PERFORMATIVITY, MISFIRES AND POLITICS
PERFORMATIVITY, MISFIRES AND POLITICS
复制标题
绩效、失误和政治
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2010
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Callon
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Callon
经济学的表演性和经济学在经济学中的嵌入性这一命题难道没有使经济问题去政治化的效果吗？这难道不是含蓄地授予经济学家对什么是经济事务的“良好”管理的定义的垄断权吗？更糟糕的是，这难道不是加强了新自由主义学说的主导所加剧的现有趋势，即清除关于经济生活组织方式的所有问题的政治辩论吗？朱迪思·巴特勒提出的这些问题至关重要。在这些简短的评论中，我想建议的是，表演性方案，远远没有把关于经济的批判和政治辩论的问题放在一边，相反，似乎至少在两个不同的方面，有助于使对经济-政治关系的反思成为中心。第一，说经济学及其发展的分析框架和理论模型的多样性有助于它所研究的对象的构成，意味着含蓄地声称，没有单一的方式来组织经济，而且也没有令人满意甚至有效的方式来组织经济。就其本身而言，经济生活组织形式的多样性这一命题并不新颖或具有革命性，正如市场结构的多样性这一命题一样。表演性理论所补充的是，没有一种最好的方式，也没有一种组织形式能够自然地、强制地（可以说是唯一能够确保市场最佳运作的组织形式）强加于人。市场，坚持这种非常具体的经济组织形式，是复杂的现实，可以以不同的方式配置，因为每种配置都可以被设计为响应特定的方向和要求。这种多样性，以及在这一点上，表演性方案增加了一些重要的东西，部分源于，并在某种程度上表现在，为解释市场运作的各个方面而设计的理论框架的多样性。一个进化的市场（如进化经济学所定义的），围绕创新和创造新资源的系统逻辑组织起来，不同于围绕分配结构的新古典市场。（如可能，最佳）现有资源：竞争的形式以及均衡或不均衡的性质在每种情况下都有很大的不同，这意味着，除其他外，工业产权的形式或不同的激励措施（纳尔逊和温特，1977年，1982年）。表演性理论使我们认为，设想和制定市场是可行的，市场的功能在不同程度上与新古典模型或进化模型相对应。因此，这意味着，例如，在设计新市场或改造现有市场的情况下，我们可以（a）至少以编程方式确定有关理想运作模式的一些要求;（B）开发或多或少形式化的模型，以探索可能性领域（我们可以称之为经济分析）;（c）进行体外和/或体内实验，以测试这些模型及其结果，以期对其进行修正（Muniesa & Callon 2007; Callon 2009）。事实上，
Does the thesis of the performativity of economics and the embeddedness of the economy in economics not have the effect of depoliticizing the question of the economy? Does it not implicitly grant economists the monopoly on the definition of what is considered ‘good’ management of economic affairs? Worse still, does it not strengthen the existing tendency, accentuated by the domination of neo-liberal doctrines, of purging political debate of all questions on the modalities of the organization of economic life? These questions raised by Judith Butler are crucial. What I would like to suggest in these brief comments is that the performativity programme, far from putting aside the question of critique and political debate on the economy, seems on the contrary to contribute, in at least two different ways, to making reflection on the economy-politics nexus central. First, saying that economics, with the multiplicity of frames of analysis and theoretical models that it develops, contributes to the constitution of the object that it studies, means implicitly claiming that there is no single way of organizing the economy and moreover of organizing it satisfactorily or even effectively. In itself the thesis of diverse modalities of organization of economic life is by no means new or revolutionary no more than that of the diversity of market configurations. What the performativity thesis does add is that there is no one best way, no single form of organization that imposes itself naturally and compellingly, so to speak, as the only one able to ensure the optimal functioning of markets. Markets, to stick to this very specific economic form of organization, are complex realities that can be configured differently, as each configuration can be designed to respond to particular orientations and requirements. This diversity and on this point the performativity programme adds something essential stems partly from, and to some extent is expressed in, the plurality of theoretical frameworks devised to account for the various aspects of market functioning. An evolutionary market (as defined by evolutionary economics), organized around a systematic logic of innovation and creation of new resources, is different from a neoclassical market structured around the allocation (if possible optimal) of existing resources: the forms of competition as well as the nature of equilibriums or disequilibriums, differ substantially in each case and imply, among other things, modalities of industrial property or varying incentives (Nelson & Winter 1977, 1982). The performativity thesis leads us to consider that it is feasible to conceive and to enact markets whose functioning corresponds to varying degrees either to neo-classical models or to evolutionary ones. It therefore implies that, in the case, for example, of the design of a new market or the transformation of existing ones, we can (a) define, at least programmatically, a number of requirements concerning the desired modalities of functioning; (b) develop models that are formalized to a greater or lesser degree, to explore the field of possibilities (what we could call economic analysis); and (c) run in vitro and/or in vivo experiments to test these models and their results, with a view to amending them (Muniesa & Callon 2007; Callon 2009). The fact that there is room for