Page 71 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 1-2: The Language of Neoliberal Education, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 71
m. a. peters ■ neoliberalism as political discourse ...
to the late sixteen century. Foucault’s account of neolberalism linking it to
forms of governmentality provides an understanding of its inherent lon-
gevity, its tenacity and resistance to all counter-evidence, and its dynam-
ic ever-changing character as a discourse that is both expansive in in social
field and modifiable in the face of world events.
One of the four main forms of economic liberalism analyzed by
Michel Foucault (2008) in his historical treatment of the birth of neolib-
eralism in The Birth of Biopolitics was American neoliberalism represent-
ed by the late Gary Becker. It was Becker (1962) who on the basis of Theo
Schultz’ work and others introduced the concept and theory of human
capital into political economy, privileging education in his analysis. This
“chapter” traces the inception of human capital theory and analyses it in
terms of Foucault’s analysis of how Becker developed an approach that is
not a conception of labour power so much as a “capital-ability”. Foucault
captures this point in the following comment: “the replacement every
time of homo oeconomicus as partner of exchange with a homo oeconomi-
cus as entrepreneur of himself, being for himself his own capital, being for
himself his own producer, being for himself the source of his earnings.”
The responsibilization of the self – turning individuals into mor-
al agents and the promotion of new relations between government and
self-government – has served to promote and rationalize programs of indi-
vidualized ‘‘social insurance’’ and risk management. By defining Foucault
as part of the critical tradition we can get some purchase on his theoreti-
cal innovations – particularly his impulse to historicize questions of on-
tology and subjectivity by inserting them into systems or structures of
thought/discourse (an approach that contrasts with the abstract category
of the Cartesian-Kantian subject). His notion of governmentality was de-
veloped and played out against these tendencies.
Foucault’s account of classical liberalism is related to a set of dis-
courses about government embedded in the ‘reason of state’ (ragione di
stato) literature of the later Italian renaissance beginning with Giovanni
Botera and Machiavelli, and later in the emergence of the ‘science of po-
lice’ (polizeiwissenschaft) in eighteenth century Germany where it was
considered a science of internal order of the community. Reason of state
reinforces the state by basing the art of government on reason rather than
God’s wisdom or the Prince’s strategy. It is essential a set of techniques
that conform to rational principles that are based on new forms of ex-
pert knowledges about the state – its measurement and so-called “polit-
ical arithmetic” – and issues in a kind of pastoral care that teaches so-
cial virtues and civil prudence. This new art of government represents a
break with Christian doctrine as it progressively becomes concerned with
69
to the late sixteen century. Foucault’s account of neolberalism linking it to
forms of governmentality provides an understanding of its inherent lon-
gevity, its tenacity and resistance to all counter-evidence, and its dynam-
ic ever-changing character as a discourse that is both expansive in in social
field and modifiable in the face of world events.
One of the four main forms of economic liberalism analyzed by
Michel Foucault (2008) in his historical treatment of the birth of neolib-
eralism in The Birth of Biopolitics was American neoliberalism represent-
ed by the late Gary Becker. It was Becker (1962) who on the basis of Theo
Schultz’ work and others introduced the concept and theory of human
capital into political economy, privileging education in his analysis. This
“chapter” traces the inception of human capital theory and analyses it in
terms of Foucault’s analysis of how Becker developed an approach that is
not a conception of labour power so much as a “capital-ability”. Foucault
captures this point in the following comment: “the replacement every
time of homo oeconomicus as partner of exchange with a homo oeconomi-
cus as entrepreneur of himself, being for himself his own capital, being for
himself his own producer, being for himself the source of his earnings.”
The responsibilization of the self – turning individuals into mor-
al agents and the promotion of new relations between government and
self-government – has served to promote and rationalize programs of indi-
vidualized ‘‘social insurance’’ and risk management. By defining Foucault
as part of the critical tradition we can get some purchase on his theoreti-
cal innovations – particularly his impulse to historicize questions of on-
tology and subjectivity by inserting them into systems or structures of
thought/discourse (an approach that contrasts with the abstract category
of the Cartesian-Kantian subject). His notion of governmentality was de-
veloped and played out against these tendencies.
Foucault’s account of classical liberalism is related to a set of dis-
courses about government embedded in the ‘reason of state’ (ragione di
stato) literature of the later Italian renaissance beginning with Giovanni
Botera and Machiavelli, and later in the emergence of the ‘science of po-
lice’ (polizeiwissenschaft) in eighteenth century Germany where it was
considered a science of internal order of the community. Reason of state
reinforces the state by basing the art of government on reason rather than
God’s wisdom or the Prince’s strategy. It is essential a set of techniques
that conform to rational principles that are based on new forms of ex-
pert knowledges about the state – its measurement and so-called “polit-
ical arithmetic” – and issues in a kind of pastoral care that teaches so-
cial virtues and civil prudence. This new art of government represents a
break with Christian doctrine as it progressively becomes concerned with
69
