Globalizing Finance: Nostalgia, Desire, and the Market in Contemporary Shanghai
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Globalizing Finance: Nostalgia, Desire, and the Market in Contemporary Shanghai Laura Finch Comparative Literature Studies, Volume 55, Number 1, 2018, pp. 1-22 (Article) Published by Penn State University Press For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/687402 Access provided at 11 Feb 2020 16:59 GMT from MIT Libraries 2016 a. owen aldridge prize winner globalizing finance: nostalgia, desire, and the market in contemporary shanghai Laura Finch abstract This paper reads Tash Aw’s Shanghai-set Five Star Billionaire (2014) as a novel that provides an alternative theory of global finance than the standard model that takes Wall Street as its blueprint. Rather than the abstract tech- no-futurity typically associated with finance in Anglo-American literature, Aw’s novel shows that contemporary finance in Shanghai is a form of capital created and experienced through nostalgia. keywords: finance, Shanghai, nostalgia, contemporary, global ‘It’s cyber-capital that makes the future. What is the measurement called a nanosecond?’ ‘Ten to the minus nth power.’ ‘This is what.’ ‘One billionth of a second,’ he said. ‘I understand none of this. But it tells me how rigorous we have to be in order to take adequate measure of the world around us.’ —Don DeLillo, Cosmopolis This conversation from DeLillo’s 2003 novel Cosmopolis presents a snapshot of one of the difficulties of theorizing capital in the era of financialization. Finance capital acts at inhuman speeds and moves “too rapidly for our mental picture of [it] to remain true to life”1 as Michael Lewis writes in his comparative literature studies, vol. 55, no. 1, 2018. Copyright © 2018. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. 1 2 COMPARATIVE LITERATURE STUDIES history of high-tech trading. The perceived acceleration of capital creates a problem of cognitive mapping: I understand none of this. A counterpoint to the future draw of finance capital is the way that it obscures the past. Cosmopolis’s New York is littered with historical forms of capital that appear out of joint: the word skyscrapers “belonged to the olden soul of awe,”2 the acronym ATM is “aged and burdened by its own historical memory,”3 and cash registers should be “confined to display cases in a museum.”4 In oppo- sition to these objects embedded in history, finance capital appears in the novel as time itself: it is “the future . impatient[, p]ressing upon us.”5 The regimenting and standardizing abilities of measured time that once allowed for the spread of capital in modernity (Taylorism, the synchronizing of railroad schedules) have become reversed in DeLillo’s present, where time is both created and owned by finance. History recedes in the taillights of the present, hyperbolically distant in our rearview mirrors: “the past,” says Eric Packer, DeLillo’s protagonist, “is disappearing. We used to know the past but not the future. This is changing. We need a new theory of time.”6 Fredric Jameson’s work on finance has sought to supply this new theory of time. We are familiar with his theory of the enfeeblement of historical consciousness in works such as Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism (1991): the past, encountered only through pastiche, becomes empty nostalgia that stands in as a compensatory symptom for the evacuation of access to true historical consciousness. For Jameson, these historical claims also hold for finance capital, which as he writes in “Culture and Finance Capital” (1997) is the economic correlate for postmodernism just as banking and credit were voiced through modernism: “today, what is called postmo- dernity articulates the symptomatology of yet another stage of abstraction, qualitatively and structurally distinct from the previous one, which I have drawn on [Giovanni] Arrighi to characterize as our own moment of finance capitalism.”7 In line with Jameson’s other work on postmodernism, the era of finance capital is one of bad historicism and abstract dematerialization: time is mere “image fragments”8 accompanied by “the vanishing away of affect.”9 For both Jameson and DeLillo, this epoch of accelerated finance is a global one. Jameson writes of it as “specters of value . in a vast, worldwide, disembodied phantasmagoria,”10 while the title of DeLillo’s novel names New York as the capital city of the world and a key event occurs when the protagonist’s trading against the yen brings the global economy into freefall. This model of globalization through financial contagion posits Wall Street as the epicenter of postmodern capital, which then spreads globally until the whole planet is blanched out in an ahistorical nightmare ruled by fictional capital. This model seems plausible for what is finance if not global; and cer- tainly, the World Bank and the IMF seek to spread it in its North American GLOBALIZING FINANCE 3 incarnation the world over. However, it is the