Reviewed by: Debt to Society: Accounting for Life under Capitalism by Miranda Joseph Jessica E. Birch DEBT TO SOCIETY: Accounting for Life under Capitalism. By Miranda Joseph. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 2014. In Debt to Society: Accounting for Life under Capitalism, Miranda Joseph engages in a critical analysis of accounting practices related to debt and credit. The “accounting practices” Joseph explores cover a wide range, including those related to the Occupy Wall Street spinoff Strike Debt, the literal monetary debt of citizens and corporations, [End Page 112] the presumed debt of incarcerated citizens implied within the title, connections between accounting and accountability, normative gender ideals, and the current state of higher education. The text complicates and problematizes academic discourse regarding conceptualizations of depersonalization and quantification, but may range too broadly to satisfy readers’ desire for concrete analysis of any one particular topic. Grounded in critical theory/cultural studies, the book follows in the interdisciplinary tradition of scholars like David Harvey and Lisa Duggan in theorizing the construction of neoliberal normativity. The subtitle would more accurately describe the focus of the text if it were “life under neoliberalism,” as the focus of Joseph’s analysis is on “discursive materials” that “are artifacts of the current conjuncture, frequently named neoliberalism” (xi). Joseph begins with her theoretical underpinnings and methodology, noting that “this project is indebted to [Lauren] Berlant” (xvi) and Berlant’s work appears to provide a very significant contribution to the theoretical grounding of the text. The book contests formulations of the contemporary financial market as problematic due to being “depersonalized and globalized” (9); Joseph argues that the “financial structure” in reality “depends on a disrespectful regard for particular borrowers” (25). In support of this, she provides a historical contextualization of accounting practices, beginning with double-entry bookkeeping and its creation of a system of credits and debits as a regulatory force. From there, Joseph considers the relationship between accounting and justice, discussing the history of debtors’ prison, penality, and slavery, and their implications for present-day racially unequal incarceration rates. Additionally, the book follows in the tradition of feminist standpoint theory by addressing how Joseph’s own positionality influences her approach, as well as consistently attending to the differential impacts of race, gender, and class. These influences are particularly apparent in the third chapter, where Joseph examines how discourses of responsibility portray poverty, and in the final chapter. Between them is a chapter on the gendered dynamics of consumerism, which may be the most productive for feminist scholars. (Note: This chapter previously appeared in Social Politics.) Although Joseph suggests that one of her goals is to explore possible alternative methods of accounting that might promote justice, this is the weakest aspect of the text. The book provides a brilliantly innovative methodological approach with strong contextualization, both in terms of history and theory, but offers no clear path away from the crushing influence of neoliberal accounting practices. This is not necessarily a significant flaw, as offering alternatives seems beyond the reasonable scope of the work. One of the book’s strongest features, in fact, is Joseph’s frequent acknowledgement, both theoretical and concrete, of the unresolved tensions within resistance to and acceptance of dominant paradigms. This makes the final chapter, which focuses on the university and interdisciplinarity in the context of Joseph’s position as chair of her university budget and planning committee, the most compelling, as Joseph discusses how people in leadership positions “are quickly absorbed,” “speaking and spoken by the dominant neoliberal discourse” (120), despite their knowledge and experience. Debt to Society is an ambitious, broadly-ranging text, and an important one. Joseph points out that this project engages much more significantly with “quantitative knowledge production than do most feminist cultural studies projects” (xvi), but this is equally true for the humanities—and specifically cultural studies—overall. The book’s theoretical density, conceptual complexity, and dizzying array of references require a thorough grounding in cultural studies, making the text unsuitable for use in most classrooms, and readers may find the ratio of theory to analysis lopsided. However, Joseph’s critique of the disciplinary force of accounting practices is an insightful and compelling discussion [End Page 113] of heretofore...