Page 74 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 1-2: The Language of Neoliberal Education, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 74
šolsko polje, letnik xxix, številka 1–2
Becker says: Basically, economic analysis can perfectly well find its points
of anchorage and effectiveness if an individual’s conduct answers to the
single clause that the conduct in question reacts to reality in a nonran-
dom way. That is to say, any conduct which responds systematically to
modifications in the variables of the environment, in other words, any
conduct, as Becker says, which “accepts reality,” must be susceptible to
economic analysis. Homo economicus is someone who accepts reality.
Rational conduct is any conduct which is sensitive to modifications in
the variables of the environment and which responds to this in a non-ran-
dom way, in a systematic way, and economics can therefore be defined as
the science of the systematic nature of responses to environmental varia-
bles (Foucault, 2008: p. 269).
The importance of this ‘colossal definition’ is to make economic anal-
ysis amenable to behavioural techniques defined in its purest form by B.F.
Skinner where conduct can be understood “simply in seeing how, through
mechanisms of reinforcement, a given play of stimuli entail responses
whose systematic nature can be observed and on the basis of which other
variables of behaviour can be introduced” (p. 270). This speaks to Becker’s
analysis which inherently points to manipulation and control of the sub-
ject. But there is another more important aspect in which Foucault is in-
terested. In the eighteenth century homo oeconomcus is someone who pur-
sues his own interest ( historically a male subject), and whose interest is
such that it converges spontaneously with the interest of others. ‘From the
point of view of a theory of government, homo oeconomcus is the person
who must be let alone” (Foucault, 2008: p. 270). Yet in Becker’s definition
… homo oeconomicus, that is to say, the person who accepts reality or who
responds systematically to modifications in the variables of the environ-
ment, appears precisely as someone manageable, someone who responds
systematically to systematic modifications artificially introduced into
the environment. Homo oeconomicus is someone who is eminently gov-
ernable (Foucault, 2008: p. 270).
Thus Foucault argues, ‘From being the intangible partner of lais-
sez-faire, homo oeconomicus now becomes the correlate of a governmental-
ity which will act on the environment and systematically modify its var-
iables’ (op.cit., pp. 270–1). This is Becker’s major innovation and Foucault
leaves us in no doubt that in the grim methodology of human capital
leaves little room for human freedom except as a form of consent assumed
by market agents or consumers who operate by making choices in the
marketplace.
72
Becker says: Basically, economic analysis can perfectly well find its points
of anchorage and effectiveness if an individual’s conduct answers to the
single clause that the conduct in question reacts to reality in a nonran-
dom way. That is to say, any conduct which responds systematically to
modifications in the variables of the environment, in other words, any
conduct, as Becker says, which “accepts reality,” must be susceptible to
economic analysis. Homo economicus is someone who accepts reality.
Rational conduct is any conduct which is sensitive to modifications in
the variables of the environment and which responds to this in a non-ran-
dom way, in a systematic way, and economics can therefore be defined as
the science of the systematic nature of responses to environmental varia-
bles (Foucault, 2008: p. 269).
The importance of this ‘colossal definition’ is to make economic anal-
ysis amenable to behavioural techniques defined in its purest form by B.F.
Skinner where conduct can be understood “simply in seeing how, through
mechanisms of reinforcement, a given play of stimuli entail responses
whose systematic nature can be observed and on the basis of which other
variables of behaviour can be introduced” (p. 270). This speaks to Becker’s
analysis which inherently points to manipulation and control of the sub-
ject. But there is another more important aspect in which Foucault is in-
terested. In the eighteenth century homo oeconomcus is someone who pur-
sues his own interest ( historically a male subject), and whose interest is
such that it converges spontaneously with the interest of others. ‘From the
point of view of a theory of government, homo oeconomcus is the person
who must be let alone” (Foucault, 2008: p. 270). Yet in Becker’s definition
… homo oeconomicus, that is to say, the person who accepts reality or who
responds systematically to modifications in the variables of the environ-
ment, appears precisely as someone manageable, someone who responds
systematically to systematic modifications artificially introduced into
the environment. Homo oeconomicus is someone who is eminently gov-
ernable (Foucault, 2008: p. 270).
Thus Foucault argues, ‘From being the intangible partner of lais-
sez-faire, homo oeconomicus now becomes the correlate of a governmental-
ity which will act on the environment and systematically modify its var-
iables’ (op.cit., pp. 270–1). This is Becker’s major innovation and Foucault
leaves us in no doubt that in the grim methodology of human capital
leaves little room for human freedom except as a form of consent assumed
by market agents or consumers who operate by making choices in the
marketplace.
72
