The pandemic has contributed to renewing the interest in the debate on the anticipatory governance of the future, with particular regard to the strategies through which societies try to govern risks, threats and emergencies (related to the biological, health, environmental, military spheres, etc.), by virtue of complex operations that connect the past, the present and the future. Peculiar attention is paid today to the notion of preparedness and to the role that the latter (in its ambiguous relations with the spheres of prevention, precaution and pre-emption) plays in contemporary governance. The paper aims to contribute to the debate from the peculiar perspective of monetary innovation, with particular regard to Bitcoin. In what sense can Bitcoin be interpreted as a project that has to do with anticipatory governance in the monetary and financial fields? And how then can reflecting on the phenomenon of cryptocurrencies contribute to a debate that has mainly developed in the environmental, health and military fields? The Bitcoin’s project is analysed in the scientific literature from various points of view, from those centred on some controversial socio-political imaginaries (based on the notions of decentralization, distributed power and disintermediation) to those concerning the conceptions of the nature and functions of money. The Bitcoin phenomenon, however, can usefully be read precisely from a perspective oriented to the issue of the governance of future and risks. In the Bitcoin’s ideological framework, the crisis seems to ratify the non-amendability of the “old” financial order, whose instability could not be effectively managed through the anticipatory strategies of the official monetary and financial system (the latter, moreover, after the crisis, tends to develop its own strategies precisely under the heading of preparedness). The Bitcoinian ideology then seems to respond to the impasse on a completely different path: by dealing, once and for all, with the instability of the monetary and financial system through a sort of cybernetic pre-assurance that radically prevents uncertainty. At the price of a disquieting stiffening of the conceptions and of the institutional life of money, the Bitcoinian project seems to imagine a world in which money proceeds in a secure way, under the guarantee of algorithmic certainties (although bitcoin as an asset proceeds in a very unstable way). First, the article very briefly considers some lines of debate on preparedness, showing how, after the great financial crisis, the notion has also assumed an important role in the economic-financial field. Subsequently, the paper insists on the reasons that legitimize the reading of Bitcoin as a manifestation of a peculiar form of anticipatory governance that is very far from that which characterizes the dimension of preparedness and which has to do with a sort of pre-assurance of monetary life. Despite the radical differences, however, I discuss in the last part of the paper, some significant consonances can be found between the two approaches. Such consonances refer to the most problematic dimensions both of the Bitconian cybernetic project (and of its dream of automating economic life) and of contemporary anticipatory governance and of its technological imaginaries, which, from some critical perspectives, appear to be marked by the questionable fascination for the transhuman horizon.
La pandemia ha contribuito a rinnovare l’interesse per il dibattito sulla governance anticipatoria del futuro, con particolare riguardo alle strategie con cui le società cercano di governare rischi, minacce ed emergenze (legati alle sfere biologiche, sanitarie, ambientali, militari, etc.), grazie a operazioni complesse che mettono in relazione passato, presente e futuro. Un’attenzione peculiare è rivolta oggi alla nozione di preparedness e al ruolo che quest’ultima (nelle sue ambigue relazioni con le sfere della prevention, della precaution e della pre-emption) gioca nella governance contemporanea. Il paper si propone di contribuire al dibattito dalla prospettiva peculiare dell’innovazione monetaria, con particolare riguardo a Bitcoin. In che senso Bitcoin può essere interpretato come un progetto che ha a che fare con la governance anticipatoria in campo monetario e finanziario? E in che modo quindi riflettere sul fenomeno delle criptomonete può contribuire a un dibattito che si è sviluppato in via privilegiata in ambito ambientale, sanitario e militare? Il progetto di Bitcoin è analizzato nella letteratura scientifica da punti di vista diversi, da quelli centrati su alcuni controversi immaginari socio-politici (fondati sulle nozioni di decentramento, potere distribuito e disintermediazione) a quelli concernenti le concezioni della natura e delle funzioni della moneta. Il fenomeno Bitcoin può, però, essere utilmente letto proprio da una prospettiva orientata verso la questione del governo del futuro e dei rischi. Nel quadro ideologico di Bitcoin la crisi sembra sancire la non emendabilità del “vecchio” ordine finanziario, la cui instabilità non potrebbe essere gestita efficacemente attraverso le strategie anticipatorie del sistema monetario e finanziario “ufficiale” (quest’ultimo, peraltro, dopo la crisi, tende a sviluppare le proprie strategie proprio sotto