The GameStop Bubble, Digital Crowds, and the Transformation of Financial Field Power

The 2021 GameStop bubble has become one of the most discussed financial events of the digital era. What began as a sharp rise in the stock price of a struggling video game retailer turned into a global episode of retail investor mobilization, platform-driven visibility, financial controversy, and academic debate. The event was not only about valuation, speculation, or short-selling. It also revealed how digital communities can organize collective economic action in ways that challenge traditional assumptions about expertise, authority, and market order. In this sense, the GameStop episode is important not only for finance but also for management, technology studies, digital sociology, and institutional analysis.

This article examines the GameStop bubble from an academic perspective using three theoretical lenses: Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of field, capital, and symbolic power; world-systems theory; and institutional isomorphism. The paper argues that the GameStop episode should be understood as a conflict between established financial actors and digitally coordinated retail participants operating through online platforms. It also suggests that the event represented a struggle over legitimacy in the financial field, where technical knowledge, social identity, media narratives, and platform architecture interacted to reshape market behavior. At the same time, the episode demonstrated that financial democratization is neither complete nor neutral, because digital participation remains deeply structured by institutional hierarchy, global inequality, and technological mediation.

Methodologically, this article uses qualitative interpretive analysis based on publicly documented events, academic scholarship on digital finance, platform capitalism, market sociology, and institutional theory. The study finds that GameStop represented a hybrid form of collective speculation, where economic motivations were mixed with identity, resistance, humor, and symbolic struggle. The article concludes that the GameStop bubble should not be reduced to a temporary market anomaly. Rather, it should be seen as a landmark case in the evolution of digitally mediated capitalism, where management systems, platform infrastructures, and social coordination increasingly shape economic outcomes.

Introduction

In January 2021, GameStop became the center of an extraordinary market event when its stock price rose at a dramatic pace amid intense buying by retail traders, many of whom were active in online forums, especially Reddit’s WallStreetBets community. The stock’s rise was also tied to a large short interest held by hedge funds, which turned the episode into a symbolic and financial struggle between institutional investors and digitally networked individuals. Brokerage restrictions, political reactions, regulatory attention, and mass media coverage elevated the event beyond a normal case of volatility. It became a cultural moment. Major market commentary and post-event reporting highlighted the scale of the price surge, the role of social media coordination, the pressure on short sellers, and the controversy around trading restrictions.

From a traditional financial perspective, the event raised questions about price discovery, irrational exuberance, investor protection, and market manipulation. Yet the GameStop bubble also challenged broader assumptions about how markets work in a digital society. It showed that platforms once considered peripheral to financial decision-making could become central to it. Online discussion spaces, memes, screenshots, livestreams, and viral narratives did not simply comment on the market; they became part of the market itself. Financial action was shaped by communication technologies, affective attachment, and group identity as much as by formal analysis.

For management scholars, the GameStop event matters because it revealed how organizations and markets are increasingly affected by decentralized digital coordination. The event raised practical questions for brokerages, regulators, hedge funds, media organizations, and technology platforms. It also opened theoretical questions: How does power work in a financial field when outsiders gain temporary influence through online collectivities? How do institutions respond when norms of expertise are challenged by crowds? How do digital infrastructures enable new forms of speculative organization? These are not only financial questions. They are management questions, because they concern governance, legitimacy, coordination, risk, and institutional adaptation.

This article addresses those questions by examining the GameStop bubble through an interdisciplinary framework. Rather than asking whether retail traders were right or wrong in strict valuation terms, the article asks what the episode reveals about the structure of contemporary capitalism. It argues that GameStop was a struggle over economic meaning and institutional power, not simply a speculative frenzy. The stock became a vehicle through which deeper tensions emerged: between professional and amateur knowledge, between centralized and distributed coordination, between financial elites and digitally empowered publics, and between market ideology and platform reality.

The article is organized as follows. The next section presents the theoretical background using Bourdieu, world-systems theory, and institutional isomorphism. The following section explains the method. The analysis section then examines the event across several dimensions: field conflict, collective identity, platform mediation, institutional response, and global significance. The findings section summarizes the main insights, and the conclusion discusses what the GameStop bubble means for future research in management, technology, and digital economic life.