centrality of this model that this article seeks to disrupt. The U.S. model of finance as future-oriented and beyond the scale of human understanding can be dislocated by the simple inclusion of representations of finance from outside the United States. By thinking beyond “our uncritical habit of conflating epistemological and chronological primacy”11 these alternative experiences of finance become not just copies of the North American version but their own models. Moving beyond the North American canon to consider finance’s global forms demands that I ask a question as yet unvoiced in critical work on finance: why is an inherently transnational economic form theorized through its expression in the United States? Why would the experience of Wall Street be an adequate metonym for global financial experiences? Such a narrative, of course, relies on the hegemonic power of the United States to raise itself to the position of abstract universal, a move similar to the default unmarked position of straight white male or the universalizing position of the West that works such as Dipesh Chakrabarty’s Provincializing Europe, Andre Gunder Frank’s ReOrient, and Martin W. Lewis’s The Myth of Continents seek to decenter. These universals—white, male, straight, American, democratic— are not merely formally similar but collaborate to create an ur-narrative of American finance that is then considered to be corrupted and weakened in its spread to people of color, women (through microfinance), and the “undemocratic” (China). This article presents an opposing picture of finance capital, locating the ways that globalized finance is not merely a derivative of the American model and in so doing disrupts the American universalism of current theories of finance. The centrality given to North American experience when theorizing global finance is in part also due to the influential framework provided by Giovanni Arrighi’s The Long Twentieth-Century (1994), the tacit backdrop to almost all Marxist-inflected work in recent finance studies including Jameson’s 1997 essay. Following world system theorists Fernand Braudel and Immanuel Wallerstein, Arrighi offers a neat expression of the cycles of capitalist accumulation arguing that the dominant economic powers of capitalism—identified as Venice (1450–1650), the United Provinces (1650–1800), the United Kingdom (1800–1920), and the United States (1920 to present day)—exhibit a similar model of growth and decline throughout the course of their imperial reign. He maps this pattern onto Marx’s general formula of capital, M-C-M’: “the first stage, M-C, is the material expan- sion of capital accumulation where money sets commodities in motion and spatial expansion is undertaken to benefit capital accumulation, first within the nation and then externally in imperial endeavors. When the limits of expansion have been reached capital is returned to its money form (C-M’) 4 COMPARATIVE LITERATURE STUDIES and profits return to the financialized center in the creation of wealth without capital, M-M’.” To adequately theorize finance at the turn of the nineteenth century, then, one would need to read simultaneously the novels of British decline (such as Anthony Trollope’s The Way We Live Now) as well as those depicting nascent American wealth (such as Theodore Dreiser’s The Financier).12 This is borne out in the heat map of economic criticism: work done on fictions of finance shows a strong grouping of interest in British realism at the end of the nineteenth century13 and in American naturalism and modernism at the start of the twentieth.14 However, in the current moment of transition work on finance remains within the U.S. archive. This is perhaps due to Arrighi’s uncertainty over the next imperial power in line, although he speculates that it will be China. In a 2015 essay, Jameson attempts to respond to the exemplary globality of the current financial market with a reworking of “Culture and Finance Capital.” In “The Aesthetics of Singularity” Jameson returns to finance, rearticulating his earlier argument while also adding a new dimension to it. Referring to his earlier essay, Jameson writes that: after my initial work on what I would now call postmodernity, a new word began to appear, and I realized that this new term was what had been missing from my original description. The word, along with its new reality, was globalization; and I began to realize that it was globalization that formed, as it were, the substructure of postmodernity, and constituted the economic base of which, in the largest sense, postmodernity was the superstructure.15 Moving to identify the cultural form that is appropriate to the current global financial moment Jameson proposes the postmodern artistic event. Taking the derivative (a contract between two or more parties that wagers on the risk associated with an underlying financial instrument) as the “par- adigmatic”16 financial form, Jameson evolves a theory of the artistic event out of the temporality of this financial instrument.