Distortions in the typologization of Economics originate in the explicative sufficiency of modernism. The fixation in rationality, which gave birth to the exclusive competition for performance as a legitimizing recipe of the effort, has pulled Economics from the realm of human sciences. The fleeting benevolence with which it was classified as a social science was nothing but a failed project of ideological visions.

The Sisific attempts by the postmoderns of - from a structuralist perspective - resuscitating Economics as a social science adds to the series of distortions. The excess of techniques and of methods of calculus, as an infallible foundation which to verify economic truth, has more consistently highlighted and not masked the false.

Prefiguring a reproductive science of performance is compatible with a dream of the Enlightenment: the idea of progress. What complicated the perception in the case of the progress' dogma is the dilemmatic fact of whether it has transcendental force. Meaning, simply put, the solution to what progress means must be found beyond the material order of an artificial type.

If the reasoning of the economy is limited to the material order, to the lucrative act in the restricted universe of human condition - seemingly sustained by the founding assumption of Economics originating in Smithian thinking, then progress takes a sense of quantitative cumulativeness. Which, it must be said, means a reduction of Economics to a common technology, unavoidably apt to accept the substantial senses of progress.

In this situation Economics is not a human science. It is, at most, a craft for the creation of wealth. This is where the source for the present tragedy of Economics can be identified: in the name of rationality it sacrifices man! In order to stay attached to the idea of progress Economics had to operate with hypotheses with exclude man and reduce him to the middle-condition of his own necessities.

When Economics speaks of progress it instrumentalizes man and make his necessities mechanic. The ideological change in flavor from the individualist visions to the collectivist ones does not anthropologize Economics. At most it can be a Caudine passing from de-humanization to a-humanization. Meaning from a reasoning without primal cause to a reasoning with no final reason.

Building Economics on progress has reached its limits. The present pluriform economical crises are increasingly clear signs of reaching the end.

In an ultimate way, Economics must retrace a path of hominization. The scapegoat is, obviously, the materialism of progress. The place of the order of the competition for material performance which excludes (destroys) mothernature and human nature must be taken by the cooperative order of survival, until de reinvention of humanization as a source of performance.

The universal key of this openness (in essence the first opening of the economy towards the human nature, overcoming the comfortable captivity of the sciences which manipulate the human condition) lies in the annulment of the founding referentials which have been derived from adversity. As long as Economics legitimizes assumptions on exclusion (externalization), as the logic of competition, it cannot avoid the crisis as a redeeming consequence. The tragic part of Economics is that any of its consequences has man, the humane and humanity on the receiving end.

Without interpretational exaggeration, it is exactly because Economics has a tragic underlay that we can talk about the need for the reconstruction of this human science. Economics as a science of the humane supposes not just the overcoming of the abstract formula of microeconomics or the mecanicist formula of macroeconomics, but also the overcoming of the ideological perverting of socio-economics. In fact, to answer to this challenge, Economics must reinvent itself as a science of the empire of necessity in conjunction with the empire of liberty.

The workable hypothesis which opens the way to success is for Economics to renounce the idea of progress and to reload the ideas of competition and economic growth with different meanings.

The path followed by economics, other than the alignment to the imperative of reason and its Enlightenment expression - rationality, means the relinquishing of the separation of opposites in order to cease the single-criteria computation of the efficiency of action. The only choice for breaking the deadlock is the re-focusing on man and on the human nature of the economy, closing the selection loop of the human condition and stopping, at the same time, the centrifugal mechanism.

Materialist reductionism, overflowing methodologically in caeteris paribus and axiologically in quantity, has generated too many deviations on the path of Economics as a human science. The next temptation can only be the anthropic perspective. Otherwise, it would only be nihilist revelation.

Sic absconditur altitudo et manifestadur profunditas!