Economies of attachment: Promissory objects, differentiation, and other futures?

Abstract

In this response to Anderson's formulation of a theoretical framework for understanding attachments, I propose a third concept to join those of forms of attachment and scenes of attachment: economies of attachment. The concept of economies of attachment attends to how specific promissory objects become forms of attachment and how promissory objects compose ongoing and ordinary attachments as well as the fleeting and temporary moments suggested by scenes of attachment. It seeks to understand how particular promissory objects appeal to particular subjects; that is, how attachments emerge from and pattern social, economic, political, and affective economies. To explore this proposition, I return to Berlant’s discussion of ‘aspirational normalcy’ and consider normativity as a promissory object that might magnetise those who are unable to fit the normative ideal. I argue that as well as differentiating promissory objects, attachments also differentiate the subjects they appeal to. This is to explicate the significance of objects in theories of attachment and, more specifically, the futurity of promissory objects. While normativity as a promissory object involves the conservative differentiation of subjects, the empirical question remains of how promissory objects may be involved in the creation of alternative futures and presents.