Page 65 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 1-2: The Language of Neoliberal Education, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 65
m. a. peters ■ neoliberalism as political discourse ...
rational choice maker of neoliberalism as it is embedded in the revival of
neoclassical homo economicus. The transition from Kantian moral theo-
ry to neoliberal economic theory via rational choice theory is complete.
The discourse has generated a transformation, a mutation that springs to
life as an abstract genderless creature that is radically individualist imper-
vious to context, to culture, to desire, and a calculus. Could anything be
less human?
At the same time this abstract figure of moral discourse and econom-
ic discourse represents gains and losses. It harbours of old moral categories
buried deep in its formulations yet it provides an easy calculus, a means of
measurement that the discourse demands. And yet homo economicus also
is constituted through three assumptions: (1) the assumption of individu-
alism – all choice makers are individuals and even firms are modelled on
this; (2) the assumption of rationality, a rather old-fashioned out-of-date
concept that suffers from its Cartesian heritage of a disembodied calculat-
ing mind; and, last but not least, the assumption of self-interest. The cri-
tique of neoliberalism, to my mind, revolves around the criticism of each
of these three assumptions: their abstract economic imperialism against
other behaviourial models in anthropology, philosophy and psycholo-
gy; the essentialist construction based on foundationalist epistemology
and ethics; the gendered nature of homo economicus and its culturalist ab-
straction of a single white male; the individualist bias against all forms of
collectivist decision-making based on the family, the group and class; the
profound critique of rationality by reference to the psychology of prefer-
ence formation and the psychoanalytic demonstration of various forms of
unconscious irrationality; the attack on the underlying concept of the self
in ‘self-interest’ as a rational utility maximiser. Of course, these are all the
mark of the beginnings of political economy as a discourse emerging from
‘natural philosophy’, especially in Scottish and French Enlightenment
thought before the disciplinary formation of economics, politics and phi-
losophy proper. These features or characteristics of the discourse of politi-
cal economy have passed into political and economic theory mostly with-
out revisions or reflection. The influence of social context as recognised
in concepts of ‘bounded rationality’ or ‘social rationality’ only recently
lead us to talk of ‘situated rationality’, or even ‘exuberant irrationality’ in
behavioural finance and accounting. The old discourse of political econ-
omy of the liberal economist at the time of Marx (including Smith and
Ricardo) live on in 17th century abstract figures that reflect the categories
of Cartesian science.
Deconstructing neoliberal discourse in general terms we can say that
a commitment to the free market involves two sets of claims: (i) claims
63
rational choice maker of neoliberalism as it is embedded in the revival of
neoclassical homo economicus. The transition from Kantian moral theo-
ry to neoliberal economic theory via rational choice theory is complete.
The discourse has generated a transformation, a mutation that springs to
life as an abstract genderless creature that is radically individualist imper-
vious to context, to culture, to desire, and a calculus. Could anything be
less human?
At the same time this abstract figure of moral discourse and econom-
ic discourse represents gains and losses. It harbours of old moral categories
buried deep in its formulations yet it provides an easy calculus, a means of
measurement that the discourse demands. And yet homo economicus also
is constituted through three assumptions: (1) the assumption of individu-
alism – all choice makers are individuals and even firms are modelled on
this; (2) the assumption of rationality, a rather old-fashioned out-of-date
concept that suffers from its Cartesian heritage of a disembodied calculat-
ing mind; and, last but not least, the assumption of self-interest. The cri-
tique of neoliberalism, to my mind, revolves around the criticism of each
of these three assumptions: their abstract economic imperialism against
other behaviourial models in anthropology, philosophy and psycholo-
gy; the essentialist construction based on foundationalist epistemology
and ethics; the gendered nature of homo economicus and its culturalist ab-
straction of a single white male; the individualist bias against all forms of
collectivist decision-making based on the family, the group and class; the
profound critique of rationality by reference to the psychology of prefer-
ence formation and the psychoanalytic demonstration of various forms of
unconscious irrationality; the attack on the underlying concept of the self
in ‘self-interest’ as a rational utility maximiser. Of course, these are all the
mark of the beginnings of political economy as a discourse emerging from
‘natural philosophy’, especially in Scottish and French Enlightenment
thought before the disciplinary formation of economics, politics and phi-
losophy proper. These features or characteristics of the discourse of politi-
cal economy have passed into political and economic theory mostly with-
out revisions or reflection. The influence of social context as recognised
in concepts of ‘bounded rationality’ or ‘social rationality’ only recently
lead us to talk of ‘situated rationality’, or even ‘exuberant irrationality’ in
behavioural finance and accounting. The old discourse of political econ-
omy of the liberal economist at the time of Marx (including Smith and
Ricardo) live on in 17th century abstract figures that reflect the categories
of Cartesian science.
Deconstructing neoliberal discourse in general terms we can say that
a commitment to the free market involves two sets of claims: (i) claims
63
