Conversation
with…Bill Maurer
Lauren
Tooker (University
of Warwick)
Professor
Bill Maurer is a renowned cultural anthropologist who conducts research
on law,
property, money and finance, focusing on the technological
infrastructures and
social relations of exchange and payment. Professor Maurer graduated
from
Stanford University in 1994 with a PhD in Anthropology. He moved to UC
Irvine
in 1996 as Assistant Professor, going on to become Chair of UC
Irvine’s
Department of Anthropology (2005-2011) and Associate Dean for Research
and
Graduate Studies in the Social Sciences (2011-2013). In July 2013 he
assumed
his current role as Dean of UC Irvine’s School of Social
Sciences. Professor
Maurer has published on topics ranging from offshore financial services
to mobile
phone-enabled money transfers, Islamic finance, alternative currencies,
and the
future of money. He is founding director of the Institute for Money,
Technology
and Financial Inclusion, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation, and
was the founding co-director of the Intel Science and Technology Center
in
Social Computing. He is the editor of six collections, as well as the
author of
Recharting
the
Caribbean: Land, Law and Citizenship in the British Virgin Islands (1997), Pious Property: Islamic
Mortgages in the United States (2006),
and Mutual Life, Limited: Islamic Banking, Alternative Currencies,
Lateral
Reason (2005). The latter received the
Victor Turner Prize in 2005. Professor Maurer visited the University of
Warwick
in September 2014 under the auspices of Warwick’s Global
Governance GRP.
Adventures
in money and payments
The eighteenth century was
a time of experimentation
in novel money forms such as the banknote, but it was also a time when
the novel
itself became a means of experimenting with understandings of the money
form. The Adventures of a Rupee (1782), for
instance, which Professor Maurer touched upon during his recent lecture
at
Warwick, examines money’s circulation from the rupee’s
point of view. As it
passes from hand to hand, the rupee is afforded an intimate vantage
point on the
social relations of money; it elaborates what artist and scholar Emily
Rosamond
(2014) terms a form of ‘first person economy’.
A conversation with
Professor Maurer has
something of the quality of an adventure in first person economy. One
comes into
intimate contact with the infrastructures and informants of the world
of money,
payments and finance –seeing this world from their vantage point,
anew. Yet in
the tradition of the very best anthropology, Maurer never fails to
place this first
person economy view within a broader vista. Maurer’s pragmatic
anthropological method
is rooted in a deep empiricism that takes seriously the rich detail of
what
people and practices do, while meditating
on the wider political, social and historical significance of these
doings.
The result of this
distinctive method
is the kind of effect that Wittgenstein terms ‘aspect
dawning’: the gestalt switch
that occurs when an unnoticed aspect of an image or object dawns on us.
‘I see that it has not changed; and yet I
see it differently’ (Wittgenstein, [1953]1999), pt. II,
§193). Maurer is renowned
for the aspect dawning that his work has produced in the study of
money,
finance, law and property. In his acclaimed Mutual
Life, Limited: Islamic Banking, Alternative Currencies, Lateral Reason,
for
instance, Maurer brings together Islamic finance and the alternative
currency
Ithaca HOURS to show how monetary ‘alternatives’ are
inextricably bound up with
the ‘dominant’, but also how ethnography itself is
prefigured and pre-empted by
the reflexivity of experiments in alternatives. The relationship
between
alternative and dominant, and between ethnographer and informant, dawns
on us
as less a matter of inside versus outside than a constant shuttling
back and
forth, ‘an alternation in phase over time’ (Maurer 2008:
69).
At Warwick, Maurer treated
his
audience to an account of his most recent adventuring, as he explored
two
contemporary experiments in peer-to-peer economies: the so-called
‘sharing
economy’ and Bitcoin. On the morning of his Warwick lecture, I
sat down with
Professor Maurer to explore his academic trajectory and current
research. The
result is an adventure in three parts. Part one, first
– person – economy, explores the lineages of
Maurer’s work
and his distinctive pragmatic method; part two, payments
– publics – politics, examines Maurer’s current
collaborative
research on digital payments; while part three, alternation
– occupation – provocation gathers Maurer’s
thoughts on
economic and financial ‘alternatives’ and on future
directions for the study of
money, finance and economy.
