Neoliberalism and Chance`

ARTICLE

Received19Aug2015 | Accepted9Nov2015 | Published8Dec2015

Neoliberalismasapoliticaltheologyofchance:the politicsofdivination

JoshuaRamey1

ABSTRACT InthisessayIarguethatdespiteitsincreasinglycatastrophicsocialandnatural consequences,neoliberalismretainsitsideologicalappealpartlyduetothewaycollective faith inmarketforcesvalidatesneoliberalideologyasadisavowedformof divination 1 Ibeginby brieflycanvassingboththehistoryandpersistenceofdivinationpractices.Ithenreadneoliberal viewsofrandommarketforcesasproductiveof “knowledge” asacontemporaryformof divinationpractice,definedasanytradition-boundpracticeoftakingchanceseriouslyasa conduitformore-than-humanknowledge.IfollowPhilipMirowski’sargumentthatunder neoliberalismmarketsareunderstoodprimarilyassuperhuman “meta-informationprocessors” which,partlybasedonrandomness,producecorrect “knowledge” aboutthesocialgoodinthe formofprices.Iarguethatthewaythischanceemergenceof “knowledge” isconflatedwith humanfreedom,particularlyinthewritingsofFriedrichHayek,isanuncannyparalleltothe divinatorysolicitationofchance.Marketsthemselvesareisomorphicwithperennialdivination tools.Partoftheefforttoundermineanddisplacetheneoliberaleramustinvolvedismantling theappealofitsparticularformofdivination,acomplextask(notundertakenhere)involving exposureofthewayneoliberalismoffersasimplificationof,andauthoritariansolutionfor, complexproblemsposedbytheroleofchanceinpolitics,scienceandmetaphysics.Thisarticle ispublishedaspartofathematiccollectiondedicatedtoradicaltheologies.

Thepersistenceofdivination

Divinationpracticesaretradition-boundmeansofattaining more-than-humanknowledge,generallyonthebasisofa systematicsolicitationofchance.2 Well-documentedby historians,ethnographersandculturalanthropologists,itisa globalandperennialaspectofhumanculture(Curry,2010:1). Divinationincludespracticessuchas IChing,Tarot, Ifá, astrology,cheiromancy,bibliomancy,geomancyandsortilege (lots).Inadditiontothesespecializedforms,therearemany informalmodesofdivination,statesandcircumstancesinwhich chanceisinterpretedasmeaningfulandoracular.Theseinclude oneiromancy(dreaminterpretation)andhypnagogicmodesof awarenesssuchastrancestates.Informalmodesofdivinationare oftenlinkedtosynchronicities,eventsthatseemconnectedbut arenotcausallyrelated(Jung,2010).Itisthoughtthatthechance wordsofchildrenandtheparanoidspeechofthementallyinsane cancontaindivinatorypotential,andinmanyculturesmental illnessistakenasasignofemergentdivinatoryauthority,inneed ofcultivationandtraining.3 Divinationwouldseem,then,to namesomegeneric,evenuniversaldimensionofhumanculture, atradition-boundmodeoftakingchanceseriously.4

Whetherornothumanculturescanpersistwithoutdivinationis debatable,sinceitseemsnocultureonrecordhasgonewithout someformofit(Curry,2010:1).Yetdivination’sroleishighly contentious.Allculturesofdivinationacknowledgebothitssalutary andsometimesperniciouspotencies.5 Itisusedpositively,toresolve disputes,toworkhealing,formeditationalpracticesandtorestorea senseofpossibilitywhensituationsseemotherwisehopeless.BiblebelievingChristiansusebibliomancy,therandomopeningof scripture,toseekwisdom,evenwhenpastorsandpriestsforbidthe practice.6 Major firmsonWallStreetareknowntoconsultpsychics andmediumsaspartofroutineresearch.7 Famousscientistsclaim tohavehadtheirmajorbreakthroughsduetodreamsorother seeminglychancehappeningsintheprocessofresearch.8 Andthe StateofArizonastillhasalegalprovisionfordecidingtiedelections bycartomanticdivination:inadeadheat,thecandidatedrawingthe highercardwinstherace(Heimlich,2010:143).

Divinationpracticescanalsobeperniciousanddeceptive. Despiteitshistoricalimportanceandcontinuingutilityforhuman culture,divinationisclearlysubjecttothewilesofcharlatansand thedesignsofhustlers(Jung,1967).9 Frompre-modernauthors (Cicero,2007)tocontemporaryethnographers,theevidenceisthat whatmakesfortrustworthyoraclesorvalidintuitiveinsightis subjecttodoubt,contestation,eventherefutationofdivination,as such.Culturesofdivinationhavewaystodeterminewhetheran oraclewasvalid,adivinersincere,aprophetauthoritativeornot (Taussig,2003;Cornelius,2010;Heimlich,2010).

Evenwithsuchmechanismsavailable,itisclearlydifficultto alwaysauthenticateanoracle,letalonedeterminewhetherachance istrulymeaningful.Atleastonereasonforthisisthatthereseems tobeanirreduciblyrhetoricalorperformativedimensioninvolved indivination,someminimal chicane ortrickerycarriedoutby diviners,eveninthepresenceoforcooperationwithputatively extra-humanwisdom(Cornelius,2010).Asanactofinterpretation, eventhoughdivinationelicitshigher,non-humanauthorities,its practiceofteninvolvescleverpersuasiveness,whattheGreekscalled metis orcunningintelligence,inthetakingandinterpretationsof signs.ThispresentsaconundrumNietzsche(2001)perhapsput bestwhenhewrote,in TheGayScience#277:

Norshouldweconceivetoohighanopinionofthisdexterity ofourwisdomwhenattimesweareexcessivelysurprisedby thewonderfulharmonycreatedbytheplayingofour instrument aharmonythatsoundstoogoodforustodare togivethecredittoourselves.Indeed,nowandthensomeone playswithus goodoldchance;nowandthenchanceguides

ourhand,andthewisestprovidencecouldnotthinkupa morebeautifulmusicthanthatwhichourfoolishhand producesthen.(Nietzsche2001:157)

Chancecanbetheoccasionforthebeautifulmusicofhuman wisdom.Butisit,asNietzschefeared,all-too-human?Doubtless theirreduciblyinventivedimensionofourrelationtochance, whereweoccasionallylookforurgentlyneededwisdom,isdeeply fraught,particularlywhensocialandpoliticalstakesarehigh.Ina givencase,howcanweknowwhetheradivinationpractice protectsthe statusquo ofdesireandpower,panderstonarcissistic fantasy,preysupondeepfears,oropenshumanlifetodifferent, unexpected,evenlife-givingpotencies?

Modernityseemstohavesettledthequestionofdivination largelybyavoidingit.10 Inaputativelysecular,rationalistic, scientificcontext,whichclaimstohavesupersededtheneedfor divination,takingdivinationseriouslyappearsnonsensical,absurd, evenaveiledthreattosocietyitself(Lear,2003).Inthisanxiety secularmodernityisnotunique.Inbothcontemporaryandpremodernmonotheisticculturestheaffirmationthatdivinationis even possible canleadtochargesofheresyandblasphemy a spuriousclaimtoknowthemindofGod(Atlan,2010).Thisisso evenwhenmonotheisticculturesincludedandstillinclude exceptionsforcertainkindsofdivination(andbelieverswho practiceitdespiteofficialpronouncementsagainstit).

Inthesecularrationalistculturesthatemergedfromthe monotheisms,chancetendstobepubliclyacknowledgedonlyas randomness (Hacking,1990;Atlan,2010).Thatistosay,inmodernitychanceis supposedly renderedmeaningfulnotthroughritesof divinationbutthroughobservationofthepropertiesofcomplex systems,suchasgeneticmutationorinformationprocessing,that incorporatethealeatoryorunpredictableasoneoftheirfunctional orevolutionaryparameters(Atlan,2010).Themeaningofchanceis supposedtobeapparentonlyatalevelofabstractionaffordedby largesetsofdatatothecooleyeofascientificobserverorthe indifferentmachinationsofanalgorithm.Thissoberperspectiveisin profoundtension,however,withtheinvestmentofmodernsubjects inthesingularspecificityofchance(Hacking,1990;Lear,2003). Capitalistsubjectsareespeciallyinvestedin gambling,notjustfor sportbutasentrepreneurialrisk-taking,wheretakingone’schances isaformofdistinguishingone’slifeasmeaningful,importantand auspicious asignforotherstoread,hear,andmark.