Background and Theoretical Framework

Bourdieu: Field, Capital, and Symbolic Power

Pierre Bourdieu’s sociology offers a useful framework for understanding the GameStop bubble because it treats social life as a series of fields in which actors compete for position, legitimacy, and forms of capital. A field is a structured arena of struggle where agents occupy positions based on the volume and composition of capital they possess. These forms of capital include economic capital, cultural capital, social capital, and symbolic capital. In Bourdieu’s framework, power is not simply material; it is relational and symbolic. What counts as legitimate knowledge or proper behavior is part of the struggle itself.

Finance can be understood as a field in this sense. Institutional investors, regulators, analysts, financial media, and retail traders all occupy positions within a hierarchy shaped by expertise, access, wealth, and prestige. Traditionally, hedge funds and major financial institutions hold dominant positions because they possess large amounts of economic capital, advanced technical knowledge, informational infrastructure, and symbolic authority. Their language is treated as rational, their methods as professional, and their presence as legitimate.

The GameStop event disrupted this order. Retail traders, many of whom lacked conventional financial authority, used digital platforms to mobilize social capital and symbolic capital in new ways. Their actions were not purely technical. They were also expressive and cultural. Memes, slogans, and collective narratives helped transform participation into a form of field contestation. In Bourdieu’s terms, the subordinate actors in the field attempted to alter the rules of recognition. They challenged the idea that financial legitimacy belongs only to those with institutional credentials. They also revealed that symbolic domination in markets can be resisted, even if only temporarily, through collective visibility and cultural innovation.

Bourdieu’s concept of habitus is equally relevant. Habitus refers to the durable dispositions through which individuals perceive and act in the world. Financial professionals often operate with a habitus shaped by models, formal education, and institutional routines. The WallStreetBets community displayed a different habitus: ironic, anti-elite, emotionally charged, and digitally native. It mixed speculation with humor, aggression, and identity performance. This alternative habitus did not reject financial action; it redefined its style and meaning. Investment became entertainment, protest, and community belonging all at once.

World-Systems Theory and the Global Structure of Financial Power

World-systems theory, associated especially with Immanuel Wallerstein, helps place the GameStop event within the broader global organization of capitalism. This theory argues that modern capitalism operates as a world system marked by unequal relations among core, semi-peripheral, and peripheral zones. The core concentrates financial power, technological capability, and institutional influence. Peripheral actors are integrated into the system in subordinate ways. While the GameStop event took place in U.S. equity markets, its meaning traveled globally through digital media, making it part of a wider pattern in which core financial institutions confront new forms of transnational digital participation.

At first glance, GameStop appears to be a domestic U.S. story. Yet its infrastructures were global: trading apps, cloud services, online communities, global financial news, and international audiences all circulated the event. It reflected the centrality of U.S. finance in the world system, but it also showed how digital publics across borders can engage with core markets symbolically and materially. Global attention to GameStop was intense because the event represented a possible crack in the authority of core financial actors. Even if the structural order remained largely intact, the event exposed how symbolic challenges to core institutions can spread rapidly through networked communication.

World-systems theory also helps explain why democratization in finance is uneven. Access to brokerage apps and digital communities may create the image of open participation, but participation still depends on infrastructure, literacy, regulatory environment, and disposable capital. The ability to join the market is not equally distributed across the world. Thus, the GameStop bubble may be interpreted as a moment of apparent democratization within the core, rather than a universal restructuring of capitalism. The event widened the imagination of participation, but not necessarily its global material base.

Institutional Isomorphism and Organizational Response

Institutional isomorphism, developed by DiMaggio and Powell, explains why organizations within a field tend to become similar over time. They identify three mechanisms: coercive isomorphism, resulting from laws and regulations; mimetic isomorphism, resulting from uncertainty and imitation; and normative isomorphism, resulting from professional standards and shared education.

The GameStop episode generated pressures along all three dimensions. Brokerage firms faced coercive pressure through regulatory scrutiny and public demands for rule clarification. Financial institutions faced mimetic pressure as they reevaluated risk systems, retail sentiment analysis, and social media monitoring. Media organizations and market commentators adjusted their narratives to account for online communities as relevant market actors. Normative pressure also increased, as professionals in finance, law, and risk management debated what responsible platform design, disclosure, and investor treatment should look like.