First
– person – economy
LT: I’m wary of asking someone who
punctures originary myths about money and finance to recount his
origins and
background, but I would be interested to know what led to your
incarnation as
an anthropologist.
BM: Well, I had no idea
that anthropology
existed as a field when I was in school. In college, I intended to be a
doctor
because everybody is supposed to be a doctor and I had been really good
in
science in high school. In my first year of college I took all biology
and
chemistry and loved it, but then in the first term of my second year I
had room
for one elective and I didn’t know what to take. I went to the
bookstore and I
just started at the very beginning. I went to the books that were
arranged by
course subject and anthropology was first!
LT: A-A-A! [for anthropology]
BM: I actually got
completely lost in
the bookstore in that section for a while. I remember very distinctly
just
sitting on the ground, looking at all these books and thinking
‘oh my gosh’,
what is this field, this is really interesting! This was in 1986.There
was a
course being offered called ‘Peoples of the Soviet Union’.
The idea that there
was something different going on besides the Soviet façade that
we all saw was
really quite compelling for me as someone from the middle of the United
States
who just got the nightly news and ideology in the way we were all
supposed to.
So I enrolled in this class. It was taught by a very colourful man
– Walter
Fairservis, Jr. was his name, he’s now passed away – and
his strategy of
teaching [this class] was to have us read Stanislavski’s An Actor Prepares. So first, I’m blown away by the
discovery of
this field and then I’m blown away by the whole idea that there
are the peoples
of the Soviet Union who are not just Soviet. And then there’s
this professor
who’s making us read method acting. His idea was that
Stanislavski was trying
to teach Russians how to act Russian, and that this required them to
externalise all of their presupposed cultural knowledge and practical
knowledge
of what it is to be a human being – to objectify that,
externalise it and
portray it so that Russians watching Russians play Russians would find
it a believable
thing. And that was it: I was down the rabbit hole. The next term, I
dropped
all of my bio and chem except for one class. Everything else was
anthropology.
And so that’s how that started. But you know you can always
create these
post-hoc stories…
LT: What would have happened if you
had started at the other end of the bookstore and happened to end up in
Zoology!
Reading your work I have the impression that you could have ended up in
many fields.
I can see you in, say, philosophy – American pragmatism, or maybe
even ordinary
language philosophy; equally, in mathematics. It’s interesting to
hear the
contingency to it.
BM: Those strands in my
work are born
out of specific instances of resistance and rebellion. The diving into
mathematics came about because the department into which I was hired at
UC
Irvine, the anthropology department, had made a name for itself in
something
called quantitative cultural anthropology. It was a small focused
subfield that
was trying to ask, what can we do with new statistical techniques that
computers are making possible (this was in the 70s and 80s), with
comparative
cultural data? There was a real struggle going on when I first arrived
between
that vision and folks who were trying to re-tool the department for
where the
field was then and where it was moving. And I felt that rather than
coming at
it from the post-modernist ‘whatever’ and ‘this is
all stupid and math is dumb’,
I should learn some of the techniques and learn where they were coming
from and
get inside of it. And then you discover this really interesting world,
so even
as we were moving the department away from that I was getting steeped
in it, to
the point where two years ago I taught graduate-level statistics to our
students. I taught it so they learned how to do things but we also read
the
history and philosophy of statistics along side of that, so that they
would
understand what was going on when R-squared was being devised.
And with the philosophy,
literature
and classics things that find their way into my work, well that’s
just out of a
commitment to keeping bits of the university alive, and to
demonstrating that
these things are actually really meaningful and relevant and can speak
to
questions of finance, or money, or banking, or whatever, or are already
in those fields, the questions are
already there. There was one specific thing: in one of my very first
years of
teaching, I was assigned to teach a class called ‘origins of
global
interdependence’. The folks who had written the curriculum wanted
it to be evolutionary
game theory, where the idea would be that the anthropologist –
that would be me
– would teach students how it is that people who naturally are
mistrustful of
one another and live in a competitive environment would come to live in
groups
– why would everyone be willing to give up their freedom to live
in groups? – and
I thought this was just silly. So while I did do the kind of
‘bands, tribes,
chiefdoms, states’ kind of thing that we anthropologists do, I
did it by pivoting
around the feudal transition and taught King
Lear in order to do that, to get the fall of the divine kingship
and rise
of a new order. And there was push-back, there were people who asked
‘what is
he doing teaching humanities content in a social science class?’
but it just seemed
like the right thing to do.
