konings2014 - financial affect.pdf

7252019 konings2014 - Financial Affectpdf

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkonings2014-financial-affectpdf 119

This article was downloaded by [Gazi University]On 27 December 2014 At 0301Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number 1072954 Registeredoffice Mortimer House 37-41 Mortimer Street London W1T 3JH UK

Click for updates

Distinktion Scandinavian Journal of

Social TheoryPublication details including instructions for authors and

subscription information

httpwwwtandfonlinecomloirdis20

Financial affectMartijn Konings

a

a Department of Political Economy The University of Sydney

Sydney AustraliaPublished online 04 Dec 2013

To cite this article Martijn Konings (2014) Financial affect Distinktion Scandinavian Journal of

Social Theory 151 37-53 DOI 1010801600910X2013864689

To link to this article httpdxdoiorg1010801600910X2013864689

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor amp Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the

ldquoContentrdquo) contained in the publications on our platform However Taylor amp Francisour agents and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy completeness or suitability for any purpose of the Content Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authorsand are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor amp Francis The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses actions claimsproceedings demands costs expenses damages and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content

This article may be used for research teaching and private study purposes Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction redistribution reselling loan sub-licensingsystematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden Terms amp



Conditions of access and use can be found at httpwwwtandfonlinecompageterms-and-conditions



RESEARCH ARTICLE

Financial affect

Martijn Konings

Department of Political Economy The University of Sydney Sydney Australia

Critical theory has often remained unduly beholden to accounts of capitalist development that emphasize its homogenizing effects and the tendency of its 1047297nanciallogic to destroy the complexity and organic connectedness of human life This paper suggests that we may move beyond the impasse of this style of critique by analyzingmoney capitalismrsquos quintessential sign as an icon ndash a sign that represents a

paradoxical coincidence of potentiality and contingency and so organizes a particular logic of affective investments Whereas critical theory tends to associate capitalist development with the decline of affect this essay suggests that a more paradoxicallogic is at work one whereby economic rationalization generates an affective logicthat is distinctly secular and performative but no less powerful than traditional modesof rule and in fact commands a paradoxical binding force The paper situates thenotion of iconicity vis-agrave-vis some key notions in modern social theory and proceedsto examine its emotional and psychological modalities through an engagement withtheorizations of narcissism a paradoxical affective structure that deploys its re1047298exive

powers to elaborate its attachment to a sign that it experiences as problematic It thenexplores the logic of 1047297nancial affect through a selective analysis of neoliberalismrsquos

public culture of self-help moving beyond a focus on disciplinary individualizationto emphasize the associative production of emotional investments The paper

concludes with some considerations on the political implications of the analysis

Keywords affect 1047297nance icon narcissism neoliberalism

Introduction

Present-day money is a highly paradoxical entity It is fully dematerialized and only exists

through myriad symbolic forms yet this imaginary multiplicity composes a quality of

moneyness that has an undeniable objective power A curious combination of 1047297ction and

fact it is the ultimate virtual sign lacking any inherent substance yet exerting a strong

organizational effect on the patterns of economic life The paradoxical character of money epitomizes a duality that is at the heart of the experience of contemporary capitalism

On the one hand the rate at which signs are produced and differentiated increases continu-

ously and the resulting networks are characterized by an unprecedented degree of contin-

gency and complexity On the other hand the degree to which human action has become

consolidated around core capitalist institutions is unprecedented few aspects of our lives

remain unaffected by their commensurating logic The growing plasticity of modern soci-

ality has been accompanied by an extraordinary concentration of authority in key signi1047297ers

and institutions Contemporary social theory has hardly failed to register the co-existence of

copy 2013 Taylor amp Francis

Email martijnkoningssydneyeduau

Distinktion Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory 2014

Vol 15 No 1 37 ndash 53 httpdxdoiorg1010801600910X2013864689



these opposed movements and in many critical quarters the interest in opposing the lsquotex-

tualismrsquo of poststructuralist theory and cultural studies to the lsquomaterialismrsquo of political

economy has largely waned But it is nonetheless not always clear how we should envisage

the relation between these different images of neoliberal life and how we might critically

articulate their interaction It often seems that insofar as we remain committed to the for-

mulation of a distinctly critical perspective we have little choice but to revert to an

approach that depicts the logic of capital as precisely destructive of such relational com-

plexity In a move that is not always fully accounted for the pluralism of capitalist life is

downplayed or its reality questioned ndash for instance by drawing a distinction between

lsquoreal [ hellip ] as opposed to commodi1047297ed cultural divergencersquo and emphasizing the lsquoreductionism

of all beings and all cultural differences to a common commodi1047297ed formrsquo (Harvey 2000

83) In this sense the critique of capitalism has remained beholden to what we might

term a lsquocapitalism-as-leveller rsquo narrative an account of capitalist development that empha-

sizes its tendency to undermine the organic diversity and connectedness of social life and to

replace it with the disenchanting homogenizing rationality of the cash nexus In such a

perspective modern capitalismrsquos core institutions feature as particular kinds of signs asidols fetishes that acquire authority only through the absorption of our vital difference-

generating powers removing personality and meaning from the public sphere while

dumbing down our emotional lives This speci1047297cally modern kind of idolatry generates

rei1047297cations abstract and lifeless forces that play havoc with our humanity

The capitalism-as-leveller critique is usually carefully quali1047297ed After all we are well

aware that the practical experience of capitalist life involves much more than the irrational

attachment to lifeless signs or the listless interaction of anomic characters Moreover it can

be a politically uncomfortable narrative easily shading over into communitarian lamenta-

tions of the erosion of communal ties (Putnam 2001) or even a more neoconservative cri-

tique of hedonistic individualism (Bork 1997) But it has proved very hard to break fullywith the image of capitalism as a levelling force it often seems that to the extent that

we acknowledge that the multiplicity of capitalist life is lsquorealrsquo we would seem to lose

ground or rationale for critique With intellectual efforts oriented by this concern we

often pay insuf 1047297cient attention to the paradoxical simultaneity of unity and multiplicity

the capitalism-as-leveller narrative does not allow us to grasp the logic that permits these

movements to exist not at each other rsquos expense but precisely as dynamics that sustain

and fuel each other This dynamic is akin to a lsquo pivotingrsquo movement whereby a centrifugal

logic of growing complexity is tethered to a central point of anchorage that ensures the oper-

ation of a centripetal force Life under neoliberal capitalism is somewhat of a lsquostrange looprsquo

(Hofstadter 2007) an outward movement of variegation that revolves around a stable pointThe latter may be seen as a lsquostrange attractor rsquo (J Dean 2009 68) which attracts not in a

straight parsimoniously organized fashion but permits for a tremendous degree of com-

plexity and contingency

This paper suggests that we can shed some light on this paradoxical aspect of modern

capitalism by considering its key sign not as an idol but as an icon An icon is a sign that

incorporates and bears out its meaning even though this meaning remains complex and

diffuse It embodies a lsquoqualityrsquo that we readily recognize as being at the core of our experi-

ence of contemporary life a spirit that we readily intuit but may have considerable dif 1047297culty

verbalizing or conceptually delineating Modern-day money is like that When asked to

de1047297ne what money lsquoisrsquo we typically do not have a good answer and tend to associate it

with various seemingly heterogeneous things and experiences But in practice we have

no dif 1047297culty working with it as a highly effective standard easily grasping its unity

across myriad manifestations (Konings 2011) As Alexander puts it lsquoTo be iconically

