MacKenzie D. An engine, not a camera.. How financial ... - TiERA

Models and Markets 263Performativity and Economic SociologyMichel Callon’s critic Daniel Miller argues that economic sociology andanthropology should “radically separate out the market as a ritual andideological system constructed by economists and the actual practice ofeconomies” (D. Miller 2002, p. 224). In the sections above, we have seen arange of performative effects of financial economics. They vary in importanceand in the extent to which they approximate to strong, Barnesian performativity.Nevertheless, it is clear that in at least some contexts—most obviously inthe derivatives markets—the radical separation called for by Miller is impossible.The economic theory of derivatives and the “actual practice” of derivativesmarkets are interwoven too intimately. 19However, when in pursuit of a theme such as the performativity of economics,one should not give in to the temptation to exaggerate its significance.In particular, attention to performativity does not render redundant economicsociology’s focus on the embedding of economic action in cultures, in politicalsystems, and in networks of interpersonal connections. 20 Especially inchapter 6, we saw performativity articulating with these matters, rather thandisplacing them.Therefore, we must be careful how we interpret the following assertion:...yes,homo economicus does exist, but is not an a-historical reality; he does not describethe hidden nature of the human being. He is the result of a process of configuration....Of course it mobilizes material and metrological investments, property rights andmoney, but we should not forget the essential contribution of economics in the performingof the economy. (Callon, 1998, pp. 22–23) 21The market participants discussed in earlier chapters were certainly economicallycalculative, and—as Callon’s formulation would suggest—their calculationswere often conducted using procedures and devices made possible byfinance theory. However, they did not become Homines economici in the sense ofatomistic, amoral egotists.For example, chapter 6 suggested that it was the mutual susceptibility ofhuman beings—our susceptibility to the “symbolic sanctioning considered asan aspect of the communicative interaction that is normal and natural to usas social beings” (Barnes 1992, p. 263)—that helped make possible the solutionof the collective action problem represented by the very creation of theChicago derivatives exchanges. Some members of those exchanges acted forthe common good of the exchange, rather than behaving as rational egotists.The respect they gained helped them persuade others to contribute too, ratherthan to free-ride.