LT: That’s
interesting, because in
your book Mutual Life, Limited, you
make reference to the idea that modern money with its commensuration
function
is something that – and you borrow Marx’s words
–‘makes impossibilities
fraternize’ (Marx [1844] 1997: 110, as cited in Maurer 2005:
112). I think
what’s deeply appealing about your work is that it makes seeming
impossibilities
fraternise through playful juxtaposition. We don’t expect to find
knitting and
finance together; we don’t expect to find medieval tolls and
cutting edge payment
technologies together; we don’t expect to hear King Lear and
Cordelia in
conversation with Islamic mutual funds, do we? And I guess my question
is: is
this juxtaposition a personal, idiosyncratic thing– you’ve
already linked it to
a normative goal of keeping certain things alive–or do you think
that it’s actually
central to the anthropological method at its best?
BM: Well, I think it is
central to my anthropological method. The thing is,
when you actually stop and listen to people often you’ll find
that they are
doing that playful juxtapositioning. Usually we ignore it or let it
slip by but
so many of the people that I’ve done fieldwork with are folks who
themselves
are searching for other ways of thinking about money and finance, and
when they
start on that journey they discover all of the same kinds of things
that I’m
discovering. So many of the things that wind up in my work are things
that my
informants, so to speak, have suggested to me. I wrote a grant proposal
trying
to put together Ithaca HOURS and Islamic banking. And lo-and-behold in
one of my
very first interviews, Yahia Abdul-Rahman – I can reveal his
name, I believe, given
his stature – actually says to me: have you ever heard of this
Ithaca HOURS
thing? Surely it is one of my idiosyncrasies but also I’m trying
to be very
deeply attuned to the world around me. I think of this in connection to
pragmatism as well.
LT: Great, please go into that.
BM: I think of pragmatism
as a really
serious commitment to empiricism, in a scary old-school sense of, you
know, the
world is extremely messy and it’s mostly noise and how do we give
a rich
account of that that’s true to it? I think that the conventional
representational
impulse of anthropology, even after the critique of representation, is
one that
even though it’s searching for a kind of adequacy to the world
basically does a
whole lot of cleaning up in order to get there. It’s especially
the case in the
domain of political economy, which still wants to slot things into
familiar
narratives of transition or disruption or the inevitable march of
dispossession
and accumulation, and that just laughs off all of the other stuff
that’s
happening that’s so interesting and that may be where the action
is. I’ve
always been very inspired by J.K. Gibson-Graham and the metaphor of the
economic iceberg, where all we see is the tip of the iceberg –
wage labour and
accumulation of capital – but underneath there’s this
gigantic thing. I think
that insight applies not just to ‘the economy’, but to
pretty much all aspects
of the world.
And for me, the tools of
early
anthropology, in terms of Boas and Benedict, but also American
pragmatism, helped
me to think through the way that people aren’t necessarily
– and it doesn’t
have to be people but any kind of agent –orienting themselves to
a known world,
in a way where they can know what their interests are and go about
fulfilling
them or meeting them. They are instead oriented to a world where there
are
always just-so approximations and they’re always kind of
making-do and muddling
through and attempting to hit a target but without any kind of
understanding
that they will hit that bull’s eye, that there is actually a
bull’s eye there that
they’re going to get to. So I found that cluster of ways of
thinking about
action from pragmatism or Deleuze very, very useful. I’ve also
found it useful
to continue to push back against the deep investment in structuralisms
and
poststructuralisms in anthropology because those things are so meaning,
meaning,
meaning oriented, which means that practically in terms of fieldwork
what
people do is they interview people and then they read what people said
and then
they talk about what it means, and it’s like ‘what were
they doing when they were saying this?’, or
just that classic old Malinowski point that people say a whole lot of
stuff and
do other things. What they say and what they do, and what they say they
do, don’t
necessarily all align and if you’re only attending to meaning,
you’re going to
miss all of that.