Gamblinghasanarchaicconnectiontodivination;most gamblinggameshavetheiroriginsindivinationrites(Lear,2003). AsJacksonLearhasbrilliantlyargued,critiquesofgambling,in Americancapitalisminparticular,arehistoricallyrootedinthe anxietiesofmonotheisticcultures.ModernProtestantism,as Weberalreadyshowedin TheProtestantEthicandtheSpiritof Capitalism (2009),isparticularlyunsureaboutwherethepower ofprovidenceliesinaworldthatissubjecttochance,where economicsuccessispartlyamatterofthearbitrary,unforeseeable changesinmodesofproductionandratesofconsumption.Ifa divinedesignoverrulestheapparentarbitrarinessofchance,how canChristiansorotherreligiousbelieversbemotivatedtotake entrepreneurialrisk?IstheentrepreneurplayingGod?Thisisnot onlyareligiousdilemma.Thecritiqueofgamblingisalsolinked toconcernsofskepticalrationalistsaboutthedisturbance divinationmightbetoreasoneddebateasthecorrect(evenif limited)modeofdealingwithuncertainty,inbothnatureand culture(Lear,2003).Howcanwegoverninadvanceofchance,or in flexibleresponsetocontingencies,withoutinsomesense foreclosinginadvanceonpossibilitiesthatmayturnouttohave beenwhatwastrulydesiredorneeded?Thedifficultiesin coordinatingpublicdebate,combinedwiththeurgencyof problemsthatcannotwaitfortheresultsoflong-termresearch, oftenleavethemostpressingissuesofourtime(suchasthe

climatecrisis)undecidedandsubjecttothecapricesofthosewho happencurrentlytobeinpower.Theytakeourchancesforus, anddivinethemeaningoftheresults.

Perhapswehaveneverbeenallthatmodern(ist),orallthat monotheistic.11 Perhapsanxietyaboutdivinationbetraysan uncomfortabletruth,thatevenaputativelymodern,secular,and rationalistculturecannotandwillnotsurvivewithoutsomeform ofdivination.Thepointisdebatable.Butwhatisbeyonddoubtis thatglobalcapitalistculture,particularlyinitsneoliberalvariant, practicesitsownuniqueyetdisavowedformofdivination.

Weareallneoliberalsnow

Theneoliberaleraincapitalism,beginningroughlyinthelate 1970s,hasbeensubjectedtoanumberofinsightfulanalysesanda growingnumberofwide-rangingcritiques.12 Itisaneradefined bytheascendencyof financialoverindustrialandotherformsof capital;byincreasingindebtedness,publicandprivate;byrapidly growingandextremewealthinequalities;byde-unionizationand extremelyprecariousworkforces;byanincreaseinthenumber andrateof financialcrises;andperhapsaboveallbyan ideologicalcommitmenttotherollingbackofthewelfarestate andprivatizationofpublicgoodsineverysphere,atanyprice. Despitevariationsonthethemeanddisagreementsonhowbest toimplementtheprogramme,neoliberalismcanbedescribeda generalgovernancestrategydesignedtore-make homopoliticus intheimageof homoeconomicus (Foucault,2008;Mirowski, 2013;Brown,2015).Theneoliberalmandate,writlarge,isto imposemarketsandmarket-likeprocessesofproductionand consumptiononmoreandmoreofsocialrealityuntilalloflifeis includedintheambitofthepursuitofprofit.Neoliberalismis arguablythenadirofwhatMarxcalledthe “realsubsumption” of societyunderthecapitalism,aprocesshesawaspossiblebutdid notlivetoseeinitshorrifying acualité (Read,2009).

Neoliberalismismorethanaviewofeconomics.Itisatotal viewofrealityasconditionedbymarketforcesandhumanbeings asinherentlyhard-wiredformarketrationality.Neoliberalism constituteswhatFoucault(2008)calledastrategyof “ governmentality”,awayofmarking,counting,surveying,andcontrollingsubjectivityinconformitywithdemandsforefficiency, productivity, flexibilityandthecompleteexploitationofso-called “humancapital” (Becker,1994).13 Atleastsincetheearly1980’ s, thisstrategyhasbeenundertakeninthenameofhuman “liberty” asbeingbestpreservedinmarket-basedsociallife(Hayek,1944; Friedman,1962).Despiteitsnearlycompletetriumphoverglobal politicalpower,itisincreasinglyclearthatneoliberalismdoesnot carryeitherempiricalorhistoricalsupportforitspositionthat marketsarethesuperiorsocialformandeconomicactivitythe bestandmostdesirableexpressionofhumanfreedom.Ifthisis thecase,thenneoliberalismisperhapsbestunderstoodatthis pointasareligiousdoctrine,afaith:inaworda theodicy that endlesslyjustifiesthesacrificialwaysofmarketstosuffering humanityanddyingearth(GraeberandPiketty,2014).

AsMirowski(2013)hasshown,neoliberalismhasbeen particularlyadroitathidingitsintellectualinconsistencies,and atofferingideologicalmeansbywhicheconomichardshipand indeedtheeviscerationofdemocraticideals(Brown,2015)canbe sustainedbyitsprecarioussubjects.Infactthemostfamous neoliberalvoiceswereexplicitabouttheneedforaneoliberal creedtoofferatheorynotjustofthepositivebenefitsofmarketbasedsociallife,butofthe finalappropriatenessofmarketplaces tofulfiltheessenceofhumannatureandformtheonlytrue expressionofhumanfreedom(Hayek,1944;Friedman,1962).

ButasMirowskihasarguedwithextremelucidity,the neoliberalviewoffreedomiseitherreductiveorinherentlyselfcontradictory.In NeverLetaSeriousCrisisGotoWaste:How

NeoliberalismSurvivedtheFinancialMeltdown, Mirowskiargues thatfromitsinceptioninthe1930sattheMontPèlerinsociety, anduptoitspresentdaybehemoth,the “neoliberalthought collective” hasheldthatthemuchvaunted “liberty” ofclassical liberalismmustbeleftundefinedorelseredefinedasaformof knowledge(MirowskiandPiehwe,2015).While “liberty” is championedbyneoliberalsasthechiefvirtue,andinsomesense theonlyone,theyeitherrefusetodefinelibertyotherthanby opposingittodemocraticprocessesofdeliberativeaction,inthe caseofMiltonFriedman,orwithFriedrichHayektheyhave translated “liberty” intoan epistemic issue.Inthelattercase, crucialfortheargumentthatmarketsfunctionasneoliberal divinationtools,libertyexists only ifandwhenknowledgeas marketopportunityisproperlyrealized.

Forneoliberals,freedomexists only asthepossibilityofproper marketinstantiationandparticipation.Mirowski’s(2013)characterizationoftheimplicationsofHayek’sview,here,isdecisive formyargument.

Freedomcannotbeextendedfromtheuseofknowledge in societytotheuseofknowledge about society,becauseselfexaminationconcerningwhyonepassivelyacceptslocaland incompleteknowledgeleadstocontemplationofhowmarket signalscreatesomeformsofknowledgeandsquelchothers. Meditationuponourlimitationsleadstoinquiryintohow marketswork,andmetareflectiononourplaceinlarger orders,somethingthatneoliberalswarnisbeyondourken. Knowledgethenassumesglobalinstitutionaldimensions,and thisunderminesthekeydoctrineofthemarketastranscendentalsuperiorinformationprocessor.(Mirowski2013:61)

Fromthebeginning(the1930s),theviewthatmarketswere “superiorinformationprocessors”,whereinformationissupposedtobethegenuinefactsaboutwhathumanbeingsgenuinely needanddesire,formedthebasisfortheneoliberalcritiqueof “socialism”.Thiscritiquewasnotaimedmerelyatthetotalitarian excessesofcommunism,norsimplyatKeynesian-styleattempts tomitigatemarketinefficienciesthroughredistributivetaxation andothersocialsafetynets.

ThecritiqueofsocialismbyHayekandthenbyFriedmanwas thatstateformationsofrationality totalitarian or democratic embodyamisguidedviewof reality,itself.Hayekputthepoint clearlyinhismatureworkontheplaceoflawandgovernmentin relationtomarkets.

Itisimpossible,notonlytoreplace spontaneous ordersby organizationandatthesametimetoutilizeasmuchofthe dispersedknowledgeofallitsmembersaspossible,butalsoto improveorcorrectthisorderbyinterferinginitbydirect commands.Suchacombinationofspontaneousorderand organizationitcanneverberationaltoadopt.(Hayek,1973: 45–46)

Onlytrulyspontaneousorderscorrectlyutilizesocial “knowledge”,andonlymarketsare(orcanbeandshouldbe)suchforms oforder.Insofarasthestateisnotspontaneousbutplanned,it failstoappreciatebothsocialandnaturalrealityforwhatitis.

InhiswritingsHayekwas,tohiscredit,actuallytryingto argue forthisview.Andtheimageofmarketsasinstancesofcomplex, “cyborg” systemsofakindofextendedcognitionthroughwhich themindismarriedtoaself-adaptive,self-adjustingmarket,does havesomemerit(Mirowski,2002;Connolly,2013).Buttheview that marketsalone,ratherthanmanyothercomplexsystems, embody the modelandparadigmofhumanfreecreative expressionisnolongerthesubjectofargument.14 Inthiswaya kindofmarket “naturalism” (ormeta-naturalism)hasbecomea

retroactivejustificationsimply given,afterthefact,forthegutting ofthesocialstate,supply-sideeconomicsandmonetarismthathave becomethecredooftheWashingtonConsensus,theinternational financecommunity,andthewealthiest1%.Moreperniciously,faith inthe natural and unquestionable characterofmarketsassociobiologicalandevolutionary-psychologicalforcesproducingand producedbyrealityitselfhasbecome,asBrown(2015)andothers haveshowninexcruciatingdetail,theveryairthattheother99%of capitalistsubjects(cannot)breathe.Neoliberalideologyisnowthe deepframeworkwithinwhicheverydecisionismade fromcareer choiceandpoliticalpersuasiontohealthandeducationtolove andrelationships.Neoliberalsubjectivitiesframeeveryscenario asaninvestmentopportunityrealizedorlost,onthemodelof evolutionary-adaptivesuccessorfailurewithinachaotic,hostile, hypercompetitivescenarioofscarceresources.

