Hans-Michael Trautwein raised an important pair of questions regarding the changing nature of economics: is increasing specialization fragmenting and disunifying the field, and if so does the history of economics bear special responsibility for explaining the nature of the field? This paper discusses increasing specialization in economics in the historical context of the post-WWII history of the field, and describes economics’ research structure in core-periphery terms. It then comments on Trautwein’s argument regarding a special role for the history of economics, and addresses what his insights can mean regarding the state of pluralism in economics. Central to this is the distinction between a ‘live and let live’ fragmented sort of pluralism and an engaged pluralism that resists fragmentation. Trautwein’s recommendation that historians of economics both specialize in their own research and also act as generalists regarding economics as a whole offers a path forward for the latter.