An Undisciplined Rationality - ENTITLE Blog (original) (raw)
Related papers
2012
"There are many key questions concerning the current status of the notion of neoliberalism. What is it? Is it an appropriate concept to describe a political and intellectual movement or form of state? What are its prospects as a framework of public policy after the global financial crisis? The article proposes a way of answering these questions by regarding neoliberalism as a definite ‘thought collective’ and a regime of government of and by the state. It exemplifies these by shifts within neoliberalism regarding the question of monopoly, its relationship to classical liberalism and its approach to crisis management. In regard to the latter, it further proposes an emergent rationality of the government of and by the state concerning the fostering of resilience in the anticipation of catastrophe."
Dead-end pathways of neoliberal thought (to be published in The Concise ISSR Companion to Contemporary Ideological Thought by Van der Kooij, H. (ed.) et al. - in progress), 2022
Neoliberal policies are continued unabatedly and shamelessly in many countries, as if despite all the destruction that has been done nothing could harm the protagonists and propagandists. On the other hand, the more problematic the continuation of neoliberalism as a policy ideology becomes, the more articles appear from scholars proclaiming that neoliberalism 'as such does not exist', or at least that the economic (market) policies pursued should not be subsumed under this heading. Many researchers such as anthropologist Fletcher (Wageningen University, WUR, the Netherlands) and others believe that a 'debate' is needed on the proper positioning of the term «neoliberalism». By doing so, they (implicitly) indicate that in academic circles there is quite a lot going on concerning ideological positioning in relation to the (pretended) academic 'neutrality' and independence which is so indispen-sable for free and well-founded scientific practice. Despite the fact that there are often - and many - references to (a selection of) available relevant literature, it appears that the references are often placed in a (too) narrow framework, as a result of which the purport of critical considerations in particular is violated and lost. But as Jeremy Bentham has put it, 'nonsense upon stilts' offers no insight and even less perspective. This (apparent) contradiction between policy implementation and ideological policy criticism indicates that in academic circles there is a good deal of 'blind spot' surrounding the practical ideological consequences, from which one seems to be hiding rather than openly facing up to these major issues and including them in analyses and reflections. In order to bring some balance into this, we will subject some of the core arguments put forward to closer scrutiny and see to what extent they really make sense. We shall demonstrate that this is less the case than is pretended and will show where reasoning fails. We will outline that many actual questions and (institutional) problems are to be traced back to the way in which, next to economical reasoning and views, political-philosophic debates on parallel matters such as concepts of choice, success, health and well-being are being performed. This paper presents a critical position that can be taken towards mainstream views concerning some key-findings on neoliberal welfare and austerity-policy that have been dominant during recent years and before. In order to see to a feasible change in this respect, some perspectives offered may appear worth considering.
The Neoliberal and the Powerlessness of Ideas
Keynes famously claimed 'soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interested which are dangerous for good or evil'. His neoliberal critics have frequently concurred with this contention, and have happily used the example of Keynes to illustrate it. But is 'the power of ideas' consistent with neoliberal doctrine? The paper argues that the most conclusive case for categorical 'market success' propositions will eliminate ideas as explanatory of economic failure , and imply such failures must be traced to exploitation of by special interests . However, the paper argues that neoliberalism is committed to 'government failure' not 'market success', and government failure does give room for ideas to have power, for good or ill.