AsFoucaultwasperhapsthe firsttoseeclearly,Hayek, Friedman,Beckerandtheiracolyteswereadamantthatthismost “natural” wayofhumanstobe not homopoliticus but homo economicus,investorsofhumancapital neededtobeenculturated.Thatis,subjectsandsocietieshadtobe instructed inthe waysofthemarket,disciplinedbyandreshapedformarketsand market-likemodesofinteraction.Historyhasshownthisisa processthatmeetswithcontinuousresistance.Yethereisoneof thecontradictionsthatcanbeexposedintheneoliberalsynthesis. AsMirowski(2013),Crouch(2011)andPeck(2010)haveall documented,itisonlytheneoliberalinnercirclewhoeverneed know,asareasonedphilosophicalposition,thattheonlypathto freedomanddignityisthroughmarkets.Itisimperativeformost ofustomerely believe.AsHayek(1944)putit:

Probablyitistrueenoughthatthegreatmajorityarerarely capableofthinkingindependently,thatonmostquestionsthey acceptviewsthatthey findready-made,andthattheywillbe equallycontentifbornorcoaxedintoonesetofbeliefsor another.Inanysocietyfreedomofthoughtwillprobablybeof directsignificanceonlyforasmallminority.(Hayek1944:164)

Fortheinsiders,thereisunderstanding.Fortherestofus,there issacrificialparticipation.Infact,asMirowskiputitabove,if enoughofusdevelopedanawarenessofourveryreallimits ecologicalandpsychological andthelimitationonmarketlogicto capturethecomplexitiesofotheraspectsoflife,wemightloseour nerveandourfaith.So “marketfundamentalism”,asGeorgeSoros famouslydubbedit,is imposed inorderto prove thatitistrue.Itis imperativethatwedonotask why theonlysolutiontoapparent marketfailureistocontinuetheprojectoffurthermarket refinementandimplementation,ortheprojectwillcollapseinon itself.

Disavoweddivination

Maintainingtheignoranceofthemassesastorealmarketforces,as neoliberalisminsistsmustbemaintainedformarketstowork properly,producesastateofgreaterandgreatersocialandnatural chaos,theequivalentofacontinuouslyandgloballyunfolding “stateofemergency”.Thusthe “politicsofdivination” practicedby neoliberalismisavariantontheauthoritarianpoliticaltheologyof Schmitt(2006).Instatesofemergencysuchasterroristattacksor financialpanics,asSchmittargued,democraticprocesseswill alwaysbe tooslow,andinneedofaspeedyauthoritarian supplement.Theremustbe “exceptions” madeforleadersof superiorinsightandwisdomtooverruleandoverridedemocratic processes,suchaswhenGeorgeW.Bushdeclared, “Iamthe decider”.Schmitt(2006)hadarguedpreciselyfortheneedfor somethingliketheriseofanauthoritarianstate(suchastheNazi party)inthefaceoftheeconomicchaosofthecollapseofthe

Weimarrepublic.Thetrickofneoliberalismhasbeentoproducea stateofcontinuouseconomicemergencyinwhichtheonlywayout isthrough:onlytheauthorityoftheas-yet-unrealizedmarketcan saveusfrommarketdeficiencieswithrespecttothesocialgood, sincethetruesocialgoodcanonlybeknownthroughfull surrendertomarketmeta-informationprocessing.Thusthe politicsofdivinationasneoliberalpoliticaltheology:theonly meaningofchancetobedivinedisthatwhichenforcesthe authorityoftheideal,never-quite-realizedmarket.Thetruthof thatmarket,itstrueshape,isknownonlytotheinitiates.Tobe consistent,eventhe “exceptions”,ourneoliberalsages,mustclaim asFriedman(1962)did,tobejustlikeus,justtryingtoknowthe unknowable.Justtryingtopracticedivination.

Giventhecatastrophicsocialandnaturalconsequencesofthis ideology,individualsandinstitutionscanonlyremainconvincedif theybelievemarketsareacertainkindof ideal thathasnotyetbeen, butcanandmustberealizedonearth.Frommyperspectivethisis oneofthecorecontradictions(thereareothers)intheneoliberalera thatdemandsideologicalsuture,andthusoffersacertainamount ofcriticalleverage.We can believeinneoliberalideology,and perversely do enjoyit,partlyoutofhow neoliberalismdrawsupona limitedanddisavowedformofdivinationtosatisfycontemporary demandsforrenderingchancemeaningful.Itthusplaysupon confused(andconfusing)conceptionsofrisk,uncertaintyand randomness inaword,conceptionsofchance thatplaguethe modernmind.Drawinguponambiguitiesinsecular,modernistand scientificconceptsofchance,neoliberalsagesdisavowthedivination theyperform.Thisdisavowalispossibleonthebasisoftheputativelyanonymousandsupra-humanforcesmarketsaresupposedby neoliberalstoembody.

Letmebegintosubstantiatethisclaim.Thereisaparticular roleforchance,atleastasrandomness,inmarkets.Hayek reserveshishighestpraiseforthespontaneousandunforeseeable emergenceofmarket “order” .

Itwasmen’ssubmissiontothe impersonalforces ofthemarket thatinthepasthasmadepossiblethegrowthofcivilization... Itdoesnotmatterwhethermeninthepastdidsubmitfrom beliefswhichsomenowregardassuperstitious...Therefusalto yieldtoforceswhichweneitherunderstandnorcanrecognize astheconsciousdecisionsofanintelligentbeingistheproduct ofanincompleteandthereforeerroneousrationalism.Itis incompletebecauseitfailstocomprehendthatco-ordination ofthemultifariousindividualeffortsinacomplexsocietymust takeaccountoffactsnoindividualcancompletelysurvey. Anditfailstoseethat...theonlyalternativetosubmission tothe impersonalandseeminglyirrationalforcesofthemarket issubmissiontoanequallyuncontrollableandtherefore arbitrarypowerofothermen.(Hayek,1944:204–205)

ThusHayek’sfamousclaimthattruesocialorderdependson ignorance,notonrationalplanning.Hayekhereholdscomplexity andunforeseeablecoordinationasthekeystogrowth,invokinga quasi-ecologicalandsystems-theoreticalnotionoforderemergent fromandwithinchaos.Thisispreciselyaclaimforthenatural, inevitableandyetunforeseeableroleofchanceinthedevelopment oflifeitself.Theclaim,byitself,isrelativelyuncontroversial (Connolly,2013).Butmarkets,forHayekareheldtobethe only socialformthatproperlyaccountsforthechanceorrandomness thatis bynature apartofthespontaneousdevelopmentoforder withincomplex thatistosaypartlychaotic systems.State planningfailsbecauseitisanaïve,insufficientlysophisticated relationtonature.

Howexactlyisthisnaturalismaboutmarketscashedout? Markets,iftheyarecloseenoughtoequilibrium,aresupposedto respondtocontingentshiftsinsupplyanddemandasmuchas

theyalsoelicitandproducesuchshifts.Thuschanceisatthe heartofbothmarketplacebehaviourandanalysis.Chancehereis not,ofcourse,completeuncertainty.Chancemustberestrained it mustbecalculablerisk,notgenuineuncertainty,astheneoliberal Knight(2009)arguedfarinadvanceofthetriumphofneoliberal order.15 Systemsofprobabilisticlogicembodiedinalgorithmsthat enablethesurveyofvasttractsofdatamayassistintheanticipation ofpossibleevents,inbothsocialandnaturalworlds,butareonly usefulifthefutureremainsinrelativecontinuitywiththepast (Amoore,2013).Intermsofmarketsandcapitalism,thismeans thatunforeseencontingenciesare “significant” (thatis,profitable tosomeone)onlyiftheydo not entirelydisruptpreviously comprehendedtastes,desires,drives,anddemands thatis,onlyif contingenciesarenotradicalenoughtojeopardizemarkets,assuch.

Putdifferently,chancechangesareonlymeaningfulasprofitable, only,thatis,iftheyliewithinacontinuumofmanageablerisk,not asrealuncertainties(includingtheuncertainstatusofmarketsas such,dependentastheyultimatelyareonsocialandpoliticalwill andperhapsmostimportantlyonecologicalstability).Inorderto achievemaximumprofitability,itisimperativethatneoliberal capitalproducethefutureintheimageofapastthathasbeenitself reproduced:thenextinstallmentofmarketforcesmustbewhatwe willhavewanted,butwerenotquitegetting,allalong.

