Games and the Subjugated Knowledges of Finance: Art and Science in the Speculative Imaginary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Liberalized financial markets now seemingly shape the very contours of global political-economic life and the forms of self and citizen most common to our political present. It is in this context, however, that the culture of finance is often depicted in overly expansive, reified terms. Are there limits to finance and the “financialized imagination” as it has taken hold over the past century? Are there borders to the kind of reach and influence finance now exerts on our political economy? This paper addresses these questions by reviewing the ways in which recent public art has attempted to reclaim what, following Foucault, I refer to as the “subjugated knowledges” of finance: forms of knowledge such as gaming and game-play, which were removed from the discourse of finance when it was recast as rational and scientific over the 19th and 20th centuries. The paper considers several public art interventions that engage with gaming, game culture or game-play of various forms, in order to disrupt financial practices and abstraction. If limits are to be (re)imposed on finance, I conclude, we need critical strategies which can reclaim the subjugated knowledges of finance and which can, by extension, question the self-image of finance as a rational domain.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".