December 23, 2015
Call for papers for mini-conference at SASE 28th Annual Conference, ‘Moral Economies, Economic Moralities’
June 24-26, 2016, University of California, Berkeley
Organizers: Joe Deville, Jeanne Lazarus, Mariana Luzzi, and José Ossandón
DEADLINE FOR ABSTRACTS: January 18th, 2016
The mini-conference “Domesticizing financial economies, part 3” will pursue the rich and exciting discussions of the first two Domesticizing financial economies mini-conferences, held at Chicago and London at the 2014 and 2015 SASE meetings. Our starting point is that the use of even the most sophisticated financial products can be understood in the light of a close empirical description of their various social and technical contexts, ranging from social ties and obligations, to ways of calculating, to specific devices and informational infrastructures. Rather than (or as well as) seeking to understand how financial economies are “economized”, to draw on a term used by Koray Çalışkan and Michel Callon, we are thus interested in work that explores how monetary transactions are woven into the fabric of the everyday and come to be “domesticized”.
The precise ways in which financial economies become domesticized, as recent literature and many of the papers presented at the last two versions of this mini-conference have shown, are deeply morally entangled. Credit evaluation mechanisms, for example, inevitably involve a moral dimension, with debtors being routinely connected, via a range of qualitative and quantitative approaches to collective categories of expected behavior (Deville 2015a, Fourcade & Healy, 2013, Han 2012, Lazarus, 2012, Ossandón 2012, 2014). Such financial instruments are in turn continuously ‘earmarked’ as they pass through domestic settings. Those who participate in monetary interactions cannot but perform what Zelizer calls “relational work” as they delimit the moral frames according to which their transactions are located (Zelizer, 2010; Guérin, Villareal and Morvant-Roux, 2013, Wilkis, 2013). Similar practices can be observed in the extension and creation of new monetary infrastructures (Maurer (2012). Mobile monies in countries in Africa and Central America, for instance, are intimately related with the actions of agencies that explicitly justify their action in moral terms (e.g. the Gates Foundation, most prominently). Meanwhile, governments and multilateral organizations around the world have made the extension of formal banking into a goal that is framed not only in economic but also moral terms. This can be seen in the advancement of goals such as financial inclusion and social and economic development that directly target financial citizens at the so-called ‘bottom of the pyramid’ (Elyachar 2012, Langley, 2008, McFall, 2015), or in the global proliferation of financial literacy workshops in which actors from the banking, policy and not-for-profit sectors attempt to educate individuals into becoming ‘financially literate’ (Lazarus, 2016). Such processes do not, however, encounter passive populations: controversies about financial instruments can lead to the development of new moral and political collectives, such as the variety of debtor publics that have emerged in different social and historical contexts (Deville, 2015b, Luzzi, 2012, Ross, 2014).
We invite papers that look at specific situations of monetary transaction and domestic credit and money management. Papers with varied disciplinary backgrounds discussing the following issues are welcome:
- The intimate dimensions of monetary and financial transactions, whether in the moment of exchange itself, or before and after
- Moral boundaries and/or inequalities operating through everyday and domestic settings rooted in and/or created by financial products
- The ways in which household finances become entangled with and affected by a range of socio-technical devices
- Emerging financial products and services targeting domestic finance that are re-shaping the financial ecologies encountered by consumers (e.g. payday loans, credit score management services, department store credit cards, pawn shops, new ways of banking)
- Emerging transactional technologies (e.g. algorithms, databases, payment cards) and their new ways of sorting, screening and valuing financial consumers
- Domestic financial products and their entanglement with “high” finance and broader chains of economic relations
- Controversies, matters of concern, new affected groups, publics and commercial circuits being co-produced with contemporary domestic financial landscapes and/or financial instruments
Abstracts of no longer than 1000 words should be submitted by January 18th, 2016. If accepted, a full paper will be required by May 30, 2016.
All submissions should be made via the SASE website.
