I recently watched the documentary afro-punk about the experiences of black punks. In the film, black men and women recount how they got into the scene, confronted its near-total whiteness, and used it to both exist in a fucked up system and push back on the erasure of their blackness. At the same time that it perfectly captures the punk/hardcore scene I grew up in during the 90s, it exposes the major blind spots that whiteness produces even when it places anti-racism and social justice near its center. Continue reading
I concluded part 2 in this series of posts on Fred Block and Margaret Somers’ The Power of Market Fundamentalism with several questions about the meaning of local in Polanyi’s global-national-local analytical framework. It seems that Polanyi is not so much focused on the local in any spatial or place-based sense but rather on the social sub-units that comprise groups interested in particular forms of protection from the market. This is significant, I believe, because of Block and Somers’ argument (one that I find convincing and important to this point) that not only Polanyi’s analytical framework but also the political-economic mechanisms that he identified (most importantly, the gold standard, which today’s system of international capital controls resembles) are useful for understanding the contemporary crisis we face today. However, the significance of the local today appears more consistent with the 15th century, when city-states ruled the European landscape, than the 19th century, when the nation-state form came to prominence. At the same time, today’s quasi-city-states resemble other metropolises around the globe to a far greater degree than neighboring places that are less integrated into this global urban network. And although they are networked, as Richard Sennett notes there is a tendency to think of these cities in terms of autonomy, approaching them as self-shaping entities. Of course, this strand of thought was present in the work of sociologists like Max Weber during the 19th century, but the structure of the city has changed in important ways since then. And, as Sennett argues, it must (and inevitably will) change again as global problems such as climate change alter the systems that underlie the illusion of autonomy (in this way, the autonomous city-state idea resembles the idea of the autonomous free-market).
If Polanyi’s use of the local suggests some spatial-analytical confusion in his work (and I’m not sure that it does), it is not the only point of confusion. In chapter three, “Karl Polanyi and the Writing of The Great Transformation,” Block and Somers take up the complicated relationships that Polanyi’s work has to both Marxism and economic liberalism. Continue reading
Chapter 2, “Beyond the Economistic Fallacy,” is largely focused on Polanyi’s argument that markets are embedded in specific institutional arrangements. The emergence of a distinctly market society in the nineteenth century was a consequence of political acts. And the countermovements by groups seeking protection, along with the state’s role as a universal source of support for both countermovements and free market advocates, contributed to the volatility and breakdown of social systems in the early- and mid-twentieth century. The chapter moves through Polanyi’s historical argument before describing the conceptual tools and methodological approaches that he employed to such great effect. In the paragraphs that follow, I summarize the main points of discussion before concluding briefly with some questions about the meaning of the local in Polanyi’s work and how this might affect using Polanyi today.
The Speenhamland Act of 1795 illustrated for Polanyi the way in which the existence of markets was transformed into a market society. Continue reading