38 M Konings



conscious is to understand without knowingrsquo (2008 782) At the limit we may even be

unable to identify any particular material carrier for the sign An icon then becomes a van-

ishing point lacking a speci1047297c substance but serving as a virtual point around which pat-

terns of connections are organized The icon organizes a paradoxical logic of unity and

multiplicity commanding lsquoa power that is both centripetal and centrifugalrsquo (Mondzain

2005 146) It is a speci1047297cally secular source of authority its symbolic force does not

derive from any claim to transcendent status but it operates immanently through chains

of connections situated in the here-and-now It has no existence independent of the contin-

gent performances through which it is produced yet nonetheless exerts a strong organizing

effect and serves as the condition of possibility of those very performances

The icon then is an affective sign (cf Pentcheva 2006 651) The notion of affect has

become a focal point for much recent social theorizing as a non-essentialist way to think the

process whereby a sign gathers force and becomes generative not merely epistemic and

representational but practically ef 1047297cacious (eg Ahmed 2004 Clough 2008 Massumi

2002 Venn 2010) Affective force is virtual (Grossberg 2010 250) never inherent in the

object itself but always deriving from the way in which it punctualizes complex patternsof relations This hints at a dynamic that is more paradoxical than suggested by a

money-as-leveller narrative which associates the process of capitalist rationalization and

secularization with the decline of affect That is it suggests a logic whereby as the sign

abandons claims to transcendent status and becomes a mere product of secular relations

its capacity for affecting is not attenuated but transformed and possibly enhanced The

culture of 1047297nancialized capitalism does not entail a 1047298attening of the public sphere and a

growing one-dimensionality of the human character but produces its own distinctly

secular forms of enchantment and spirituality (Bennett 2001 McCarraher 2005) and a par-

ticular kind of public sentimentality (Berlant 1997)1 As a curious combination of mere

symbol and pure potentiality money elicits emotional responses not through any claimto magic but by serving as a privileged point of entry into the contingent multiplicity of

modern life by embodying a capacity to access difference The icon plays on the hope

that accessing its powers may enable us not to leave behind our earthly existence but to

access a perfected version of the self that we already have on the prospect of perfected

immanence rather than transcendence But if the icon elicits hopeful anticipation this

exists in a relation of ongoing interaction with the anxiety and resentment it provokes

Our efforts to realize the promise of the icon invariably fall short but such failures have

a curious way of intensifying our attachment to it The public sentimentality organized

by moneyrsquos iconicity is one of lsquocruel optimismrsquo lsquoa relation of attachment to compromised

conditions of possibilityrsquo (Berlant 2006 21) a strange loop whereby capitalist subjectivityis thrown back and forth between the anxiety and promise of power (McManus 2011)

This paper then is emphatically not motivated by an aim to offer a formal semiotic

analysis simply to classify money as a particular kind of sign would be to obscure precisely

the paradoxical process of signi1047297cation associated with it the fact that the icon so readily

points beyond itself metonymically expressing the character of a complex constellation of

associations More precisely formulated the issue is not the role of the icon itself but the

paradoxical logic of an affectively charged structure of iconicity The icon itself remains

invisible has no inherent authority and is fully dependent for its powers on the relational

networks in which it is embedded but in this way it nonetheless serves as the pivot of a

logic that becomes more deeply and organically embedded in the basic structure of our per-

sonality and character It is not external or transcendent but organic and connected (Ghosh

2011) It is this connectivity and its modalities that a capitalism-as-leveller narrative is not

suf 1047297ciently attuned to as it sets too much store by the claims of the dismal science the idea




of an autonomization of utilitarian principles and the consequent fragmentation of social

and public life This paper analyzes select aspects of capitalismrsquos affective economy

through an exploration of the structure of iconicity The next section situates the notion

of iconicity vis-agrave-vis some key notions in modern social theory In particular it aims to

show how we might pursue the insights of Foucaultian theory regarding the immanence

of power without reproducing as it has been prone to key aspects of a capitalism-as-level-

ler narrative The following section analyzes the emotional and psychological modalities of

our investment in the icon through an engagement with theorizations of narcissism a para-

doxical subjective structure that deploys its re1047298exive powers to elaborate its attachments to

a sign that it experiences as problematic The third section examines the modalities of nar-

cissismrsquos cruel optimism through an analysis of the conceptual and affective structure of the

neoliberal culture of self-help and advice The conclusion offers some thoughts on the

implications of the analysis presented here for political criticism

Situating iconicityThe immanent character of modern power has been one of the central concerns of Foucaul-

tian theory (M Dean 1999 Miller and Rose 2008 Nadesan 2008) It views power not as

externally imposed but as operating through numerous decentralized practices order and

authority work not on the basis of an original sovereign meaning but through more

diffuse networks of connections situated at the level of everyday life Modern power is

bio-power it has little use for anomic individuals overwhelmed by the forces of modernity

but produces speci1047297c forms of life The Foucaultian analysis of neoliberal capitalism has

accordingly stressed that recent decades have seen the emergence of regimes of conduct

that serve to sustain a thickening web of disciplinary governmentality permitting the thor-

oughgoing penetration of power into the routines and habits of our conduct Modern power is more permissive and institutionally limited than traditional forms of sovereign authority

but at the same time it is more deeply and organically rooted in the structure of our subjec-

tivity Such Foucaultian insights push us towards a way of thinking hegemonic signs as

iconic in nature as productively implicated in the constitution of subjectively meaningful

identities and practices

However Foucaultian theory has often elaborated this key insight in a way that con-

tinues to associate capitalist development with the rationalization of conduct and the emer-

gence of more homogenized practices (Martin 2007 134 Vrasti 2011) The subjects that

neoliberal hegemony produces are seen as entrepreneurial and responsible regulating

their conduct through calculative techniques that render it predictable and governableThe constructive effects of neoliberal discourses are conceived as being relatively

lsquocleanrsquo if normalization is seen to operate through the production and exclusion of dysfunc-

tional elements this negative moment is seen to remain somewhat at the margins some-

thing that can be lsquootheredrsquo with relative ease (Isin 2004) In that sense bio-power as

conceived by Foucaultian accounts is still a little lifeless overly premised on peoplersquos faith-

ful enactment of liberalismrsquos formal rationality (Tie 2004 Watson 1999) re1047298ecting a

lsquoresidual type of Kantianismrsquo (Braidotti 2007 19) that prevents a fuller break with conven-

tional sociological understandings of social constitution The emphasis on the predictable

effects of authority downplays what is speci1047297c about capitalist institutions ndash ie the fact

that compared to more traditional forms of power they make available many more pos-

itions and performances that permit for the construction of differentiated forms of subjec-

tivity Jodi Dean (2009 63) drawing on Zizek captures this in terms of lsquothe decline of

symbolic ef 1047297ciencyrsquo modern subjects have considerable distance from of 1047297cial discursive

