« Revision/Regression | Main | Ouch »

Stage 2: Renegade Economic Objects

Well I've learned an incredible amount the past six months or so, and now it's time to move on to stage two. That means rewriting everything from scratch, a whole new draft. Apparently John Kenneth Galbraith needed five, ouch. But if that's what it takes to write about economics as clearly and delightfully has he did... Regardless if things go as planned draft two will recast everything in the first one into a whole new narrative structure and conceptual framework. And that framework is something I call renegade economic objects.

A renegade economic object is whole new approach to economics, although if you read some of the first round drafts it should come as no surprise that it has roots in the institutional economics of Thorstein Veblen. Renegade economic objects split the difference between the dominant liberal/neoclassical economics and the various socialist/marxist/conservative approaches that constitute the alternative. Neoclassical economics is ultimately a reductionist approach that sees economies entirely in terms of the actions of individuals, and then transformed into a mass form via the "invisible hand" of the market. Most alternatives counter this view by looking to very large entities, in particular governments and "society" for their answers.

Renegade economics objects are a class of entities that lies between these two poles. They are larger than individuals, yet smaller than governments (or at least the larger ones) and far more concrete than "society". Corporations are renegade economic objects. So are social networks. Markets themselves (but not "the market") are renegade economic objects. So is money itself. Non profit corporations are renegade economic objects too, as are open source software projects. Terrorists groups are often renegade economic objects, and perhaps the "military industrial complex" is too. Closer to home families are renegade economic objects and cities, neighborhoods and other urban concentrations are too. There is a whole world of these things, and it has just begun to be explored.

To be a renegade economic object three qualifications must be met. One it must involve the interactions of multiple individuals. Two it must possess emergent properties, if it's function can just as adequately and usefully be described via some smaller objects than there is no reason to use the larger object. Finally it must be real; overly large and amorphous constructions like "society" or "capitalism" are not objects at all, and ultimately do not even exist except as concepts. Renegade economic objects are very real and that is exactly what makes them so powerful, they are means by which we can attempt to improve the economy around us.


I understand how they are renegade objects, but how are they economic? It would seem that one further qualification would be that their interactions must include, or at least be seen as, capital. There must be something of value within the interactions. No? But that doesn't necessarily always mean money per se...

Good point, it really should just be part of the definition, one of the requirements.

As for capital, that is one of the concepts I'm trying avoid as much as possible, and I certainly can't see the definition of economic having to include capital within it. A subsistance wage for instance is clearly not capital, at least as I understand it, yet it clearly is economic.

My own definition of economic is basically anything relating to the interaction of humans to the flow and transformation of materials and the information those flows and transformations produce. That's derived directly from the OED, although I use a rather different set of words than they do.

Abe, have you read Keller Easterling's book Enduring Innocence? Among lots of interesting ideas, you might particularly want to check out how she sets up offshore economic havens as a kind of Temporary Autonomous Zone for the corporate entity. She hosted a symposium at Yale School of Architecture called "enclave" in 2004 and Hakim Bey spoke. Can't find any trace of the symposium on the web but she goes into it in the book.

was not aware of Easterling's book, but I grabbed a copy today, so far it's quite interesting, but not exactly well written. Her habit of using quotes without stating who is actually talking, and what their exact subject is damn annoying too. Still seems like a worthwhile acquisition, don't really have any architectural stuff at work in this project, unless you count DeLanda.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)