Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
at the End
of the
Economy
BRIAN
MASSUMI
BRIAN MASSUMI
The Power
at the End of
the Economy
2015
2014023497
for
art beyond interest
joy beyond reason
contents
The hypothesis of a calculable future leads to a wrong interpretation of the principles of behaviour which the need for action compels us to adopt, and to an underestimation of the concealed factors of utter doubt, precariousness, hope and fear.
John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment (1973, 122)
We are enjoined to rational choice. We are taught that our freedom is one
with the freedom of choice. We are told we become who we are by how
we choose. We are assured that if we choose well, according to our own
best interests, we will end up serving the interests of all. We are told that
there is a mechanism in place to ensure this convergence between our
interests and others. Market is its name. Its invisible hand adjusts best
choices to each other, its magic touch guided by the principle of competition. Competition weeds out suboptimal choices, selecting for efficiency.
Efficiencies multiply each other, minimizing effort and maximizing profit
for all. The market, we are further led to believe, is self-regulating. It has
a natural inclination toward optimization. As political subjects, we are
enjoined to vote, rationally, in its interests so that we may pursue our own,
for the general good. Rationally, the political subject coincides with the
economic subject of self-interest that we all are fundamentally, in private
pursuit of happiness. And what, if not that, gives meaning and motivation
to our lives? We are all paying guests at the tea party of choice, spreading
our favorite jam on our very own slice of the bread of life, served on the
silver platter of efficiency by the invisible hand.
But on closer inspection, a rabbit hole appears at the heart of the market. It plummets from the apparently solid ground of rational choice to
a wonderland where nothing appears the same. Affect is its name. The
concealed factors of doubt, precariousness, hope, and fearand
(why not?) love, friendship, and joytend to bubble back up to the
part 1
For neoliberals, this is actually a good thing: it makes economic liberalism unavoidable. It means that the economy can have no sovereign.
The invisible hand actually means hands off. The liberals principle
of laisser-faire, Foucault quips, becomes for the neoliberals do-notlaisser-faire government: tie the governments hands (Foucault 2008,
247). Foucault is quick to add that in practice neoliberalism entails a
large and even expanding range of forms of governmental intervention.
But these are designed, paradoxically, to maintain the ability of market
mechanisms to self-organize the economy free from undue government
interference (175176). They do not operate from a position of sovereign
command. They are in the midst.2 Any governmental attempt from on
high to weave the strands together into a well-defined, predictably regulated whole will just fray the fabric to the ripping point. Government
purports to act all-knowingly in the general interest, and in its hubris
always fumbles. Individuals, too, are under the injunction, in the name
of the general good, to act without regard for it. For it is only then that
the invisible hand can work.
But its not a hand at all. Its an accumulation of little-handed decisions
which end up serving the general good in spite of being self-interested.
Individual decisions, made in the darkness of self-interest, percolate
through the field. To the extent that the results of these decisions form
positive feedback loops, they give rise to mutually beneficial multiplier
effects and there occurs a spontaneous synthesis of whats best for all
(Foucault 2008, 300). The synthesis is entirely involuntary with regard to
each individual (275276). This rationalization of the economy to which
the subject of interests decisions involuntarily contribute is an emergent
property of a complex, self-organizing system: a novelty and a creation,
forever self-renewing. The synthesis, Foucault continues, is a positive
effect of an infinite number of accidents occurring at ground level
in the apparent chaos (277), or quasi-chaos, of the market environment. These are bound together by a directly multiplying mechanism
competitionwhich, Foucault emphasizes, operates in the absence of
any form of transcendence (275276). In other words, the positive synthesis of market conditions occurs immanently to the economic field. The
choice of the subject of self-interest rabbit-holed in that field of immanence is irreducible and nontransferable (272). It is unconditionally
part 1
referred to the subject himself (272). At its core, Foucault says, the liberal
economic model is one of existence itself : it concerns first and foremost a relation of the individual to himself (242).
