PhD defence D.C. (David) van Putten

Below is a brief summary of the dissertation:

Debt is an increasingly prominent source of political tension in the twenty-first century. Despite the various social problems engendered by debt, however, it is nevertheless generally felt that debts should always be paid. Why does debt have this moral power? This dissertation is an exploration of the various reasons for the payment of debts, covering the relation between debt, on the one hand, and violence, justice, community and 'subjectivity' (in philosophical jargon) on the other.

Among its various findings, perhaps its central claim is that debt is often wrongfully treated as a pedagogical instrument. There is a tendency to interpret debt as a form of discipline, meant to instill a sense of responsibility in the borrower. Drawing on the homonymy between debt and guilt (both 'Schuld' in German and Dutch), it is assumed that one will lead to the other, so that financial debt will produce an enduring sense of guilt or responsibility in the debtor. Such lines of thought are common academically speaking, but also underlie various rehabilitation programmes for debtors, such as austerity programmes for nations, or 'schuldsanering' for individuals. The issue with this line of thought, however, is not only that it is a misinterpretation of the philosophers from whom it is typically derived (Foucault, Nietzsche), but also that it misconstrues the effect that debt has on debtors, who tend rather to become accustomed to their debts, and increasingly indifferent to the demands of society -- 'incapable of promising,' as the title of this dissertation has it.