Between paranoia and possibility: Diverse economies and the decolonial imperative

Abstract

Here we reflect on diverse economies scholarship following Gibson‐Graham's call to adopt performative practices for other worlds. Urging scholars to move from paranoia to possibility through weak theory methodology, their call provided momentum for work on economic difference that sustained critiques of capitalocentrism launched in 1996. In this clarion call to read for difference and possibility, a diverse economies framing facilitated a wholesale rejection of strong theory and paranoia. As a subdiscipline in the making, diverse economies scholars are challenged and critiqued as we seek to develop the framework and apply it to economic activities that exist within, alongside, and outside capitalism. Creating the language of diverse economies is continuous; here we consider a geopolitics of knowledge production in reading economic practice for difference, challenging the disuse of strong theory. We argue for deeper engagement with the power imbalances present in building liveable worlds, putting diverse economies and decolonial theory in conversation to address power and strike a balance between paranoia and possibility.

The end of postsocialism (as we knew it): Diverse economies and the East

“…If the diverse economies project aims to pluralise the notion of the economy, disrupt the image of Western capitalism as an evolutionary necessity and make visible the multiple ways in which people sustain their communities, it needs to take a position of epistemological inclusivity, and consider the widest possible range of examples. We align with Naylor and Thayer's (2022) recent appeal to diverse economies scholars to consider the uneven geopolitics of knowledge production and move beyond the theory's own geohistorical provenance. More geopolitically diverse empirical insights create grounds for more nuanced theorising.…”

“…What is more, if scholarship on diverse economies seeks to encompass a wide array of economic experiences, the neglect of a whole region constitutes an epistemological as well as an ethical problem. In line with recent calls to attend to the geopolitics of knowledge production in the diverse economies research (Naylor and Thayer 2022) and the broader postcolonial pleas for ‘worlding’ social theory (Robinson and Roy, 2016; Roy, 2009), this paper conceives the East as a generative ground for theorisation (Jehlička, 2021; Trubina et al, 2020). At the same time, we believe that diverse economies thinking can provide a novel and much-needed perspective for embedded and emancipated theorising of a geopolitical area that is tragically reasserting its global relevance.…”

“…We are well aware that other-than-capitalist economies can be as exploitative as capitalism (Fickey and Hanrahan, 2014; Gibson-Graham, 1996). Indeed, the focus of diverse economies scholars on ‘possibility’ and ‘difference’ has been criticised for failing to address real-life issues of power (Fickey and Hanrahan, 2014; Naylor and Thayer, 2022). Striking a balance between critical and hopeful stances or, as Naylor and Thayer (2022) put it, paranoia and possibility, is an ongoing challenge of the diverse economies scholarship, which we argue also features a geopolitical asymmetry.…”

“…Indeed, the focus of diverse economies scholars on ‘possibility’ and ‘difference’ has been criticised for failing to address real-life issues of power (Fickey and Hanrahan, 2014; Naylor and Thayer, 2022). Striking a balance between critical and hopeful stances or, as Naylor and Thayer (2022) put it, paranoia and possibility, is an ongoing challenge of the diverse economies scholarship, which we argue also features a geopolitical asymmetry. On the one hand, over-celebratory accounts of diverse economies could learn from the more critical approach common in studies of postsocialism.…”

“…A more meticulous exploration of the relationship between diverse economies, critical readings of postsocialism and postcolonial theory would require a larger format than the present paper. We refer to Healy et al (2020), Liu et al (2020) and Naylor and Thayer (2022) for a discussion of the potential synergies between diverse economies and postcolonial theory and to Koobak et al (2021) and Kumar and Narkowicz (2021) for reflections on the connecting points between postsocialism and postcolonialism.…”