il segno della preparedness). L’ideologia Bitcoiniana sembra allora rispondere all’impasse su un percorso del tutto diverso: facendo, una volta per tutte, i conti con l’instabilità del sistema monetario e finanziario attraverso una sorta di pre-assicurazione cibernetica che prevenga alla radice l’incertezza. Al prezzo di un inquietante irrigidimento delle concezioni di fondo e della vita istituzionale della moneta, il progetto Bitcoiniano pare immaginare un mondo in cui la moneta procede in maniera sicura, sotto la garanzia delle certezza algoritmiche (sebbene bitcoin come asset proceda in modo molto instabile). L’articolo dapprima esamina molto brevemente alcune linee di dibattito sulla preparedness, mostrando come, dopo la grande crisi finanziaria, la nozione abbia assunto un ruolo importante anche in campo economico-finanziario. Successivamente, il paper insiste sulle ragioni che legittimano la lettura di Bitcoin come manifestazione di una peculiare forma di governance anticipatoria che è molto lontana da quella che caratterizza la dimensione della preparedness e che ha a che fare con una sorta di pre-assicurazione della vita monetaria. Nonostante le radicali differenze, però, discuto nell’ultima parte del paper, alcune significative consonanze si possono rinvenire fra i due approcci. Tali consonanze rimandano alle dimensioni più problematiche tanto del progetto cibernetico bitconiano (e del suo sogno di automazione della vita monetaria) quanto della governance anticipatoria contemporanea e dei suoi immaginari tecnologici, che da alcune prospettive critiche, appaiono segnati dalla discutibile fascinazione per l’orizzonte transumano.
Bitcoin e la pre-assicurazione della vita monetaria: un contributo al dibattito sulla governance anticipatoria del futuro
Luigi Doria
2022-01-01
Abstract
The pandemic has contributed to renewing the interest in the debate on the anticipatory governance of the future, with particular regard to the strategies through which societies try to govern risks, threats and emergencies (related to the biological, health, environmental, military spheres, etc.), by virtue of complex operations that connect the past, the present and the future. Peculiar attention is paid today to the notion of preparedness and to the role that the latter (in its ambiguous relations with the spheres of prevention, precaution and pre-emption) plays in contemporary governance. The paper aims to contribute to the debate from the peculiar perspective of monetary innovation, with particular regard to Bitcoin. In what sense can Bitcoin be interpreted as a project that has to do with anticipatory governance in the monetary and financial fields? And how then can reflecting on the phenomenon of cryptocurrencies contribute to a debate that has mainly developed in the environmental, health and military fields? The Bitcoin’s project is analysed in the scientific literature from various points of view, from those centred on some controversial socio-political imaginaries (based on the notions of decentralization, distributed power and disintermediation) to those concerning the conceptions of the nature and functions of money. The Bitcoin phenomenon, however, can usefully be read precisely from a perspective oriented to the issue of the governance of future and risks. In the Bitcoin’s ideological framework, the crisis seems to ratify the non-amendability of the “old” financial order, whose instability could not be effectively managed through the anticipatory strategies of the official monetary and financial system (the latter, moreover, after the crisis, tends to develop its own strategies precisely under the heading of preparedness). The Bitcoinian ideology then seems to respond to the impasse on a completely different path: by dealing, once and for all, with the instability of the monetary and financial system through a sort of cybernetic pre-assurance that radically prevents uncertainty. At the price of a disquieting stiffening of the conceptions and of the institutional life of money, the Bitcoinian project seems to imagine a world in which money proceeds in a secure way, under the guarantee of algorithmic certainties (although bitcoin as an asset proceeds in a very unstable way). First, the article very briefly considers some lines of debate on preparedness, showing how, after the great financial crisis, the notion has also assumed an important role in the economic-financial field. Subsequently, the paper insists on the reasons that legitimize the reading of Bitcoin as a manifestation of a peculiar form of anticipatory governance that is very far from that which characterizes the dimension of preparedness and which has to do with a sort of pre-assurance of monetary life. Despite the radical differences, however, I discuss in the last part of the paper, some significant consonances can be found between the two approaches. Such consonances refer to the most problematic dimensions both of the Bitconian cybernetic project (and of its dream of automating economic life) and of contemporary anticipatory governance and of its technological imaginaries, which, from some critical perspectives, appear to be marked by the questionable fascination for the transhuman horizon.
I documenti in ARCA sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
