Not necessarily for the same underlying reasons, neoliberal theory, too, makes a case for the insulation of markets from political interference (Rapley 2004, 76). The insulation of markets from politics is premised on two arguments: that planned order is inferior to spontaneous order and that political intervention hurts the mechanism of self-regulation. Let us take a closer look at each of them. According to neoliberal theory, spontaneous order (or “cosmos,” in Hayek’s terminology) is superior to made order (taxis) on two accounts:
• Complexity: Given the limitations of the human mind, made order is bound to be simple, Cosmos, however, can be much more complex, involving many more variables. The inability of individuals “to grasp the complexity of social order and understand the forces that shape it, set ‘limits to the extent to which conscious direction can improve upon the results of unconscious social processes’” (Petsoulas 2001, 4).
• Purpose: Made orders are constructed to satisfy the purpose of their makers. Spontaneous orders do not serve any particular interest. They have a function, rather than a purpose, which suggests awareness and interests (Petsoulas 2001, 13–14).
Thus, according to neoliberal theory, spontaneous order, specifically the market, is inherently apolitical in two distinct meanings of the term. First, given the complexity of variables and knowledge entailed in the construction of markets, it cannot be subjected to political processes; its complexity is so immense as to make the realm of politics ill suited to handle it. And second, markets are apolitical because their spontaneous emergence renders them cleansed of particularistic interests. They are seen as neutral tools that perform a disinterested function.
This is the crux of neoliberal conservatism, a conservatism that is not merely disguised but outright denied by the digital discourse. Rationality is already embedded in social institutions (those that are the result of spontaneous order). As Hayek puts it, “Our social existence is the product of evolutionary forces that are beyond any individual’s capacity to comprehend fully. Traditional (evolved) practices and institutions embody the cumulative knowledge of past generations” (Petsoulas 2001, 4). Institutions and morals, such as private property, private law, money, and competition are “the result of human action, but not the execution of any human design”; they are “unintended by-products . . . of human action” (Sally 1998, 22). If we try to introduce planned order we soon find out that, compared to the merits of competitive markets, “central planning, and even ad hoc measures of government intervention, are much inferior in allocating goods and services. Governments lack access to and control of requisite information in order to plan or guide markets, and what little information they marshal is coordinated in a centralised and cumbersome, not to say ham-fisted, manner” (19–20).
70
Media and New Capitalism in the Digital Age