Return of Homo Politicus under Neoliberal Governmentality
Zvolev Nikolai Pavlovich
Russian State University for the Humanities
Submitted: 30.06.2020
Abstract. The article analyzes return of populism in liberal democracies from the viewpoint of Michel Foucault’s conception of neoliberal governmentality. The paper shows how neoliberalism managed to hegemonize discursive field of politics through rationalizing its power, by applying economic analysis to various forms of social relations. Such an analysis considered a human being as homo oeconomicus thus promoting appropriate social behaviour. At the same time, homo oeconomicus is not the only theoretical model. Scientific originality of the study lies in the fact that populism is considered through the prism of the governmentality conception, which allows identifying political causes for modern growth of populism. The research findings are as follows: the author shows that neoliberal governmentality, which ignored other theoretical models, unwittingly stimulated demand for these very models, first of all, the model of homo politicus, and it was satisfied by right-wing populists.
Key words and phrases: homo oeconomicus, homo politicus, Фуко, правительность, неолиберализм, популизм, homo oeconomicus, homo politicus, M. Foucault, governmentality, neoliberalism, populism
Open the whole article in PDF format. Free PDF-files viewer can be downloaded .
References:
Avtonomov V. S. Model' cheloveka v ekonomicheskoi teorii i drugikh sotsial'nykh naukakh // Istoki: voprosy istorii narodnogo khozyaistva i ekonomicheskoi mysli. 1998. № 3. S. 24-71.
Din M. Pravitel'nost': vlast' i pravlenie v sovremennykh obshchestvakh / per. s angl. M.: Delo, 2016. 592 s.
Fuko M. Intellektualy i vlast'. Izbrannye politicheskie stat'i / per. s fr. M.: Praksis, 2002. 384 s.
Fuko M. O nachale germenevtiki sebya // Logos. 2008. № 2 (65). S. 65-95.
Fuko M. Rozhdenie biopolitiki / per. s fr. SPb.: Nauka, 2010. 448 s.
Brown W. American nightmare: Neoliberalism, neoconservatism, and de-democratization // Political Theory. 2006. Vol. 34. № 6. P. 690-714.
Brown W. Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism’s stealth revolution. Cambridge - L.: MIT Press, 2015. 296 p.
Crouch C. Post-democracy. Cambridge: Polity, 2004. 144 p.
Goodwin M., Heath O. The 2016 referendum, Brexit and the left behind: An aggregate-level analysis of the result // The Political Quarterly. 2016. Vol. 87. № 3. P. 323-332.
Goodwin M., Milazzo C. Taking back control? Investigating the role of immigration in the 2016 vote for Brexit // The British Journal of Politics and International Relations. 2017. Vol. 19. № 3. P. 450-464.
Hay C. Brexistential angst and the paradoxes of populism: On the contingency, predictability and intelligibility of seismic shifts // Political Studies. 2020. Vol. 68. № 1. P. 187-206.
Lemke T. "The birth of bio-politics": Michel Foucault’s lecture at the Coll?ge de France on neo-liberal governmentality // Economy and Society. 2001. Vol. 30. № 2. P. 190-207.
Norris P. Democratic deficit: Critical citizens revisited. N. Y.: Cambridge University Press, 2011. 350 p.
Post-political and its discontents: Spaces of depoliticisation, spectres of radical politics / ed. by J. Wilson, E. Swyngedouw. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2014. 336 p.
Rockler N. R. "Be your own windkeeper": Friends, feminism, and rhetorical strategies of depoliticization // Women’s Studies in Communication. 2006. Vol. 29. № 2. P. 244-264.
R?stow A. Organic policy (vitalpolitik) versus mass regimentation // Freedom and Serfdom. Dordrecht: Springer, 1961. P. 171-190.
Schultz T. W. Investment in human capital // The American Economic Review. 1961. Vol. 51. № 1. P. 1-17.
Русский