Payments
– publics – politics
LT: I would like to move to
what you’re
working on now and why you’re at Warwick giving a talk on closed
payment communities
and the public good. What draws you to this area? A lot of people might
say that
payments are really quite banal, quotidian stuff. Why does this topic
matter?
BM: I came into this whole
field of
payment infrastructure by accident. I had been doing my work in money
and
finance and one day someone knocked on my door. It was Scott
Mainwaring, who
used to work at Intel. He introduced himself and said that he was
thinking
about digital payments and he had read my anthropology of money review
essay
and wanted to talk to me about it. And that led to a collaboration that
continues. We ended up planning a conference where we brought together
a bunch
of people who were thinking about digital money and electronic
payments,
including some folks from the Gates Foundation who at that conference
announced
that they were going to be funding the institute that I direct
that’s looking
at the spread of mobile phone enabled payments systems in the
developing world.
So very quickly all of this came together. Scott and I were asking
questions
that we felt were not being asked in the electronic money world,
namely, is
electronic money all about security and electronic encryption–
which is what
everybody was saying – and we were saying ‘no’. If we
believe everything we’ve
written and read about money –if we’ve read our Jane Guyer,
our Viviana Zelizer
and our Keith Hart – then we know that money is always carrying
other kinds of
meaning and doing other kinds of work. So what other kinds of work is
money
already doing in these digital networks, what other kinds of work is
almost
being forced on it as it’s being channelled through new private
infrastructures?
And then what are people doing? How
are people hacking and remaking or personalising these things?
All of us stumbled into the
payments
field around the same time and then a whole host of problems hit us in
the
face. They’re problems that people have done before, when Visa
and Mastercard
were being established, or when Diners Club was established before
them, but
they took on a new urgency because the mobile phone was spreading so
quickly
and mobile money seemed to be taking off in a number of places so
forcefully
and particularly among very vulnerable people. There were all of the
questions
about things like interchange fees that cut into the transactions or
things
like interoperability between systems, which in the States and in
Europe had
been regulated. For me this opened up the whole question of payment as
a public
good and led me to dig back into the history of the establishment of
currency
itself as a kind of public good. It’s odd to think about this but
money is a
kind of public infrastructure that allows people to do other kinds of
things
that we call the economy. Since the nineteenth century, it’s been
seen primarily
as a function of the state to provide this mechanism of exchange and
payment so
that then you get the spill-over effects of the economy. Yet here we
have so
many instances where companies and other entities are trying to close
off bits
of it, or to get people’s transactions within a closed loop so
that they are
only using one method of payment and that method of payment is only
accepted in
four or five venues or shops or online market places. It’s almost
like a company
store – keeping a person sutured into one little sub-economy and
especially
where the poor are concerned, that raises a whole bunch of issues. It
raises
issues now, post-global financial crisis (GFC), when even for the
not-poor, the
banking and payment services that we are offered increasingly come with
higher
fees or fees that are not disclosed, and the whole normal banking
sector starts
to look more and more like the fringe banking sector.
So I think that like many
people, even
in the payments industry itself, I kind of stumbled into payments and
once I
was there I went ‘wow’. Number one, this is not capitalism
as usual. The
business models of the payments industry are all based on tolls and
fees. There
is not a price mechanism at work here, it’s not the market. And
in fact in the
States, when the card networks have been taken to court for anti-trust
violations, which means contorting the market in various ways,
they’ve almost
always settled out of court. They’re saying ‘yep,
you’re right, that’s what
we’ve been doing, that’s how it works’. That in
itself in my own academic
programme is an important thing to say. The systems that do the transit
of
value for us when we are doing our capitalism thing themselves operate
according to principles that are not capitalist. There’s a
wonderful kind of
Gibson-Grahamian thing right there.