Hencetheimportanceofreadingneoliberalismasaformof divination,sincedivinatorywisdomisgenericallythatwhichwe relyoninordertoattuneourselvesappropriatelytoapresent partlydeterminedbyforcesotherwiseunknowninthepastand unforeseeableinthefuture.Withthedeliberateintroductionof chanceindivinationrites(anditsechoinneoliberalmarket idealism)comesaparadoxicalre-interpretationofthepast andanticipationofthefutureas contingent,asnotwhatitseems (ormorethanitseems)tobe.

Thereisthusadivinatoryattitudetomarketsinneoliberalism. Divination,byseekinghiddenorunknowncauses,isakindof dis-entanglingofthepresentfromitsapparentlyforeclosed natureorasaforegoneconclusion.Intraditionaldivination,the materialproductionofchance(asrandomcast,spreador synchronisticobservation)insomesensemimicsor rhymes presentuncertaintywithcosmiccontingency,andcreatesthe opportunitytojustifyorexplainthepresentratherthanmerelyto acceptit.Hereliestheneoliberalcardtrick.Foritisby foreclosing allotherinterpretationsofanundesirablepresentotherthan havingbeenproducedbyapastinwhich “marketswerenotyet fullyoperational” thatneoliberaldivinationmanagestoconvince ustokeepattemptingtore-makethefutureintheimageofapast thatneverwas apastwhenthere might havebeenand should havebeenperfectlyoperativemarketforces.Thereisonlyone oracle,onemessageandonechance:forthefurtherandmore perfectextensionofmarketforcesintomoreofhumanreality, renderingit finallysubjecttotheonlyconceivablymeaningful chancewewillhavehad:torenderourselvesprofitable,ordie.

Intheearlytwentiethcentury,Weber(2009)alreadyargued thataversionofsecularprovidentialismwasthenecessary ideologicalsupplementtotheterrorsandtribulationsofmarket uncertainty,asearlyastheseventeenthcentury.Butinthe neoliberalera,asKotsko(2015)hasrecentlyobserved,itseems wehavedevolved,andminimizedourambitionsforameaningful life.Thatis,wehaveabandonedanyreferencetoaprovidencein anysenseexternaltomarkets,optinginsteadforamoreimmanent andsinistereconomictheologyinwhichtheultimatepurposeof marketforcesissimplytoreproducemarketforces,onthemodelof theinevitablesortingofrandomtraitsinasocio-biologicalquestfor an “equilibrium” withincompetitiveadaptivemutation.

Inordertojustifywhatisandisnotavailable,produced, includedand/orexcludedfromthemarket,letalonetojustify inequalitiesofwealthandpower,theprocessasawholemustbe

madetoappearspontaneousandyetdrivenbyinexorable evolutionaryforces.Tosquarethiscircle,andtomarrymeaningfulchanceexclusivelytotheidealhusbandofmarketorder, theremustbe,underneoliberalism,somekindofinterpretive practicethatcontinuouslyreassuresmarket-boundsubjectsthat theirarbitrarilyculturalfatesareinfactperfectlynaturaland inevitable.Thatpracticeisaformofdivination.Neoliberal divinationistheobscure,disavowedpublicface anonymous, implacable,inscrutable ofanauthoritarianschemetorestrict chancetofate:touseaheadybrewofchaosandmarket(dis) ordertoprotectthelargestandmostpowerfulinterestsofcapital atanycost(Klein,2008).

Thestarsdowntoearth

Howtoreconcilechaosandorderisnotanewhumanproblem. Thegapbetweenmeaninglessrandomnessandmeaningful chancemustalways,insomesense,beideologicallysutured. Thatsuchsuturehastraditionallybeentheprovenanceofpriests andoraclesimpliesthatneoliberalism,ifideologicallysuccessful, isbothapoliticaltheologyandatheologizedeconomics.Thatis tosay,neoliberalmarketfundamentalismisperhapsonlyanew twistonhowtosatisfyanold,pre-capitalistneedformeaning.

TheodorAdorno’sinsight,inanessaywrittenattheheightof Fordistcapital,wasthatcontinuingdevotiontoastrologyby capitalistsubjectsinthe1950s(beforetheascentofneoliberalism) reflectedaneedforauthoritarianreassurancesinthefaceofunjust, inequitablefates.ForAdorno,an “irrationalistauthoritarianism” , itselfasymptomoftheimpossiblequestfordominationofnature by “enlightened” humanculture(HorkheimerandAdorno,2007),is reflectedincontinuingdevotiontoastrologybyotherwisegood rationalistic,sobermindedutilitymaximizersconfrontingeconomic scarcitiesandlegalconstraints.In “TheStarsDowntoEarth” , Adorno(2001)arguedthatcontinuingattachmenttoproceduresof divinatoryreading,suchasastrology,aredisplacedaccountsofour dominancebythedemandsofcapital,aprojectionontocosmic inscrutableforces(theplanets)ofthecontingent,ruthless, exploitativedevelopmentofcapitalonearth.ButinthisFordist phaseofdivination,weseemedtoberecognizing,effectively,that therereallyneverwasachance,thatnoonereallyeverhadachance 0utsideofherallottedinstitutionalandadministrativelyrational role.Howthen,underneoliberalismcanweseemtodivinegenuine chanceinmarkets?

Theshifthastodoinpartwiththeexpansionoftheworking dayandtheworkingworldintoeveryareaofhumanlife,each humancapacity,everymomentofsubjectivetime.Withtheriseof the “cognitive” or “affective” or “sharing” economies,allhuman energybecomesapotentiallyprofitableresourcetoexploit (Mirowski,2013;Brown,2015).Toextendthepointbeyondwhat Adornocouldperceive,withneoliberaldivinationwearenolonger pullingthestarsdowntoearth,makinggodsoutofourbosses,but alsointheperpetual,infernalprocessof becomingstarsourselves, burningupourresourcesatevergreaterspeedsandintensities.This callsforthemoreintimate,distributed,andseeminglyanonymous andimpersonalpowerofmarketstodivineevermoreofour chances.Anxietyoverunfoldingcontingencyseemstobenolonger assuagedthroughadivinatoryinvocationofsacredorhigher wisdom.Forneoliberalsubjects,thereisnootherwisdomother thantheunfoldingtranscriptofwhyacontingency,achance,was orwasnotyetcapturedbysomeoneasprofit.Andtheonlyoracles leftarethosewhoseemtoknowhowmarketsreallywork(even thoughsuchknowledgeissupposedtobeimpossible).

Thisbringsustotheheartoftheneoliberalchicane.AsKlein (2008)andothershaveobserved,itisnotonlyintheinterestof neoliberalstorestrictthemeaningofcontingencytoprofitability, butalsotosystematically provoke certainkindsofdisorder.

Thisextendseventotakingoverandremakinggovernmentsfrom ChiletoIraqinordertoservicethelargestcapitalistinterests needforgrowth:theprison–military–industrialcomplex,global financeandthehightechnologyindustries,inparticular(Perkins, 2005;Klein,2008).Thusneoliberalismseemstohaveitboth ways:tobothrestrictthemeaningofchanceinadvance,andto reproducerandomness,riskanddisorderthatissusceptibleonly ofmarket “solutions”.Ineithercase,intheneoliberalera,rather thanpromisingfuturehappinessoutsidetheworkingday,occult knowledgeofthe “mindofmarkets” isusedtoretroactivelyjustify thesufferingofthepresentasinevitable,asouronlyindividual andcollectivehopeinthefaceoffailed(orsimplypresumably failed)alternativestomarkets.16

WhatImeanbyneoliberaldivination,andbyneoliberalismas a politicaltheologyofchance,is not thatmarketsareusedto predictthefutureorforetelldestinies.PerhapsunlikeFordist divination(Adorno,2001),neoliberaldivinationisnotaformof soothsaying.Moremundanelyput,anyrelativelysobereconomist or financialplanneradmitsthatfuturerisk thelikelihoodof successorfailureofaninvestment canonlybeassessedinthe extremelyneartermandwithinextremelystablepolitical, ecologicalandeconomicvariables.Infacttheentirepointof entrustingourselvestomarkets,accordingtoHayek,isthatthe futurecannotbepredicted,letalonecontrolled.WeneedtheGod oftheMarkettowhomtoentrustourfates.

ThuswhenIcallneoliberalmarketapologeticsadivinatory justification,Iamnot especially drawingattentiontothemovements ofmarketsasananticipationofthe future,eventhoughwithinvery tightlimitsthereissomewarrantforthis.Neoliberalismisbetter understood,rather,asanattempttoforeclosethefutureinadvance, inpartbyforeclosingonthemeaningofchance(restrictingitto potentiallyprofitablerisk)andinpartbyproducingorallowing catastrophicsituations,statesofemergencythatonlythealreadylargest firmsandinterestscan “ manage ” . 17 Bycallingneoliberalism apoliticsofdivinationImeantocapturethesenseinwhich retroactive storiesaboutmarketsuccessorfailure,marketefficiency orinefficiency,areisomorphicwithtraditionalusesofdivinationto understandthemeaningofhoweventshaveunfoldedintoagiven present,andwhy.Theironyofthefactthatneoliberalismis supposedtobeaphilosophyoffreedom,andyetwhosefreemarket fundamentalismhasproduced thejuggernautofthestate–finance–military–surveillance–prison–industrial–technologycomplex,surely cannotbeapointlostonanyoneformuchlonger.