40 M Konings



norms and roles and they do not simply replicate or fashion themselves after the 1047297gures of

authority The intermediations between our selves and hegemony are more manifold and

uneven volatile and unpredictable than the Foucaultian portrayal of the well-administered

governmental subject suggests Indeed it is precisely because power works in such differ-

ential exciting even seemingly chaotic ways that it manages to reach into the furthest

reaches of our personality But this nevertheless involves a movement of real (rather than

super 1047297cial or lsquocommodi1047297edrsquo) differentiation which we cannot just assume will be neatly

aligned with the requirements of hegemony That is we have a strange loop a paradoxical

combination of centrifugal and centripetal motion2

We can clarify the operations of this strange loop by exploring how we tend to picture

the difference between modern and traditional forms of authority Traditional power tended

to be ascriptive making available certain kinds of roles and requiring that subjects enact

them (J Mitchell 1998 323) The ef 1047297cacy of traditional forms of power was premised

on their ability to enforce compliance with the overt meaning of their norms We might

say they required idolization active positive endorsement of key symbols with little

room for questioning or deviation But the 1047298ip side of such a regime of strict adherencewas that its ability to constitute the practical rationalities of everyday life was limited

once the performance of a role was over the effects of power ceased to operate Capitalist

power by contrast does not demand positive symbolic identi1047297cation or the literal perform-

ance of strictly de1047297ned roles Instead we get to differentiate to 1047298exibly recombine existing

structures and so produce new meanings Modern subjects draw on the various roles con-

nections and perspectives that the liberal public sphere makes available and in this way the

construction of self becomes a fully interactive and relational process Mead (1934)

described this as a speci1047297cally modern process of lsquorole-takingrsquo not the assumption of a

well-de1047297ned pre-given role but a more complex process whereby we assess the con1047297gur-

ations of social life from different vantage points develop capacities for maneuvering sociallife and in the process build our self as a complex constellation of af 1047297nities beliefs

capacities and interests

The modern self becomes a much more thoroughly lsquosocial self rsquo (Mead 1934) it is pre-

cisely because social in1047298uences are no longer authoritatively imposed that they tend to

become more deeply embedded in the basic structure of our personality Modern socializa-

tion does not involve the linear internalization of norms but is a more subtle and relational

process whereby we develop subjectively meaningful associations to particular signs allow

those chains of associations to sink in and so become sensitized and responsive to these

signs It is precisely the plasticity of modern power that permits it to reach more deeply

into the core of who we are and its signs to acquire an objectivity that is organic Thisentails a transformation of public signs less and less idols dependent on our willingness

to forego our own interests and identity they become icons generated through endless

series of pragmatic engagements and organically allied to our differentiated subjectivities

The emergence of iconic authority then is not a process whereby discursive norms come to

obviate or pre-empt the constitutive effects of subjectivation but involves the operation of

strange loops movements of variegation and individuation that pivot on lsquostrange attractors

of affective investment rsquo (J Dean 2009 67) An icon is not an external authority but a sign

invested with subjective meaning the public 1047297guration of our emotional af 1047297liations It

cannot claim an existence that is independent from the performances through which it is

produced but it nonetheless comes to 1047297gure as the condition of possibility for those very

performances and exerts a curiously strong organizing force on their con1047297guration Cru-

cially then the process whereby the self becomes a more thoroughly social self corresponds

to a process whereby the public sphere becomes more highly personalized populated by




signs that subjects are organically connected to Far from destroying publicness money

becomes the pivot for an lsquointimate public spherersquo (Berlant 1997 1) an intensely interactive

space 1047297lled with strangely attractive signs Contemporary 1047297nance offers rich and highly

emotionally charged discourses a public sphere that organizes a particular social

sentimentality

The logic of strange attraction has to do with the iconrsquos potentiality its unquestioned

ability to provide access to the diverse connections of capitalist life Whatever our problems

and objectives our performances are more likely to work if we can connect them to the icon

and so invoke its unquestioned validity ie if we can link up to intuitively plausible signs

that readily command belief The icon thus comes to function as an lsquoobligatory passage

point rsquo (Callon 1986 205) the condition of possibility for our ability to access the resources

roles and competencies that we need to solve our problems Its universality is the potenti-

ality of nodal points in networks an ability to trigger chains of connections and generate a

variety of effects Money is a privileged access point into the multiplicity and complexity of

social life not a vehicle of alienating disenchantment or dreadful homogeneity but a source

of universal validity that opens up to subtle shades of meaning It does not suck the life out of us but precisely holds out tremendous promise That is of course not to deny that money

plays a very signi1047297cant role in the production of the discontent of the modern subject it is a

source of anxiety no matter how much we have of it (Heacutenaff 2010) The point is just that

moneyrsquos dark side does not necessarily negate its binding force the discontents of capitalist

life are interwoven with the more alluring aspects of money Here we should be alert to ico-

nicityrsquos ideological operation an iconic sign is composed through an endless series of prag-

matically generated senses af 1047297nities suggestions and metaphors that involve as many

points of transformation and differentiation The icon can present itself as the solution to

our anxiety because its mode of signi1047297cation is not transparent deploys connections that

have sunk into our sense of self and are not readily available to our conscious cognitionAlthough money is a source of tremendous frustration and anxiety it never fails to

excite and motivate us The anxiety that it engenders paradoxically only strengthens our

attachment to it It is such ups and downs of hope and disappointment ndash rather than a dis-

ciplined pursuit of indifferent utility ndash that is characteristic of our 1047297nancial experience (cf

Crosthwaite 2010 Lazzarato 2004 191)

Icon and affect

The exploration of the affective structure of iconicity can take as a useful starting-point the

optimistic vision offered by early progressive thinkers such as Mead and Cooley They werevery impressed with the plasticity of modern power where lsquoindividualization and sociali-

zation [ hellip ] proceed[ed] hand in hand in a wholesome social life each enriching the other rsquo

(Cooley 1899 221) Modern society was seen to function on the basis of immanently gen-

erated principles of organization mechanisms set up to facilitate and improve the human

interactions of which they were born Modern power was no longer primarily constraining

but something more plastic that could be made to adapt itself to the particular circumstances

of our lives Veblenrsquos work provides a useful contrast to these optimistic assessments of

modern institutions He also discerned the emergence of an interactive form of subjectivity

that related to others and itself through a much wider variety of roles perspectives and con-

nections But he emphasized that this did not automatically translate into a comfortable

pluralism On the contrary the ample opportunities for differentiation offered by capitalist

life promoted a logic of lsquoinvidious comparisonrsquo (Veblen [1899] 2007 10) The subject

depicted by Veblen was characterized by a narcissistic character structure (Mestrovic

42 M Konings



2003) intensely concerned with othersrsquo opinions yet incapable of genuine empathy and

forever preoccupied with its own identity yet incapable of generating a secure sense of

self Modern subjects were in1047298exibly stuck on strange attractors that are sources of constant

misery

Veblen was not really inclined to plumb the depths of these attachments and in the end

he was harshly judgmental of the subject rsquos fetishistic attachment to irrational signs Other

twentieth-century theorists of modern narcissism have been more alert to the relational

complexity of the narcissistic character Riesman (1950 47) felt that Veblenrsquos emphasis

on pride and sel1047297shness had prevented him from exploring this peculiar aspect of

modern society in greater depth and from formulating a convincing answer to the question

of why people so stubbornly persisted in the behavior that was responsible for their discon-

tent Riesman argued that the narcissistic character was driven not by pathological forms of

self-absorption but by an anxiety immanent in the patterns of modern social life The social

self as portrayed by Riesman was a complex relational construction and therefore often

quite unaware of what went on in the inner depths of its emotional life unable to pinpoint

the af 1047297nities and routines that were causing it trouble Incapable of zeroing in on the core problem the subject becomes oriented to the alleviation of symptoms seeking access to

supportive relationships that make its anxiety manageable At this point for its own prag-

matic reasons the subject turns back to the source of anxiety for solutions as it seeks to

access resources perspectives and performances that permit it to attenuate the intensity

of its anxiety it quickly 1047297nds that its chances for doing so will be greatly enhanced if it

can associate its self to hegemony and invoke the legitimacy and authority of its icons

