it over, I fell compunctions about sending it. Also some hesitations. I don’t like the intellectual arrogances which I developed as a boy, which stuck by me in college, and which I shall never get rid of wholly. My only defense is that I was made on a certain pattern and had to do the best I could — like everybody else. Doubtless I am at bottom as simple a theologian as my grand aunt. The difference is that I have made my view of the world out of the materials which were available in the 1880’s and ’90’s, whereas she built, with less competent help than I had, out of the material available in the farming communities of the 1840’s and ’50’s. Perhaps you have been able to develop an outlook on the world which gives you a juster view than I had of the generations which preceded me and of the generation to which I belong. If I did not think so, I should not be sending you a statement so readily misunderstood.
Ever yours,
Wesley C. Mitchell.
(Copy by J.M.C. )
Source: Columbia University Libraries, Special Manuscript Collections. Mitchell, W.C. Collection. Box C8, Ch-Ec. Folder “Clark, John Maurice v.p., 8 Apr 1926 & 21 Apr 1927 to Wesley C. Mitchell 2 a.l.s. (with related material)”.
Image: Wesley Clair Mitchell. Detail from a departmental photo dated “early 1930’s” in Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections, Columbiana. Department of Economics Collection, Box 9, Folder “Photos”. Colorized at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.