Neoliberalpoliticaltheology:atheodicyofchance

Neoliberalideology,instantiatedasadivinatoryprocessof interpretation,readseventsintermsoftheirrelationtoand transcriptionofchanceinsofaraschancerevealsonly whatmarkets shouldhavebeen.This kind ofdivinationhasbecomethe unquestionedframeworkwithinwhichallquestionsofmeaning, purposeandordercanbeposed:howtoextendmarketsandto makethemrunmoreefficientlyastotalsocialsystemsof determination.Neoliberalismgeneralizesourintimate,everyday familiaritywithuncertainty,andourneedforeverydayformsof divination,inordertoprovideakindofmonotonoustheodicyof chance.Thuswhatisdivinatoryaboutmarketsunderneoliberalism isthewaytheybothsatisfyandbetrayourmoregeneralhungerfor divination.Theentireworld,theuniverseitself,is figuredasa market,andchanceinnatureisbothframedasandsubordinatedto thoseactionablerisksthatmightmakesomeoneprofit.

Thisnaturalizationofmarket “forces” justifiesthesuffering, exploitation,andecocideinvolvedintheendlessmarketdemands forefficiency,predictabilityandcontrol inaword,forprofit.If divinationistraditionallyusedprimarilytocomprehendwhy eventshaveunfoldedthewaytheyhave,forindividualsorgroups,

onthebasisofitsabilitytorevealhiddenforcesatwork(Tedlock, 2010:19–23),thenunderneoliberalism(asfarasitholdssway) wehavecometoacceptthatmarketforcesaretheoneandonly intelligiblediviningrod.Thisissobyakindofpseudo-scientific authoritarianism(asAdornorecognized),butalsobythefeltand arguablyirreducibleneedinhumancultureforpublicritesof divination,whatAdorno’sfriendandcolleagueWalterBenjamin understoodastheironicpropheticpotentialofthegambler, appearinginlatecapitalismasasimulacraoftheauthentic prophet(Downing,2011).

Inlieuofsuchprophets,theintrepidentrepreneur,the entrepreneurialselfweareallnowmoreorlessconstrainedto be,istheobscureandhypnotic figurewhoisnowworshippedas theimmanentgod,thegenieofevolutionarycreativedestruction. Thisersatzcombinationofthepropheticandtheauthoritarian, thegamblerandtherationalplanner,istheideal(and interpolated)referencepoint,the(neverquiterealized)image of totalsuccess thatframeseveryneoliberalevaluationofalife,an event,achance.WhatIcallthe “politicsofdivination” namesthe archaicprestigethatlendsthis figureitsprofound,evensacred glamourdespitetheunjust,inequitableandecologicallycatastrophicconsequencesofourcontinuousconsultationswiththat particularoracleofsupposedlyhigherwisdom,theMarket.

Politicsofdivination

Thisargumentneedstobemadeslowlyandcarefullyifitistohelp usappreciateandaltertheabsurdformofpublicreligionwe currentlypractice,inconsultationwithourneoliberaloracles.Atthe heartofdivinationisthepracticeofrelatingtochanceasan occasiontomakemeaning toread,interpret,imagineandactin waysotherwiseimpossible.Undercapitalismwepracticedivination primarilythroughparticipatinginmarkets.Itisherethatmostofus takeourchances(whereweofficially,asopposedtoprivately gamble).Oureconomicfatesarethepublicmeaningascribedtoour lives.Andyetcontemporarysecular,scientificculturesthatinterpret chanceasrandomnessputativelydenymeaningtochance(Atlan, 2010).Whatthismeansisthatinsofarasitpretendstoscientificity, neoliberaldivinationcanbedisavowedthroughanequivocation aboutthemeaningofchance.

Ontheonehand,chanceashistoricallyunderstoodisalways meaningfulinrelationtoindividualorcollectivepurposes.But insofaraswhatoccursisanexpressionofrandomforcesnotsubject toindividualcontrol,whathappensisultimatelywithoutwhy,and meaningless.Butthisisnotaproblemneoliberalisminvented,and perhapsneoliberalismexists,atall,asasymptomofthefactthat moderndemocraticpolitics,scientificdiscourseandmetaphysical thinkingallwaverbetweentwoincompatiblesensesofchanceas eithersingularandmeaningfulormeaninglessandarbitrary (Hacking,1990;Atlan,2010).Neoliberalequivocationaboutchance (expressedprimarilyintheworkofitsmasterthinkerHayek,but alsoinitsmorepopularvoiceMiltonFriedman)isaverydeepone, linkedtoanddependentuponbroaderpolitical,scientificand metaphysicalconfusionsabouttheroleandnatureofchance.

Thustheclaimthatweneedtointerrogatethepoliticsof divinationanditsroleinthecontemporaryworldisnotsimplyan invitationtocritiquetheintellectualcoreofneoliberalism,butalso toexamine,attheleveloflivedexperience,thecontradictorywayin whichneoliberalism’smutatingpolicypositionsandinstitutional experimentsandpopularmediastump-thumpingplayoutacross largerambivalencesabouttheroleofchanceinmodernlife.

Withinneoliberalideologicalandinstitutionalframeworks,aform ofreadingchance aformofdivination isexemplifiedintherisk managementtechniquesofmarketparticipants,whereuncertaintyis readasopportunityforpotentialprofitability.Andunderneoliberal hegemony,marketvaluesofefficiency,productivity, flexibilityand

profitabilityareiteratedelsewhere,dominatingnotonlyin economiclifebutingeneralstrategiesofgovernance of surveillanceandcontrol atbothmacro-andmicro-levelsof power.Underneoliberalism,marketforcesandmarket-modeled interactionsareincreasinglyusedasthenormforunderstandingall othercomplexsystems(includingtheso-called “ economy ” of terrestriallifeitself).18 Thusneoliberalismisanideologythat “reads chancealoud” (Heimlich,2010)bytranslatingallquestionsinto queriesaboutwhatcanbeturnedtoaprofit.Thatistosay,inthe neoliberalcultureofriskmanagement,thelogicofmarketsis employedtoobserve,predictandcontrolbodies,societiesandeven theearthitselfonthemodelofefficientprofit-seeking.

Thismakesmarkets defacto divinationtoolsfarbeyondstrictly speaking “economic” activity,sincemarketoutcomes random processesofassortmentandallotmentbasedonaggregatesof supplyanddemand arethoughttoreveal,beyondanyparticular will,theonlytrulyuniversalandperfectlygenericoracleofwhatwill havebeenmeaningful,worthwhile,andeventhetruthofhuman freedom.Underneoliberalhegemony,thisissonotbecausecertain individualsorinstitutionsexplicitlyidentifywiththeireconomic successorfailure,butbecauseallindividualsandinstitutions(and indeedearthitself)areforcedbymarketfundamentalismtodoso, inthelastinstance.Astheidealsocialtranscriptionofnatural forces, “economicvalues” frameandover-codealldiscussionsof policy,procedureandevenoflawitself(Becker,1994).

Insofarasageneralmarket-modeledstrategyofneoliberal governmentalitydevelopsacrossallcontrolsystems,adisavowed formofdivinationispracticed.Neoliberaldivinationispracticed asa disingenuousreadingofchance,acovertreductionofchance tomanageableriskmaskingasgenuineopportunityforthe makingandunmakingofmeaning.Asageneraland internalized governancestrategybasedonthemodelofmarketplace behaviouralnorms,neoliberalismdoes not elicitthepotential meaningsofchance,butattemptsto foreclose ontheuncertainin ordertorestrictallchancetopotentiallyprofitablerisks.

UnlikemymodernistpredecessorsAdornoandBenjamin,Ido notbelievethereisawayoutbasedinskepticismaboutthevalidity ofdivinationitself.Inotarguingthatmarketsare not divination tools,orthatthey shouldnotbe,orthatmarketinteractions cannot count asdivinatory.RatherIamclaimingthatneoliberaldivination istoonarrow,toocoarse,andtooeasilydisavowed.Itisapoliticsof divinationthatenablesourersatzsagestomaskthediscernmentof destinyinchancebehindpseudo-scientificjargonsofblind mechanicalforcesofrandomness.Obviatingthefactthatin marketplaceinteractionsindividualhumandestiniesaretrulyat stake,andtherelatedfactthatourdestinies(inmarketsandwithout them)havealwaysbeendivinedpartlyonthebasisofacreative, interpretiverelationtochance(Nietzsche,2001),neoliberalism exoneratesmarketsasthe only trulyappropriatearenaofhuman communicationandcreativity,foreclosingthemeaningofchance,in advance,reducingittopotentiallyprofitablerisk.Inconsequenceneoliberalismallbuteliminatescontestinginterpretations ofthevalue,promise,orthreatofchance,sincechance figuredas profitableriskallowsittoansweroneandonlyonequestion: will eventxhavebeenprofitable?

