From pandemic to high inflation: moral contestation to state in argentine society during extraordinaries crisis

Abstract

Between 2020 and 2022, two major events shooksociety, the economy, and the daily lives of people across the world.1 The first of these events,the Covid-19 pandemic, set off a new cycle of inflationafter several decades in which prices had been at a virtual standstill for most countries worldwide. In orderto understand these two processes, their interactions,and their conditioning factors, thisarticle focuses on the emerging senseamong Argentines of their moral superiority to the state since the outbreak of the pandemic. The workinghypothesis is that the pandemic, followed by spiraling inflation, fueledthis attitude. Paradoxically, when thegovernment intervened more actively at both social and economic levels,people focused on the state’s weakness and limitations and relied moreon interpersonal ties than government relief to weatherthe crisis (pandemic, high inflation). This article focuses on economic relief for households, people’s daily responses to economic crisis, and finally the social andpolitical experiences of inflation. A detailed analysis ofthese processes will provide some insight into how asociety develops a sense of moral superiority over thestate during times of extraordinary crisis.In her work on financial markets and how theyrate states rather than everyday people, Marion Fourcade has pointed out the need for a moral sociology ofthe state that would focus on “the constant ebb andflow of state claims upon society, and society’s claimsupon the state” (Fourcade 2017, 120). In this article,taking an approach based on the moral sociology ofmoney, I show how society made demands on the statefor relief measures during the pandemic, but alsoblamed the state for its contribution to inflation.For several years, my work has focused on showing how a moral sociology of money can contribute toa sociology of the state (Wilkis 2017, 2018). CharlesTilly (1999) noted that Viviana Zelizer’s sociology ofmoney is particularly useful when criticizing a monolithic conception of state power. The Social Meaning ofMoney showed how in everyday life people rework thestandardized concept of money imposed by the state.The sociology of money does not present the state asmonolithic or as “all-encompassing and regulative,” aview that John Dewey (quoted by Linhardt 2012) criticized. The moral sociology of money explores thecomplexities of these representations of state power(Wilkis 2017). While a sociological analysis of thestate underscores the principles of the social order andstate actors’ attempts to monopolize them (Bourdieu,2012), the moral sociology of money requires a different approach.While focusing mainly on the legitimacy ofpower, Bourdieu’s sociology gradually homed in onthe concept of symbolic capital. One of the tenets ofthe moral sociology of money is that as money circulates, it tests moral capital, which could be considereda particular type of symbolic capital (Wilkis 2017,2018). Money enables us to judge the virtues andshortcomings of ourselves, others, and institutions(even the state), establishing classifications and hierarchies. Therefore, the concept of moral capital may be asource of disruption in an analysis of the role thatsymbolic capital plays within a sociological analysis ofthe state. Returning to Bourdieu, his approach to stateeconomic sociology. perspectives and conversations Volume 24 · Number 3 · July 2023From the pandemic to spiraling inflation: Moral superiority over the Argentine state in times of crisis by Ariel Wilkis 35monopolies focused more on symbolic than on physical violence (2012). Working from the notion of symbolic capital, he discussed how the official recognitionstates grant is both the predominant and the acceptedform. The concept of moral capital opens up yet another perspective. The types of recognition that can beidentified through this lens exceed all government-approved, predominant, and accepted forms. This articlesets out to show how, during times of crisis, moneycreates special insight into the frequent conflicts between the state and the practices of actors who produce social and moral order.In the crisis analyzed herein—that of the pandemic and skyrocketing inflation—this culminated ina sense of moral superiority over the state on the partof society. The ideas and beliefs associated with thisprocess instilled moral capital (Wilkis 2017), convincing society that it was better able than the state to handle and resolve the urgent problems to which the crisisgave rise. Social life involves taking (or assigning)credit and blame, as Charles Tilly has masterfully argued (2008). In this vein, Argentine society’s sense ofmoral superiority over the state depended on refusingto give the state credit for the assistance it providedduring the pandemic, while blaming it for inflation.This article draws on quantitative and qualitative data (surveys and interviews, respectively) gathered from 2020 to 2022 as part of several researchprojects I headed on the dynamics of debt in Argentine households during the pandemic and the socialand political experiences of the (new) inflationary environment. The first section explores how the dynamics of debt hindered appreciation of state policiesduring the pandemic; the second reveals how people’sexperience of inflation led them to blame the state forrising prices. The conclusions note how both of thesetrends forged a sense of moral superiority over thestate and fueled the growth of the extreme right.