Institutional isomorphism is especially important here because the event did not destroy institutions; it forced them to adapt. Brokerage platforms changed communication strategies. Institutional investors increasingly paid attention to online retail flows. Technology firms and financial intermediaries began to treat digital communities not as background noise but as variables in market behavior. Over time, these adjustments suggest that the field may absorb elements of what first appeared as disruption. In other words, the system resists outsiders, but it also learns from them.

Method

This article uses a qualitative interpretive method. It is not an econometric test of returns, abnormal volatility, or trading sequences. Instead, it aims to understand the GameStop bubble as a social, institutional, and technological phenomenon. The study draws on interdisciplinary scholarship in sociology of finance, digital culture, organizational theory, and political economy. It also uses historically documented features of the GameStop episode, including the role of online forums, short-selling dynamics, brokerage interventions, and public reactions.

The research design is conceptual and analytical. First, the article identifies the main structural components of the event: retail coordination, platform architecture, institutional reaction, media framing, and symbolic conflict. Second, it interprets these components through the three theoretical lenses outlined above. Third, it compares the claims of democratization associated with the event against the persistence of institutional hierarchy and systemic inequality.

This approach is appropriate for three reasons. First, the GameStop bubble cannot be understood only by examining prices. Price movement alone does not explain why the event carried such cultural power. Second, the event was saturated with discourse, identity, and media representation, which require interpretive analysis. Third, the broader significance of the episode lies in what it reveals about the changing relationship between finance, technology, and collective action.

The article does not claim to offer a final explanation of the GameStop event. Rather, it aims to provide a structured academic reading that connects the event to larger debates in management and social theory. Its value lies in synthesis and interpretation rather than statistical prediction.

Analysis

1. The GameStop Bubble as a Field Struggle

The first analytical point is that the GameStop bubble was a struggle within the financial field over position and legitimacy. Hedge funds entered the episode with dominant capital. They had research teams, trading infrastructure, market access, media relationships, and the symbolic advantage of being recognized as serious actors. Retail traders were typically fragmented, smaller in capital, and historically dismissed as noise.

Yet digital coordination altered this balance. WallStreetBets and related communities created a temporary mechanism for aggregation. Individually weak actors became collectively visible. They were not centralized in a formal organizational sense, but they were connected through shared interpretation and timing. This is important. Markets often assume dispersed retail action is uncoordinated and therefore limited in effect. GameStop showed that a digitally networked crowd can become strategically consequential without becoming a formal institution.

The conflict was not only economic. It was deeply symbolic. Many participants framed their actions as resistance against hedge funds. Buying GameStop was described not simply as a trade but as a statement. Holding the stock became a moral and cultural act. The language of “the little guy” versus “Wall Street” turned a market episode into a public drama. This symbolic framing increased participation because it offered people a meaning larger than profit.

From a Bourdieusian perspective, the retail crowd accumulated social and symbolic capital through visibility, solidarity, and narrative power. They used humor and meme culture to lower barriers to entry. They created an environment where participation felt accessible, exciting, and socially validated. The established field logic of detached expertise was challenged by a logic of participatory intensity.

However, the field did not become equal. Institutional actors still retained structural advantages. They had more capital, deeper legal protection, and greater influence over the language of legitimacy. When volatility intensified and brokerages restricted trading, many retail traders interpreted this as proof that the field remained biased toward dominant actors. Whether one agrees with that interpretation or not, the perception mattered. It reinforced the idea that finance operates through unequal rules masked as neutrality.

2. Social Media as Market Infrastructure

A second core point is that social media did not merely comment on GameStop. It functioned as infrastructure. In earlier periods, financial communication passed through analysts, television, print media, and regulated disclosures. In the GameStop episode, Reddit threads, YouTube content, Discord chats, livestreams, tweets, memes, and screenshots became channels through which sentiment, coordination, and conviction circulated.

This shift matters because infrastructure shapes action. Platforms organize visibility through algorithms, attention cycles, and user incentives. Certain forms of expression travel faster than others. Humor, outrage, and simplified narratives are more easily amplified than careful technical explanation. As a result, the style of discourse on digital platforms influenced the style of market participation. The market became more affective, performative, and interactive.

