Market of Ideas

From Critical Practice Chelsea
Revision as of 10:28, 11 February 2008 by Trevor (Talk | contribs) (Gabriel Tarde via Bruno Latour via Trevor Giles, via Cinzia Cremona!)

Jump to: navigation, search

Working title: 'What has economics got to do with culture?'

Markets are good at convening and distributing resources.

Based on the model of the ancient bazzaar, Critical Practice will organise a Market of Ideas in which 'stalls' staffed by artists, anthropologists, economists and others who exchange their knowledge with the milling crowd.

Participants will include (we are adding as we convene):
FoE draft letter to participants

Lisa Bachelor (Financial correspondent for the Observer)

A wish list of particpants

• Person from nef's 'Centre for Global Interdependence' that has ideas about food waste - MA has contacted / will chase

• Evan Davis (BBC Economics Editor)

• Stephanie Flanders (Newsnight's Economics Editor)

• Tim Jackson - Professor of Sustainability, University of Surrey

• Ask our economists contacts on Monday 11th for suggestions

This section is to try and clarify what our sense of the market is and how it might work? This will help us to engage our economists and approach any 'experts'.

We have a working title 'What has economics got to do with culture?' though Isobel rightly points out that Niccolo's question was more like 'What is cultural about economics?'

If and when to have a post-dinner meeting?
To discuss and develop ideas for 'stalls', develop the below

The CP session
What day is it on: ?
What time: ?
What is the format of the CP session: ?
Will we have an introduction?
Will we have a discussion - in what form?

What is our role?
My sense is that each of us, through the dinner conversation and other research, may develop an interest in line with the topic. Mary Anne suggests submitting name of interest. I suggest that this amounts to a gesture: 'I would like to see X viewpoint represented in the market and undertake to make it happen' ('expert' optional).

How do experts participate in the market?

In the abstract we say the crowd is milling - what kind of exchange will this allow for?
Will the market benefit from a 'surgery' format similar to musical chairs - each concession has a 15 minute time slot. The crowd will be forced to choose which to visit.

What do we see as our responsibility to the crowd?
Are we in danger of leaving people hanging - so 'what do I do with this knowledge?'

What constitutes a 'stall' - the nature of the stalls/concessions?
Can each offering be devised in such a way to become a resource i.e. experienced remotely. This means the market is freeer - there is limited exclusion from the Ideas e.g those manning the stalls, negative choices, absentees. Also, provided material is available in advance, 'experts' involved in the stalls would have knowledge of the other arguments for discussion.

Will CP offer a flat-fee to develop resource-oriented ideas for the market?

What about costs e.g. travel?
Niccolo says they have some funds left to pay people to come

Niccolo says there will be a publication and documentation but perhaps we can consider our own needs (for institutional output and 'open source' resources e.g. publication).

Gabriel Tarde via Bruno Latour via Trevor Giles, via Cinzia Cremona!

An attempt at applying some of the ideas presented by Bruno Latour at the LSE (podcast here). The ideas seemed to resonate with the informal reasoning for a Market of Ideas. It needs tightening up (see notes on discussion page).

If, with Latour, we look at what is generally described as the 'social' as a process of 'association', then Culture, as one of any number of connectors (?that may define a socialised identity?), - religion, law, science, technology, politics, organisation, fiction, etc - is performative. In other words, culture produces associations and 'subjects in progress' (Kristeva) in the act of producing itself. Rather than an entity (or something more than the sum of it's parts) think of 'the social' as a composite, a collective comprised of component monads (individuals). In other words, "the whole is never bigger than the part, but is the part itself expressed in a certain intensity and connected differently" (Latour, as accurate a quote as possible). From a scientific and philosophical view structure is an effect of distance - a perspective. The closer we look the more clearly we can discern the components that constitute the composite. see note 1. Within Critical Practice we appreciate the value, reflected in Latour's position, of a perspective that shifts back and forth between the composite/collective and its components. This is one aspect of the process of self-reflection.

Culture is empowered in some sense to be whatever it does. When we appreciate economics as a component of Culture we reflect the determining effect of economics upon Culture. However, since economics is also a performative connector - being constructed through monad economists and others - a (and not necessarily the same) culture is also a component of economics. see note 2.

This activity is not lost on economists, who according to Bruno Latour and and also Tim Harford have a tendency to work with models rather than practice or evidence (empirically flawed as science). Analysing this within the field of anthropology of economics Donald MacKenzie asks if markets are performative - made by economists through the performance of values.

Do cultural practitioners (and other 'monads') experience a similar agency to that of economists? An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial Models Shape Markets by Donald MacKenzie connects to Critical Practice proposed session at the Congress - is it necessary in culture to propose Ideas in an effort to influence the structure of the composite? Differing models of economy being informed by differing (external) values. What we might do at the Congress is critique those values and perform alternatives. see note 3.

According to Latour, connectors are the vehicles that carry the 'truth condition' of association. see note 4. They are not external binding conditions (as Durkheim thought), but composites of individual behaviour. From this point of view, I imagine our market as a composite of composites (each stall). Each stall can be quite different. I am keen to set up some activity (a bit like the value game), through which information can be experienced directly, experimentally, without really knowing what conclusion one will come to.

return to London Festival of Europe