The Color of Creditworthiness: Debt, Race, and Democracy in the 21St Century

THE COLOR OF CREDITWORTHINESS: DEBT, RACE, AND DEMOCRACY IN THE 21ST CENTURY by Christopher A. Forster-Smith A dissertation submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Baltimore, Maryland February 2018 © Christopher A. Forster-Smith 2018 All Rights Reserved Abstract The Color of Creditworthiness: Debt, Race, and Democracy in the 21st Century addresses the historical and contemporary politics of debt and race. It addresses the practices of debt and race together by demonstrating how debt has served as a central rhetorical and material nexus for producing asymmetrical power relationships between subjects figured as creditors or debtors through techniques for evaluating creditworthiness in varying combinations of moral, racial, economic, and political terms. The project proposes to view the creditor-debtor relation as the primary power relation underpinning capitalist society and liberal democracy, challenging a foundational assumption in liberal political theory and neoclassical economics that views exchange between contracting citizens or free-market actors as axiomatic. By contrast, the dissertation argues that capitalism and liberal democracy are based on asymmetrical power relations between creditor subjects who enjoy the political privilege of citizenship, the racial privilege of whiteness, and the economic privilege of creditworthiness, and debtor subjects figured as non-citizens, non-whites, and without credit. The dissertation first puts Friedrich Nietzsche and Max Weber into conversation to illustrate how religiously derived notions of indebtedness and creditworthiness contributed to producing the model of the rational economic subject during the rise of early capitalism. Second, it engages the work of Karl Marx, Michel Foucault, W. E. B. Du Bois, and Saidiya Hartman to show how race and debt functioned together as crucial political technologies that shaped the liberal capitalist regime, serving to discipline and dispossess free blacks in the Reconstruction-era American South. Third, it performs a ii close reading of recent theoretical works on debt by Maurizio Lazzarato and Annie McClanahan to argue that the neoliberal debt economy, and credit scoring in particular, constitute techno-political infrastructures of control maintaining a “colorblind” form of racial capitalism in the United States today. Finally, the dissertation draws on work in democratic theory from Wendy Brown, William Connolly, W. E. B. Du Bois and Joel Olson to make a case for the abolition of the contemporary regime of racialized indebtedness, which poses a severe threat to the unfinished project of democracy in America by undermining democratic citizenship, institutions and forms of popular struggle. Advisors: William E. Connolly, P. J. Brendese iii Acknowledgments This dissertation is about debt, and, naturally, I’ve accumulated a multitude of incalculable debts in writing it. William Connolly guided and shaped this project from beginning to end. My approach to political theory, outlook on the world, and the sensibility through which I inhabit it have all been shaped enormously by Bill’s brilliant teaching, his low-keyed generosity, his commitment to politically engaged scholarship and the general way he gives “style to his character.” Bill is one of a kind, and I am enormously grateful to have him as my teacher, mentor and colleague. P. J. Brendese enriched this project enormously and in countless ways. It would not have been possible without his careful reading, deft editorial sense, wealth of knowledge about theory, literature, and pop culture, generosity of spirit, and wicked sense of humor. Many aspects of this project as well as the complexities of life’s many struggles were hashed out late in the evening on the phone with P.J. I am extremely fortunate to call him both a colleague and a friend. I extend my great thanks to the other members of my committee, Adam Sheingate, N. D. B. Connolly, and Ali Khan. Their close readings and incisive comments have clarified the contribution of the project, offered ways to strengthen it, and opened up new lines of flight for future inquiry. Adam deserves a special word of thanks for his help in keeping my head above water as I completed the dissertation, and for his enduring patience and encouragement. I want to give thanks to Jane Bennett. Not only is her work incredibly creative and inspiring, but she provided me the precious opportunity to work with her at the journal iv Political Theory, which broadened my perspective and range as a scholar enormously. Lester Spence, Michael Hanchard, Nicolas Jabko, and Erin Chung all provided me mentorship and shaped my development as a scholar. I would be extremely remiss if I forgot to thank Mary Otterbein, Lisa Williams, and Lindsay Cook, whose administrative and emotional support have kept me moving forward throughout my journey at Johns Hopkins. I am extremely fortunate to have been surrounded by incredibly smart, caring, and generous fellow graduate students who have become dear friends. Derek Denman, Nathan Gies, Casey McNeil, Tarek Tutunji, Anne Kantel, Tim Vasko, Yoni Abramson, Tristan Klingelhöfer, Zach Reyna, Stephanie Erev, Chad Shomura, Kellan Anfinson, Tim Hanifan, Katie Glanz, Pat Giamario, Jishnu Guha-Majumdar, Quinn Lester, and Mike Albert have offered insightful commentary on my work, provided wisdom and guidance when I needed it, or have generally been there for me in some crucial way, shape, or form. You all rock. My parents Tom and Lucy Forster-Smith, and my sisters Mara and Anna Forster- Smith have offered their unwavering support, love and encouragement for me throughout my time at Hopkins. Moreover, the whole Lebron family—Joe, Marguerite and Christopher—have been with me on this journey from the beginning and offered invaluable support that has helped me finish the project. Thank you, and love to all. Finally, and most importantly of all, Victoria Lebron-Forster-Smith, the love of my life and my partner in all things, has been there for me and has put up with me through all the ups and downs of graduate school, dissertation writing, parenthood, and v beyond. Simply put, I could not have done this without you. I dedicate this work to you and to our beautiful daughter Angelina. I love you both more than anything. We did it! vi Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................. iv Introduction | Politicizing Debt in the 21st Century ........................................................... 1 1 | Debt, Subjectivity, and the Emergence of Capitalism ................................................. 17 2 | Indebted Servitude and the Afterlife of Slavery in America........................................ 67 3 | Neoliberal Governmentality and Indebted Control .................................................... 113 4 | Toward the Abolition of Indebted Democracy .......................................................... 165 Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 232 Curriculum Vitae ............................................................................................................ 247 vii Introduction Introduction | Politicizing Debt in the 21st Century “Everything in this 'system' depends on the appearance of trade in which debtor is neither slave nor wagelaborer but a trader with an ironclad obligation to pay back the advance. Why this fiction of trade should exercise so much power is one of the great oddities of political economy . In this topsy-turvy semiosis, who was to say who was creditor and who was debtor, let alone what made a man a debtor and a debt a man?” — Michael Taussig1 Today, the words “credit” and “debt” are perpetually on the lips of journalists, politicians, and economists, often followed by troubling descriptors like “crunch,” “risk,” “bubble,” or “crisis.” From 1980 to the 2008 financial crisis, easy access to credit became the preferred solution through which the economy could continue to grow unceasingly, and the American dream of upward mobility and property ownership could be extended to an ever-expanding middle class. This dream of freedom could finally be extended to historically excluded populations deemed unworthy in the past. However, in recent years we have witnessed the collapse of financial markets built on housing debt, student loan levels in the U.S. topping $1.3 trillion dollars,2 sovereign debt levels leading to a showdown between Greece and the EU, and again in the U.S., massive debt crises in the City of Detroit and the territory of Puerto Rico leading to governmental takeovers, bankruptcies, and structural adjustments. After the housing bubble burst, leading to a global economic recession, the problem of mounting indebtedness in both the public and private sectors led to calls for “austerity” and belt-tightening in the European Union and the United States. Now, nearly a decade after the crisis, the U.S. stock market is soaring 1 Taussig, Michael. Shamanism, Colonialism, and the Wild Man: A Study in Terror and Healing. Nachdr. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 2004, 66. 2 Student loan debt now surpasses consumer debt from credit cards, auto loans, and home equity lines of credit. Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Load more