LT: Yes, and if you are talking about
currency
being a public good, then obviously Bitcoin flashes up as a question.
What’s
your position on Bitcoin?
BM: Well it’s
certainly evolving. I
work very closely with Taylor Nelms (UC Irvine) and Lana Swartz (USC)
on this. We
started watching Bitcoin from the moment the Satoshi paper was
published and
did an article (Maurer et al., 2013)
where we basically went through all of the Bitcoin forums and did a
kind of
discourse analysis of what was happening. I’ve pretty much come
to realise that
I need to be a better anthropologist when it comes to Bitcoin people
because
it’s very easy for me to slam it, and say this is really stupid
libertarian
mumbo-jumbo and they have a commodity theory of money that’s
stupid, that
nobody really believes in except for Hayekians, and it will never work
anyway
and it’s only really a tiny little blip – I mean 8 billion
capitalisation is
nothing in the wide world – and it is posing all of these
regulatory questions.
But I’m starting to see, particularly among some of the younger
folks who are involved
in Bitcoin, reconfigurations and rewiring of ideologies into new
configurations
that I certainly was not prepared for. So I feel that it’s time
for me to start
trying to get my head into their head, or to put myself in their shoes
a bit
more and really think about what Bitcoin means, for instance, for
people whose
investment in technology was shaped profoundly by PayPal freezing
contributions
to WikiLeaks, or people for whom the suicide of Aaron Swartz really
affected
them.[i]
I think that it’s really
stitching together a new kind of configuration of what I’ve been
content to
call libertarianism, where there’s a sense that indeed,
government has failed. Over here there was
austerity in response to the GFC; back home we had Obama who tried to
do all
kinds of things but kind of failed and has been rather disappointing to
many
people on that score. So there’s your government, right! You can
talk about
various kinds of protections and so on that it affords and then at the
same time
the NSA thing explodes.
So I’ve been trying
to think through
that, and to hear what the other possibilities are in things like
Bitcoin. I’m also
utterly captivated by the playfulness that has emerged. There’s
the Dogecoin
phenomena, the playfulness of creating all kinds of cryptocurrencies
initially
to poke fun at the phenomenon but which then become something, take on
a life
of their own and still have that sense of irony. Or the way that people
are
using the blockchain database that lies behind Bitcoin to chronicle
their own
little stories, almost using it like a microblogging twitter sort of
thing but
for whatever reason putting it all to the blockchain.
LT: Wow!
BM: The ‘whatever
reason’ speaks, I
think, to the passionate need or ability to chronicle one’s story
and one’s
engagement with the world in a way that is completely attentive to what
Twitter
and Facebook mean in terms of the corporatisation of our personal
stories and
narratives and the harvesting of our personal data for various kinds of
return.
It’s also completely attuned to issues around NSA surveillance
and state
monitoring and so forth. Here you have these folks who are
microblogging or doing
other playful things with the blockchain, right! So it ain’t
Twitter and it
ain’t NSAable– although it is, of course – but it
taps into this irrepressible
desire to tell our stories in new ways. So I’m curious to see
where that takes
me.
Alternation
– occupation – provocation
LT: When you’re
talking about this playful
rewiring from within, it reminds me of your notion of the
‘alternative’ in
finance and money as ‘alternation’, as taking the form of
‘an alternation in phase
over time’ (Maurer 2008: 69), not necessarily simply in terms of
the longue durée of history but also in our
quotidian lives.
BM: Yes, this is super
important to me
as a concept and a political commitment. So often people want to see
the ‘alternative’
as something separated, somewhere over there, in our own little
community. That’s
fine, but it rarely works. It turns into its own kind of exclusion.
It’s
difficult to sustain and often it falls into the same problems that you
would
have with national economies or conventional kinds of finance.