This is existence in its dissociative dimension.3 Here, in its relation
to itself, the subject circles itself more and more tightly around its individual power of choice, like a dog to sleep, wrapping itself centripetally around a center of promised satisfaction. It circles in on itself,
away from the social, unmindful of noneconomic societal logics. But it
all works out for the best for society in the end, they say, thanks to the
positive synthesis of multiplier effects. Relation to oneself involuntarily
amplifies across the multiplier effects to become a systemwide social
fact. The inmost dimensions of individual existence are operatively
linked to the most encompassing level, that of the market environment
that is the economic field of life. What is most intensely individual is at
the same time most wide-rangingly social. The smallest scale and the
largest scale resonate as one, in a quasi-chaos of mutual sensitivity. To
relate self-interestedly to oneself is in the very same act to relate, involuntarily, to everyone else.
But there is a problem. It has to do with the future. Success, of course,
is not guaranteed for any particular act, or any particular individual. The
self-organizing of the system at the largest scale can synthesize its way
past many a microfailure. As choices percolate through the economic
field, the negative impact of individual failures is compensated for overall by the multiplier effects of the successes. Given the infinity of accidents riddling the economic field of life and the existential blindness of
all economic actors, there is an ever-present threat of a misstep. Every
economic calculation is a calculus of risk. Behavioral finance (psychology) and rational actor models (the rational economic man, or rem)
rarely emphasize how uncertainty differs from risk and probability
(Pixley 2004, 18). You can calculate risk in terms of probabilities, but
probabilities by nature have nothing to say about any given case. The affect accompanying uncertainty is there in any case. Choices in the present become highly charged affectively with fear for the uncertain future.
The present is shaken, tremulous with futurity. There is no calculus of
risk independent of an individuals affective self-relation to uncertainty.
part 1
over any given quantity of causative input: surplus value. The more complex the system is, the more uncertain the future becomes. And complexification has been a constitutive tendency of the capitalist system
from its beginnings. Capitalism, always a far-from-equilibrium system,
is becoming ever more so. The same multiplier mechanism that promises future
satisfaction makes it exponentially less certain.
Why defer satisfaction if the capitalist future is constitutively uncertain? But on the other hand, how can you not play it safe by deferring your
satisfaction, precisely because the capitalist future is so uncertain? This
conundrum of deferral is an expression of the paradox that neoliberalisms promise of satisfaction unnerves the rationality it extols, giving it
the affective shakes that cannot be cured. The rational risk calculations of
the subject of interest become more and more affectively overdetermined
by the tension between fear of the future and hope for success, and between satisfaction and its uncertain deferral. The embrace of rational
self-interest and affective agitation becomes all the closer. They fall all the
more intensely into each others orbit, to the point that they contract into
each other, entering into a zone of indistinction, at the heart of every act.
Its a vicious circle. Positive multiplier effects can be counted on only
when individuals rational choices mutually reinforce each other, catching like a contagion. This is the point at which rational choice is indistinguishable from irrational exuberance (in the legendary phrase of
US Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan). This is also precisely
the mechanism that forms speculative bubbles leading to crisis.5 More
radical than the fact that the same mechanism that promises satisfaction makes it exponentially less certain is the fact that the attainment
of the very satisfaction promised can itself bring on a crisis. The tired
hound of self-interest, circling in for satisfaction, traces its own private
vicious circle in its self-relating movements. Its sleep will be agitated. It
will twitch with dreams of disappearing rabbits.
System Distrust
In times of crisis, the first words out of the mouth of any economic
leader are: we must restore trust in the system. But as systems theorist Niklas Luhmann blithely observed, under these endemic conditions
part 1
10
part 1
11
12
part 1
13
tors, then in the intervals between them, in the urgency of the feeling
of the need to respond to trends before they emerge onto a macro-enough
level and are tidily summed up in the indicators.
To act on threats before they emerge was the Bush administrations
definition of preemption (Massumi 2007). The economy is continually
agitated by the affectively fraught, felt need to preempt it. As the neoliberal economy takes hold, deferral becomes less and less of an option
and preemptive action more and more of an imperative.10 This makes
the economy more affectively activating than it is effectively rationalizing.
It runs more on perturbations and cascading amplifications than determinate acts of choice.
As this state of affective agitation heightens, what economic actors
often end up reacting to most directly are the agitated affective states of
other actors. This has given rise to a whole new ser vice industry, that
of Internet mood analysis. The Internet is trawled by algorithms that
search out affectively laden words and terminology to provide a realtime pulse taking of the mood of the economy. One such ser vice goes by
the name AlmagaMood, whose catchy slogan is Leveraging Big Data to
Enhance Investment Foresight.11
It is not just economic sites that are mood-mined. It is the entire
Internet, including blogs, news sites, and the expanding Twitterverse.