And so the source of its anxiety now comes to 1047297gure as a source of solutions Re-engaging

the very norms symbols and institutions that are at the root of its problems the subject

dampens the intensity of its anxiety by sustaining the mechanisms that produce it In this

way its emotional economy comes to be governed by a logic of lsquowounded attachmentsrsquo(Brown 1995 52) shaping its identity around and becoming ever more deeply invested

in its anxiety

Crucially this return to the icon is not an act of despair or resignation Lasch ( 1979)

too saw anxiety as a signi1047297cant driving force but at the same time placed great emphasis

on the positive lure of capitalist signs modern narcissism is driven precisely by a positive

concern with truth and authenticity We perceive not a public sphere of inanimate objects or

mere instruments for one-up-manship but opportunities for the improvement of our self

The logic of iconicity may not promise like idols do to make problems disappear

through sheer magic but it holds out the prospect of attaining personal completeness it

extends the promise that we may access mechanisms of differentiation and so assemblean identity that is more authentic than the one we currently have If this preoccupation

with authenticity constitutes a distinctly secular imaginary this does not make it any less

affective or compelling ndash in crucial respects more so because the promise it holds out is

not that we might leave our earthly self behind but rather that we may hope to 1047297nd an

anxiety-free version of it The promise of authenticity plays on lsquothe promise of an afterlife

in onersquos own lifersquo (Vatter 2009 par 22 interpreting Cooper 2009) the possibility of having

a perfected version of our existing character our present attachments and identity without

the problems and anxieties they produce Paradoxically then the role-taking self ends up

being a real believer in the idea of a core self something inside of herhim that has the

truth about herhim yet has proved elusive (cf Chidester 2005 227) And in this way

the secular affair of self-making becomes imbued with deep spiritual sentiments (Kaag

2009) If our attempts to secure such authenticity invariably fall short the anxiety that

this produces typically motivates precisely a renewed engagement with the icon The




narcissistic character is caught in a strange loop of anxiety and false hope This logic is epit-

omized by money which is always a problem and always itself the solution to the problem

iconically representing both lack and completeness The logic of iconicity provides com-

pensations for the authentic experience it forever fails to deliver

In Riesmanrsquos mid-twentieth-century appraisal this logic of anxious attachment was not

altogether a bad thing as he saw the inarticulate discontent generated by modern socializa-

tion as returning primarily in the guise of a renewed yearning for social approval and the co-

operative behavior that people adopted in securing this Riesmanrsquos narcissists were much

more agreeable characters than the self-absorbed hedonists described by Veblen somewhat

super 1047297cial and occasionally insincere but also eager to please 1047298exible and accommodat-

ing The subject was simply too busy warding off insecurity and ingratiating itself to

actively hurt or exploit others The limitations of this account were illustrated by Erich

Frommrsquos understanding of the narcissistic character structure Like Riesman Fromm under-

stood the anxiety of the modern subject not as a pathological deviation but as an immanent

aspect of social order But far less convinced that the effects of status anxiety were mostly

benign he nonetheless identi1047297ed a lsquo pathology of normalcyrsquo (Fromm 1955 11) emphasiz-ing the manipulative insincerity of the lsquomarketing character rsquo (Fromm [1976] 2007 122) and

its tendency to stab others in the back when given a chance If like Riesman Fromm under-

stood the operation of modern society in terms of the ongoing compensation for the experi-

ence of insecurity and inauthenticity he saw this compensatory logic in much less

wholesome terms and placed much greater emphasis on the dimension of power and

control The modern subject holds the effects of anxiety at bay not merely through

smiles and good cheer but also by meanwhile associating its identity to hegemonic struc-

tures and constructing its own base of social control

Fromm (1941 1955 1973) captured this in terms of the sadomasochistic structure of the

narcissistic character To think of the signs of modern power as relational and interactivemeans that they organize a process of empowerment and powerlessness and that socializa-

tion into its operations involves the development of organic af 1047297nities to the af 1047298iction and

suffering of the effects of control The modern character emerges not through communal

deliberation but through the logic of strange emotional attractions the perverse clustering

patterns of its associations For Fromm public signs norms and institutions were the

symbols around which mechanisms of control are organized they are not reasons but

rationalizations idealized representations of our affective investments The concept of

sadomasochism as the paradigmatic structure of strange attraction draws attention to the

fact that social networks can only be stable if subjects enjoy the wielding of and submission

to power effects Capitalism capitalizes on our inability to locate the sources of our discon-tent and enjoins us to address our anxiety by passing its effects on to others Its compen-

sations and therapies are not innocent neutral or benevolent they typically allow us to

solve our own problems by causing trouble for others This makes the modern character

a paradoxical mixture of masochistic and sadistic impulses libidinally invested in both

the submission to and active participation in power (Chancer 1992)

Crucially then the process whereby performances and identities acquire validity (or

not) is not a purely conceptual affair a matter of non-committal (dis)approval but involves

practical judgment and the adoption of an emotional stance it is a fully affective process

that distributes empathy and modulates social feeling The role-taking through which we

build our identities prominently involves the judgment of othersrsquo roles we identify with

others in highly selective ways Some positions are deemed illegitimate not deserving of

our empathy beyond the range of perspectives that we feel deserve our consideration

(McCarthy 2007 28) There often is something lsquoresentfulrsquo about this it does not involve

44 M Konings



an innocent bias stemming from a mere lack of knowledge but a prejudice that is main-

tained in a more or less willful manner at a certain level we know that if we were to

learn more about the subjectivities that we refuse to validate we might well become

more understanding more empathetic more capable of identifying with the position that

we refuse to see as a legitimate one ndash and this is precisely why we suppress such knowledge

That is the performative logic of social construction involves disavowal (Butler 2010 159)

When we experience the problematic aspects of our investments we do not just simply

deny the existence of a problem but engage in externalization locate its sources in

othersrsquo behavior imagining a fetishistic irrationality to which we can contrast our own prac-

tices We implicitly experientially know that there is more than irrationality to our attach-

ments but accusing others of precisely this can serve as source of discursive traction

cultural capital and social control The politics of anxiety thus involves a paradoxical

back-and-forth between on the one hand an awareness of the contingency of social life

the complexity that pervades it and of the ease with which actors get lost in its labyrinthine

networks and on the other hand a forceful assertion there is no excuse that would render

comprehensible or relatable the predicament in which the traumatized subject 1047297nds itselfThe narcissist tends to have a lsquo judgmentalrsquo character prone to criticizing others for pro-

blems that it is not itself free of

Neoliberal affect

This paradoxical affective structure of iconicity and its generative properties have been

crucial to the making of neoliberal 1047297nancialized capitalism The crisis of the 1970s and

the widespread disappointment with capitalist order never immunized capitalist subjects

to the affective force of money but precisely charged the logic of its strange attraction

(cf Boltanski and Chiapello 2007) The era of 1047297nancialization that this ushered in hasseen the full unfolding of the iconic character of money a dematerialized dollar-sign that

punctualizes increasingly complex networks of relations Of constitutive importance in

this process was the growth of a public culture organized around the rejection of progressive

liberalism with ascendant neoliberal discourses depicting Americarsquos problems as a result of

the way its permissiveness and paternalism had corrupted the republic Far from cynically

advocating a calculating possessive individualism neoliberalism has presented itself as a

means to restore a republican ethos of personal independence and self-help a redemptive

austerity that repudiates decadent expectations of free lunches and hand-outs Accessing

an authentic self these discourses counseled required embracing the chastening effects

of lsquo

tough loversquo the purifying effect of austerity Neoliberalism not only instructed people to do more with less but also gave them permission to impose such discipline on

others holding out the prospect of spiritual improvement through the harsh judgment of

self and other In this way the neoliberal imaginary made productive use of the modern

self rsquos resentments and discontents (Konings 2009 2012)