I’ve always been
trying to get a sense of not ‘where is the alternative?’
but ‘when is the alternative?’How do we see
and hear and feel alternative moments that spring up right in the
practice of
the everyday, even if they fall out of phase again and back into the
conventional? For me, the task is both to elucidate those moments and
then from
a political standpoint to see if there are things that are worth
dilating a
little bit, expanding or having last a little bit longer. It’s
part of building
the alternative in the now, and also part of this commitment to a rich
empiricism that is attentive to the alternatives that are going on all
around
us, at least some of the time. And it’s a different kind of
politics too,
because there are various kinds of vanguardism on the left and right
and
everywhere between that just want to say ‘here’s the
answers and if only
everybody would agree with me, then we’ll all get there and be
there’. That
just doesn’t really work. But if instead there are moments or
pockets that are
coming into phase, where alternatives happen and they work, then you
start to
get people having a sense of ‘oh, you know, another world is
possible, another
world is actually already here if we care to pay attention to
it’. And I
realise this is pretty utopian and very ‘non-modern’ and
sounds like various
kinds of religious traditions that freak me out, but that’s okay,
you know!
LT: As I think you’ve
said, it might
be the case that something alternative actually is in phase with the
dominant,
but there’s still that opportunity for ‘dissonant
vibrations’ (Maurer 2012:
415). I can’t remember what it’s called, but when you cross
a bridge on foot, if
everyone’s footfalls fall at the same time, you get this groove
going on and it
becomes destabilising from within. It reminds me a little of what
Occupy is
trying to do, by occupying debt from within, for example. What is your
thinking
through of Occupy?
BM: I was very closely
observing what
was happening with Occupy in LA but was not directly involved, although
many of
my students were. I was very interested in how Occupy in LA was trying
to build
alternative infrastructures for electricity, Wi-Fi and so forth. I
definitely
think that Occupy is an example of one of these things that flashes up
and is still
there; even if it doesn’t seem to be there anymore, it’s
still very much there
and very much in people’s bodies and in people’s experience
of themselves and in
what a collective can be – and how you can take over a bit of
space and time
for another end. On the debt stuff, now that I’m a university
administrator who
also studies finance and debt, I have become very keen to try to get
our
faculty to teach classes on debt and on student debt, and to have
something
together – this is terrible to say, given everything else
I’ve said – to have something
together ahead of the inevitable student debt bubble explosion. So
maybe not
‘inevitable’ – you know, history is contingent
– but just to be ready so that
you have folks who are thinking of alternative ways of managing their
own debt,
but also alternative ways of financing higher education.
LT: I’m going to ask
you one final
question and it’s one of those dreadful ‘future of the
field’ questions. In
your review essay on the anthropology of money, you say that you set
out not to
solve the many paradoxes of modern money but, in your words, ‘to
prod and to
irritate’ (Maurer, 2006: 16). I really like the
‘irritate’ here. I was thinking
of its Latin sense of ‘to excite’, ‘to
provoke’; provocation in an Emersonian
sense – ‘truly speaking, it is not instruction, but
provocation, that I can
receive from another soul’ (Emerson, [1838] 2000: 66). What
suggestions do you have for irritating or provoking the unfolding study
of
money, finance and economy? What provocations and irritations are
required at
the present moment?
BM: Well one that
I’ve been exploring
with Liz McFall and Joe Deville at CRESC [the Centre for Research on
Socio-Cultural Change] is directly lobbed at social studies of finance.
It has
to do with trying to knit together the high and the low. We’ve
done okay at examining
the halls of power in finance but we’ve left out everyday
financial practices
and things like small business loans, auto loans, unsecured lending and
pawn
shops. There’s always been an undercurrent of people studying
this but there’s
very little work to see how this stuff connects up with so-called high
finance.
So we’ve been playing around with the question of what are the
interconnections
and nodal points that stitch together these two levels, and can we
think about
them as other than levels? So that’s one big thing.
The other thing is, I would
love for
there to be a reinvigorated study of the state and the endurance of
state
infrastructures for finance, money and value, and the state
institutions that
even post-GFC still keep things humming. One big thing with the GFC is
that Polyani
was proven right: the market got crazy and society, so to speak, in the
form of
the state, stepped in and did something about it. One can argue about
whether
it should have done that, should there have been the bailout, should
there have
been Dodd-Frank in the States and similar kinds of efforts at reform
but
nonetheless, it showed a kind of surprising resilience of bureaucrats,
even
after neoliberalism. And that’s still there. We see the
evisceration of the
state in so many ways and the privatisation of public resources, and
yet you
still need people who know how…and I think of the year 2000 bug,
the Y2K thing…
LT: It was due to hit in my
home
country New Zealand first!
