stuck in tanabru, going on my fifth hour, waiting to have my summer tyres changed to winter ones that actually make the car stop when you brake, rather than sliding uncontrollably for about 20 yards whenever you try decelerate. first day of open garage after the weekend snowfall, so the queue is absurdly long. have whiled away the long hours with a coffee at the tanabru grill-bar, then a milky and frankly not very coffee-like latte at the local cafe. three tables, you've gotta admire some people's tenacity.
not much one can do without the ability to drive, around here. frustrated with the lack of material on the everyday discursive reifications of the state, I started thinking this morning about the market in similar terms - much more fruitful, in terms of what people talk about, as well as a theoretical domain quite completely unknown to me. what are the properties, qualities, qualifiers and modes of engagement with the market that people employ locally? in general, in norway the market is situated within dense discourses of national identity, social welfare, the "scandinavian model" etc. in sami terms, the market's implicit other is the state, and the state has a historical janus role as colonial bogeyman and welfare benefactor. in more general terms, the market itself is a bit of an interesting item - on the one hand, its ideological enmeshedness with cold-war ideologies, thatcherism, free-market liberalism, on the other hand its ontological status and conditions of existence as an object of knowledge. how is it possible to acquire knowledge about 'the market', and how are these forms of knowledge about the market structured by local conditions of engagement with it? eg. knowledge of 'the market' from being unable to meet demand of named and specific individuals coming to the fence to ask for meat, is quite distinct from knowledge of 'the market' produced through statistical surveys and commercial market analyses. not only in scope, but qualitatively.
in john law / anne-marie mol's terms, the market is a bit of a multiply decentered / fractionally coherent object. methodological question is, is 'the market' cohesive, that is ontologically unified, or are there multiple markets constructed through multiple practices of engagement that construct the market as a meaningful object of attention, which can then be intervened upon and modified through equally multiple practices of engagement? perhaps the practices of construction/engagement are just as much the practices of intervention, too.
this feels like an interesting approach, quite similar to what I had in mind doing with the state, but the state has turned out to be a) unproblematically and unquestionably divided, multiple and incoherent - therefore not that interesting; b) not at the center of people's attention, nor something the people I've talked to at least talk about a lot - hence the problem of forcing the discussion in the direction I want it to go, if I keep insisting on the state... so I kind of feel like turning my third eye to someting more interesting / locally relevant. not abandoning the state, but...
the fact that my expectations regarding the centrality of the state have been thwarted, or at least derailed, is itself an interesting observation I can reify and discuss in relation to the centrality of the state in Paine's 1994 monograph Herds of the Tundra, which is based on fieldwork in the 50s and 60s, a much earlier period when the state was establishing itself as a regulating presence within herding, prior to the 1978 Herding Act etc. at least one generational shift has occurred since then - perhaps the presence of the state has been naturalised to a much greater extent in the intervening time period.
I need to consider this quite a lot further.