Financialization both produce and depend on cultural fictions like precarity and creativity

Evidence

Yet, of course, the thematic of resistance is central to this book. In the Conclusion I argue that, for the most part, critical scholarly assessments of financialization explicitly or implicitly orient themselves towards a neo-Keynesian regulatory approach, which I deem insufficient. Financialization both foments and relies upon discursive and material formations such as precariousness, security, play, creativity and resistance. These are important fictions that are at once reproduced by and help reproduce finance capitalism. I conclude by suggesting that these fictions can be leveraged into opportunities to reimagine social reproduction and renarrate social fictions in ways that open onto different, common horizons, horizons far more fertile than those opened through a simplistic condemnation of financialization as merely unregulated top-down greed. — Max Haiven, Cultures of Financialization, 54

Categorization

  • XREF: Core link to deWaard’s cultural argument — finance working through culture, imagination, everyday life; precarity and creativity as both fomented by and feeding finance capitalism. — connects to: Financialization means financial ideas and tropes migrating out to transform culture. — Max Haiven, Cultures of Financialization, 28; Fictitious capital means finance depends on society’s shared fictions — Max Haiven, Cultures of Financialization, 42; Post-1971 financialization and the creativity discourse rose in tandem as allied forces — Max Haiven, Cultures of Financialization, 50 (+5 more)
  • SEED: Angle: critical scholarship’s neo-Keynesian regulatory frame is insufficient — reframing the debate is itself a cultural artifact worth an essay.

Broader Connections