411 45. On power and the uses of genealogy for building community economies Nate Gabriel and Eric Sarmiento INTRODUCTION Diverse economies researchers explicitly avoid explanatory frameworks that prematurely foreclose the actual and virtual progressive potential of already existing, ethically oriented economic practices and enterprises. A primary rationale for rejecting such limiting ontologies is that they rely on totalizing and constraining conceptions of power relations and do not sufficiently account for the more productive dimensions of power. But alongside attending to the productive potential of power relations, diverse economies research nevertheless examines the darker, more constraining forms of power. In this chapter, we assert that to better understand and activate the political potential and broader significance of alternatives to capitalist socio-economic forms and relations, it is necessary to trace their articulations with often far-reaching political assemblages and their constituents (Jonas 2013; Sarmiento 2017). In particular, we explore how analysing the formation of economic assemblages from a genealogical perspective has allowed diverse economies researchers to account for power in its many forms, without falling victim to the melancholic narrative of capitalist domination that a focus on power too often engenders. The strong influence of various strands of post-structural theory is evident in the ways that diverse economies scholars have understood power in their studies (Gibson-Graham 2000). An emphasis on the constitutive power of language and discourse, for example, is exemplified in the extensive deconstruction of ‘the capitalist economy’ and the critique of capitalocentrism offered by Gibson-Graham in The End of Capitalism (As We Knew It) (1996, 2006b) (see also Gibson-Graham 2005; Harris 2009; St. Martin 2005). Diverse economy scholars have also deployed visions of power as diffuse or diffracted, multiple and contingent, avoiding visions of power as concentrated, singular and indomitable (cf. Cahill 2008; Mathie et al. 2017). Finally, much of this research has explored how power relations both shape and are modulated by spatial dynamics in specific times and places as well as the visceral, non-representational responses and often unpredictable drives of human bodies (cf. Gibson 2001; Gibson-Graham 2006a, ch. 1). In their introduction to the 2006 second edition of The End of Capitalism, Gibson-Graham offer something of a retrospective overview of the field of diverse economy studies, in which they identify different ‘phases’ of the research agenda (see also Chapter 1 in this volume). In what follows, we examine the ways in which a Nietzschean/Foucauldian analytic of genealogy runs through each of these phases of research: the deconstruction of the hegemony of capital- ism to open up a discursive space for non-capitalisms and facilitate an expanded, differentiated economic imaginary; the cultivation of non-capitalist subjectivities; and the construction of community economies. But first, we briefly explain our usage of the term genealogy and its relation to theorizing power and subjectivity.