Out of time: the temporal limits of coronavirus-inspired solidarity with workers

ABSTRACT

Researchers note that cultural images of possible economic futures are to a great extent rooted in the frames of thinking of the present. But not all present frames of thinking yield such images; some are excluded from our sense of what the future can be. Analyzing how the Wall Street Journal referred to workers at the beginning of the coronavirus crisis, this study identifies such a frame—a solidarity frame—and reveals discursive formations that limited its temporal scope. The analysis shows that the extension of economic solidarity into the future imaginary was discursively hindered at the very same time such solidarity was expressed, and unravels a complex politics of time in the constitution of economic futures. Its findings further our understanding of the discursive processes that limit the effects of crises on transformative imaginaries.

KEYWORDS:

• Coronavirus
• solidarity
• economic futures

Acknowledgements

I am grateful for the extremely thoughtful and helpful contributions of the anonymous reviewers. An early version of this article was presented at the Mini-Conference ‘Possible Worlds: Practice, Ethics, Hope and Distress’ at the 2021 online conference of the Society for the Advancement of Socio-Economics (SASE), and I would also like to thank the participants for their insightful comments.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 By ‘imaginaries’ I refer to cultural representations of a collective future.

2 According to: http://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/, accessed 15 September 2020 and 27 April 2021.

3 Researchers have offered diverse accounts of how media content is implicated by capitalist power. For example, researchers of the political economy of communication (see, e.g., Corrigan, 2018) have linked media content to capitalist processes and institutions, to the structure and organization of media industries, and more. A famous account of the political economy of communication is Herman’s & Chomsky’s (1988: xi) ‘propaganda model’ which posits that ‘among their other functions, the media serve, and propagandize on behalf of, the powerful societal interests that control and finance them.’ Foucauldian inspired media analyses, such as that of Williams (2008: 488, 492), also show that media accounts resonate with and serve the reproduction of forms of economic power and dominations but argue that these media accounts are points within a broader discourse and, as such, ‘reflect a particular form and logic of expression … that is neither bound to an underlying system of meaning nor beholden to specific interests and influences.’

4 See, e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal. Accessed 17 April 2021.

5 As explained above, editorials express the institutional and ideological commitments of the journal more explicitly than news reports. Given this textual variability, or partial variability, a portrayal of the WSJ discourse cannot be limited to one type of text. In the findings section I offer relevant details on the types of texts cited, and explicitly state when I am citing an editorial, a column, or other opinion pieces.

6 First, I removed items in which the search-words had an irrelevant meaning (for example, an item containing the word ‘network’ without anything relating to workers, or an article containing the name ‘Steve Jobs’ without reference to actual jobs). I also removed videos and paywalled ‘Pro’ articles. Second, I removed duplicate articles, WSJ corrections to articles outside of my selected date-range, and items that did not refer to the pandemic.

7 It is important to note that, as is always the case, such research and writing provide an interpretation of data in relation to which additional possibilities of meaning await (see in this regard, e.g., Denzin and Lincoln 2008). To help evaluate my interpretation, my claims are illustrated with references and citations.

8 Moreover, it extends benefits to gig workers and freelancers.

9 It is also noteworthy that WSJ writers reported on approaches in other countries (e.g., Fairless & Hannon, 2020).

10 The interview is with Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari.

11 Other articles also reported unions that intervened or pressured companies into assisting or protecting workers, often with partial success (e.g., Rogers, 2020).

12 Brody Mullins answers questions from Theo Francis.

13 It is noteworthy that other measures of ‘the economy’ (such as those pertaining to the stock market) started to improve quickly even as people were in crisis. Obviously, signs of economic ‘health’ are not necessarily consistent, nor do they mean economic wellbeing among workers.

14 This is cited from a newsletter excerpt in which WSJ chief economics commentator, Greg Ip, talks with Theo Francis.

15 One article (Lam, 2020) explicitly acknowledges the tension between the interests of individuals who receive stimulus checks and the interests of the economy.

16 Hearn (1980: 304), too, notes a tendency to construct a social vision of ‘a better future’ cast in the mold of the past, but emphasizes that the focus is on the past ‘not as it actually was, but as it ought to have been.’ Because statistical reasoning focuses attention on chart-lines, it seemingly narrows the space for such idyllic reconstructions of the past; the yearning is to return to the numbers that were rather than those that could have been. Nonetheless, there is still a substantial reconstructive space in interpreting what the numbers actually mean.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Galit Ailon

Galit Ailon is an associate professor in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Bar-Ilan University. She specializes in the study of economic and organizational cultures. Her published research focuses on topics such as financial culture, market culture and intersubjectivity, business discourse, and organizational globalization.