Yoshinori, et al.,
You open a large debate as to "origins." I'm not sure if I consider myself an "externalist" or "internalist." I guess I'm a bit of both. One difference between Mirowski and me is that he focuses on the 1870-1900 period--when neoclassicism certainly did undergo its mature development--whereas I focus on the post-Ricardian period, when things got hot and heavy. I do argue that, in its most "primitive" stage, the assault on classical theory began between Smith and Ricardo with the works of Bentham, Say, et al., but the main thrust was in the 1820's, 1830's. And the reason for this is fairly clear. EVERY--and I mean every; I've read them all--economist (or proto-economist) speaks to two main issues of the period: (1) the rise of ideas that run counter to the glorification of capitalism, (and these commence in the industrial revolution period), and (2) the growth of a working class that has seized on these ideas--rightly or wrongly. Longfield, in his 1834 Lectures on Political Economy, well expresses the sentiments of those who laid the foundations for neoclassicism. His remarks can be replicated by quotes from all the major (proto-neoclassical) figures of the day:
Sorry about the above, but that's the best I can do without retyping the thing. I'm a technological incompetent!
Now, whether my position makes me an externalist or an internalist remains unclear to me. I think the important issue is whether Longfield (Scrope, Read, Senior--and in the earlier period--Say, Bentham, et al. were externalists or not. I suspect a bit of both--there were external reasons to develop an alternative theoretical approach that could then be internalized by that segment of the population increasingly hostile to capitalism--and, thus, tame them.
P.S. Note, in the above quote, the elitist, patronizing attitude toward the majority of the population. Does this not remain a standard in the present day?