(note: updated July 15)
Deirdre McCloskey says (p. 16, 1985, 1992) that there are many ways to practice literary criticism ----- or, for that matter, economics. Literary criticism (lit crit to some) can, she says, be subdivided into catergories of "rhetorical, philological, Aristotelian, belletristic, archetypical, neo [something or other]...Marxist, reader-response," etc. I think she's playing with us.
Anyway, there are quite a few ways to do "lit crit", all of which can are conveniently called "literary criticism". And, as for this other thing, conveniently called "economics," the same thing goes, says she. There is: "Good Old Chicago School," whatever that is, and other terribly twisted names ("highbrow general equilibrium?"). In terms of economics I actually don't know what she is talking about since I got turned off a long time ago (as soon as I studied it, in fact, but I am not trying to dwell on this not-so-priviliged subject too much). The very same subject McCloskey, bless her heart, has been embracing, or at least she was, as of 1998 or whenever. For many years anyways.
But, since the nineties, she like others are slowly lining up today like peeping ducks in a row, myself proudly included, and finally getting the picture. It is that bad, in just basic human, rational, ethical terms and you simply have to face it. After all, the truth is the truth ----- rhetoric, my ass.