Search

The reward positivity (RewP) is a feedback-related event-related potential elicited in response to reward with two distinct defining features. First, it reflects an axiomatic reward prediction error signal. Second, it is spectrally represented within the delta band. We propose a third defining feature, namely that it is an additive and temporally independent event-related potential feature. Across five datasets and ten studies, this dissertation tested three major hypotheses. First, we show that stimulus modality (e.g. visual and auditory stimuli) and parametric delays can shift the RewP in time, which empirically indicates an additive and temporally independent feature. Second, we provide some evidence that these shifts in timing can be elucidated with a computational model, lending credibility to our initial conclusions. Third, we show that our computational model can account for similar reductions in the RewP associated with sub-clinical depression. Taken together, our findings provide a viable third descriptor of the RewP that includes an additive and temporally independent dynamic.

This project describes strategies presented in the fiction of three American novelists which alter our relationship to the epistemological codes of modernity, standards in which we are implicated by a vast network of cultural assumptions and institutional apparatuses. Such confinement within an ethical hegemony—a system permitting only a limited range of acceptable conduct, contemplation, and resistance in both public and private spheres—restricts the bounds not only of what can be practiced but also of what can be safely thought. This system I identify as the epistemology of modernity and, ushered in by the advent of modernization, capitalist relations, and the contemporary continuation of enlightenment reason against which any form of expression must situate itself either in opposition or corroboration. Because divergence is permitted to a certain degree, the possibility of epistemological shifting cannot be achieved by outward participation in such a system and thus must be perceptual: achieved through mentality and self-awareness. The strategies involve a shift in epistemological and thus ethical relations to modernity. Briefly, for Nabokov, it is the ridding of focus on the self; for Pynchon, comprehending the influences of totality; and for Morrison, the depiction of the always-othered non-self rather than one reduced to normative social assumptions and interpretive practices. More specifically, each author offers a particular set of insights on which to build. The project at which most of Nabokov’s (1899-1977) written work is aimed involves the generation, almost separate from the fabric of reality, of a purely aesthetic world. While much of his project is (at worst) doomed to fail or (at best) susceptible to the inevitably invasive material of the real, it remains useful in seeing what potential arises when an imaginative mind consciously attempts to work outside of and resist established systems. Pynchon (b. 1937), on the other hand, is far more rooted in the project of describing the systemic effects of a totalizing modernity. His daunting narratives (often labeled encyclopedic) depict the overwhelming saturation of apparatuses under which individuals find themselves situated and interpolated. What Pynchon’s work portrays is the oppressive and interconnected systems conducting the flow of control in modern life and, most important for this project, the realization of this as a social technology along with the means by which, once understood as such, to subversively navigate it. Finally, Morrison (b. 1931) represents the most directly and aggressively destabilizing personality of this trio. Her novels adopt as a constituted whole an aesthetic form that seeks to confront and expose the hegemonic systems responsible for the perpetuation of ideologies that come to seem natural but which need not be. Rather than constructing an alternative world or showing the means by which one can navigate the current one, Morrison assails and deconstructions the assumptions that constitute modern reality. Together, these three novelists offer distinct possibilities for epistemological change that can be wrought, and my future work—proceeding this dissertation project—will turn to transforming the literary strategies uncovered here into an actionable praxis that reaches beyond the readership of the novel.

The recent boom in the “history of capitalism” has neglected one of the most noted and maligned features of its subject: the connection between capitalism and inequality. To address this gap, this dissertation develops and employs the concept of “economic impunity.” It argues that impunity is a function of three variables acting with the sphere of the economy, each of which changed over time even as the structure of the economy itself changed. The first variable is prosecutorial discretion, whether contingent and corrupt or institutionalized in the limits of jurisprudence. The second is technical knowledge, as financial instruments became increasingly esoteric and economic theory became increasingly formalized across the eighteenth century. The third is international mobility, of both capital and its owners, since European capital markets integrated sooner and more thoroughly than markets for land, labor, or commodities. To test this approach, this dissertation uses documents from twenty-three archives in four countries to analyze the disparity between the increasing complexity of international financial instruments and the simultaneously limited scope of securities regulation in Britain and France to argue that the Financial Revolution witnessed the first expansion of economic impunity from the sovereign to the technical managers of capital, culminating in the world’s first international financial crisis in 1720. The second chapter shows how eighteenth century economic thought tried to solve the conceptual and political problems this crisis raised. The third chapter uses the financial records of the speculator Étienne Clavière to illustrate the normal workings of eighteenth century finance and how that systems came apart during the French Revolution, turning impunity into a nationalized and politicized attribute. The fourth chapter investigates the revolutionary interregnum through a pair of case studies in Dublin and Strasbourg. The final chapter shows how international private banks like Barings, Rothschilds, and Laffitte reconstituted the European financial system after 1815, culminating with their efforts to contain the first crisis of the nineteenth century gold standard in 1825. This dissertation accomplishes three things: it injects a tractable approach to inequality into the new “history of capitalism” that goes beyond national income accounting or cultural representations by using the concept of impunity to illustrate how institutional exceptions allow for the frequent but disavowed episodes of dispossession that accompanied the rise of modern finance. It illuminates why a constitutive element of the modern, self-authorizing economic sphere is that great moral and material harm can take place within it despite nobody being legally at fault or politically held accountable. Finally, it allows for a method of historicizing financial crises, which otherwise are taken to be eternal, inevitable, and above all, natural. This last moves the recent effort to historicize “the economy” towards an approach that grapples with how economies fail rather than how they grow.