Inconvenient Truth About Financialisation: ‘Policy Networks’ And The ‘Social Communities'
Centre for the Study of Social and Global Justice | 29.10.2008 08:19
Part of the Open Seminar Series offered by the Centre for the Study of Social and Global Justice (CSSGJ), School of Politics and International Relations, University of Nottingham to be held at the University Staff Club, Conference Suite Monday 3rd November, 4:00 - 5:30 pm. All are welcome.
The paper examines the policy-communities/policy-networks debate within Public Policy studies; most specifically in light of the present financial crisis. It argues that in spite of a series of highly fruitful, detailed accounts of public policy processes, analyses of economic interest group participation remain limited by their lack of engagement with more fundamental questions about financial expansion. Further, the undertheorisation of the interplay between structure and agent, material and ideational elements of financial market integration suggests the fine, detailed analysis of the 'communities-networks' debates is somewhat two-dimensional. The paper briefly considers the insights of cultural economics on 'financialisation' in response to these concerns. In turn, the paper argues for the utility of a Gramscian historical materialist analysis, capable of theorising both the structural tendencies and pressures under capitalism with the ideological elements of class struggle, thereby providing a critical engagement with the social content of financial market reform. The empirical crux of the paper though is focused on showing what a Gramscian account of financial market integration reveals. Here, the disciplining processes internal to financial trade associations and strategically employed discourses vis-à-vis state agencies, contextualised against the expansionary impulsions of capitalism, reveal the dynamics of the hegemonic struggles of transnationally oriented fractions of capital otherwise obfuscated by Public Policy studies.
Centre for the Study of Social and Global Justice
e-mail:
cssgj@nottingham.ac.uk
Homepage:
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/cssgj
Comments
Hide the following 2 comments
help please
29.10.2008 16:46
Sorry to be sarcastic but I think this lecture could be very interesting and important but the article is full of jargon which only makes it seem elitist.
Destined to reman ignorant
The Inconvenient Truth About Overly Academic Language
06.11.2008 12:52
While the "Inconvenient Truth About Financialisation" sounds like it might be pretty interesting and insightful, if you can't explain it in language that average people can understand, then you might as well just talk to yourself.
Even as somebody with a science degree and who reads "New Scientist" (hardly known for avoiding explaining difficult concepts) regularly, I still had a fair amount of trouble comprehending this posting. This was further compounded by the lack of paragraph use.
What you no doubt possess in intellectual skills is lost amid the confusion in the way you explain yourself. (As is sadly so often the case with bright academics.)
Take "The Guardian" for instance - not that it is the gold standard in this area, but I know for a fact that they aim for a reading age (sentence structure and language used) of the early teens.
Ultimately, the language that a 14-year-old can understand is suitable for explaining just about anything.
"New Scientist" is probably a little higher, but even they manage to explain string theory and other areas of theoretical physics in language whereby a person of average education can at least grasp the basic concepts.
If "Inconvenient Truth About Financialisation" is a purely academic publication, then feel free to use whatever language you like. But if you're trying to make something accessible to the public (presumably why you've posted it on here?), then there comes a point where overly complex language use becomes alienating, elitist, and then appears as little more than academic ego masturbation.
If you can't explain something without using a ton of jargon and complex language, then you basically can't explain it. So however great your paper, you've just fallen at the first hurdle, and the rest of us will never know about your (I'm sure) excellent ideas.
(I'm not perfect myself, and I'm sure I could have explained this more succinctly and with less repetition.)
Confused Scientist