Showing posts with label figures of illness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label figures of illness. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

The economy as sick machine

David Burchell's latest op-ed piece in today's Australian was an interesting analysis of the use of illness as metaphor in current political discourse on the financial crisis. Burchell observes, regarding a recent speech from PM Rudd, that it
revolve[d] almost entirely around a series of metaphors of infection and disease.

Our financial system is the lifeblood of our economy. Yet now the bloodstream has been "poisoned" by the contagion of "toxic assets" from Wall Street. The economy won't return to normal functioning until we have purged the blood of these impurities. "Sick and unhealthy assets have the capacity to affect healthy assets"; "it's like a virus which, if left untreated, can easily spread". Through intelligent economic analysis we have discovered the cause of the virus and are now in a position to treat it. Rudd is the nation's trusted medical specialist, cutting out the cancers of financial impropriety, bringing relief when no mere apothecary can.


The News Ltd op-ed calls for some element of culture-war fisticuffs and Burchell obliges by framing his article with some swipes at Susan Sontag's essay "Illness as metaphor":

THREE decades ago cultural critic Susan Sontag wrote a modish series of essays for The New York Review of Books on the subject of illness as metaphor. Sontag had been undergoing breast cancer therapy, and she was in an angry frame of mind. From where she stood it seemed as if the various metaphors of illness routinely deployed in literature chiefly served to obscure the things they were supposed to describe, all the while demeaning sufferers of illness by pathologising them in one way or another. (And so tuberculosis sufferers succumbed because they were too emotionally charged; cancer sufferers because they were too uptight.) Instead she claimed that "the most truthful way of regarding illness is one most purified of, most resistant to, metaphoric thinking".

In the manner of so many cultural critics before and since, Sontag took this fairly straightforward germ of insight and spun a complicated and implausible web of totalising implications out of it. All metaphors of illness demean sufferers; metaphors in general are designed to deceive; and so on. Then (in a startling piece of circular logic, of the kind clever critics succumb to surprisingly often) she asserted that societies such as ours are obsessed with metaphors of illness because they themselves are profoundly sick in some way. Our views on cancer are "a vehicle" for our "reckless improvident responses to our real problems of growth", our "inability to construct an advanced industrial society which properly regulates consumption", and so on. All the grand arm-waving gestures of the cultural critic turned economic prophet.


So, what does Burchell offer instead of the "overblown" illness metaphors? Try this:

Yet the easy-credit regime of the past decade was not just a sign of economic loose living, of too much steak and not enough green veggies. Plentiful capital was the necessary engine of the high-growth, high-demand global economy to which we've become accustomed. Likewise, China's extraordinary levels of growth were possible only because Chinese capital, lacking any useful domestic domicile, had to migrate elsewhere, thus providing the credit bubble with its necessary fuel. In turn, we became used to the idea that modest growth in real incomes could be facilitated by extravagant levels of gross domestic product growth.


The 'reality', or the non-metaphoric level of discourse, seem to be machinic: engines, fuel, growth. I mean, seriously, do economies actually grow, or is this just another biological metphor, in the same category as illness tropes?

American financial guru Warren Buffett was quoted today, via Huff Post, saying that the American economy had "fallen off a cliff". But, optimistically, Buffett also claimed that "Everything will be alright. We do have the greatest economic machine that's ever been created".

And there's the rub, for machines don't get sick like bodies do, and more importantly they don't die. Machines can be tinkered with, redesigned, fuelled, have parts replaced. It's telling that Burchell and Buffett seems to be speaking the same economic discourse, for both side with the concept of the economy as rational. Yet both also seem to want to hedge their bets, and bring biological tropes and anthropomorphic figures into their discourse. If I were to read these discourses symptomatically, as Sontag provides a model for in her still relevant essays on illness and metaphor, I'd say that the economy is a sick machine: a fucked-up cyborg that has viral and mechanical problems.

Crow - Broken Machine (Live, 1999)

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Moral Hazard

Kate Jennings in her novel Moral Hazard (2002) layers the decline from Alzheimer's of her heroine-narrator's husband Bailey with the late 1990s financial crisis working its way through the Wall St Investment bank where she works as a speechwriter: a job she's been forced to take to pay for her husband's care.

This is a brutally moving and unflinching novel that takes the idea of Moral Hazard from insurance and finance and parlays it into her own crisis which centres on the moral hazard of not euthanasing her deteriorating husband.

Almost a novella in length Jennings writes epigramtically in this timely work. Well worth reading in the current climate as a way into grasping through literary fiction the structures of feeling that the bewildering temporal world of CDOs and other derivatives present: a sort of Alzheimic perpetual present that defers and displaces any tallying up of obligation, consequences and meeting of debts.

It also provides definitions such as -

Derivatives:


Hellishly complicated, computer-generated financial contracts, derivatives are the brainchildren of those maths pointy-heads known in Wall Street lingo, as “quants” – from the words “quantitative analysis,” I’d guess. Derivates and the regulation of them were particularly contentious in the early nineties, although, as one old-timer commodities trader told me, sniffily, they’d been around, in one form or another, since the Sumerians. “Once upon a time, it was commodities, then futures, now derivatives,” he’d opined, delicately shooting his cuffs. “It’s all structured finance. It’s all aimed at neutralizing risk by parceling it up, selling it to someone else. Quanting around, nothing new in that.(5)

Cathy finds company-expert Mike to give her quick lessons in understanding the novel financial products:


"The mathematics can be awesome. You have to admire the mathematics. And they can be an excellent risk-management tool . . .” He trailed off, obviously wondering whether he should continue. “Well, it helps to look at derivates like atoms. Split them one way and you have heat and energy – useful stuff. Split them another way, and you have a bomb. You have to understand the subtleties.”

Understand the subtleties. God is in the details. Cracks me up (7-8).