The aff’s solvency rests on the promise of ‘restabilizing’ the future- it ignores that the socio-economic contradictions that created the crisis are inevitable- the result is a suture of the system that forecloses change and ensures serial policy failure

Open University Business School, Open University, Milton Keynes, UK; Back to the capitalist future: Fantasy and the paradox of crisis; Culture and Organization, 22:2, 158-177, DOI: 10.1080/14759551.2014.897347

Yet these leaders’ responses also bear witness to a certain contradiction implicit in¶ the naming of an event as a crisis. It simultaneously speaks to the need for transformation¶ and the desire for stability. Indeed, the uncertainty surrounding this near catastrophe¶ was assuaged through the trumpeting of the ability of elites to ‘solve’ and¶ ‘fix’ the problem and in doing so return to a state of ‘normalcy’. George W. Bush¶ thus stated optimistically in late 2008 that whereas ‘this problem did not develop overnight¶ and it will not be solved overnight’, nevertheless, ‘with continued cooperation¶ and determination it will be solved’ (BBC News, 15 November 2008). Illustrating the¶ global reach of this discourse Yi Gang, deputy governor of the People’s Bank of¶ China (the Chinese central bank), promised that his country would ‘actively participate¶ in rescue activities for this international financial crisis’ (BBC News, 15 November¶ 2008).¶ This longing for renewed security, for the problem to be ‘solved’, plays into the¶ rearticulation of ‘crisis’ as an element of a broader fantasmatic narrative of recovery.¶ Fundamental to this narrative framing is the characterizing of these dislocating¶ events as markedly different than the stable period preceding them, thus opening the¶ way for the promotion of the possibility of ‘recovery’ and consequently the ability to¶ recapture the subjective security associated with a less anxious time prior to the¶ crisis. More precisely, these discourses promoting ‘recovery’ are symptomatic of the¶ attempt to construct a new beatific discourse promising individuals uncertain over¶ their future the ability to ‘recapture’ their former stability as social subjects.¶ The immediate responses to the crisis illustrate this phenomenon. A continual¶ refrain from elites following the meltdown were themes not of transformation but¶ recovery. This emphasis was apparent in newly elected President Obama’s February¶ 2009 address to a joint session of congress. After acknowledging that ‘the impact of¶ this recession is real, and it is everywhere’ he strikes a triumphant tone stressing the¶ nation’s inherent capacity to ‘recover’:¶ But while our economy may be weakened and our confidence shaken, though we are¶ living through difficult and uncertain times, tonight I want every American to know¶ this, We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger¶ than before. (Obama 2009a)¶ Whereas this triumphant rhetoric is perhaps to be expected by any incoming leader¶ faced with the daunting task of confronting massive socio-economic problems, what¶ is of interest is the framing of such optimism around the promises of recovery. The¶ ringing pledge that ‘we will rebuild’ and ‘we will recover’ contains within it an assumption¶ that current troubles are temporary and ultimately exceptional rather than reflective¶ of deeper and more fundamental problems with contemporary capitalism.¶ Through this fantasy, the crisis was changed from a threatening encounter with the¶ ‘real’ to a more manageable ideological ‘reality’ linked to romanticized themes of¶ recovery and future progress. This narrative of crisis was on full display in the aftermath¶ of the events of 2008. In Obama’s 2009, State of the Union, he proclaims¶ The answers to our problems don’t lie beyond our reach. They exist in our laboratories¶ and our universities; in our fields and our factories; in the imaginations of our entrepreneurs.¶ What is required now is for this country to pull together, confront boldly the challenges¶ we face, and take responsibility for our future once more. (Obama 2009b)¶ The articulation of these events as a ‘crisis’ then served ironically as a force for subjects¶ to once again stabilize their identity. The narrativizing of this event as a temporary aberration¶ lent itself to the proffering of an idealized vision of the future emphasizing¶ themes of ‘stability’ and ‘normalization’. Reflected, in this respect, was the ideological¶ paradox of crisis – where the failure of an ideology is transformed into an opportunity¶ for re-identification and potential ideological renewal.