The alliance of neoliberal capitalism to a civic sphere of cruel optimism is apparent in

the rise of a public culture of 1047297nancial advice and self-help an industry that has expanded

dramatically since the 1970s Foucaultian perspectives have tended to depict neoliberal

education and advice as a set of depoliticizing discourses that socialize subjects into priva-

tized risk management and foster an ethos of individual accountability (Rimke 2000) and in

this way they have tended to reproduce a capitalism-as-leveller narrative that does insuf 1047297-

cient justice to the complex emotional structure of neoliberal discourses and their ability to

engender a distinctive capitalist spirit That is to say the past decades have seen not the

depoliticization of 1047297nancial questions but precisely the growing prominence of affectively




charged public discourses that address our issues with money and shape our personal

relation to it in intricate ways (Martin 2002) This is perhaps especially visible in the

extent to which the 1047297nancial self-help ethos has become allied to celebrity culture

(Decker 1997) and a useful point of entry for understanding the affective logic at work

is a recurrent theme on one of neoliberal Americarsquos key cultural institutions the Oprah

Winfrey show namely the optimistic notion that money is lsquowithin usrsquo and that our

ability to command it is merely dependent on our willingness to live authentically In

this view our possession of money is a measure of our spiritual worth a sign that we

have t aken responsibility for our life and actualized our true self (Lofton 2006 Peck

2008)3 It is important to appreciate the element of experiential truth that is articulated

here which is at the basis of the rhetorical force of such statements whereas in earlier

times the notion that we possess of an immanent connection to money would have been

incomprehensible the claim that we possess an internal connection to a secularized dema-

terialized and invisible icon is intuitively plausible (even when we are quite critical of such

ideas they do not seem absurd to us) But if contemporary self-help culture accurately

intuits our connectedness to money it allies this awareness to a moment of cruelty After all we perfectly well know that even though we may 1047297nd ourselves strangely attracted

to money the causality of this relationship cannot be easily reversed By insisting that

we can partake of moneyrsquos iconic powers through mere intention neoliberal self-help

turns a blind eye to the complex mediations through which moneyrsquos iconicity is constituted

Oprah insists that we acknowledge our connection to money but simultaneously asks us to

engage in disavowal suppressing what we intuitively know about the operation of this

connectedness

This allows self-help to play a highly productive role in the interactive economy of

resentful externalization and narcissistic judgmentality Increasingly to question publicly

whether 1047297nancial empowerment is available on a universal basis is to show oneself to besmall-minded dependent and entitled a subject lacking in spiritual worth (Aldred 2002

McGee 2005 52 ndash 3) In this way neoliberal capitalismrsquos ethos facilitates disavowal of

our complicity in the production of suffering while allowing us to claim responsibility

for our fortune it urges us to feel responsible for things that we have little in1047298uence on

while letting us off the hook when it comes to things we are responsible for This is

what the practice of lsquoresponsibilizationrsquo involves not an effective individualization of

risk or a tighter connection between acts and consequences (which is how the Foucaultian

literature sometimes depicts this process (Shamir 2008)) but the development of intuitive

comfort with this logic of empathy redistribution (Martin 2002 163) The subject assumes

responsibility for its own powerlessness and is assured that it is doing the right thing in exer-cising power The narcissistic character always feels that it is doing too much taking

responsibility for things that are not its own aiming to live up to an image that is too

demanding And in a very important sense this is true it does hold itself to a standard

that it can never live up to It is just that such complaints serve as a cover for refusal to

take responsibility in areas where it does have agency

Crucially the denial of empathy is not the same as a lack of concern resentfulness

means that we are often intensely concerned with subjectivities that we absolutely refuse

to understand The disavowal at work is not the result of real ignorance but a constitutive

component of our performances It is not that some problematic experiences are not

acknowledged at all but rather that they implicitly are acknowledged and deemed

unworthy of empathy (cf Foster 1996) We do not ignore them so much as we actively dele-

gitimate them we are able to consider othersrsquo viewpoint but just wonrsquot (a kind of perverse

empathetic identi1047297cation) and tell the sufferers to lsquosnap out of rsquo their problems This sadistic

46 M Konings



streak of neoliberal 1047297nancial governmentality is richly present in the contemporary self-help

ethos and especially in programs like the Dr Phil show a spinoff from the Oprah Winfrey

show that is dedicated to psychological well-being but centrally features 1047297nancial issues

The show is structured on the principle of judgmentality the emphasis is on getting

guests to narrate their problems and then pass judgment by separating the deserving

from the undeserving Even when a guest makes no attempt to justify herhis behavior

Dr Phil will insist that some kind of account be offered as soon as the guest offers some

thoughts on what might have moved herhim to display that particular behavior Dr Phil

intervenes with a bullishly delivered comment such as lsquoBut are you here to justify your be-

havior or to change itrsquo and proceeds to 1047297ll at least one segment of the show with the spec-

tacle of a punitive public put-down Improper conduct is characterized by a tendency to

resist or question the pressures produced by prevailing power structures (for instance by

citing such circumstances as unemployment) whereas proper authentic conduct precisely

involves a willingness to suffer through the effects of authority and to respond with dedi-

cated attempts to build up onersquos own basis for control

Participating in performances such as Dr Philrsquos permits us to pass judgment on issues inothersrsquo lives that we cannot or will not confront in our own to judge harshly others rsquo choices

even (or especially) when we are not at all sure that we would handle things any better if we

were in their shoes In this way neoliberal self-help culture and the spirit it expresses serve

as a platform for externalization providing access to the kind of ideological harmonizations

that allow us to spin our cruelty to self and others in terms of the building of a mature spiri-

tually accomplished character Austerity toughness to self and others through the judgmen-

tal withholding of empathy is the road to redemption This ethos is celebrated in the work

of self-help guru Suze Orman who is a hard-nosed enforcer of the discipline of money but

does not associate this with somber submission but precisely with an upbeat spiritual atti-

tude In her book The Courage To Be Rich (a title presumably inspired by Paul Tillichrsquos([1952] 2000) The Courage To Be) she writes

What rsquos keeping you from being rich In most cases it is simply a lack of belief In order to become rich you must believe that you can do it and you must take the actions necessaryto achieve your goal There is nothing wrong with wanting more You do not need to feelguilty for wanting more If however you deny the possibility that you can have moreyoursquoll be making yourself a victim of todayrsquos circumstances and the cost will be your tomor-row (Orman 1999 5)

Ormanrsquos severity is redemptive assuaging any anxiety we might feel about the disagreeable

alliances we have to forge in our pursuit of money and enjoining us to convert any sense of guilt into the outwardly directed aggression that secures our wealth Not to do so would

condemn us to idleness and jeopardize our self-realization

Our affective investment in the Orman character is curious since it projects a manic atti-

tude that is impossible to miss The fact that we are so interested in optimistic promises that

we readily perceive as fake and insincere suggests the extent to which we have come to

experience our persistence with the cycle of anxiety and optimism as itself an authenticating

activity This involves a deployment of the capacity for disavowal an ability not to let our

practical commitments be affected by things that we know But it is important to understand

how this works more precisely since it is not particularly accurate to say that we have

become cynics ie people who stick with practices and to signi1047297

ers they no longer believe in detaching their selves from the experience of discontent This is the logic fol-

lowed by Sloterdijk rsquos depiction of the 1047298atting of public life a capitalist society populated




by lsquo borderline melancholics who can keep their symptoms of depression under controlrsquo