Sacrificeandsurrender

Theirony,however,foramodern,secular,post-scientificculture suchaslatecapitalismclaimstobe,isthis.Giventheapparently irreducibleroleforsomekindofdivinationinhumanculture,itis inpart because marketsarestructuredasdivinationtoolsthat neoliberalismsucceeds.Allculturesofdivinationpracticesome formofdiscernment,andevencontestation,aboutwhetherand howtouseoracularrelationstochance.Butneoliberalism’ s disavowedformofdivinationundercutswhateverprocessesof

contestation inparticularthoseofliberaldemocracy(Brown, 2015)thatmightenableanticipationandevenproductionoffuture contingenciesinaccordwithvaluesotherthanthoseofprofit, efficiencyandtheendlessquestforcontroloverchaoticsystems.

Inshort,myargumentisthatmarketsenableonlyanextremely limitedandtruncatedformofdiviningchance,andonethatcan therebybedisavowed.Asdisavowed,neoliberaldivinationisnot subjecttocontestationorprotest.Thatis,neoliberalismoffersa seemingly satisfyingand putatively globalformofdivination:total socialcoordinationinrelationtochanceasprofitablerisk.Butthe appealofthisdivinatoryattitudetowardmarkets,inviewofthe sacrificesitdemandsmustdrawonarchaicattitudestochanceas sacred.Moregenerically,itdrawsonthefeltneedtolend unfoldingcontingenciessomeformofpublicoratleastshared interpretivestrategies.

Divinationritesareoftenlinkedtocultsofsacrifice.Perhaps mostimportantlyitisthissacrificialaspectofdivinationthat neoliberalismcanhide(eventhoughitisglaringlyobvious)behind gesturestowardsocio-biological,cyberneticandinformationsystemsmodelsofmarket “reality”.Translatingtheoracularpower ofchanceintothepseudo-scienceofriskmanagement(Amoore, 2013)underminestheimputationofanytrulyoracular,prophetic, evenmerelymeaningfulqualitytothemarketplaceforces neoliberalismneverthelesspraisesastheessentialembodimentof humanfreedom.Ifmarket “realism” claimstheyareblind, mechanicalsystemsoforderemerginginrandomnessratherthan asservicetoanyparticulargods,thenthesacrificesmadetothose gods eventhesacrificeofplanetearthitself canbedisavowed.

Itmightseemastretchtoclaimthatanyneoliberalthinker wouldexplicitlymakesuchaclaim,letalonethatsuchaclaim wouldbeembodiedasdivinationininstitutionsandpracticesor formpartofanindividual’sexplicitworldview.Yettheideasof themostimportantandpopularvoicesofneoliberalism,from HayektoBeckertoFriedman,allconvergeonpreciselythe paradoxthat themeaningoffreedomistosurrenderone’swillto marketforces.Forsocietytoknowitselfaswhatittrulyis,isfor sociallifetobegovernednotbythewisdomofrationalplanning butthechaoticemergenceoforderfromtheclashofevolving forcesinmarkets.Economiclifemustbeshowntoinvolve massiveinequitiesandhugeamountsofwasteanddestruction justasearthishometosomanyhurricanes,volcanoesand meteoriteimpacts.Climatechangefromthispointofviewmight bethemostnaturalthingimaginable,andcancertainlybeturned bysomeonetoaprofit,probablywhoeverhasproprietaryrights toclimate-coolingtechnologies(Mirowski,2013).

Evenifmanyneoliberalsarebeginningtolosetheirnervein thefaceoftheclimatechangecatastrophe,politicalinstability,and socialupheavalcausedbythecontinuingfailureoftheglobal market-state,thereisadeeplyarchaicpoliticalproblemneoliberal ideologyseemstosolve,aproblemthatarguablywillnotdisappear withneoliberalism.Thatistheperennialhumanproblemofhowto relatetochanceasmeaningful.Theapparentsolutiontothis problem,thereductionofchancetomere “noise” inthemetainformationprocessorofmarkets,givesneoliberalismpartofits continuing,ifever-morediffuseandobscureappeal.Theproblem ofhowtopracticedivinationremainsunresolvedinmodernityas aglobal,secular,rationalistproject,buttheapparentlyscientific (ifdisingenuous)divinationsofmarketforceshasmadeneoliberal ideologysoappealingthatitcontinuestolingerandloomlarge despiteitsobviouslydestructiveconsequences.

Notes

1Theessaysupportstheargumentofmyforthcomingbook,PoliticsofDivination: NeoliberalEndgameandtheReligionofContingency(RowmanandLittlefield,Intl., 2016).

2Forasummaryofseveralcurrentscholarlydefinitionsofdivination,allofwhich convergeonandareconsonantwithmyadmittedlylaconicformula,seeAllison etal. (2010:252–253).

3Recognitionofmentalillnessaspotentiallydivinatoryorasignofsomeonewith potentiallyoraculargiftsisparticularlyprevalentinculturesthatstillrecognizethe roleof shamans ashealersandauthoritiesindisputes(Petikäinen,2010:53).

4Readershopingforasocio-biologicalorevolutionary-psychologicalaccountofthe roleofdivinationinthedevelopmentofthepeculiarlyhumananimalwillbedisappointedbywhatfollows.Whilethisperspectivewouldraisefascinatingquestions doanimalspracticedivination?Ifnot,whydoesthehumananimal,andwhatrole doessuchactivityplayinrelationtoevolutionarydrivestosurvivalandadaptation? theywouldtakemebeyondmyambithere.

5Inhisclassicstudy,Evans-Pritchard(1951)wasadamantthattheAzandemaintained ahealthyskepticismaboutthepowersoftheirwitchdoctorstoperformbothhealing anddivination.Inmorerecentscholarship,GeoffreyCornelius,inastudyofwitch doctorsnotonlyinAfricabutworld-wide,brilliantlydemonstratesjusthowcomplex therelationshipbetweenclientanddivinercanbe(2010).Hearguesthatdivination amongthewitchdoctorsinvolvesextremelynuancedelementsofperformanceor trickery(chicane)bywhichtheclientmayormaynotbepersuaded,andthushealing and/orinsightmayormaynotbeaffected.Inastudyofbothmonotheistic(Jewish) andscientific(post-Darwinist)anxietiesaboutcontinuinghumanrelianceondivination,Heimlich(2010:175)arguesthatmoderninsistenceupontheabsenceof warrantfordivinationcanonlybedisingenuous: “onemarkstheabsenceof inscrutablecosmicpatternonly becausehumanbeings ‘alwaysalready’ havehonored cosmicpattern,butoneofficiallycannolongerhonorsuchblasphemy ”

6IntenseambivalenceamongChristiansoverthispractice,whichledSt.Augustineto hisconversionbutisofficiallyforbiddenbyscriptureitself(Augustine,1961),canbe seenintherichlycontradictoryinstructionsformodernBibleusersfoundonthe internet(gotquestions.org,accessedOctober2015)

7Fordocumentationofthehistoryofconsultationbymajorbusinessandpolitical leaders,see SupernaturalAmerica:ACulturalHistory (Samuel,2011).Forrecent reportsofwealthyandpowerfulexecutivesand financierswhoregularlyconsultwith readers,intuitives,mediums,andotherdiviners,seeMarinova’s(2015)reportofthe popularityofColetteBaron-Reid,theso-called “psychicofwallstreet.” Inthesame articleMarinovareportsthatatlastcountthe1.9billiondollarpsychicservices industrygrew2.2%from2009to2014.

8Althoughthiswouldbeahighlycontroversialclaim,itisarguablethatscience practicessomething like divinationatthelevelofwhatC.S.Peirce(Hartshorneand Weiss,1934:172)called abduction:theintuitiveguessatthebestpossibleexplanation ofaphenomenon,formingapropositionthatcanthenbetestedbyinduction. Observingwetground,onemayleaptotheinitialhypothesisthatitrainedlastnight, eventhoughnoinductivesamplingofthecausesofwetgroundrenderthepropositionmorelikelythananyother.Itisbychancethatoneselectsonehypothesisover another.YetPeirceinsistedthatourconfidenceinsciencerevealsthatwepresume somebasisforwhy,overtime,abductionstendtoconvergeonpropositionsmoreand morelikelytobetrue.Itwouldbeamuchlongerandmorecomplexargumentto drawoutparallelsanddifferencesbetweenabductionanddivination.Buttheworkof Peirce-inspiredphilosopherslikeZalamea(2012),Nagarestani(2014)andGangle (2015)allsuggestthatdiagrammaticreasoning,reasoninginandthroughdiagrams, doesnotmerelyrepresentbutinsomesensecan produce newknowledge,rendering theotherwiseinvisiblevisible.Scientistsandmathematicianswhousediagramsin thiswaycouldalsobesaidtobepracticing controversially,Iadmit acertainform ofdivination.Heretheoraclemightbesaidtobe “natureitself,” atleastonarealist viewofscience.Ganglehasalsointerpreteddivinationpracticesusedovertimefor contemplationasbeingsusceptibletoarationalistinterpretationasaformofdiagrammaticreasoning(Gangle,2010).

