Futures trading requires the underlying asset be abstracted as a standard

Evidence

For futures trading to be possible, the underlying asset has to be standardized, and that involves a version of Callon’s “disentanglement” and “framing.” The grain to which a futures contract makes reference may not even have been harvested yet, so a buyer cannot pick out a representative sack, slit it open, and judge the quality of the grain by letting it run through his or her fingers. “Five thousand bushels of Chicago No. 2 white winter wheat” has to be definable, even if it does not yet physically exist. — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera, 70

Categorization

• DEFINE: Imports Callon’s disentanglement/framing as the mechanism making futures trading possible, keying the book’s performativity thesis.
• XREF: Foregrounds the performativity thesis: here the abstract contract must be definable before trade; links to Callon’s economics-performative tradition and later chapters on options. — connects to: Markets require abstract standardized assets that may not physically exist yet.; Standardized futures contracts let traders exit obligations without the original counterparty — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial…, 74
• ADDENDUM: The ‘abstract claim’ structure of futures mirrors the commodification infrastructure thread in ‘Grafting and Growth’ — physical objects converted to tradable abstractions.

Broader Connections

• Markets require abstract standardized assets that may not physically exist yet. #corroborates (1.00)
• Standardized futures contracts let traders exit obligations without the original counterparty #expands (0.72) — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera, 74