Reframing ways of doing, talking, and thinking about legal and economic phenomena

我们谈话的方式很重要。塑造我们对话的词语、框架和概念也塑造了我们对2008年金融危机、当前环境危机和流行病等事件的反应(Lakoff，2014)。可用来谈论、思考和进行法律和经济方面互动的词汇非常重要，但往往被忽视。一个词的重要性在当代有一个引人注目的例子，那就是“嵌入”。我的研究追溯到波兰尼(Polanyi，1944)的《始终嵌入的经济》(Always Embedded Economy)中嵌入的概念的历史。我考察了格兰诺维特在1985年对这一概念的意外复兴，然后探索了它作为经济法律社会学(ESL)等学术透镜的“核心概念”的化身以及目前围绕它的困惑(格拉诺维特，1985；克里普纳等人，2004年)。然后，我转向为应对金融危机而出版的当代流行文学，这些文献经常指出，经济要么“明显嵌入”社会(Raworth，2018)，要么社会已经嵌入经济及其监管(Earle et al.，2017)。其含义是，在一定程度上，由于法律、经济和社会之间的分离，我们未能有效地预测和应对这场危机。通过这种方式，嵌入性的概念为我们提供了一个方便的钩子，我们可以将法律、经济和社会关系的问题挂在上面。但在现实中，它是困惑和模棱两可的。是法律和经济嵌入了社会，还是社会嵌入了法律和经济？此外，对嵌入性概念的持续承诺扼杀了对法律和经济现象作用的创新重组。嵌入性的概念重新确立了现有的行为、谈话和思维方式，以及这些框架的新古典主义和教义起源和含义。这一点很重要，因为它阻止了我们评估我们希望优先考虑哪些声音、价值观和利益。为了重新构建框架，我们需要以新的方式来处理、谈论和思考法律和经济现象，让我们超越当前的框架和当前对嵌入性的概念承诺。运用法学、经济学、社会学、人类学、语言学和心理学的概念，我提出了一种超越嵌入性的方法。通过关注互动而不是参与者，关注反馈循环而不是嵌入性，我们可以开发新的方式来谈论法律和经济现象，可以突出和重视不同的声音和利益。如果我们能够优先考虑平等、公平、可持续发展和/或正义，而不是关注增长，会怎么样？我作品的原创性不仅在于它的内容，还在于它的沟通。具体地说，它试图围绕基于设计的方法在社会法研究中的应用而建立新的学术基础，这些方法认为“设计性方法”，特别是对沟通、实验和使事物可见和有形的强调，特别适合于解决社会法律问题(Perry和Perry-Kessaris，2019；Perry-Kessaris，2020,2017)。词语在挑战占主导地位的框架和“认知方式”方面的能力天生有限(克罗斯，1982)。因此，我将使用视觉方法批判性地探索嵌入性的概念及其可能的替代方案，特别是数字艺术、平面设计、3D计算机建模和动画。通过这种方式，我将利用“嘉士伯效应”(Bernstein等人，2015)，到达文字无法到达的地方，以及潜意识中的声音和兴趣，并产生创新和互动的方式，让学术界以外的更广泛的受众参与进来。因此，拟议的项目将社会法律方法和概念方面的开创性研究与前沿参与手段相结合，通过提高对我们如何构建法律和经济框架的重要性的认识和理解，寻求大学以外的影响(Reed，2018)。

The way we talk matters. The words, frames and concepts that shape our dialogue also shape our responses to events like the financial crisis of 2008, the current environmental crisis, and pandemic (Lakoff, 2014). The vocabulary available to talk about, think about, and do legal and economic aspects of interactions is deeply important, but often overlooked. A striking contemporary example of the importance one word can play is "embeddedness". My research traces the history of the concept of embeddedness from Polanyi's "always embedded economy" (Polanyi, 1944). I examine Granovetter's accidental revival of the concept in 1985, before exploring its incarnation as the "core concept" of scholarly lenses like economic sociology of law (ESL) and the current confusion surrounding it (Granovetter, 1985; Krippner et al., 2004). I then turn to contemporary popular literature published in response to the financial crisis which frequently states that the economy is either "obviously embedded" in society (Raworth, 2018), or that society has become embedded in the economy and its regulation (Earle et al., 2017). The implication is that it is in part due to the separation between law, economy and society that we failed to predict and respond effectively to the crisis. In this way, the concept of embeddedness offers us a convenient hook on which we can hang the problems of the relationships between law, economics and society. But in reality it is confused and ambiguous. Are law and economy embedded in society, or is society embedded in law and economy? Moreover, the ongoing commitment to the concept of embeddedness stifles innovative reframing of the role of legal and economic phenomena. The concept of embeddedness re-entrenches existing ways of doing, talking and thinking and the neoclassical and doctrinal origins and implications of these frames. This is important because it prevents us from appraising which voices, values and interests we wish to prioritise. To reframe, we need new ways of doing, talking and thinking about legal and economic phenomena that move us beyond current frames and current conceptual commitments to embeddedness. Using concepts from law, economics, sociology, anthropology, linguistics and psychology, I propose one way of moving beyond embeddedness. By focusing on interactions rather than actors, and feedback loops rather than embeddedness, we can develop new ways of talking about legal and economic phenomena that can highlight and value diverse voices and interests. Instead of focusing on growth, what if we were able to prioritise equality, equity, sustainability and/or justice?The originality of my work lies not only in its content but in its communication. Specifically, it seeks to build upon emergent scholarship around the application of design-based methods in sociolegal research which argue that 'designerly ways', in particular the emphasis on communication, experimentation and making things visible and tangible, are especially suited to addressing sociolegal concerns (Perry andPerry-Kessaris, 2019; Perry-Kessaris, 2020, 2017). Words are inherently limited in their capacity to challenge dominant frames and "ways of knowing" (Cross, 1982). So I will use visual methods to critically explore the concept of embeddedness and its possible alternatives, specifically digital art, graphic design, 3D computer modelling and animations. In this way I will employ the "Carlsberg effect" (Bernstein et al., 2015) of reaching the places that words cannot, and the subconscious voices and interests therein, and generate innovative and interactive ways of engaging wider audiences beyond academia. As a result, the proposed project combines ground-breaking research in sociolegal methods and concepts with cutting edge means of engagement that seeks out impact beyond the university through increased awareness and understanding of the importance of how we frame the legal and economic (Reed, 2018).