091272_G Recitation Paper (04 March 2013) NEO-LIBERALISM Nikolas Rose and Peter Miller (2010) dissected the

operations of the state under the framework established by Michel Foucault. In their analysis, they have noted that [p]olitical power is exercised today through a profusion of shifting alliances between diverse authorities in projects to govern a multitude of facets of economic activity, social life and individual conduct (2010, p. 272). Furthermore, their paper problematized the idea of how the state functions, and how does itself manage to run and organize the daily operations of the territory. Though much of their paper dwelled on the analysis of liberalism and its ancillary ideas and theories, like how the state imposes programs (Rose & Miller 2010, p. 279) and technologies involved (2010, p. 282) among others, it is important for us to investigate the emerging ideal structure of neo-liberalism. Rose and Miller (2010) argued that neo-liberalism reactivates liberal principles: skepticism over the capacities of political authorities to govern everything for the best; vigilance over the attempts of political authorities to seek to govern (p. 296). It is this argument that ticks off the imagination of a critical reader, thus a critique is much deserved. If we go to the etymology of the term, the prefix neo means new, recent (Online Etymology Dictionary), therefore neo-liberalism can be defined as a new wave of liberalism. Rose & Miller could be on this side as well since they see neo-liberalism as re-organization of political rationalities that brings them into a kind of alignment with contemporary technologies of government. (p. 296). However, other observers pose another view of this emerging rhetoric. Walden Bello (2009) sees neo-liberalism as a perspective that champions the market as the prime regulator of economic activity and seeks to limit the intervention of the state in economic life to a minimum. But for me, there is a common ground to these two seemingly distant views for neo-liberalism. Bellos view somehow underpins Rose & Millers observations on the fact that economics is, for me, the emerging and becoming the more important technology for todays government. Since it is observable that most governments are increasingly getting focused on the way economics shape their respective territories, neo-liberalism gives the key a more free economy, but not in a laissez faire fashion since there is still some influence from the institutions. Neo-liberalism under the framework developed my Michel Foucault would somehow fit under said framework with a few adjustments to consider. Foucault (2008) himself warned that neo-liberalism is not exactly a rehash of the old liberal concepts and ideals (p. 117). Since the Foucauldian governmentality is framed under the tenets of liberalism, and following Foucaults warning, there are incompatibilities which render governmentality not a suitable paradigm to work on neo-liberalism. However, we cannot simply dispose this framework for the discussion of neo-liberalism since I believe that there are some ideas that we can use. First, neo-liberalism changes the order of how the state, through the government, operates on a day-to-day basis through welfare development among other things (Rose & Miller, 2010, p. 296). It simply wants to refocus the priorities and the agenda of the state. Bello (2009) puts this observation in a contextualized view: neo-liberals view the Asian economies successful because of its hegemonic market. We can see here that there is some divergence from the old liberal frame that the state should be centralized to a certain institution that can oversee it with a degree of specialization. However, Bellos report seemingly follows a centralized structure, but with an international context. Though there is still some form of centralized tendency, it is through the

hegemon which is in some cases, and I quite observe this, somehow dictate the performance of the other economic players. We would see this backfire, but the discussion for this is reserved for later. Next, neo-liberalism is not a new thing for the state (Rose & Miller 2010, p. 296). There is just this switching of roles, i.e. going from offense to defense and vice versa, of the different institutions affected. Thus, I view neo-liberalism as a structure that re-organizes the state in what is thinks to be the best way to run a specific government, productivity in mind. Rose & Miller discussed in detail the health scenario in Great Britain and how it has evolved through time. What is noticeable there is the fact that the government of Great Britain has somehow put the experts at the pedestal, wherein they hold a monopoly of how things should be done, among other things. However, being destined to fail, the system opened up to include participation of policy-makers and other stakeholders. The rise of the concept of insurance (Rose & Miller 2010, p. 294) signaled the destruction of the walls separating the experts from the patients, since [t]he patient was (sic)to be actively enrolled in the government of health, (p. 293). I get the impression that this decentralization of health policies in Britain would open up more problems than solutions since the system could be abused by some entities or some unscrupulous individuals. However, since the state acts as a dis-interested party in insurance contracts (Rose & Miller 2010, p. 293), there is still some security and guarantee from the part of the state that such contracts would never fall, or unduly onerous to the insurance holder. Neo-liberalism revives our old love for autonomy, freedom and other analogous concepts. Since the state no longer interferes for the most part our transactions, there is some leeway for us to really enjoy the services of the state, through the government since there are fewer restrictions provided by the state in general. Furthermore, neo-liberalism gives us a glimpse of how it is exactly to be free in this society since a person would just need the approval of the state and he or she can leave behind worries regarding his health, for example. The society can be more productive since they are less burdened with unexpected expenditures. This translates to a more active economy for a particular country and a more productive citizenry. However, we must never let our guard down on all situations since there is an age-old saying that too much of a good thing is bad. This is what Rose & Miller calls for: responsible citizenship (p. 293). I fear for neo-liberalism taking control over the modern day government, but I am not against, in toto, for neo-liberalism. How do I mean? Foucault (2008) stressed in his lectures that neo-liberalism is taking the formal principles of a market economy and referring and relating them to, of projecting them on to a general art of government. (p. 131). Though neo-liberalism is focused on the state through the government, it draws its inspiration from the theories of the market economy. It seeks to transplant economic ideals to the realm of the state. Since the economy is a large chunk of the state, it would seem that the state would necessarily move to stimulate the economy more and make it more productive. However, Foucault (2008) continued that [n]eo-liberalism should not therefore be identified with laissez-faire, but rather with permanent vigilance, activity and intervention. (p. 132). It is not necessary that the state would grant decentralization in the key industries to achieve this economic maximization of some sort. What neo-liberalism calls for is the increased stimulation of the industries by the state in order to be competitive in this growing global arena of the market. For me, a laissez-faire market for a state would be like a suicide since there is this tendency for the market to self-serve its interest, and ignore the role of the state. The state can somehow be reduced to an organizer of information and central command center of the market. Rose & Miller (2010) maintained that neo-liberalism warns against the arrogance of government overreach and overload. (p. 295). While I also share this view of neo-liberalism, the