(1987 5) On this reading the problem is that our practical behavior and commitments

have become immune to critical awareness instead of doing something about our discon-

tent we distance ourselves from it by adopting an ironic stance But the disavowals at work

here are not best grasped in terms of a decline of affect The late capitalist subject is not so

much a unipolar melancholic but rather a more bipolar character caught in the dynamic of a

paradoxical strange loop thrown back and forth between a sense of the problematic nature

of its attachments and optimistic faith in the iconic signs that publicly 1047297gure that emotional

structure in idealized form between the anxious experience of a complex world without

guarantees and the intoxicating promise of pure potentiality

The mechanism at work here can be clari1047297ed with reference to a conversation on an

episode of the Oprah Show described by Peck (2008 98) When an audience member

objects to the conceptualization of welfare dependence in terms of the lack of individual

responsibility Oprahrsquos expert guest responds with lsquoIt rsquos within you [ hellip ] If you have a defea-

tist attitude about yourself then the battlersquos lost before you even start it You have to think

positiversquo When the audience member again objects that lsquothis whole issue wersquore talkingabout is much more complicated than just 1047297nding this thing within yourself [ hellip ]

Therersquos a lot of other things going on much larger thingsrsquo Oprah responds lsquoBut where

are you going to 1047297nd it though if it doesnrsquot start with you Let me ask you that

Wherersquos it going to come from if it doesnrsquot come from yoursquo Oprahrsquos question forces the

audience member to make a choice to stick to his point and appear as lacking depth of char-

acter as displaying an identity that is dependent and inauthentic or to backtrack and

pretend that Oprahrsquos one-line argument has convinced him While the former course of

action would alienate him from Oprahrsquos persona and its central position in the affective

structure of 1047297nancial iconicity the latter could potentially give him access to the menu of

differentiated life solutions that are accessible through it This logic applies even thoughhardly anyone would think that there is real conviction in a sudden change of heart

In this sense it is certainly true that the legitimation of neoliberal capitalism often

follows an lsquoas if rsquo logic (Zizek 1989) it does not require active endorsement positive identi-

1047297cation with key signs This is quite different from how things worked in more traditional

societies if authorities 1047297gured out that your allegiances were not what you were professing

them to be it intervened often with brutal force Modern power can afford to tolerate

doubts because our socialization into power already operates at a deeper level that typically

prevents such reservations from becoming consequential That is quite different however

from saying that it operates through disaffection and cynicism For instance a visibly

tongue-in-cheek attitude is not a viable option it would not have been acceptable for theaudience member to display an openly sarcastic attitude by saying something like lsquoWell

1047297ne the amount of social pressure at work here doesnrsquot really leave me with much of a

choice so Irsquom just going to pretend to agree with yoursquo Such a response would not be accep-

table because by publicly articulating the mechanism of power it blocks its effect on the

self a refusal to profess faith in iconic optimism constitutes a refusal to play the game that

socializes us into power Although neoliberal capitalism does not require true allegiance we

do need to offer it something to work with the act of lsquoas if rsquo is good enough insofar as it

displays a willingness to engage the mechanisms of power and so to become attuned to

its modalities ie insofar as it provides hegemony with an opening a point of leverage

After all when we enter into a particular style for instrumental reasons (eg start

wearing suits because that will help us to keep our job) we become socialized into the

cluster of unspoken af 1047297nities and associations that such signs iconically express Our ten-

dency to ironize this is precisely an attempt to cover up this process of subtle socialization

48 M Konings



the ironic stance does not protect us from the tendency to develop organic af 1047297nities to hege-

mony but precisely allows it to proceed

At work here is a logic that has recently been identi1047297ed as lsquonudgingrsquo (Thaler and Sun-

stein 2008) In the aftermath of the 1047297nancial crisis numerous stories about people having

entered into contractual arrangements they did not understand meant that the issue of 1047297nan-

cial advice for ordinary people rose to the top of the political agenda Prominent behavioral

economist Robert Shiller (2008 126) proposed that all citizens be assigned their own Suze

Orman but this dystopian vision of a disciplinary apparatus of 1047297nancial advice was dis-

tinctly unfeasible owing to the obvious logistical dif 1047297culties and prohibitive costs

Thaler and Sunstein pointed out that it was not necessary to put people under the personal

tutelage of 1047297nancial advisers in order to get them to act in more desirable ways all that is

required is a nudge in the right direction a subtle hint a kind invitation Nudge theory

which has gained considerable in1047298uence in the upper regions of the Obama administration

holds out the promise that all hegemony has to do is to set subjects on the right path to get

them to engage the loop somewhere Once they do so the subtle process of performative

socialization is likely to take care of the rest with subjects themselves activating af 1047297nitiesthat they may not even be aware of having tapping into their muscle memory to 1047297nd the

appropriate performances Nudging works because it can leverage off an existing affective

structure And this provides a useful indication of where the limits to hegemonyrsquos accep-

tance of cynicism and disaffection lie the rejection of and resistance to neoliberal insti-

tutions tend to be considered acceptable as long as we do not turn away altogether and

remain receptive to lsquonudgingrsquo After all the benevolent logic of nudging can be hard to

resist we quite quickly feel rude rejecting kind gestures offered by people trying to help

us Most of us reach a point sooner or later where we feel that further stonewalling is point-

less even distasteful we forego opportunities in life and our tenacity appears not as ideal-

istic commitment but as nihilistic negativity When we 1047297nally subscribe to some variety of cruel optimism we may well continue to sense that something is amiss it rsquos just that we

donrsquot know how to do something productive with it

Conclusion

Progressive political perspectives have traditionally thought of anxiety and discontent as

points of leverage for transformative projects One reason the capitalism-as-leveller critique

has proved so enduring is that it accounts for such sentiments in a way that is plausible and

accessible and so holds out the prospect of a productive political engagement This essay

has sought to highlight the central importance of the paradoxical logic of wounded attach-ments in the way we relate to capitalismrsquos core organizing signs the fact that modern sub-

jects are often disposed to respond to the deleterious effects of power through the active

elaboration of its strange loops The way in which neoliberal capitalism has fully leveraged

this narcissistic logic means that progressive critiques of capitalismrsquos corrosive effects are

less and less effective Neoliberal discourses themselves already offer a much more power-

ful critique of whatever tendency we display to sink into anomie or disaffection Whatever

we intend to express when we lament the decline of civic virtue and the rise of individual-

ism the traction that this critique 1047297nds will be on terms already established and conse-

quently the objective meaning and practical political valences of such narratives will be

quite different The continuous reversion to a capitalism-as-leveller narrative is like an

attempt to disavow things that we experientially know about our relation to capitalist

1047297nance in order to gain some traction adopting on an lsquoas if rsquo basis some of the terms of

hegemonic discourse in order to get a hearing What happens in this way is never what




the social-democratic mind-set hopes for the position we pick does not represent a stable

point of compromise but is a point of entry into an affective dynamic that reshapes our

orientation in subtle but highly consequential ways Discursive traction is gained only by

actually playing the game of power and becoming emotionally attuned to its modalities

and it is this very dynamic that in1047298ects our meanings around hegemonic signs That the

engagement of hegemony has a way of boomeranging to undermine the very gains we

thought we made is hardly an abstract point progressive political projects have become

caught up in a game whereby they make ever greater concessions for ever smaller gains