9SeeespeciallyGlucklich’ s TheEndofMagic (1997),astudyofbothdevotiontoand ambivalenceaboutthedivinatorydeliverancesofferedbyhundredsoforaclesto clientsatBanaras,oneofthemostimportantcentresofcontemporaryoccultpractice inIndia.

10Thisavoidanceofdivinationislinked,Iwillargue,totheprojectHacking(1990) famouslycalled TheTamingofChance.Theavoidanceofcriticalorrationaldiscourse ondivinationinmodernityreflectsafundamentalambivalenceaboutchancein modernscientificcultures.AsHackingputsit,ontheonehandchanceisseenas tamedbythecalculusofprobabilities,andsoallowedaroleinscienti ficdiscourses theorizingpredictablenaturalphenomena.Ontheotherhand,modernpoets, musicians,andphilosophershavetendedtoinsistonawildersenseofchanceasan unaccountablesingularitythathasunforeseeable,unlawfuleffects.Iwillarguethat neoliberalism’spraiseofthe “creativedestruction” wieldedbymarketforcesis compellingforhowitmakeseconomicactivityacipherof both sensesofchance, providingafalsesenseofunityandcoherence(thatis,anideology)throughitsfaith inmarketsas,contradictorily,randomformsoforder.

11HereIamobviouslyriffingontheworkofBrunoLatour(1993,2010)here,whohas longarguedagainstthevalueofanycriticaltheoryinwhichthe “modern” or “enlightened” or “secular” caninanymeaningfulsensebedistinguishedbyoppositiontotheso-called “primitive ” orpre-modernmind.ForLatouranysociallyor politicallycriticalproject(suchascritiquesofcapitalism)beginningwitha “disenchantmentofnature” isdoomed.Thisis,forLatour,becauseepistemically,pragmatically,andultimatelyontologicallythereisnoclearsphereof “culture” tobe

distinguishedfrom “nature,” asevidencedbytheessentialmediatingfunctions betweennatureandcultureplayedbyscientificinstruments,disciplines,traditions, andconceptualmodelsinthedevelopmentofthe “truth” aboutanaturesupposedly externaltothatveryscientificculture.Divinationpracticesarearchaicmodesof mediatingthenaturalandtheculturalbywayofaninterfacebetweentheunforseeabilityandunknowabilityofchanceandthepriorexpectationsandfuturehopesof acommunity.Itclaims,fromaWesternpointofview,toviolatethedividebetween matterandmind,worldandrepresentation.Itcanthusappeartobeaprimitiveor atavistictraceofthepre-moderninthemodern.Andindeedthepersistenceof divinationarguesthatwehaveneverbeenmodern.TheworkofEduardoViveirosde CastroarguesstridentlythatWesternphilosophicaloppositionsofmindandmatter, natureandculture,cannotbegintocapturethecomplex “polynaturalism” ofnonmodernpeoples(ViveirosdeCastro,2004:484).DeCastro’swork,alongwithLatour andotheranthropologistslikeTaussig(2003),supportmycontentionthatacritique ofneoliberaldivinationcannotbeginby “debunking” divinationassuperstitionor irrational,butrathershouldbeapproachedasasetofpractices(ratherthanbeliefs) thatbothmanifestandcreateanontology,worldsthatlikeallworldsareasrealas theycontinuetobeenacted.

12Themostimportantofthese,formypurposes,arethoseofFoucault(2008),Harvey (2007),Mirowski(2013),Crouch(2011),Peck(2010),Read(2009)andBrown(2015).

13Brown’s(2015)otherwiseexcellentaccountofthedemiseofliberaldemocracyatthe handsofneoliberalismhasbeenjustlycriticizedbyDean(2015)asbeinginsufficientlyattentivetothewayinwhichneoliberalismisnotamonological,systematic, oreveninthelastinstancecoherentlyrationalpoliticalstrategy.Itisbetterunderstood,IagreewithDean,asan ideology inwhatshecallsthe “broadlymaterialist sense ” advocatedbySlavojZizek(Dean,2015).Whenneoliberalismisapproachedas anideology,thefocusshiftsfrom whetheritisreasonabletoadopt thispositionto whysubjectsremaininvestedinit.AndasMirowski(2013:69)hasshowningreat detail,thegeniusofneoliberalism,historically,istomaintainsimultaneouslevelsof coherenceandincoherence(whathecalls “double-truthdoctrine ”)inorderto maintaincapitalismasanexperimentalsiteofsocialengineeringmaskingasnonengineeredfreecreativehumanexpression.Thequestion,frommyperspective,as wellasDean’sandZizek’s,is why capitalistsubjectivitycontinuestoperverselyenjoy theparticularformofsufferingthisexperimentationentails.Whatdesiresdoesit satisfy?Atleastoneofthosedesires neitherrationalnorirrational,onmynonmodernistapproach isademandforgenuinedivinatorypractice.Thereisarhetoric ofdestiny,fate,andevensimplyof meaning offeredbyneoliberalismthatsuturesor sustainsaseriesofcontradictorybutcompellingviewsofcontingencyemittedfrom modernpolitical,scientific,andphilosophicalresearch.Thesecontradictionscentre ondifficultiesin livingwithchance.Itisthus,onmyaccount,bothintellectuallyand spirituallysatisfyingasanaccountofthenecessityofdestructionasaformof sacrificialpropitiationofthechaoticforcesrecognizedbysecularpoliticaltheory, scientificdiscourse,andnon-theisticmetaphysics.Thatismylargerthesis,atany rate.Fortherecord,Dean’scritiquetakesnothingawayfromBrown’sindispensible analysesof,amongotherperniciouseffects,howliberaldemocraticidealsofpopular sovereigntyhavebeenreplacedbymodelsofcorporategovernanceandmanagerial strategies,wheregoalsandoutcomes(thatis,profitability)arepresumeddesirablein advance,andpoliticsisreducedtocompetingconceptionsofefficiencyandevenof “creativity.” Brown’sanalysisissimplylimitedtoaccusingneoliberalsubjectsof “civilizationaldespair” withouttreatingthatdespairaseitherpsychoanalytically symptomatic,asDeandoes,orasreligiouslypersuasive,asIdohere.

14Connolly(2013)hasarguedpersuasivelythatsocialmovements,artisticstyles,and scientificresearchbreakthroughs,amongmanyothersocialformsofemergent knowledge,canbeshowntobejustasmuchifnotmoretheadaptive,spontaneous, auto-poeticformsoforderthatHayekimputessupremelytomarkets.

15Despitedrawingverydifferentpolicyconclusionsthanneoliberals,Taleb(2010) alsoaversthatmarketscanonlyhandlelimitedformsofshorttermuncertaintyand cannotanticipate “blackswans” orcompletelyunforeseencontingency.ForadifferentviewofcontingencyinrelationtomarketsseeAyache(2010).Ayacheholds that,atleastinthecaseofmarketsinoptions,futures,andderivatives,marketsnot only can accountfortheunforeseeable,butthattheabilityoftradersto “write ” optionspricesisliterallythecreationofunforeseeablecontingencies,assuch. Ayache ’sargumentisthatifoptionspriceswereinanyrealsenseforeseeable,or evenrational(thatis,basedonmovementsoftheunderlyingassetsuponwhich optionshedge),thentheoptionsmarketwouldbe “redundant” andcollapse, re flectingonlythemovementofunderlyingassets.Therewouldbenoincentiveto tradefuturesifdifferentfuturescouldnotbecreatedbytraders,andtraderscan onlycreatenewfutures inthemarket by affecting (intherhetorical,performative sense)theattractionofcertainprices,whichcanbedone,Ayacheclaims,onlyby stayinginthemarket ,or maintainingitsspeedandintensity.IagreewithSteven Shavirothatthisaccelerationistfantasy(Shaviro,2015)leavesmuchtobedesired bothasametaphysicalviewofcontingencyandasastartingpointforpolitical economy.

16Itisstrikingthatthisretroactiverolefordivinatoryknowledgeisnotonlymuchmore similartoBenjamin’swell-documented(Downing,2011)preservationofdivination asareadingpractice(muchtoAdorno’schagrin,whopreferrednegativedialectics), butisalsoclosertothewaythatdivinationis,onbalance,globallyundertaken. Theethnographicevidenceclearlyshowsthatevenfromamerelyquantitativeperspective,divinationismoreoftenaretrospectivethanaprospectiveenterprise(even

thoughitisalsousedtoattempttoforecastthefuture).Thisgivesusadifferentway tocritiqueneoliberalsubjectivityasimplicatedinadisavowedpracticeofdivination.

17Andinthelastinstance,thislooksincreasingly,eventothoselikemyselfwhoarenot conspiracytheorists,asiftheonlycandidatelefttomanagecatastrophicglobalclimatechangeandsocialunrestisapara-statebehemothofworldgovernance,the globalmilitary–prison–financial–industrial–state–surveillancecomplex.

18ThisisironicbecauseasMirowski(2002)andothershow,economicsborrows extensivelyfromthenaturalsciencesandmathematics.

References

AdornoT(2001) TheStarsDowntoEarth.Routledge:London.