If a paper proposal cannot be accommodated within a mini-conference, organizers will forward it to the program committee, who will pass it on to one of the networks as a regular submission. Acceptance notifications will be sent by February 23, 2016.
Queries can be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org
CFP: Operations of capital: Studying the nexus of land, housing, and finance across the North-South divide (RGS 2016)
December 22, 2015
Dear colleagues, we hope you will consider submitting an abstract for what we hope will be a pair of sessions at the 2016 Royal Geographical Society conference, to be held in London from 30 August to 2 September. Please circulate this CFP (also available via this link) to relevant colleagues.
In the years since the global financial crisis, geographers and other social scientists have developed parallel bodies of work on housing, largely in the global North, and farmland, primarily in the global South. While geographically and thematically distinct, these lines of inquiry are nevertheless linked by a shared focus on processes of financialization. However as the concept of financialization has assumed the status of the next ‘globalization’ or ‘neoliberalization’, such analyses risk not only a loss of analytic coherence and diminishing theoretical returns, but also a tendency to reify finance as a totalizing, hegemonic and a-historical force (Christophers, 2015). By contrast, a focus on the operations of capital (cf. Mezzadra and Neilson, 2013, 2015) emphasizes the situated and variable processes by which finance encounters rural and urban landscapes, the materialities characterizing such relations, and the resulting tensions and contradictions—while keeping sight of how these specific operations coalesce into more general tendencies.
This session has a dual motivation: first, to highlight research that attends to how financialization is actually accomplished in the present, historicizing how it has played out in the past, and how this process is subject to fragmentation and problematization; and second, to provide a space for intentionally linking finance-oriented research on land (including agricultural land) and housing across the North-South divide. We explicitly invite papers that advance methods of inquiry and abstraction for opening the black box of finance so as to gain a better understanding of the land-housing-finance nexus, which we consider a long-overdue endeavour.
Please send abstracts of 250 words for this paper session to both session organizers by 1 February 2016:
Desiree Fields, University of Sheffield (email@example.com)
Stefan Ouma, Goethe University Frankfurt (firstname.lastname@example.org)
References Christophers, B. (2015). The limits to financialization. Dialogues in Human Geography, 5(2), 183-200.
Mezzadra, S. and Neilson, B. (2015). Operations of capital. South Atlantic Quarterly, 114(1), 1-9.
Mezzadra, S. and Neilson, B. (2013). Extraction, logistics, and finance: Global crisis and the politics of operations.Radical Philosophy, 178, 8-18.
June 24-26, 2016, U of CA-Berkeley. Deadline January 18
We are organizing an international mini-conference with the theme, “Islam and the Construction of New Economic Moralities: Divergence, Convergence and Competing Futures.” The conference will be held at the University of California-Berkeley June 24-26, 2016, as part of a larger SASE conference with the highly relevant theme, “Moral Economies, Economic Moralities.” Selection of papers will be based on 1000 word extended abstracts, which are due January 18, 2016. Full papers will be due May 30, 2016. Three best papers awards will be given, as well as a limited number of travel grants for graduate students. To learn more about SASE and its annual conference, see https://sase.org
This mini-conference invites contributions from across the social sciences and humanities to reflect on the past, present, and contested futures of Islam’s new financial and economic moralities. As part of the Islamic revival of the 1970s and 1980s, social movements worldwide have pursued multiple strategies to imagine and implement an economic system organized around Islamic values such as social justice, reciprocity and the spiritual, moral, intellectual, social, and material well-being of individuals. This includes the US$2.5 trillion Islamic finance industry and US$1.29 trillion halal food market, not to mention Islamic “modest fashion,” halal pharmaceuticals and cosmetics, and Islamically-marketed travel, recreation, and lifestyle products. It also includes philanthropic institutions such as pious foundations (waqf) and charities funded by almsgiving (zakah). Islamic economic practices range from the morally guided everyday practices of individuals to those of multinational corporations and state elites seeking to enter and advance Islamic markets. With the hindsight of forty years, we can observe heterogeneous and explicitly competing Islamic economic moralities, found at various scales of socio-economic organization.