The GameStop bubble showed that financial communication now takes place in a hybrid media system. Institutional analysis and retail enthusiasm coexist, overlap, and compete in real time. A post on a forum can affect behavior not because it is formally authoritative, but because it is rapidly circulated and emotionally resonant. This does not mean every viral post moves markets. It means that under certain structural conditions, communicative intensity can become economically consequential.

From a management perspective, this creates new challenges. Firms cannot treat digital publics as external audiences only. Customers, investors, users, activists, and speculators now inhabit overlapping platform spaces. A company’s identity can be shaped by actors who are not part of its governance structure. Risk management must therefore include narrative monitoring, platform awareness, and digital community analysis.

This issue has only become more relevant as firms increasingly integrate AI into decision-making, coding, monitoring, and workflow automation. Recent reporting this week shows major companies openly linking operational transformation to AI systems and agent-based tools, reinforcing how platformed and automated infrastructures are moving toward the center of management practice rather than staying at the margins.

3. Collective Identity, Emotion, and Speculation

Traditional finance often treats investors as isolated decision-makers responding to incentives and information. The GameStop bubble suggests that this image is incomplete. Investors can act as members of an emotional public. They respond to belonging, narrative, humor, anger, and status. In the GameStop case, these factors were highly visible.

The WallStreetBets environment created a culture in which risk-taking was normalized and even celebrated. Extreme gains were admired, but so were dramatic losses, if they fit the community’s ethos. This challenges narrow economic models of utility. Participants often appeared motivated by a mix of profit, entertainment, anti-elite feeling, identity performance, and participation in a historic moment.

Bourdieu helps explain this through symbolic capital and distinction. Members of the digital crowd gained recognition through boldness, wit, and visible commitment. Screenshots of positions functioned as tokens of authenticity. Language and style signaled belonging. Those who held through volatility gained moral status within the group. Thus, economic action became a medium of social distinction inside the digital community.

Emotion was not a side effect. It was central. The event was driven by excitement, fear, anger, pride, and collective hope. Such emotions are often dismissed as irrational, yet institutions also operate emotionally, even if their emotions are expressed through formal language. Hedge funds may frame decisions through technical discourse, but confidence, panic, and reputation still matter. The difference is that institutional emotion is culturally coded as professional, while crowd emotion is coded as irrational. The GameStop bubble made this asymmetry visible.

4. The Role of Short Selling and Narrative Reversal

GameStop became explosive partly because of its short interest. Short sellers had identified the company as weak and expected its value to decline. From a conventional standpoint, short selling can contribute to price discovery. Yet in public imagination, short sellers are easily portrayed as predatory actors betting on failure. This symbolic vulnerability mattered. The retail crowd transformed short interest into a moral target.

Narrative reversal occurred when the market ceased to be a place where professionals judged a weak firm and instead became a stage where ordinary traders could punish elite overconfidence. This reversal was powerful because it turned a technical position into a social drama. The stock was no longer only about GameStop as a company. It became about whether institutional arrogance could be publicly challenged.

This illustrates how markets are shaped by stories. A financial instrument gains momentum when people agree on what it means. During the bubble, GameStop meant different things to different actors: a speculative vehicle, a squeeze target, a protest symbol, a meme, a lesson in market dysfunction, or a temporary revolution. These meanings competed, and their competition helped sustain attention.

For management theory, this shows that markets are not just allocation systems; they are narrative arenas. Firms, investors, and intermediaries operate in environments where interpretation is strategic. The capacity to define what an event means can matter almost as much as the event itself.

5. Brokerage Restrictions and Institutional Trust

One of the most controversial moments in the GameStop episode came when some brokerages restricted purchases of certain volatile stocks. For many retail traders, this was the point at which the event shifted from excitement to distrust. Restrictions were interpreted by critics as evidence that the system protects powerful actors when market disruption becomes uncomfortable. The official explanations focused on collateral requirements, clearing obligations, and operational strain. Regardless of the technical rationale, the trust consequences were severe.

Institutional trust is central to market functioning. People may accept losses if they believe the rules are fair. They react much more strongly when they believe participation itself is being unequally governed. The GameStop episode exposed how thin trust can be when market access depends on complex intermediaries that most participants do not fully understand.

In institutional theory terms, the controversy triggered pressures for reform, explanation, and normalization. Organizations had to justify their actions in moral as well as technical language. Regulatory agencies faced demands to review whether existing frameworks adequately served retail participants. Brokerage firms faced reputational damage, not only operational scrutiny.

