Abstract

The very productive debate in Sociologica shows that second-order observation is not needed to see more, but to see that one does not see, i.e. to see blindness. Reflexive blindness reflects on itself and produces a different kind of insight, whose reference is not a supposed world outside but the way observers observe. The debate highlights not only the blindness of finance, but also a certain blindness of the sociological observation of finance and even the blindness of observation theory itself. To see it can become an advantage, if inserted in an ongoing conversation.