Three overlapping research projects have emerged as a result of the rapid growth of the Islamic economy. First, it has attracted social scientists seeking to document and interpret the historical and contemporary dynamics of this new socio-economic phenomenon. This strand of scholarship studies the emergence of the Islamic economy either on its own terms, or with reference to its convergence and divergence with other economies, be they explicitly moral or otherwise. Second, it has generated research by academics and practitioners to advance this socio-economic project. In this scholarship, Islamic economy is often conceptualized as part of an emerging alternative modernity that explicitly embraces the morality of economic action. Third, it has also generated scholarship critical of Islamic economic practices, particularly in Islamic banking and finance. Much of this third research stream argues that Islamic finance is excessively focused on efficiency and profitability at the expense of Islamic moral values such as equity, fairness, and individual development. Importantly, it debates the extent to which the Islamic finance industry has diverged from Islamic idea(l)s, investigates alternative aspirations for Islamic finance, and deliberates strategies for transforming its current trajectory.
Embracing all three research streams, the conference aims to (i) (re-)examine the key axioms and moral claims of Islamic economy both in theory and as practiced; (ii) explore the economic, social and political dynamics underpinning the various sectors, scales and sites of the Islamic economy; and (iii) interrogate the extent to which the Islamic economy provides a substantive alternative to mainstream economic activity with a special emphasis on the Islamic finance sector. A provisional list of panel topics and indicative research questions can be accessed at the University of Warwick or University of Durham. King Saud University is providing a limited number of travel grants for graduate students – read the Conference Submissions and Awards Guidelines for more information.
Please note that candidates should send 1000 word abstracts by January 18, 2016 (and not 500 word abstracts, as is typical in other SASE panels). For additional information on how to submit, please look at https://sase.org/about-sase/conference-submission-and-award-guidelines_fr_25.html
If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact any of the three corresponding organizers below:
Mehmet Asutay (Corresponding organizer) Professor in Middle East and Islamic Political Economy and Finance Director, Durham Centre for Islamic Economics and Finance Durham University Business School Durham University, UK Email: email@example.com
Necati Aydin Associate Professor of Economics College of Business, Alfaisal University Associate Director, Islamic Banking Center, King Saud University
Aaron Z. Pitluck (Corresponding organizer) Associate Professor of Sociology, Illinois State University Visiting Scholar, University of Chicago Email: Pitluck@IllinoisState.edu
Lena Rethel (Corresponding organizer) Associate Professor of International Political Economy Department of Politics and International Studies University of Warwick Email: L.Rethel@warwick.ac.uk
Haider Ala Hamoudi Associate Professor of Law Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development University of Pittsburgh
Kabir Hassan Professor of Finance and Hibernia Professor of Economics and Finance Department of Economics and Finance University of New Orleans, USA
Abdullah Q. Turkistani Professor of Islamic Economics Dean Islamic Economics Institute King Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia
December 10, 2015
We would like to bring to your attention the track on “Organizing in the Shadow of Financial Markets,” which we are convening as part of the European Group of Organization Studies’ (EGOS) 32nd Colloquium in Naples, Italy, July 7-9, 2016.
Our goal is to bring together organization theorists, sociologists and management scholars studying the financial sector and its impact on organizing. We invite submissions from any theoretical perspective, and with different methodological approaches.
The deadline for the short paper (3,000 words) submission is January 11, 2016, and the detailed instructions for submission can be found at:
You can access the full call for papers here:
If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact any one of us.
