This dissertation is composed of two halves: “economies of scarcity,” and “economies of surplus.” The first part, economies of scarcity,” performs a philosophical critique of modernism by discussing the inherent limits of the foundations of neoclassical economic discourse. Here, rather than formulating utility functions that can better take account of our inherent cognitive biases —as, for example, behavioral economics does—I focus on the formal foundations common to all such “utility functions” and describe their shared inherent limits. The purpose of this critique is to deconstruct the neoclassical use of choice theory in order to assemble an alternative theoretical space in the proximity of this formal foundation without being dominated by its logic. Ultimately, I am after a flexible theoretical framework that can be used to make sense of social processes of valuation at work across different “discursive fields.” The thesis of this first chapter is that, within the complex variety of mainstream discourses one can identify a particular theoretical order imposed by the use of choice theory as the maximization of a utility function. I describe this discursive order as the process where the abstract framework of the utility function concretizes as a relation of scarcity, as scarcity in dominance; Dominance of scarcity results in the forgetting of the existence of the effectivity of surplus, how its logic and lure shape social relations. Here, in light of my observations from the first part, and as opposed to neoclassical economics, I consider the relationship between means and ends as ongoing, incomplete and indeterminate discursive processes of making sense. Consequently, to explain the possible establishment of an order within particular means-ends relations, I propose a philosophy of discursive hegemony” as an alternative to the modernist philosophy of dominance. From this perspective, when scarcity is not fully present, the concept of surplus assumes a normative meaning in relation to the concept of use-value.