If the affective structure of iconicity is characterized by a paradoxical suction power it

also creates particular distinctly modern opportunities While the icon is set up to publicly

1047297gure our subjective attachments in idealized form it can be made to show up its negative

moment to put on public display its lack of coherence the anxiety that pervades it

(Delpech-Ramey 2007) It is this possibility that is exploited by the growing lsquofake newsrsquo

industry (The Daily Show The Colbert Report The Onion etc) which specializes in bring-

ing out the absurdities at work in the neoliberal public sphere highlighting the things we

sense or know but usually cannot or will not articulate (Reilly 2013) This offers no guar-antees (Jacobs and Wild 2013) and there is always the possibility that it may become yet

another platform for the kind of ironization that permits our hegemonic socialization to

proceed But by widening the 1047297eld of political possibilities it opens up the possibility of

a spectacle that engages us not because it plays on our sadomasochistic af 1047297nities to

power but because it plays on our unease with it creating new points of leverage and oppor-

tunities to exert transformative effects on the structure of our af 1047297nities This is perhaps

where the signi1047297cance of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement lies Instead of allow-

ing disillusionment and anger to engender a logic of wounded attachments and cruel opti-

mism it has sought disengagement The strength of OWS is precisely what so many

commentators (progressives and conservatives alike) have dismissed or condemned as itsweakness the refusal to articulate a program of positive demands or to appoint leaders

that might do so on its behalf It purposely resists the invitation of the nudge denying hege-

mony the opening that it seeks and needs It bluntly declares that it is not interested in a seat

at the negotiating table in participating in public fantasizing about a more civilized form of

capitalism This disrupts the performative logic on which hegemonic socialization operates

(WJT Mitchell 2012 uncertain commons 2013) OWS simply occupies demanding space

to stage its own experimental performances forging new 1047297gures and associations If such

creation of novelty is an inherently fragile affair it has nonetheless posed a far more serious

challenge to the logic of 1047297nance capital than any number of demands for and promises of

institutional reform

Acknowledgement

For very helpful feedback on various earlier versions of this manuscript I would like to thank MelindaCooper Paul Crosthwaite Gavin Fridell Lawrence Grossberg and Randy Martin The useful com-ments of two anonymous reviewers are also gratefully acknowledged

Notes

1 I am here following Ahmedrsquos (2010 230) suggestion that we should not drive a wedge between

the notions of affect and emotion2 In a sense I am following here the shift from a Foucaultian emphasis on discursive lsquodisciplinersquo to

a Deleuzian (1992) notion of affective lsquocontrolrsquo Elaborations of the control concept howeverhave tended to reproduce problems associated with the idea of disciplinary power On such

50 M Konings



readings control appears as an intensi1047297ed more effective and thoroughgoing form of disciplineequipped with feedback mechanisms that permit full interiorization (eg Elmer 2003 Hanan2010) Something similar is at work in the ease with which Foucaultian theorists such asRose (1999) have incorporated the control concept into their work on governance throughrisk Such approaches see capitalist subjects as exercising their freedoms by adopting calculativeorientations and techniques that render their behavior statistically predictable and consistent withcapitalist governance (Isin 2004 222) In this way they too easily qualify the performativefreedom permitted by (neo)liberalism as lsquofreedomrsquo a form of individuation that is not entirelyreal because it occurs within and is conditioned by the disciplinary effects of capitalist governance

3 Peck (2008 195) quotes Oprah as follows lsquoHow many of you understand now that your thoughtscreate reality Does everybody get that You really do get that That you have the life you haveright now because of everything you thought and then said and then did You get that All rightSo that also works with money You have it or you don rsquot have it based upon the way you think about it rsquo

Notes on contributorMartijn Konings is a Senior Lecturer and Australian Research Council DECRA Fellow in the Depart-ment of Political Economy at the University of Sydney He is the author of The Development of Amer-ican Finance and is currently working on two studies one on the semiotics of 1047297nancial life andanother on the role of the American central bank in governing contemporary capitalism

References

Ahmed S 2004 Affective economies Social Text 22 no 2 117 ndash 139Ahmed S 2010 The promise of happiness Durham Duke University PressAldred L 2002 lsquoMoney is just spiritual energyrsquo Incorporating the new age Journal of Popular

Culture 35 no 4 61 ndash

71Alexander JC 2008 Iconic consciousness The material feeling of meaning Environment and Planning D Society and Space 26 no 5 782 ndash 94

Bennett J 2001 The enchantment of modern life Attachments crossings and ethics PrincetonPrinceton University Press

Berlant L 1997 The Queen of America goes to Washington City Essays on sex and citizenship Durham Duke University Press

Berlant L 2006 Cruel optimism Differences 17 no 3 20 ndash 36Boltanski L and E Chiapello 2007 The new spirit of capitalism London VersoBork H 1997 Slouching towards Gomorrah Modern liberalism and American decline New York

Regan BooksBraidotti R 2007 Bio-power and necro-politics Springerin 2 18 ndash 23Brown W 1995 States of injury Power and freedom in late modernity Princeton Princeton

University PressButler J 2010 Performative agency Journal of Cultural Economy 3 no 2 147 ndash 161Callon M 1986 Some elements of a sociology of translation Domestication of the scallops and the

1047297shermen of St Brieuc Bay In Power action and belief A new sociology of knowledge ed JLaw London Routledge 196 ndash 223

Chancer LS 1992 Sadomasochism in everyday life The dynamics of power and powerlessness New Brunswick NJ Rutgers University Press

Chidester D 2005 Authentic fakes Religion and American popular culture Berkeley University of California Press

Clough PT 2008 The affective turn Political economy biomedia and bodies Theory Culture and Society 25 no 1 1 ndash 22

Cooley CH 1899 Personal competition Its place in the social order and effect upon individuals

with some considerations on success Economic Studies 4 no 2 163 ndash 226Cooper M 2009 Life as surplus Seattle University of Washington PressCrosthwaite P 2010 Blood on the trading 1047298oor Angelaki 15 no 2 3 ndash 18Dean J 2009 Democracy and other neoliberal fantasies Durham Duke University Press




Dean M 1999 Governmentality Power and rule in modern society London SageDecker JL 1997 Made in America Self-styled success from Horatio Alger to Oprah Winfrey

Minneapolis University of Minnesota PressDeleuze G 1992 Postscript on the societies of control October 59 3 ndash 7Delpech-Ramey J 2007 The idol as icon Angelaki 12 no 1 87 ndash 96Elmer G 2003 A diagram of panoptic surveillance New Media and Society 5 no 2 231 ndash 247Foster H 1996 Death in America October 75 36 ndash 59Fromm E 1941 Escape from freedom New York Henry HoltFromm E 1955 The sane society New York Henry HoltFromm E 1973 The anatomy of human destructiveness New York Henry HoltFromm E [1976] 2007 To have or to be New York ContinuumGhosh B 2011 Global icons Apertures to the popular Durham Duke University PressGrossberg L 2011 Cultural studies in the future tense Durham Duke University PressHanan JS 2010 Home is where the capital is The culture of real estate in an era of control societies

Communication and CriticalCultural Studies 7 no 2 176 ndash 201Harvey D 2000 Spaces of hope Berkeley California University PressHeacutenaff M 2010 The price of truth Gift money and philosophy Stanford Stanford University PressHofstadter D 2007 I am a strange loop New York Basic Books