Fabrizio Ferraro, firstname.lastname@example.org
Michael Lounsbury, email@example.com
Matteo Prato, firstname.lastname@example.org
December 6, 2015
21st and 22nd of April 2016
Centre for Interdisciplinary Methodologies
University of Warwick
“What’s on your mind?” This is the question to which every Facebook status update now responds. Millions of users sharing their thoughts in one giant performance of what Clay Shirky once called “cognitive surplus”. Contemporary media platforms aren’t simply a stage for this cognitive performance. They are more like directors, staging scenes, tweaking scripts, working to get the best or fully “optimized” performance. As Katherine Hayles has pointed out, media theory has long taken for granted that we think “through, with and alongside media”. Pen and paper, the abacus, and modern calculators are obvious cases in point, but the list quickly expands and with it longstanding conceptions of the Cartesian mind dissolve away. Within the cognitive sciences, cognition is now routinely described as embodied, extended, and distributed. They too recognize that cognition takes place beyond the brain, in between people, between people and things, and combinations thereof. The varieties of specifically human thought, from decision-making to reasoning and interpretation, are now considered one part of a broader cognitive spectrum shared with other animals, systems, and intelligent devices.
Today, the technology we mostly think through, with and alongside are computers. We routinely rely on intelligent devices for any number of operations, but this is no straightforward “augmentation”. Our cognitive capacities are equally instrumentalized, plugged into larger cognitive operations from which we have little autonomy. Our cognitive weaknesses are exploited and manipulated by techniques drawn from behavioural economics and psychology. If Vannevar Bush once pondered how we would think in the future, he received a partial response in Steve Krug’s best selling book on web usability: Don’t Make Me Think! Streams of Consciousness aims to explore cognition, broadly conceived, in an age of intelligent devices. We aim to critically interrogate our contemporary infatuation with specific cognitive qualities – such as “smartness” and “intelligence” – while seeking to genuinely understand the specific forms of cognition that are privileged in our current technological milieu. We are especially interested in devices that mediate access to otherwise imperceptible forms of data (too big, too fast), so it can be acted upon in routine or novel ways.
Topics of the conference include but are not limited to:
– data and cognition
– decision-making technologies
– algorithms, AI and machine learning
– visualization, perception
– sense and sensation
– business intelligence and data exploration
– signal intelligence and drones
– smart and dumb things
– choice and decision architecture
– behavioural economics and design
– technologies of nudging
– bodies, data, and (wearable) devices
– web and data analytics (including A/B and multivariate testing)
Professor Louise Amoore, Geography, Durham University
Dr. James Ash, School of Arts and Cultures, Newcastle University
Dr. David Berry, Centre for Material Digital Culture, University of Sussex
Dr. Will Davies, PERC, Goldsmiths College
Dr. Michael Dieter, CIM, Warwick University
Professor Steve Fuller, Sociology, Warwick University
Dr. Jeniffer Gabrys, Sociology, Goldsmiths College
Dr. Antoinette Rouvroy, CRID, University of Namur
Dr. Natasha Schull, Media, Culture and Communication, NYU
Dr, Nick Srnicek
Professor Nigel Thrift
Professor Michael Wheeler, Philosophy, University of Stirling
Please submit individual abstracts of no longer than 300 words. Panel proposals are also welcome and should also be 300 words. Panel proposals should also include indvidual abstracts. The deadline for submissions is Friday the 18th of December and submissions should be made to email@example.com. Accepted submissions will be notified by 20th of January 2016.
November 23, 2015
From Jessica Weinkle
STRENGTH: A substantial portion of UCAR’s funding is received through a cooperative agreement from the National Science Foundation.
CHALLENGE: UCAR is heavily reliant on federal funding for its research (98% of operating revenues are grants and contracts), with limited revenue diversification, exposing the organization to the risk of contract termination.
November 20, 2015
We are organizing this event which may be of interest to blog readers:
Mapping relations of debt and credit from everyday actors to global credit markets
with Paul Langley and Liz McFall
3-4 March 2016, Budapest, Hungary, ELTE University
The 2007-8 global financial crisis was interpreted by many as a challenge to mainstream economics and as an opportunity for social sciences to provide alternative explanations. This opportunity has hardly been realised, even though the crisis has given further impetus to studies looking at credit and debt outside the economics discipline. One of the reasons lies in the disciplinary variety and diverse theoretical lenses used by social sciences, ranging from economic sociology to economic geography, political economy and Social Studies of Finance, which arguably do not provide a uniform, let alone universal explanation as economics does.
