Frames /sing


The “heart” of Neo-Liberalism, blah, blah, blah

While I try to shrug off all this Neo-liberalism this, and Neo-liberalism that, as other blogsters are using fancy acronyms for Neo-liberalism as if they are busy making entries in the Merck manual, this one passage of qualifications and analogies from the Neo-liberal hating Levi Bryant I find interesting (yes, he has equated Neo-liberalism with Nazism recently):

While I do not disagree with Rowan William’s thesis that the picture of the human as an intrinsically self-seeking creature constitutes a false anthropology, I have noticed that there is a tendency to treat the core of neo-liberal capitalist ideology as consisting almost entirely of this false anthropology. What is missing in this conception of neo-liberal ideology is the legal and normative framework that underlies this way of relating to the world and others. On the one hand, in order for neo-liberal capitalist ideology to get off the ground it requires what what might be called a “pure subject” or a “subject-without-qualities”, not unlike Descartes’ cogito or Kant’s transcendental unity of apperception. At the heart of neo-liberal capitalist ideology (NLCI) is not so much a subject pursuing self-interest, as a legal subject functioning as the substrate of property, commercial obligations and debts, and divorced from social context and conditions of production.

One can see right away from the bolded material that analogies abound. Levi objects to an anthropological view being read as the core of Neo-liberalism, because there is a framework (legal normative) in which (?) a substrate operates (legal subject) onto which various formal economic relations adhere.  What Levi denies, in something beyond a point of emphasis, is that the “heart” or the “core” of Neo-liberalism is the self-interested subject. Instead it is a mere formalism of “subject” and its laws. To put it briefly, it’s not the self-seeking, self-interested desiring-subject, it’s the structured-subject (legally and philosophically) that is the troublesome kernel of Neo-liberalism. Let’s leave aside the kind of rhetorical slippage between philosophical “subject” and legal “subject” here, is it really correct to say that THIS is the core/heart of Neoliberalism (whatever that is)?

From my perspective the attempt to minimize the anthropological myth, the idea that human beings are essentially and naturally selfish beings, and instead draw a different heart/core made of some kind of structuralization, misses something. The entire legal and normative framework, we would say, came into existence and into justification in the very strong context of the belief that human beings are self-interested beings, essentially. The entire formalized drive towards privatization is made in response to this picture of humanity, it is naturalized within it. While I’m not sure who is saying that Neo-liberalism is nothing but this myth – David Graeber does make a vivid anthropological argument that “even” exchange is something that is done between enemies, suggesting that economic models of abstract equivalencies are necessarily mythologically self-interested ones – I am also unsure how much of the “framework” and its formalized subject could operate without it. In fact, as Spinoza knew just at the cusp of the Cartesian subject, one cannot cut off the conception of the cogito from the idea of its separate faculties of Willing and Judgment. In order undo the abstract subject, willing and freedom have to be radicalized. The desiring subject, how it desires, and what it desires for is integral to the very isolation of the said “substrate” of the subject in the first place. In fact, all of this stems to a great degree from Representational conceptions of knowledge and related questions of autonomy, freedom and desire.

I don’t really know what good finding the heart or the core of Neoliberalism does, other than create a kind of rhetorical force to steady the aim of our critique. But I do doubt that our narratives about how humans naturally (or if one is in Lacanian moods, structurally) desire are not every bit as important as the laws and norms that are created to regulate and shape those desires. I personally find the Neo-liberalism stigma mark to be something of a canard, designed by those that think “radical break”, getting “outside”, is the only way towards justice, but in any case, philosophies of “lack” (including much of what flows from Hegel, and those that hunger after essentialized “nothingness” or “absence” or “object”) have a great deal to do with foreclosing the possibilities of thinking about the “subject”, or better, the self beyond its normative product-buying, object-chasing behavior. One  also has to ask, as we pre-occupy ourselves with “objects” as essential and constitutive relations, are we not already caught up in economies (of desire, of real capital) which presuppose the “lack” which drives them, sinking deeper into our mental concrete the assumptions which secure the relations we would wish to change or improve upon.

