In 1940, when our Association was founded, this paper might have borne the same title as Caroline Ware's book: The Cultural Approach to History. In the meantime, however, world events have brought economists and historians together around the problem of economic growth. So, while pursuing the same interests illustrated in my contribution to Caroline Ware's book, I have chosen the more fashionable title of “Cultural Factors in Economic Growth.”

Is Economic History one subject or two? The question has been posed twice during the present century, each time by the growth of a vigorous body of research concerned with economic changes over time but developed largely in isolation from conventional economic history. In each case the new work was quantitative in method, and the result was the phenomenon of two separate bodies of scholarship—the one written in prose and calling itself economic history, the other written mainly in figures and calling itself by another name.

If we are successfully to relate our work with the main body of Economic History, we must be able to show the fundamental relationship between quantitative analysis and more conventional methods of economic historians. The historian reconstructs events of the past, and with them attempts to understand the institutions and modes of behavior associated with those events. He seeks to construct a consistent story revealing the fundamental nature and meaning to us of the past, thus creating insight into the past and understanding of it—something considerably beyond a mere account of what probably happened. However, this story must be based upon, and be consistent with, the reconstructed events of the past, “what probably happened.”

Professor Goodrich had indicated that my function is to discuss the relevance of the concept of economic growth to the tasks of the economic historian. But I hope I may be forgiven if I touch incidentally on other sensitive and overworked areas—notably the relationship between theory and quantity on the one hand and history on the other. If the study of economic growth still meant what it did in Adam Smith's day there might be no need to be so cavalier—there might even be no need to hold this session. But a good number of intellectual bridges have fallen into the water since 1776 and it is surely necessary to examine this new construction with an eye not only to its permanence but to its utility.

Discussion from the floor served in the main to elaborate die themes announced in the three prepared contributions. The Chairman, C. Goodrich, pointed out that it was the rise of a new field, Economic Growth, and the increasing popularity of quantitative and theoretical techniques that invited some reappraisal of the goals and methods of economic history. What is the relationship between Economic History and the burgeoning field of Economic Growth ? Should economic historians direct more attention to growth phenomena, and in particular should they make greater use of the analytical and statistical methods so prominendy used in die literature of Economic Growth?

Present interest in communication research in the social and physical sciences raises some interesting and difficult questions for the economic historian. Arthur Cole, who claims that he is merely trying to carry further the work of Harold Innis and others at Toronto, but who is surely the moving spirit in this session, has suggested that we might begin by pin-pointing a few leading questions for examination. Is this comparatively recent development to be regarded as merely a passing phase in the history of fashions in thought? Is the process of relating communication to economic change mainly a process of sophistication and is there anything to argue about in this relationship? Or, on the other hand, does it in fact amount to a major break-through in scientific and historical analysis, something comparable to the impact made on economics about a century ago by the Austrian School?

The advantage of having a tightly woven thesis to present to you is that it can be used in the introductory paper as a rug to be yanked violently from under my feet. If caution leads Professor Easterbrook “to remain, at least for the time being, in the informational camp,” it is obvious that only a total absence of caution would lead me, a professor of English, to venture before the leaders in the field of economic history in the role assigned to me today.

In a review of a recent play by T. S. Eliot, the critic sums up the action as “a tragedy of non-communication between parent and child.” We may be sure the reviewer did not intend to raise a doubt in the reader's mind as to whether the father or son in question had difficulty in getting to a telephone, finding a telegraph office or deciphering one another's handwriting. The level of communication he must have had in mind lies deep in the human dependency on expressive symbols. These primary factors of human experience—primary in the sense that nothing stands between them and the raw sensations and impulses—are made up of words, gestures, and images which are, in turn, invariably organized in systems or complexes. These we call by such names as aims, standards and ideals or, more generally, attitudes.

The purpose of this paper is to serve as a point of departure for discussion of the relationship of regional differentiation and growth to general economic development. In addition to touching on methodological problems, I hope to establish two specific points: (a) that the needs of economic history call for particular perspectives in delimiting regions, and (b) that study of regional interaction can provide insights in an understanding of national economic development.

My notes this morning are a continuation of Professor Broude's paper which has been circulated. I take the position that study of regional, interregional, and spatial interaction can provide insights for understanding not only national but all economic development. Put even more strongly, a well-balanced economic history must explicitly consider spatial processes and the evolving web of interregional relationships.

Germany, the homeland of particularism, is in many ways also the homeland of regionalism. On all kinds of German regions there exists an absolutely staggering wealth of assorted literature. Towering above this multitudinous evidence of local pride and local patriotism stands the work done by a group of German scholars who labored together on the task of finding in the region, the Raum, the Landschaft, the meaningful unit for historical study. Their work is associated most closely with the name of Hermann Aubin. This paper is intended to introduce to American students of economic history the work and ideas of Hermann Aubin and the men working directly or indirectly under Aubin's inspiration.

A Geographer speaking to the theme of the relationships of his field with that of economic history has many choices. Mine is to suggest ways, and one in particular, in which we may be of service to you. There is much that we need from you, too, but it seems less presumptuous to offer than to ask and it may be more useful to you in the long run to do so.

Perhaps the basic characteristic of this well planned, well managed, orderly session was the fact that it had something for everybody. One suspects, in fact, that archeologists, ichthyologists, astronomers, and other learned specialists could profitably have added their voices. There was, inevitably, some shop talk, but one major result of die effort to relate economic history to economic and historical geography was to elevate much of the discussion to a plane where all kinds of students could talk to one another. Babel became orderly—communications-wise, that is. To the apostles was imparted, for this occasion at least, the grace of a common tongue. A definite though necessarily broad set of conclusions emerged—ones that when translated back into disciplinary idiom promised to be immediately useful to the respective practitioners.

This paper is intended to provoke a general discussion of the nature and uses of historical sociology and its possible relevance to the work of economic historians. It is not an exhaustive treatment of the topic. Terms of reference merely call for a reconsideration of “the penetrative powers of the price system.”

Societies usually do not define explicitly the criteria of the legitimacy of the penetration of the price-system into different areas, and I suppose that, as social scientists, we should be grateful for this omission, since this is the kind of thing that forms the basis of our livelihood.

Patent medicines in the United States played a pioneering role in marketing. The nostrum manufacturer, during the early decades of the nineteenth century, exploited a brand name and developed a distinctive symbol as a trademark. His wares were sold in a package of distinctive shape or design. He sought to achieve as national a market as transportation conditions permitted. His advertising appeared in newspapers of all regions, appealing to citizens to buy from local retailers an article made hundreds of miles away. In a highly competitive market, the remedy promoter was forced to explore in his advertising a wide variety of psychological lures.