Abstract Up to and during the latest series of financial crises, we have seen the market represented as a kind of subject, one with desires and will, a subject that is capable of responding in extreme fashion if this will is contravened. Given this subjectivisation of the market and the concomitant attribution of powers, we ask: if the market is a subject, what kind of subject is iti As psychoanalysis stresses that the subject is not master of its own home, the market is likewise a strangely homeless subject - on the one hand it manifests in the form of an imagined singular, subjective agent and on the other as a mysterious and ungraspable, unknowable yet powerful force. Suspecting the magic that attributes such powers to the market, this absolute master that is the market is here called to account. Keywords Capital, finance, ideology critique, Lacan, political economy, psychoanalysis, subjectivity TELL ME WHO TO KILL In his short story 'Tell me who to kill', VS. Naipaul articulates the injury of suffering at the hands of an unlocatable agent of oppression. The challenge presented by Naipaul's story is that the narrator's experience of injustice is detached from anything or anyone who could be identified as the enemy and held to account. Thus at the end of the story, as the narrator watches the guests at his brother's wedding, we sense the tremble in a voice that strains to say: I love them. They take my money, they spoil my life, they separate us. But you can't kill them. O God, show me the enemy. Once you find out who the enemy is, you can kill him. But these people here they confuse me. Who hurt me? Who spoil my life? Tell me who to beat back. I work four years to save my money. I work like a donkey night and day. My brother was to be die educated one, the nice one. And this is how it is ending, in this room, eating with these people. Tell me who to kill.1 The narrator's anguish captures something of what we experience when faced with the insult of loss at the hands of a mysterious yet seemingly irresistible power. We find here oppression without an identifiable oppressor, mastery without a master, despotism without a despotic subject. As Jacques Lacan points out, fear of a known object is quite different from anxiety in the face of an unknown yet commanding other.2 It is perhaps no surprise that the rise of 'the market' is associated with a particular experience of injury that knows no author. This experience, which is the experience of so many when faced with the violence of financial markets and which rests at the heart of the concerns presented in this essay, was anticipated by Daniel Defoe in a 1 70 1 pamphlet called The Villainy of Stock-jobbers Detected, and the Cause of the Late Run Upon the Bank and Bankers Discovered and Considered. This text, which is among other things an interesting early example of antagonism to stockbroking, is of particular importance here for its portrayal of the processes by which the malign influence of 'stock-jobbers' is propagated and dispersed. Despair at the pain caused by stockbrokers is coupled with a sense of how difficult it is to locate the cause ofthat injury. Thus Defoe, an outspoken opponent of the financial speculation on the rise in his time, writes: What safety can we have at home, while our Peace is at die mercy of such Men, and 'tis in dieir Power to Jobb the Nation into Feuds among our selves, and to declare a new sort of Civil War among us when they please? Nay, the War they manage is carried on with worse weapons than Swords and Musquets . . . these People can ruin Men silently, undermine and impoverish by a sort of impenetrable Artifice, like Poison that works at a distance, can wheedle Men to ruin themselves, and Fiddle them out of their Money, by the strange and unheard of Engines of Interests, Discounts, Transfers, Tallies, Debentures, Shares, Projects, and the Devil and all of Figures and Hard names . . . and the poor Passive Trades men, like the Peasant in Flanders, are Plundered by botii sides, and hardly knows who hurts them. …
Read full abstract