Isin EF 2004 The neurotic citizen Citizenship Studies 8 no 3 217 ndash 235Jacobs RN and NM Wild 2013 A cultural sociology of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report

American Journal of Cultural Sociology 1 no 1 69 ndash 95Kaag J 2009 Getting under my skin William James on the emotions sociality and transcendence

Zygon 44 no 2 433 ndash 450Konings M 2009 Rethinking Neoliberalism and the Subprime Crisis Beyond the Re-regulation

Agenda Competition and Change 13 no 2 109 ndash 128Konings M 2011 Money as Icon Theory and Event 14 no 3Konings M 2012 Imagined Double Movements Progressive Thought and the Specter of Neoliberal

Populism Globalizations 9 no 4 609 ndash 622Lasch C 1979 The culture of narcissism New York WW NortonLazzarato M 2004 From capital-labour to capital-life Ephemera 4 no 3 187 ndash 208

Lofton K 2006 Practicing Oprah or the prescriptive compulsion of a spiritual capitalism Journal of Popular Culture 39 no 4 599 ndash 621

Martin R 2002 Financialization of daily life Philadelphia Temple University PressMartin R 2007 An empire of indifference American war and the 1047297nancial logic of risk management

Durham Duke University PressMassumi B 2002 Parables for the virtual Movement affect sensation Durham Duke University

PressMcCarraher E 2005 The enchantment of mammon Notes toward a theological history of capitalism

Modern Theology 21 no 3 429 ndash 61McCarthy A 2007 Reality television A neoliberal theater of suffering Social Text 25 no 4

17 ndash 41McGee M 2005 Self-Help Inc Makeover culture in American life Oxford Oxford University Press

McManus S 2011 Hope fear and the politics of affective agency Theory and Event 14 no 4Mead GH 1934 Mind self and society Chicago University of Chicago PressMestrovic S 2003 Thorstein Veblen on culture and society London SageMiller P and N Rose 2008 Governing the present Administering economic social and political

life Cambridge PolityMitchell J 1998 Neurosis and the historic quest for security A social-role analysis Philosophy

Psychiatry and Psychology 5 no 4 317 ndash 328Mitchell WJT 2012 Image space revolution The arts of occupation Critical Inquiry 39 no 1

8 ndash 32Mondzain M-J 2005 Image icon economy The Byzantine origins of the contemporary imaginary

Stanford Stanford University Press Nadesan MH 2008 Governmentality biopower and everyday life London RoutledgeOrman S 1999 The courage to be rich Creating a life of material and spiritual abundance

New York Riverhead BooksPeck J 2008 The age of Oprah Cultural icon for the neoliberal era Boulder ParadigmPentcheva BV 2006 The performative icon The Art Bulletin 88 no 4 631 ndash 655

52 M Konings



Putnam R 2000 Bowling alone The collapse and revival of American community New York Simonamp Schuster

Reilly I 2013 From critique to mobilization The Yes Men and the utopian politics of satirical fakenews International Journal of Communication 7 1243 ndash 1264

Riesman R 1950 The lonely crowd New Haven Yale University PressRimke HM 2000 Governing citizens through self-help literature Cultural Studies 14 no 1 61 ndash 78Rose N 1999 Powers of freedom Reframing political thought Cambridge Cambridge University

PressShamir R 2008 The age of responsibilization On market-embedded morality Economy and Society

37 no 1 1 ndash 19Shiller R 2008 The subprime solution Princeton Princeton University PressSloterdijk P 1987 Critique of cynical reason London VersoThaler RH and CR Sunstein 2008 Nudge Improving decisions about wealth wealth and happi-

ness New Haven Yale University PressTie W 2004 The psychic life of governmentality Culture Theory amp Critique 45 no 2 161 ndash 176Tillich P [1952] 2000 The courage to be New Haven Yale University Pressuncertain commons 2013 Speculate this Durham Duke University PressVatter M 2009 Biopolitics From surplus value to surplus life Theory amp Event 12 no 2

Veblen T [1899] 2007 The theory of the leisure class Oxford Oxford University PressVenn C 2010 Individuation relationality affect Rethinking the human in relation to the living Body

and Society 16 no 1 129 ndash 161Vrasti W 2011 lsquoCaringrsquo capitalism and the duplicity of critique Theory and Event 14 no 4Watson S 1999 Policing the affective society Beyond governmentality in the theory of social

control Social Legal Studies 8 no 2 227 ndash 251Zizek S 1989 The sublime object of ideology London Verso




Conditions of access and use can be found at httpwwwtandfonlinecompageterms-and-conditions



RESEARCH ARTICLE

Financial affect

Martijn Konings








Introduction

































































38 M Konings
































































































40 M Konings
























































sentimentality

























Icon and affect















42 M Konings






misery






















in its anxiety






































































44 M Konings




















Neoliberal affect














of lsquo






































connectedness

























46 M Konings



























































































48 M Konings





























Conclusion























































Acknowledgement


Notes




50 M Konings






References






































52 M Konings















RESEARCH ARTICLE

Financial affect

Martijn Konings








Introduction

































































38 M Konings
































































































40 M Konings
























































sentimentality

























Icon and affect















42 M Konings






misery






















in its anxiety






































































44 M Konings




















Neoliberal affect














of lsquo






































connectedness

























46 M Konings



























































































48 M Konings





























Conclusion























































Acknowledgement


Notes




50 M Konings






References






































52 M Konings





























































38 M Konings
































































































40 M Konings
























































sentimentality

























Icon and affect















42 M Konings






misery






















in its anxiety






































































44 M Konings




















Neoliberal affect














of lsquo






































connectedness

























46 M Konings



























































































48 M Konings





























Conclusion























































Acknowledgement


Notes




50 M Konings






References






































52 M Konings












































































































40 M Konings
























































sentimentality

























Icon and affect















42 M Konings






misery






















in its anxiety






































































44 M Konings




















Neoliberal affect














of lsquo






































connectedness

























46 M Konings



























































































48 M Konings





























Conclusion























































Acknowledgement


Notes




50 M Konings






References






































52 M Konings




































































sentimentality

























Icon and affect















42 M Konings






misery






















in its anxiety






































































44 M Konings




















Neoliberal affect














of lsquo






































connectedness

























46 M Konings



























































































48 M Konings





























Conclusion























































Acknowledgement


Notes




50 M Konings






References






































52 M Konings


















misery






















in its anxiety






































































44 M Konings




















Neoliberal affect














of lsquo






































connectedness

























46 M Konings



























































































48 M Konings





























Conclusion























































Acknowledgement


Notes




50 M Konings






References






































52 M Konings





























































44 M Konings




















Neoliberal affect














of lsquo






































connectedness

























46 M Konings



























































































48 M Konings





























Conclusion























































Acknowledgement


Notes




50 M Konings






References






































52 M Konings
































Neoliberal affect














of lsquo






































connectedness

























46 M Konings



























































































48 M Konings





























Conclusion























































Acknowledgement


Notes




50 M Konings






References






































52 M Konings




































connectedness

























46 M Konings



























































































48 M Konings





























Conclusion























































Acknowledgement


Notes




50 M Konings






References






































52 M Konings







































































































48 M Konings





























Conclusion























































Acknowledgement


Notes




50 M Konings






References






































52 M Konings









































Conclusion























































Acknowledgement


Notes




50 M Konings






References






































52 M Konings

















































Acknowledgement


Notes




50 M Konings






References






































52 M Konings


















References






































52 M Konings



































52 M Konings













konings2014 - financial affect.pdf

Documents