#polyani

We hit here on the limits of a constructivist conception of morality. As much as contemporary political economy has been minded to refute the fact that norms are merely brute, objective facts, it still relies on the assumption that their effects tend to correspond to their manifest meaning. Norms are seen as operating through inscription or interpellation, or, when actors are seen to play a more active role, through internalization or rule-following. This model, however, is too literal, linear, or ‘clean’ a reading of the role of norms in contemporary society. It underestimates the complexity of the process of moral constitution: it is too preoccupied with the overt meaning of norms and has little interest in their latent content. In pursuing this line of argument, this article draws inspiration from scholars who have highlighted the centrality of affect to issues of political economy. Such approaches also concern themselves with the normative dimension of human life but situate this in a wider and more complex constellation of human motivations. Our political imaginary is layered, composed not just of norms and discursive representations but equally of drives and affinities that have a certain degree of autonomy and interact with the more cerebral and conscious aspects of moral life in complex and often surprising ways.

How do we balance the suspension of both belief and disbelief? Investigation within Polyani's agnostic state of 'I believe [p] has not been proven" is the best path. It allows for possibilities on either side, while recognizing that there is still work to be done. Those who hold to a philosophy of disbelief, for example, which impeded scientific progress. Error may occur within an investigation, but activity breeds potential, and the possibility of error is preferable to stagnation. We can search for and eliminate error. Stagnation is fruitless.