This episode is a reminder that organizations survive not only through efficiency but through legitimacy. A technically justified decision can still be institutionally damaging if it conflicts with public expectations of fairness. Management, therefore, cannot separate operational systems from symbolic consequences.

6. Financial Democratization: Real, Partial, or Illusory?

Many observers described GameStop as a moment of financial democratization. There is truth in this. Retail investors showed they could matter. Digital tools lowered participation barriers. Financial discussion became more public and participatory. The event exposed the false assumption that institutional actors always dominate the direction of markets without challenge.

Yet democratization must be evaluated carefully. Participation expanded, but not equally. Access to markets still depends on wealth, time, technology, literacy, geography, and legal environment. Even within the United States, not all retail traders had the same capacity to take risks. Many late entrants lost money. Some experienced the event as empowerment; others experienced it as volatility and confusion.

World-systems theory deepens this critique. The very platforms that seemed democratizing were embedded in core capitalist infrastructures. Retail participants entered markets on terms shaped by large technology companies, brokerage systems, clearing institutions, and regulatory frameworks. The crowd could generate pressure, but it did not control the architecture. Thus, democratization was real at the level of visibility and temporary influence, but limited at the level of structural transformation.

This distinction is important. Symbolic breakthroughs matter. They can change expectations and future behavior. But symbolic breakthroughs do not automatically redistribute durable power. The GameStop bubble opened an imaginative space in which many people felt markets were contestable. Whether that space becomes a basis for long-term institutional change remains uncertain.

7. Isomorphism After Disruption

Events like GameStop rarely leave institutions unchanged. Even when the immediate crisis passes, organizations adjust. This is where institutional isomorphism becomes highly relevant.

First, coercive pressures emerged as policymakers and regulators reviewed market plumbing, broker practices, disclosure norms, and investor protection issues. Second, mimetic pressures followed as firms copied one another in monitoring social media, improving retail communication, and expanding internal awareness of digital sentiment. Third, normative pressures developed as legal experts, compliance officers, finance professionals, and academics updated their frameworks for understanding retail market influence.

The pattern is clear: disruption is initially framed as extraordinary, but over time institutions absorb its lessons. Once social media becomes accepted as a market variable, firms begin to build systems around it. Once retail coordination becomes visible, analysts include it in their models. Once meme-driven volatility becomes thinkable, organizational playbooks change.

This means the GameStop episode may have had a more durable impact on institutional behavior than on price theory. It taught organizations that digital publics can no longer be treated as marginal. It also showed that communication systems, platform incentives, and community sentiment are relevant to governance and risk.

8. Technology, Visibility, and the Future of Managed Markets

The broader significance of GameStop lies in the convergence of markets and digital visibility. Contemporary organizations increasingly operate in environments where economic value is shaped by online attention. This is true in consumer markets, labor markets, political communication, and now financial markets. Visibility has become a managerial variable.

The rise of AI, automated analytics, and agentic systems may intensify this trend. If institutions use advanced tools to monitor public sentiment, detect retail signals, or automate responses, then future market episodes may become even more technologically mediated. Reporting this week on agentic expense systems, AI-centered workflow changes, and enterprise infrastructure for “digital labor” suggests that the organizational mainstream is moving further toward automation, surveillance, and algorithmically assisted management.

Seen from this angle, GameStop was not an isolated anomaly from 2021. It was an early sign of a deeper transformation in which organizations, publics, and platforms interact continuously. The next major market disruption may not look identical, but it will likely involve similar tensions: decentralized action versus centralized infrastructure, symbolic mobilization versus formal authority, and emotional publics versus institutional control.

Findings

This study produces five main findings.

First, the GameStop bubble should be understood as a conflict over power within the financial field, not merely as irrational speculation. Retail traders challenged the symbolic authority of institutional actors by creating alternative forms of legitimacy through digital community, humor, and collective action.

Second, social media acted as market infrastructure. Platforms shaped not only discussion but also market dynamics by organizing visibility, accelerating sentiment, and enabling coordination among dispersed participants. Communication technologies were part of the event’s causal structure.

Third, the event demonstrated that financial behavior is deeply social and emotional. Investors did not act only as isolated utility maximizers. They acted as members of a symbolic public motivated by identity, resentment, entertainment, and moralized narratives of fairness.