The economy as a whole vibrates with the fickleness of what the pundits call social mood. This Internet-based mood registering occurs
informally through the social media and all manner of networking. In
our networked society, with the global media reach and cross-platform
convergence of the Internet, any act anywhere resonates, potentially,
everywhere, in the economic analogue of Einsteins spooky action at a
distance. Readiness-potential wave packets collapse, affectively systemically, in real time (or its functional Internet equivalent). Individual actions are affectively entangled at a distance. It is only the complex playing out of the entanglements that decides in the end what will have been
a success and what a failure. Complexly correlated to each quantum of
success or failure, there will come to expression determinate affective
states of trust or distrust, satisfaction or frustration.
Individual economic actors are infra-connected. They are connected at
a distance, in the recesses of their affective rabbit holes. They communicate
14
part 1
15
16
part 1
mean that they are affectively grounded there. Any state of system trust
that emerges is just as affectively unjustified as it is rationally unjustified. It was not grounded in anything preparatory to action that could
be qualified as in any way trustworthy. The transactions that worked out
well and led to success proved themselves trustworthy. They became trustworthy, as a function of how they played out. The state of system trust
is effectively self-justifying. It justifies itself, Luhmann writes, in the
way that it has become creative (78): in the emergently creative way it
is generated as a trust-effect of the economys complex self-organizing.
The self-organizing emergence of the trust-effect is retroactively validating. It is affectively validating in the currency of satisfactions gained.
If enough trust-effects emerge at a sufficient rate of generation, then
however unjustified they are, the system has a chance of continuing, in a
positive orientation, trending up. Trust in the system has been restored.
The affective conditions for continued surplus-value production are in
force. Follow-on actions reinforce the trend. Positive feedback between
the systemic and infra-individual levels locks in. Positive multiplier effects bubble through the economy.
When the indicators come out, the effects are there to see, rationally
summed up in a trend. The summing up can then be projected forward
into future trends. Based on these statistical projections, a calculus of
risks and probabilities can be made. The affective-effect is now as rationalized as it can get. The rationalizing indicators stoke economic activity, reinforcing the affective conditions for growth. These feed back to
the regressive endpoints of the economy composing its plane of immanence. Turning around them, they resonate transindividually across the
economic field. Feedback loop. Economically, affectivity and rationality circle creatively through each other. The regress to the endpoint of
the economic and the upward progress of the economic indicators are a
single two-way movement of reciprocal feedback. They are systemically
superposed pulses of the capitalist process, together ontopowerful.
Mirroring the quantum vocabulary of the reduction of the wave packet,
Luhmann refers to the production of a state of system trust as a reduction of complexity. The economy cannot be micromanaged: do not
laisser-faire the government. Although the economy cannot be micromanaged, through the feedback process it can be infra-stoked toward the
17
notes
114
notes to part 1
this dissociation and simultaneously overcomes it by collapsing the social into the
economic. On human capital, see Foucault (2008, 224265).
4. Foucault (2008, 272276) insists on the incommensurability of the subject of
law (or right) and liberalisms homo oeconomicus, the subject of economics (subject of
interest).
5. On contagion and market psychology, see Marazzi (2008).
6. Oscillatoire is rendered as fluctuating in the English translation.
7. For a more detailed development of the concept of processual polarities
entering into proximity in a zone of indistinction and the corresponding logic of
mutual inclusion, see Massumi (2014).
8. In what follows, the prefix infra will be used in preference to intra.
Intra connotes interiority, and thus boundedness. Infra, on the other hand,
connotes a threshold on an unbounded continuum, below which there is a qualitative phase-shift in the nature of the phenomena on the continuum.
9. Simon Critchley, in Infinitely Demanding, uses the term dividual in a different
sense (2007, 89). For Critchley, it denotes a splitting of the subject, in dialogue with
the psychoanalytic concept as interpreted by Lacan.
10. On new approaches to modeling the economy that must be categorized as
preemptive (although they do not claim that title), see A Doing Done through Me,
n. 3, this volume.
11. AmalgaMood.com; accessed March 6, 2013.
12. On the distinction between system and process, see Massumi (2009a).
13. On becoming autonomous of system-level affective self-organizing in its political dimensions, see Massumi (2005).