Suchergebnisse

Rad smjera pokazati značaj i relevantnost poststrukturalnog pogleda na ekonomiju kako trasiranjem sada već općih konceptualnih mjesta tog pristupa tako i prakticiranjem te teorijske pozicije u konkretnoj analizi zaduženosti financijskog sustava. Kratkotrajna i lokalizirana, ali značajna tradicija poststrukturalnog problematiziranja kategorije ekonomije ovdje se prezentira preko tri ključne discipline – governmentality studies, ekonomske sociologije i međunarodne političke ekonomije. Nakon opisa dometa i ograničenja tih disciplina ulazimo u drugi dio rada gdje analiziramo aparaturu standardifikacije i validacije kreditnog rizika kod banaka, točnije Basel kapitalne uvjete i prakse sekuritizacije. Pružanjem genealogije tih tehnika interpretiramo domenu financija kao diskurzivni prostor (re)artikuliran preko skupa normaliziranih mehanizama i praksi koji zajednički tvore racionalnost vladanja. Na taj način ukazujemo na važnost performativnih, simboličkih, relacijskih, decentriranih i kontingentnih momenata u kritičkom poimanju (financijske) ekonomije, odnosno pokazujemo da kritika ekonomije ne mora nužno biti organizirana i provedena kroz matricu kapital – klasa – ideologija. ; This paper aims to demonstrate the significance and relevance of the poststructural gaze towards the economy by both tracing the conceptual commonplaces of this approach as well as practicing this theoretical position in the concrete analysis of indebtedness of the financial system. A brief and localized, but nonetheless significant tradition of the poststructural problematizing of the category of economy is here presented through three key disciplines: governmentality studies, economic sociology and international political economy. After portraying the contributions and limitations of those disciplines, the second part of the paper analyzes the apparatus of standardification and validification of credit risk within banks, namely the Basel Capital Accord and practices of securitisation. By offering a genealogy of those techniques, we interpret finance as a discursive space (re)articulated through an aggregate of normalized mechanisms and practices which collectively form a rationality of governance. In this way, we point out the importance of performative, symbolic, relational, decentered and contingent moments in the critical conception of (financial) economy, as well as show that the critique of economy does not necessarily have to be organized and conducted through the capital – class – ideology matrix.

Autorica u tekstu polazi od premise da je politički subjekt neoliberalizma, vladajuće političke racionalnosti, individua koja se može okarakterizirati kao isključivi i nepodijeljeni posjednik samog sebe. Preispitivanjem tropa ne/ovisnosti razlažu se pretpostavke koje su uključene u pojam individue, a potom se, analizom konteksta njegove upotrebe u 19. stoljeću, pokazuje da je on bremenit genealogijama koje ograničavaju njegovu političku upotrebljivost u 21. stoljeću. Misliti protiv neoliberalizma zahtijeva napuštanje ideje individue kao suverenog vlasnika koji vlada sobom. Promišljanje alternativnog političkog horizonta, traganje za homo politicus-om koji se uistinu razlikuje od homo oeconomicus-a, iziskuje napuštanje političkog mišljenja koje polazi od pojedinca. ; The text is based on two premises. The first is that we live in the times of neoliberalism, and the second is that the political subject of neoliberalism is the individual, the "one" qualified as indivisible, independent, sole owner of one's self. To define what an individual is, I will revisit several 19th-century claims which at the same time posit individual as an empty universal – anyone qualifies for entitlement of an individual – and reveal it as profoundly exclusionary – as the holder of entitlements. I will claim that the indivisibility of an individual is also the basis for its understanding as sovereign and self-actualized. Liberal politicization of a sovereign possessor of interests introduces not only homo oeconomicus, but it also integrates economic mode of governmentality into the sphere of the political, it becoming a space of incessant play of exclusions and inclusions. If another kind of political imaginary is to be developed, I argue we need to distance ourselves from the figure of the individual, bearing in mind that homo oeconomicus triumphs today as the exhaustive figure of the human, amidst the patently unequal distribution not only of precarity but also of vulnerability. Critical engagement with neoliberalism assumes engaging with the political centrality of a figure of an agentic individual.