Page 64 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 1-2: The Language of Neoliberal Education, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 64
šolsko polje, letnik xxix, številka 1–2
its ponderous, formidable materiality” (“The Order of Discourse” 52). He
mentions the ‘procedures of exclusion’: prohibition; division of discours-
es (based on madness and reason); the opposition between truth and falsi-
ty; and, internal procedures, including the principles of order within dis-
course: commentary (canonical texts and their commentary); the author,
as an organising principle (the author-function); disciplinarity and how
discourse constitute autonomous knowledge systems. Foucault also ap-
proaches the conditions to the access of discourse: how and who enters the
discourse; societies of discourse; doctrines; appropriations, in particular
its social appropriation. He comes at last to philosophical themes and the
notion of ideal truth as the law of discourse, a kind of immanent rational-
ity as the principle for the development of discourse and what he calls the
founding subject, the rational autonomous self that is the agent of liberal,
the holder of rights, and the foundation of Kantian morality.
Homo Oeconomicus and The Rise of Rational Choice
Some wag in a student blog had written: ‘My neoliberal university made
me a rational utility maximiser!’ Another had written underneath it: ‘Ok
for economics but not good for me doing classics’. Someone else had
typed: ‘If I send me the language, will he make me one too?’ Someone
else again wrote: ‘I’m doing economics, but utility maximization is too
narrow as a model of rationality’. And another wrote: ‘Where’s emotion?
I’m a passionate guy!’ To which someone responded: ‘I’m a leeming: buy,
buy, buy.’ And yet another student wrote: ‘Ebullient losers!’. Another:
‘You really know how to hurt a guy. I’m studying behavioural finance!’
Others responses were hurriedly written: ‘Nudge, nudge – welcome to
the architecture of choice’; ‘Oh rational choice – what of The Theory of
Moral Sentiments?’; “I am risk averse’; ‘Can anyone tell me the difference
between ‘expected utility’ and ‘dependent utility’ theory?’ Immediately
below some smart fellow: ‘Has anyone heard of cumulative irrationali-
ty? I’m in a sinking boat in the ecosphere!’ ‘Hey, human judgement and
decision making under uncertainty is not perfect’; ‘I am into ‘reciprocal
altruism’ and ‘inequity aversion’ – anyone want to play?’2
The theme of the knowing and founding subject is particularly apt
here because it is a substantial philosophical motif animating political dis-
course as it is invested by the concepts of liberalism as a political ideology.
The liberal self – the rational autonomous actor of liberalism developed in
the prior two hundred years becomes the ‘rational utility maxmiser’, the
2 This is a piece of fiction I employ as a pedagogical device.
62
its ponderous, formidable materiality” (“The Order of Discourse” 52). He
mentions the ‘procedures of exclusion’: prohibition; division of discours-
es (based on madness and reason); the opposition between truth and falsi-
ty; and, internal procedures, including the principles of order within dis-
course: commentary (canonical texts and their commentary); the author,
as an organising principle (the author-function); disciplinarity and how
discourse constitute autonomous knowledge systems. Foucault also ap-
proaches the conditions to the access of discourse: how and who enters the
discourse; societies of discourse; doctrines; appropriations, in particular
its social appropriation. He comes at last to philosophical themes and the
notion of ideal truth as the law of discourse, a kind of immanent rational-
ity as the principle for the development of discourse and what he calls the
founding subject, the rational autonomous self that is the agent of liberal,
the holder of rights, and the foundation of Kantian morality.
Homo Oeconomicus and The Rise of Rational Choice
Some wag in a student blog had written: ‘My neoliberal university made
me a rational utility maximiser!’ Another had written underneath it: ‘Ok
for economics but not good for me doing classics’. Someone else had
typed: ‘If I send me the language, will he make me one too?’ Someone
else again wrote: ‘I’m doing economics, but utility maximization is too
narrow as a model of rationality’. And another wrote: ‘Where’s emotion?
I’m a passionate guy!’ To which someone responded: ‘I’m a leeming: buy,
buy, buy.’ And yet another student wrote: ‘Ebullient losers!’. Another:
‘You really know how to hurt a guy. I’m studying behavioural finance!’
Others responses were hurriedly written: ‘Nudge, nudge – welcome to
the architecture of choice’; ‘Oh rational choice – what of The Theory of
Moral Sentiments?’; “I am risk averse’; ‘Can anyone tell me the difference
between ‘expected utility’ and ‘dependent utility’ theory?’ Immediately
below some smart fellow: ‘Has anyone heard of cumulative irrationali-
ty? I’m in a sinking boat in the ecosphere!’ ‘Hey, human judgement and
decision making under uncertainty is not perfect’; ‘I am into ‘reciprocal
altruism’ and ‘inequity aversion’ – anyone want to play?’2
The theme of the knowing and founding subject is particularly apt
here because it is a substantial philosophical motif animating political dis-
course as it is invested by the concepts of liberalism as a political ideology.
The liberal self – the rational autonomous actor of liberalism developed in
the prior two hundred years becomes the ‘rational utility maxmiser’, the
2 This is a piece of fiction I employ as a pedagogical device.
62