One of the main divisions among social science takes on credit and debt is between what can be termed microscopic vs macroscopic research agendas. The application of Actor-Network Theory, Science and Technology Studies and practice-theory approaches to economic phenomena, particularly in the interdisciplinary field of Social Studies of Finance, has been celebrated for describing the very concrete, material processes that make up the Economy (cf. MacKenzie 2006; McFall 2014; Deville 2015). This work resonates with Latour’s (2005) program to follow the actors and with Christophers’ (2011a; 2011b) call to ‘follow the money’ by applying the commodity chain approach to money, and credit in particular, in order to reveal ‘the social and economic relations both underpinning and occasioned by money’s creation and circulation’ (2011a:1069-70). Critics, on the other hand, saw these accounts as merely providing ‘all cogs and no car’, getting lost in empirical detail, being devoid of politics (Winner 1993; Mirowski and Nik-Khah 2007) and ignoring the most important sites of credit and debt relations: institutions, regulation, and ultimately, social relations (Gilbert 2011). More macroscopic approaches (cf. Langley 2008; Crouch 2009; Krippner 2011), developing larger theoretical and empirical claims, in turn, were praised for actually proving the car rather than merely the cogs; and were at the same time accused by critics of missing empirical detail and filling the resulting gaps with concepts and the untraceable operation of larger forces, such as Power or the Social.
One way of approaching this divide is to suggest that different scales require different theoretical lenses. If one is to study everyday debt or a smaller local site, microscopic concepts, such as ‘practices’, and microscopic methods, such as ANT, are useful; whereas the study of the global financial system requires a ‘bigger’ lens, such as a political economy approach. Others, in contrast, see these approaches as reflecting different ontologies and choices implying trade-offs between detail and generality of the argument. According to this view, the same theoretical and empirical tools can be applied irrespective of the ‘size’ of the phenomenon; size is seen as a matter of scale. This question is one of the key concerns of this workshop.
The second concern relates to the fact that most empirical work and derived theories on credit and debt are focused on Western contexts, despite some notable attempts to counter the trend (cf. Deville and Seigworth 2015). To some extent this phenomenon is an unintended consequence of the approaches described above. If meeting the imperative of a clear ‘theoretical contribution’ is a challenge for all microscopic studies, it is all the more so for those carried out outside Western contexts, in ‘less interesting’ places. For macroscopic studies, in turn, a theory based on data on these ‘special’ cases is simply not general enough. As a result, the study of credit and debt in non-Western contexts is more developed in comparative studies (cf. Schwartz and Seabrooke 2008; Bohle 2014), and ironically, in economics, where – thanks to its universalistic ontology – context hardly matters. The second aim of the workshop is to reflect on the plurality of debt and debt trails, and to open up questions not only about local-global connectivities and variations, but also about how these variations can actually be constitutive of the nature of the debt relation itself (cf. Ossandón forthcoming).
The workshop seeks to bring these diverse theoretical lenses and area focuses into conversation and features an exchange between Paul Langley and Liz McFall exploring the challenge of practice focused studies. The aim is to foster a more thorough understanding of debt and credit and to open up theoretical exchanges across disciplinary boundaries. To do that the workshop focuses on the following questions:
1. Do we have to change our theoretical lens when we look at different actors of the credit/debt phenomenon? Or can the same theories that we use to understand everyday borrower practices be used to understand international regulation? What are the trade-offs that are involved in our choice?
2. Which analytical terms are best suited to describe the relationship between different actors? Why and how do these relations matter? What do we gain by connecting different actors of the credit and debt market compared to focusing on one or two actors?