BM: Oh yes, that’s
right!
LT: The lights went out in
a small
town and everyone panicked and thought ‘oh no, it’s the
apocalypse!’
BM: ‘It’s
happening!’
LT: When actually, everyone
went to
bed early – it was a very small town…
BM: Yes, when that was
happening, they
were trying to dig up people who could programme in Fortran and COBOL
and that
kind of thing. And you know, the state is like that; the state runs on
really
old clunky infrastructures but they’re still there and
they’re still plugging
away and doing their things. It’s been fascinating in the US to
see the made-up
controversy around the IRS and its supposed targeting of right-leaning
organisations that were claiming tax-exempt status. These congressmen
are incredulously
saying ‘what do you mean everything was on harddrives that failed
or floppy
discs?’. But of course, stuff is on hard drives that failed and
floppy disks
because the state’s been defunded and so they haven’t
updated their equipment.
But that in itself tells you something really interesting, that the
world can
still work without automatic updates. There’s a task to really
dig into some of
those systems and see how they’ve all been slapped together, and
slapped
together in a way that works and that can carry things forward, so
that’s
another thing.
One thing that will always
be with the
anthropology and sociology of money and finance is the folks who still
want to
proclaim confidently that there is a logic being worked out and that is
reaching its inevitable end. Or that all that is happening is just the
same
thing that Marx described back in the nineteenth century. I think one
always
has to press back against that. There’s a bunch of ways to do it.
One is to say
empirically it ain’t so or again to just bring out the
Gibson-Graham point
about the plural and diverse economy. Another is to ask, what are you
after
with that kind of analysis, where does it actually get you? Where does
it get
you in an academic game? It can often get you far in an academic game
for
various reasons; I think that it’s a good story, it has a sort of
lustre about
it, but anyway, that’s the thing that I hope to continue to prod
and irritate
people about.
LT: Excellent, I think we’ll finish
on
that provocation. Thank you.
References
Emerson,
R. W. ([1838]2000), ‘An Address’, in Atkinson, A. (ed.), The Essential Writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson, New York:
Modern
Library, pp. 63-78.
Maurer,
B. (2005), Mutual Life, Limited: Islamic
Banking, Alternative Currencies, Lateral Reason, Princeton:
Princeton University
Press.
Maurer,
B. (2006), ‘The Anthropology of Money’, Annual
Review of Anthropology 35(1), 15-36.
Maurer,
B. (2008), ‘Resocializing Finance? Or Dressing it in Mufti?
Calculating
Alternatives for Cultural Economies’, Journal
of Cultural Economy 1 (1), 65-78.
Maurer,
B. (2012), ‘The Disunity of Finance: Alternative Practices to
Western Finance’,
in Knorr-Cetina, K. and A. Preda (eds), The
Oxford Handbook of the Sociology of Finance, Oxford: Oxford
University
Press, pp. 413-430.
Maurer,
B., T. C. Nelms and L. Swartz (2013), ‘“When Perhaps the
Real Problem is Money
Itself!”: The Practical Materiality of Bitcoin’, Social Semiotics23 (2), 261-277.
Rosamond,
E. (2014). ‘Economic Figuration’, 6th
Critical Finance Studies Conference, Amsterdam, University of
Amsterdam, 13-15
August, 2014.
Scott,
H. (1782), The Adventures of a Rupee,
Wherein are interspersed various anecdotes Asiatic and European,
London:
Printed for J. Murray, No. 32, Fleet-Street, M, DCC, LXXXII.
Wittgenstein,
L. ([1953]1999), Philosophical
Investigations, trans. G. E. M. Anscombe, Oxford: Blackwell, 2nd
ed.
[i] Computer programmer
and
political organiser Aaron Swartz committed suicide in 2013 while being
prosecuted for downloading a large number of academic articles from
JSTOR.