Market discourse cannot be analyzed apart from real market realities.

Evidence

I still prefer to call /market/ what it is, namely, an ideologeme, and to premise about it what one must premise about all ideologies: that, unfortunately, we have to talk about the realities fully as much as the concepts. Is market discourse merely a rhetoric? It is and isn’t (to rehearse the great formal logic of the identity of identity and nonidentity); and to get it right, you have to talk about real markets just as much as about metaphysics, psychology, advertising, culture, representations, and libidinal apparatuses. — Fredric Jameson, Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic…, 579

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines ‘ideologeme’ as Jameson’s preferred term for market, insisting analysis must straddle concept and reality.
• XREF: Rejects the discourse-analysis approach of Stuart Hall mentioned in the previous paragraph; connect to how ideology critique differs from Foucauldian discourse analysis. — connects to: Knight wrote paradoxically on purpose because language cannot capture complex economic reality. — Angus Burgin, The Great Persuasion: Reinventing Free…, 126; CAPM and market efficiency tests cannot be cleanly separated empirically. — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial…, 110