3. What do we gain by studying contexts outside Western countries and in what ways can these studies be brought into dialogue with the existing body of knowledge? Are variations mainly interesting from a comparative angle, or are these connections and variations central to the debt relations themselves?
The workshop welcomes participants working either on a specific actor of the credit/debt market or on their interconnections, broadly conceived. Participants will be asked to send a short (3000 word) piece reflecting on the theme of the workshop based on their own research.
The workshop will take place in Budapest, and is hosted by the Department of Media and Communication, ELTE University with support from the Journal of Cultural Economy and the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA).
To apply please send a 300-word abstract by the 14th of December 2015 to firstname.lastname@example.org
Paul Langley is Reader in Economic Geography at Durham University. His research combines cultural economy and economic geography approaches to understand financial markets, including everyday credit and savings, sub-prime mortgages, financial regulation and alternative forms of finance. He is author of the books World Financial Orders (Routledge, 2002), The Everyday Life of Global Finance (Oxford University Press, 2008) and Liquidity Lost (Oxford University Press, 2015).
Liz McFall is Head of the Department of Sociology at the Open University and Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Cultural Economy. Her research has traced the making of diverse consumer markets, including the market for
health insurance and payday loans, using pragmatic, historical and cultural economy approaches. Her books include Advertising: A Cultural Economy (Sage, 2004), Conduct: sociology and social worlds (Manchester University Press, 2008), Devising Consumption: cultural economies of insurance, credit and spending (Routledge, 2014) and Market and The Arts of Attachment (Routledge, 2016).
Workshop organizers: Léna Pellandini-Simányi (ELTE), Ferenc Hammer (ELTE), Zsuzsanna Vargha (University of Leicester)
Bohle, D. (2014). “Post-socialist housing meets transnational finance: Foreign banks, mortgage lending, and the privatization of welfare in Hungary and Estonia.” Review of International Political Economy 21(4): 913- 948.
Christophers, B. (2011a). “Credit, where credit’s due. Response to “Follow the thing: credit”.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 29: 1089-1091.
Christophers, B. (2011b). “Follow the thing: Money.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 29: 1068- 1084.
Crouch, C. (2009). “Privatised Keynesianism: An Unacknowledged Policy Regime.” The British Journal of Politics & International Relations 11(3): 382-399.
Deville, J. (2015). Lived Economies of Default. Consumer Credit, Debt Collection and the Capture of Affect. London, Routledge.
Deville, J. and G. J. Seigworth, Eds. (2015). Special Issue: Everyday Debt and Credit of Cultural Studies. 29 (5- 6).
Gilbert, E. (2011). “Follow the thing: Credit. Response to “Follow the thing: Money”.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 29: 1085-1088.
Krippner, G. R. (2011). Capitalizing on Crisis: The Political Origins of the Rise of Finance. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.
Langley, P. (2008). The everyday life of global finance: Saving and borrowing in Anglo-America. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford ; New York, Oxford University Press.
MacKenzie, D. (2006). An engine, not a camera: how financial models shape the markets. Cambridge (MA), MIT Press.
McFall, L. (2014). Devising Consumption: Cultural economies of insurance, credit and spending. New York ; London, Routledge.
Mirowski, P. and E. Nik-Khah (2007). Markets Made Flesh: Performativity, and a Problem in Science Studies, Augmented with Consideration of the FCC Auctions. Do economists make markets? On the Performativity of Economics. D. MacKenzie, F. Muniesa and L. Siu. Princeton, Princeton University Press: 190-254.
Ossandón, J. (forthcoming). “Sowing consumers in the garden of mass retailing in Chile.” Consumption Markets & Culture, special issue, “consuming finance”, edited by P. Langley.
Schwartz, H. and L. Seabrooke (2008). “Varieties of Residential Capitalism in the International Political Economy: Old Welfare States and the New Politics of Housing.” Comparative European Politics 6: 237-261.
Winner, L. (1993). “Upon Opening the Black Box and Finding It Empty: Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Technology.” Science Technology Human Values 18(3): 362-378.