Fourth, the GameStop bubble revealed the limits of financial democratization. Digital access can widen participation, but it does not eliminate structural inequality. The architecture of markets remains controlled by powerful institutions, and participation remains unevenly distributed.

Fifth, institutional response followed patterns of adaptation rather than collapse. Organizations faced coercive, mimetic, and normative pressures to revise their practices. The field did not disappear; it reabsorbed the disruption by updating its norms, monitoring systems, and narratives.

Taken together, these findings show that the GameStop episode belongs at the intersection of finance, management, technology, and sociology. It was a market event, but also a governance event, a media event, and a legitimacy event.

Conclusion

The GameStop bubble remains a major case for understanding capitalism in the digital age. It showed that markets are not purely technical systems governed only by information and valuation. They are also cultural fields shaped by hierarchy, identity, communication, and institutional legitimacy. The event revealed the growing power of digitally connected publics to influence economic processes, even in domains long dominated by professional elites.

Using Bourdieu, this article has argued that GameStop was a struggle over capital and recognition within the financial field. Using world-systems theory, it has shown that the event reflected tensions within a globally unequal capitalist order in which apparent openness coexists with structural concentration. Using institutional isomorphism, it has explained how organizations responded by adapting their practices, narratives, and risk frameworks rather than simply rejecting the disruption.

The most important lesson is not that retail traders defeated Wall Street, nor that markets became fully democratized. The deeper lesson is that financial power now operates in an environment where digital platforms can transform social energy into market force. This creates new forms of uncertainty for organizations and new opportunities for collective action. It also means that management scholars must pay greater attention to online publics, communicative infrastructures, and the symbolic dimension of economic life.

Future research should examine similar episodes across other asset classes, especially in cryptocurrency, AI-linked speculation, and platform-mediated retail investment cultures. It should also explore how organizations build internal systems to monitor and manage digitally organized market behavior. More broadly, scholarship should continue to investigate how technological infrastructures reshape the relationship between institutions and publics in contemporary capitalism.

The GameStop bubble may have begun as a dramatic stock story, but its long-term value lies in what it revealed: markets are increasingly social theaters as much as financial mechanisms. In that theater, power is contested not only with money, but also with attention, narrative, identity, and code.

Hashtags

#GameStopBubble #DigitalFinance #RetailInvestors #PlatformCapitalism #FinancialSociology #MarketPower #TechnologyAndMarkets

References

Abdelal, R. (2007). Capital Rules: The Construction of Global Finance. Harvard University Press.

Akerlof, G. A., & Shiller, R. J. (2009). Animal Spirits: How Human Psychology Drives the Economy, and Why It Matters for Global Capitalism. Princeton University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Greenwood.

Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Stanford University Press.

Callon, M. (1998). The Laws of the Markets. Blackwell.

Castells, M. (2010). The Rise of the Network Society. Wiley-Blackwell.

Cetina, K. K., & Preda, A. (Eds.). (2012). The Oxford Handbook of the Sociology of Finance. Oxford University Press.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

Dodd, N. (2014). The Social Life of Money. Princeton University Press.

French, K. R. (2008). The cost of active investing. Journal of Finance, 63(4), 1537–1573.

Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.

Kindleberger, C. P., & Aliber, R. Z. (2011). Manias, Panics, and Crashes: A History of Financial Crises. Palgrave Macmillan.

Krippner, G. R. (2011). Capitalizing on Crisis: The Political Origins of the Rise of Finance. Harvard University Press.

MacKenzie, D. (2006). An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial Models Shape Markets. MIT Press.

Malkiel, B. G. (2019). A Random Walk Down Wall Street. W. W. Norton.

Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.

Shiller, R. J. (2015). Irrational Exuberance (3rd ed.). Princeton University Press.

Swartz, D. (2013). Symbolic Power, Politics, and Intellectuals: The Political Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. University of Chicago Press.

Tufekci, Z. (2017). Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest. Yale University Press.

Uzzi, B. (1999). Embeddedness in the making of financial capital: How social relations and networks benefit firms seeking financing. American Sociological Review, 64(4), 481–505.

Wallerstein, I. (2004). World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Duke University Press.

Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. PublicAffairs.