12 responses to “The “heart” of Neo-Liberalism, blah, blah, blah

  1. bryank November 27, 2009 at 10:11 pm

    I posted a comment destroying his simplistic remarks on trying to identify “empty subjectivity” of Descartes and Kant as a cornerstone of neoliberalism (a pretty dumb claim to begin with), arguing that their concepts of subjectivity aren’t individuated and aren’t purely rational (rational individuals, not subjectivity as a whole, of course being the underpinning of the market economy), and also arguing that Levi’s idea of a de-subjectivized purely “object-oriented” network that has no points of possible resistance is in fact much more “neoliberal.”

    Of course, this comment was not allowed through the filter. It appears Levi selectively chooses which comments get through based on which ones he thinks he can argue against (basically, agree with him on 90% of what he says, with “minor disagreements” a la the Harman-school of critique qua affirmation.)

    • kvond November 27, 2009 at 10:20 pm

      I don’t know why you don’t, as those know who HAD commented over at Levi Bryants, simply “copy” all your attempted comments, and re-post them over at your blog once he has deleted them (where they would even get a better reading). This serves two purposes, it gives evidence for just the kind of material Levi claims is objectionable (like the Naxos entry I reposted here), exposing his open dialogue appearance for what it is, a sham (Alexei also has written to me about the silly things that Levi deletes). It also gives a good platform for your objection. I’ve reposted a few of my comments that Levi has deleted, and even got several apologies from him on each matter, as his image is golden…

      • bryank November 27, 2009 at 11:52 pm

        I normally do do this, but since Levi allowed my last comment, I figured he’d let it through. I’ll probably try and subtly weave the points into a soon-to-be-written post on transcendental subjectivity, without mentioning Levi by name. I don’t consider him to be a productive interlocutor, so there’s no use in writing a post solely dedicated to his silly arguments.

      • kvond November 27, 2009 at 11:57 pm

        I can see this. But if you find his arguments worthwhile to comment on (at the risk of having your comments deleted), I don’t know why they would be too silly to write on. As indeed they are simplistic (or as I see it, hodgepodge), they very well might be SYMPTOMATICALLY simplistic.

        Everyone has this threshold question, should Levi just be ignored, or countered?

      • kvond November 28, 2009 at 12:00 am

        I’ll add here, I do find Levi’s hypocrisy on the question of radical Anti-Neoliberalism and his marriage to commerical “objectology” to be a worthwhile phenomena to discuss, especially since he sees himself as politically (and ethically) superior to the many.

    • kvond November 27, 2009 at 10:22 pm

      As to critique qua affirmation, pretty funny. This is how it goes with them. Great idea! yeah, Great Idea too! Great Idea! Hey, you’ve got a Great Idea too! It isn’t brainstorming, its more like brain sloshing.

      Whatever happened to the COMPLIMENT of critique?

      I realized this pretty early on with Levi (though I couldn’t convince myself that it was true). Unless you preface your critical comments with a long string of complimentary agreements, and a few generous acolades (as if you are writing blurbs on the back of his book – I’m still recovering from when he called my blog “sublime” and me the resident expert on Spinoza), whatever non-agreement you have is going to stab him like a thistle.

  2. Paul Bains November 28, 2009 at 2:58 am

    how can there be joy in a world of suffering?

    • kvond November 28, 2009 at 2:07 pm

      One of the great mysteries of life.

      Unfortunately I don’t really live in THIS world of suffering:

      “What happened to our future? Mark Fisher is a master cultural diagnostician, and in Capitalist Realism he surveys the symptoms of our current cultural malaise. We live in a world in which we have been told, again and again, that There Is No Alternative. The harsh demands of the ‘just-in-time’ marketplace have drained us of all hope and all belief. Living in an endless Eternal Now, we no longer seem able to imagine a future that might be different from the present. This book offers a brilliant analysis of the pervasive cynicism in which we seem to be mired, and even holds out the prospect of an antidote.”

  3. Paul Bains November 28, 2009 at 2:51 pm

    sounds like the theme of Stengers ‘capitalist sorcery’ – in translation.

  4. Mike December 3, 2009 at 10:59 am

    Very precise rhetorical analysis–I love the bolding of the words. And the point here is good too: “I personally find the Neo-liberalism stigma mark to be something of a canard”… I do too, though perhaps for different reasons.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: