This blurb is so enticing.
Declarations of Dependence: Money, Aesthetics, and the Politics of Care
by Scott Ferguson
Human being is born and remains dependent, yet everywhere she is abandoned. Today, so many yearn to be free from the governing center, but they are more reliant upon its care than they know. Traditionally, critique has answered care’s entanglements by insisting that money enslaves and the aesthetic saves. Yet neoliberal fecklessness has revealed the impotence of this dialectic, requiring us to set the historical relation between money and aesthetics on more capacious foundations. For this, critical theory must desert the Marxist image of money as a private, finite, and alienable quantum of value. Instead, it should embrace the heterodoxy of Modern Monetary Theory, for which money is a boundless public center that can be made to support all.
It wasn’t so much the move from the finite to the boundless which can be read as a move from the restricted to the generous. It was the harkening back to care (à la Heidegger?) that for me led to a consideration of the history of critique generated by queer and feminist theory where desire is theorized as plural (and yes, desire is not the same as care) and imagine other economies. Money. Meaning. Margins. Which gives rise to which?
And so for day 2479