AllisonC,StappP,ThorleyA,WadsworthJ(2010)Clarifyingdivinatorydialogue: Aproposalforadistinctionbetweenpractitionerdivinationandessential divinationIn:CurryP(ed) Divination:PerspectivesforaNewMillennium AshgatePublishingLimited:Farnham,UK.

AmooreL(2013) ThePoliticsofPossibility:RiskandSecurityBeyondProbability . DukeUniversityPress:Durham,NC.

AtlanH(2010) TheSparksofRandomness,Vol.1:SpermaticKnowledge.Stanford UniversityPress:Stanford.

Augustine.(1961) Confessions;trans.R.S.Pine-CoffinPenguin:NewYork.

AyacheE(2010) TheBlankSwan:TheEndofProbability .Wiley:NewYork.

BeckerG(1994) HumanCapital:ATheoreticalandEmpiricalAnalysiswithSpecial ReferencetoEducation,3rdedition,UniversityofChicagoPress:Chicago.

BrownW(2015) UndoingtheDemos:Neoliberalism’sStealthRevolution.Zone Books:Cambridge,MA.

Cicero.(2007) OnDivination,Volume1.OxfordUniversityPress:Oxford.

ConnollyW(2013) TheFragilityofThings:Self-OrganizingProcesses,Neoliberal Fantasies,andDemocraticActivism .DukeUniversityPress:Durham,NC.

CorneliusG(2010)Chicane:Double-thinkinganddivinationamongthewitchdoctorsIn:CurryP(ed) Divination:PerspectivesforaNewMillennium.Ashgate PublishingLimited:Farnham,UK.

CrouchC(2011) TheStrangeNon-DeathofNeoliberalism .Polity:Cambridge,UK. CurryP(2010)IntroductionIn:CurryP(ed) Divination:Perspectivesfora NewMillennium.AshgatePublishingLimited:Farnham,UK.

DeanJ(2015) “Neoliberalism’sDefeatofDemocracy” , CriticalInquiry.Available from:http://criticalinquiry.uchicago.edu/neoliberalisms_defeat_of_democracy, accessed30October2015.

DowningE(2011)DiviningBenjamin:Readingfate,graphology,gambling. MLN; 126 (3):561–580.

Evans-PritchardEE(1951) Witchcraft,Oracles,andMagicAmongtheAzande OxfordUniversityPress:Oxford.

FriedmanM(1962) CapitalismandFreedom.UniversityofChicagoPress:Chicago. FoucaultM(2008) TheBirthofBiopolitics.PalgraveMacmillan:NewYork.

GangleR(2010)Divinatorychances. SubStance 39 (1):76–86.

GangleR(2015) DiagrammaticImmanence:CategoryTheoryandPhilosophy EdinburghUniversityPress:Edinburgh.

GlucklichA(1997) TheEndofMagic.OxfordUniversityPress:Oxford. gotquestions.org.(n.d.)Whatisbibliomancy?Availablefrom:http://www.got questions.org/bibliomancy.html,accessed29October2015.

GraeberDandPikettyT(2014) “SoaktheRich” , TheBaffler,no.25.Availablefrom: http://thebaffler.com/odds-and-ends/soak-the-rich,accessed30October2015.

HackingIan(1990) TheTamingofChance.CambridgeUniversityPress:Cambridge. HartshorneCandWeissP(eds)(1934) TheCollectedPapersofCharlesSanders Peirce,Vol.5.HarvardUniversityPress:Cambridge,MA.

HarveyD(2007) ABriefHistoryofNeoliberalism .OxfordUniversityPress:Oxford. HayekF(1944) TheRoadtoSerfdom.UniversityofChicagoPress:Chicago. HayekF(1973) Law,Legislation,andLiberty,vol.1UniversityofChicagoPress: Chicago.

HeimlichE(2010)Darwin’sfortune,Jonah’sshipmatesandthepersistenceof chanceIn:CurryP(ed) Divination:PerspectivesforaNewMillennium.Ashgate PublishingLimited:Farnham,UK.

HorkheimerMandAdornoT(2007) DialecticofEnlightenment:Philosophical Fragments.StanfordUniversityPress:Stanford.

JungC(1967)ThespiritmercuriusIn: AlchemicalStudies.CollectedWorksofC.G. JungVol.13,trans.R.F.C.HullRoutledge,Keegan,andPaul:London.

JungC(2010) Synchronicity:AnAcausalConnectingPrinciple.Princeton UniversityPress:Princeton.

KleinN(2008) TheShockDoctrine:TheRiseofDisasterCapitalism.Picador:New York.

KnightF(2009) Risk,Uncertainty,andProfit.SignalmanPublishing:Kissimee,FL.

KotskoA(2015)Thearresteddevelopmentofthe “worldcomeofage”.11October. Anundfürsich:AnAnomalousHumanitiesBlog. Blog.Availablefromhttp:// www.itself.wordpress.com,accessed30October2015.

LatourB(1993) WeHaveNeverBeenModern.CambridgeUniversityPress: Cambridge.

LatourB(2010) OntheModernCultoftheFactishGods.DukeUniversityPress: Durham,NC.

LearJ(2003) SomethingforNothing:LuckinAmerica.VikingBooks:NewYork. MarinovaP(2015)Theseexecssaypsychicsarehelpingthemmakeafortune.21 September. Fortune.Availablefrom:http://fortune.com/2015/09/21/psychicbusiness-advice/.accessed29October2015.

MirowskiP(2002) MachineDreams:EconomicsBecomesaCyborgScience CambridgeUniversityPress:NewYork.

MirowskiP(2013) NeverLetaSeriousCrisisGotoWaste:HowNeoliberalism SurvivedtheFinancialMeltdown.Verso:London.

MirowskiPandPiehweD(eds)(2015) TheRoadFromMontPèlerin:TheMaking oftheNeoliberalThoughtCollective.HarvardUniversityPress:Cambridge,MA.

NagarestaniR(2014)Moremindandphilosophy.8November. Deracinating Effect:CloseEncountersoftheFourthKindwithReason: Blog.Availablefrom: http://blog.urbanomic.com/cyclon/,accessed29October2015.

NietzscheF(2001) TheGayScience.CambridgeUniversityPress:Cambridge,UK.

PeckJ(2010) ConstructionsofNeoliberalReason.OxfordUniversityPress:Oxford. PerkinsJ(2005) ConfessionsofanEconomicHitMan.Plume:NewYork.

PetikäinenJ(2010)CentralAsianandNorthernEuropeanShamanismIn:CurryP (ed) Divination:PerspectivesforaNewMillennium.AshgatePublishing Limited:Farnham,UK.

ReadJ(2009)Agenealogyofhomo-economicus:Neoliberalismandtheproduction ofsubjectivity. FoucaultStudies (6):25–36.

SamuelL(2011) SupernaturalAmerica:ACulturalHistory.Praeger:SantaBarbara, CA.

SchmittC(2006) PoliticalTheology:FourChaptersontheConceptofSovereignty UniversityofChicagoPress:Chicago.

ShaviroS(2015) NoSpeedLimit:ThreeEssaysonAccelerationism.Universityof MinnesotaPress:Minneapolis.

TalebN(2010) BlackSwan:TheImpactoftheHighlyImprobable.RandomHouse: NewYork.

TaussigM(2003)Viscerality,faith,andskepticism:AnothertheoryofmagicIn: MeyerBandPelsP(eds) MagicandModernity:InterfacesofRevelationand Concealment.StanfordUniversityPress:Stanford,pp272–306.

TedlockB(2010)Theorizingdivinatoryacts:Theintegrativediscourseofdream oraclesIn:CurryP(ed) Divination:PerspectivesforaNewMillennium.Ashgate PublishingLimited:Farnham,UK.

ViveirosdeCastroE(2004)Exchangingperspectives:Thetransformationof objectsintosubjectsinAmerindiancosmologies. CommonKnowledge; 10 (3): 463–484.

WeberM(2009) TheProtestantEthicandtheSpiritofCapitalism.W.W.Norton& Co.:NewYork.

ZalameaF(2012) SyntheticPhilosophyofContemporaryMathematics.Urbanomic: Falmouth,UK.

DataAvailability

Datasharingnotapplicabletothispaperasnodatasetsweregeneratedoranalysed duringthecurrentstudy.

AdditionalInformation

Competinginterests: Theauthorsdeclarenocompeting financialinterests.

Reprintsandpermission informationisavailableathttp://www.palgrave-journals.com/ pal/authors/rights_and_permissions.html

Howtocitethisarticle:RameyJ(2015)Neoliberalismasapoliticaltheologyofchance: Thepoliticsofdivination. PalgraveCommunications .1:15017doi:10.1057/ palcomms.2015.39.

ThisworkislicensedunderaCreativeCommonsAttribution3.0 InternationalLicense.Theimagesorotherthirdpartymaterialinthis articleareincludedinthearticle’sCreativeCommonslicense,unlessindicatedotherwise inthecreditline;ifthematerialisnotincludedundertheCreativeCommonslicense, userswillneedtoobtainpermissionfromthelicenseholdertoreproducethematerial. Toviewacopyofthislicense,visithttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/