{"id":1337,"date":"2012-12-09T15:36:38","date_gmt":"2012-12-09T15:36:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/charisma.local\/charisma2023\/char1smaSSL\/?post_type=markets&p=1337"},"modified":"2012-12-10T09:52:26","modified_gmt":"2012-12-10T09:52:26","slug":"egos-2013-cfp-cultural-economies-and-economic-cultures-in-the-organization-of-markets","status":"publish","type":"markets","link":"https:\/\/www.journalofculturaleconomy.org\/charisma\/markets\/egos-2013-cfp-cultural-economies-and-economic-cultures-in-the-organization-of-markets","title":{"rendered":"EGOS 2013 CFP Cultural Economies and Economic Cultures in the Organization of Markets"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"\"\"<\/p>\n

Sub-theme Organisers: Liz McFall, Steven Kahl, Joeri Mol<\/strong><\/p>\n

Short 3000 word paper submissions are invited for this sub-theme by the deadline of January 14 2013.<\/p>\n

For instructions on how to submit a short paper to EGOS see http:\/\/www.egosnet.org\/jart\/prj3\/egos\/main.jart?content-id=1334581167609&rel=de&reserve-mode=active <\/a><\/p>\n

The question \u2018is culture being organized by the market or is the market being organized by culture?\u2019 has been a recurring theme within the social sciences over the past decades. Two opposing views are typically presented. On the one hand, the dominant paradigm depicts economic exchange as atomistic, revolving around rational individuals with a high degree of agency. On the other hand, economic sociologists and organizational theorists offer a contrasting perspective emphasizing that markets are embedded in overarching social structures that significantly constrain individual agency (DiMaggio and Powell 1991; Granovetter 1973). Between these \u2018ideal type\u2019 views there are many modified positions ranging from accounts of the contemporary dissolution of any boundary between cultural or economic activity (du Gay and Pryke 2002; McFall 2004), to those that complement concerns with forms of meaning, representation and sociality with the study of the technical and material forms of association (Callon and Muniesa 2005; Latour 2005), and to those who understand markets as amenable to the pragmatic redesign by \u2018choice architects\u2019 (Thaler and Sunstein 2008). Significant strides have been made in our understanding of the economy\/culture relation (Pryke and du Gay 2007) since the first stirrings of the \u2018cultural turn\u2019 (Jameson 1998), but as work in different critical and theoretical traditions proliferates across the academy substantial challenges remain. \u2018Markets\u2019 and \u2018cultures\u2019 continue to change and \u2018marketization\u2019 and \u2018culturing\u2019 continue to elude easy description.
\nWithout lending priority to any particular perspective, we invite papers that can best advance this problematic. In conversation with existing debates, we are particularly supportive of papers that investigate whether markets can be understood on cultural terms, underscoring notions of embeddedness and cultural economy. And inversely, can cultures be understood on terms dictated by market logics (cf. Friedland and Alford 1991)? In doing so, we ask ourselves:<\/p>\n