Analysis of Grossberg’s article

Analysis of Grossberg’s article

Introduction

Cultural economics deals with the relationship between economic results relative to culture. As such, programmatic issues have been developed to exemplify the importance of culture in regards to economic prospects. It is important to study economic culture to ascertain the role of culture in economic behavior due to its significance in value addition. To study economic culture, an individual must study people’s micro behavior relative to their significance to economic changes. Hence, survey questions could be the most appropriate to understand cultural economics as stipulated by Lawrence Grossberg’s work. Therefore, Grossberg’s work, together with the other two readings, is vital in outlining the problems of economic essentialism.

Analysis of Grossberg’s article

According to Grossberg, economic culture stands for a common stand-in social changes to provide distinct idea domains on conjectural thinking (Grossberg, 2010). The brief summary provided on economic value aim at providing a secondary understanding of changes in modern society leading to production scarcity. Consequently, the article could be used to promote economic culture between the main ethnic groups in Singapore, like the Indian, Chinese, and Malay.  So, the societal groups in Singapore stand to address differential inequality in the country. As such, Grossberg is capable of addressing questions regarding economic discourses and practices in the modern context.

The approach used by Grossberg provides an insight into the political problems arising due to economic culture relative to changes experienced in modernity (Grossberg, 2010). I feel that Grossberg lacks a proper understanding of the role played by economics as purportedly by euro-modernity. It is evident that economic culture has taken the embedded form that differs from other euro-modernity forms in contemporary society. So, the evidence provided by Grossberg brings out the question of whether neoliberalism has achieved its mandates in the modern era.

The work is done by Grossberg only provides a glib description of neoliberalism signs due to its multiple ideas which can be stitched together, forming a harmonious formation. The fact that Grossberg acknowledges neoliberalism to being an economic project shows his prowess in undertaking economic projects (Grossberg, 2010). Hence, the acknowledgment has helped align neoliberalism as the modern form of capital accumulation. In such a such, it is possible to carry out indirect economization in fiscal culture as a way to achieve neoliberalism. However, Grossberg’s work fails to provide a conjectural diagnosis due to the wide application of neoliberalism in modernity. Hence, numerous questions have been raised on the discursive construction nature experience in society due to its powerful nature as compared to other critical factors. Grossberg’s consciousness helped him realize the 20^th century did not provide key transformations in the economy due to the enactment of different forms of government.

How the approach is important

The approach to neoliberalism, as developed by Grossberg, is important since it provides a comprehensive understanding of liberal modernity. As a result, the author provides a perverse confluence on the principles guiding neoliberal politics in the modern era in terms of participation. So, the approach utilizes neoliberalism needed to articulate the impact of the Brexit vote by the UK to the Asian countries. Nations like Singapore would be in a position to evaluate its business privatization based on neoliberalism. Besides, the approach has helped exemplify changes that need to be undertaken to avert neoliberalism in the present context. Similarly, the approach excellently fits into stipulations provided by Brown in regards to the end of liberalism in democracy (Brown, 2005). Brown outlines that neoliberalism is vital as it excellently equates to radical free markets. Hence, neoliberalism is crucial because it is capable of carrying out free trade in terms of economic deregulations and the enactment of social policies that favour distinct businesses (Brown, 2005).

Moreover, the approach is important because it designs a bold approach to raw market ideas to help solve political problems. Hence, the approach successfully achieves radical privatization needed to flourish market economies carried out as foreign investments. As such, Brown outlines the approach’s importance since it is the most invoked relation governing most the third world with schemes increasing poor nations’ vulnerability (Brown, 2005). Besides, statements by Appadurai and Alexander supports the approach and seek to develop a dominant business model (Appadurai & Alexander, 2019). The model would be required to exemplify some of the underlying topics of neoliberalism. As a result, the authors stipulate that the approach would help prevent a political critique on neoliberalism as individuals will have themselves to blame.

How can a study on economic culture be done?

Grossberg outlines that economic culture can be studied through the economies of conflated markets and capitalism (Grossberg, 2010). Thus, capitalism would be utilized to comprehend economic culture based on the descriptions provided by the conflated markets. So, Singapore stands to combine Asian and European economic cultures relative to guidelines outlined by capitalism. However, the study methods on economic based on capitalism and inflated markets greatly differ due to dissimilarities in assumed equivalence. As such, the study strategy stands to provide the emergence of modern capitalism since its development in the 20^th century. Hence, it would be easier to locate some of the markets’ self-regulating procedures. Besides, Brown shows that the study should be carried out using capitalism to develop a political rationality relative to Marx’s argument on the urgency to transform lives in modernity.

It is evident that Appadurai and Alexander applaud the urgency to study economic culture using capitalism to outline the vital technologies of modernity (Appadurai & Alexander, 2019). The authors believe that economic culture in modernity serves to promote agency and freedom needed in economics. Hence, the study of economic culture through capitalism would develop a structure much-needed to achieve change in the 21^st century. The strategic approach advocated by all the above-mentioned authors serves to address challenges posed by techno failures due to their serious implications on economic culture. As such, business models serve as the best option in a move to avert planned obsolescence to increase the number of long-term sales revenues accrued over time.

Conclusion

Economic culture meaning has been exemplified relative to guidelines provided by Grossberg. The work by Grossberg outlines the relationship between economic culture and neoliberalism in a move to address current challenges experienced in modernity. Besides, the analysis of Grossberg’s article provides an insight into economic value significance in a move to articulate concerns by neoliberalism. The approach developed on neoliberalism is important since it provides an understanding of liberal modernity. Finally, the essay provides capitalism and conflated markets as the best strategic approach to study economic culture. Consequently, the other articles align with stipulations made by Grossberg on the best means to learn the economic culture.

 

 

References

Appadurai, A., & Alexander, N. (2019). Failure. Link: https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-hsog/frontdoor/index/index/docId/3135

Brown, W. (2005). Neoliberalism and the End of Liberal Democracy”. Edgework: Critical Essays on Knowledge and Politics.

Grossberg, L. (2010). Cultural studies in the future tense. Duke University Press. Link: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=1ekRbW6ndnoC&oi=fnd&pg=PP10&dq=grossberg+cultural+studies&ots=xEkhwlbexf&sig=_ReSWtX5j83xCDgA61zFghbepq0