There are a number of excellent reviews of Piketty out there; to the 14 Brad Delong collected, I’d add James K. Galbraith and Paul Krugman as well. As a former vox clamantis in deserto, I’m happy to see them. Today Mike Konczal weighs in, with a Foucauldian take:
As Foucault argued, the ability of social science to know something is the ability to anthropologize it, a power to define it. As such, it becomes a problem to be solved, a question needing an answer, something to be put on a grid of intelligibility, and a domain of expertise that exerts power over what it studies. With Piketty’s Capital, this process is now being extended to the rich and the elite. Understanding how the elite become what they are, and how their wealth perpetuates itself, is now a hot topic of scientific inquiry.
Many have tried to figure out why the rich are freaking out these days. Their wealth was saved from the financial panic, they are having a very excellent recovery, and they are poised to reap even greater gains going forward. Perhaps they are noticing that the dominant narratives about their role in society—-avatars of success, job creators for the common good, innovators for social betterment, problem-solving philanthropists—-are being replaced with a social science narrative where they are a problem to be studied. They are still in control, but right to be worried.
Joanne Barkan’s debunking of philanthrocapitalism is part of that story; I’d also expect to see much more reporting from Lee Fang and Republic Report on the tangled interests behind primary challenges and much think tank advocacy. Some may even suggest that children be taught the names of local billionaires, rather than those of the governor and top legislative officials, to understand how politics works. The Pikettian moment marks the inflection point when extreme wealth can’t simply be written off as some ancillary feature of our political economy, but rather, as one of its motivating forces.