Paper short abstract:

Odds are futures captured and put on sale today. Political gamblers seek out misprices in present odds, staking their claim to understand the geo-political present better than the market. Could a speculative anthropology arbitrate profitably in practice? If it can, should it?

Paper long abstract:

Normally thought of as a prospective activity, the presentism of gambling is often neglected. Political gambling specialists develop 'theses' that anticipate future political events and their outcomes, and compare these against current market prices, looking for misprices to exploit. This is a future-oriented activity, but it hinges upon an accurate understanding of the present. Are the British public fed up with Brexit? Are polling figures still skewed by respondent bias? Is President Biden feeling his years? Future profits hinge on up-to-the-minute understanding of the implications of now upon the future, and the ability to act upon them.

This mode of understanding is inimical to anthropological sensibilities, if not to anthropologists’ realities. When we produce research, the present is often presented as best understood in its sprawling ethnographic minutiae, delivering insight that other disciplines cannot. Anthropological presents are more often a ripple in the longue durée (across which humanity acts as it has and will), or a moment within an ongoing melee of structural forces. Efforts to arbitrate between the world as it is and as it will be surface more in departmental budget meetings and faculty appointment committees, not to mention impact case studies and calls to action. What would a more opportunistic anthropology of this moment look like? How might a speculative anthropology operate effectively in practice? Could political gamblers be a long-odds source of inspiration? In this paper I use my ethnographic knowledge of political gambling to push the analogy as far as I can.