liberty granted by the state to certain sectors of the economy should not be wide enough that the states hand could no longer reach their realm in case of a shock of events that could not have been foreseen. This is further complicated by the fact that there is this tendency to cheat the state in exchange for a more lucrative deal in the market. Conflicts of interest are now a critical issue in this debate about neo-liberalism. Observers have noted that the recent US recession has been caused by this conflict of interest between Wall Street and the US Government. Some even claim that the US Government is a Wall Street government, evidenced by the strong lobbying of corporations at Capitol Hill for legislation that is clearly in favor for these profit-generating firms. Thus, there is this need to somehow balance this overreach and overload. My position is clearly not for the total application of the neo-liberal thinking in the modern-day government because it will somehow lead to a disaster of unprecedented proportions. This may be reworded as thus: all schools of thought in state and governance should be considered in order to effectively manage and run the state through the government. The way I see it, neo-liberalism is just one way to approach the way of a developing market. Focusing too much on neo-liberalism would serve only the interest of some members of the society. What I would like to see is the satisfaction of the interests of most, if not all, members of the society. This may seem utopian, but this is how I envisage governments should be. I am in the position that the utopian view can be seen as a challenge to improve the current systems in place. The reason we have this notion of utopia is because the soul is yearning for something better, for it feels that the current system is not enough to satisfy us. We must not let ourselves be stuck on the status quo. The soul within us demands for constant development of the system of governance. I have not yet seen a clear model of a perfect model of governance; maybe none of us has. But this searching for this perfect model reminds me of my classes in Philosophy: there is a Greater Being out there that is perfect. Maybe that is not fit in this discourse but I believe it is worth noting. Rose & Miller (2010) argued [t]he state must be strong to defend the interests of the nation in the international sphere, and must ensure order by providing a legal framework for social and economic life. (p. 296). For me, that sums up the main thrust of the state as an entity. It should be the hallmark of the nation since it represents the nation in the international community. It should not be the one being bossed around by the big bosses of the companies. It should be the entity that is strong enough to dictate to the society and the market within what should be done in order to achieve economic progress that can be felt by everyone in the economic spectrum. Neo-liberalism somehow provides this answer and also takes away this answer. For one, neo-liberalism frees the government some space regarding managerial control over the industries, and thus can focus to more important and pressing matters of the society. However, there is the tendency to over-liberate the market that the state loses this firm grip over the market, that it can no longer influence the market. Bello (2009) remarks that neo-liberalism is compatible with the tenets of the Free Trade Alliance. While this can be a good push for neo-liberalism, I am still not for it completely since for the most part, members of the hegemon would be ones first better-off than others. What I would like to see is that every member of the free market would be better-off in one single stroke. Neo-liberalism seems to be a good and fascinating school of thought. However, it is a top-heavy view and has a tendency to be stuck at the top and not extend to the bottom of the class triangle of every society imaginable.

WORKS CITED Bello, W. (2009). Neoliberalism as hegemonic ideology in the Philippines. Transnational Institute. Retrieved from http://www.tni.org/article/neoliberalism-hegemonic-ideologyPhilippines. Foucault, M. (2008). The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at Collge de France, 1978-79. M. Senellart (Ed.) New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Neo (n.d). In Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=neo-&allowed_in_frame=0 Rose, N. & Miller, P. (2010). Political power beyond the State: problematics of government. The British Journal of Sociology, 61, 271-303. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-4446.2009.01247.x.