Liberalism is a governance ideology. In contrast, Foucault presents neoliberalism as an approach that was followed in a series of market and government decisions, rather than as an ideology. These ideas, of liberalism and neoliberalism, were both explored in Michel Foucault’s manuscript The Birth of Biopolitics (Foucault 1978-1979), in the eighteenth century English context for the former, and the twentieth century American context for the latter. For the purposes of this paper, the liberalism of eighteenth century England will be referred to as ‘classical liberalism’, and the neoliberalism of twentieth century United States will be referred to simply as ‘neoliberalism’. In a nuanced way, Foucault shows that one need not subscribe to the ideals of classical liberalism in order to follow a neoliberalist approach, and vice-versa. That is, while they may often result in similar decisions being taken, there is no inherent commonality between classical liberalism and neoliberalism; they are distinct and do not depend on each other. By examining what Foucault believed classical liberalism to be, what neoliberalism was, and by drawing the distinctions between the two, it will be demonstrated that the two labels do indeed refer to distinct approaches to governance.
Classical Liberalism
On the whole, classical liberalism is thought to be an ideology of how one ought to govern. It concerns itself with questioning whether government is governing too much, or too little, with a preference for a less intrusive government leading to a tendency to challenge more on the “too much” side. Indeed, classical liberalism is an exploration of the space devoid of an overbearing government, but practical insofar that it acknowledges the need for som...
... middle of paper ...
...to produce an environment in which the economy could thrive: government’s role was to regulate the market in a way that encouraged maximum dynamism and competition. Moreover, it was taken as a way of being, part of the very essence of what it was to be an American. Foucault acknowledges these two ideas, and believes that they are indeed entities separate from one another.
Works Cited
Flew, Terry. "Michel Foucault's The Birth of Biopolitics and Contemporary Neo-Liberalism Debates." Queensland: Queensland University of Technology , 11 25, 2010.
Foucault, Michel. The Birth of Biopolitics. Edited by Arnold I. Davidson. Translated by Graham Burchell. Paris: Palgrave Macmillan, 1978-1979.
Protevi, John. "What Does Foucault Think is New About Neo-Liberalism?" Pli: Warwick Journal of Philosophy 21 (06 2009).
Liberalism is an ideology which advocates equality of opportunity for all within the framework of a system of laws. It includes a belief in government as an institution whose primary function is to define and enforce the laws. Furthermore, a Constitution, must be developed not solely by one ruler but by representatives of the elite groups. Therefore, liberalism invariably involves a belief in the need for legislative bodies which represent the influential groups. The Constitution then defines ...
Biopower, a phrase created by a French scholar, historian and social theorist. Michel Foucault 's History of Sexuality, discusses the term as the practice of states and their regulation of subjects through "an explosion of numerous and diverse techniques for achieving the subjugations of bodies and the control of populations" (Foucault 140). The idea of biopower is that the state assumes control over one’s body. There are many cases where biopower has been used, however, the Tuskegee Syphilis study brings to light how biopower and gender were closely related.
Winokur, Mark. “The Ambiguous Panopticon: Foucault and the Codes of Cyberspace” CTHEORY.NET. 13 March 2003. Access date : 28 April 2005. < http://www.ctheory.net/text_file.asp?pick=371>
Michael Ruse, The Darwinian Revolution, pub. 1979 by The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 60637
Perhaps no other event in modern history has left us so perplexed and dumbfounded than the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany, an entire population was simply robbed of their existence. In “Our Secret,” Susan Griffin tries to explain what could possibly lead an individual to execute such inhumane acts to a large group of people. She delves into Heinrich Himmler’s life and investigates all the events leading up to him joining the Nazi party. In“Panopticism,” Michel Foucault argues that modern society has been shaped by disciplinary mechanisms deriving from the plague as well as Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon, a structure with a tower in the middle meant for surveillance. Susan Griffin tries to explain what happened in Germany through Himmler’s childhood while Foucault better explains these events by describing how society as a whole operates.
-Edwards A., Towshend J., Interpreting modern political philosophy- From Macchiavelli to Marx, Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.
Bullock, Alan, and Maurice Shock, eds. The Liberal Tradition: From Fox to Keynes. Clarendon Press, 1967.
Spencer was an English philosopher and biologist born in 1820; because of his dual training in both the arts and sciences, Spencer was able to make a connection between the body and society (Openstax, p. 15). He discovered that the way society functions mirrors that of the body – parts working towards a whole. Spencer referred to these parts as social institutions, “or patterns of beliefs and behaviors focused on meeting social needs, such as government, education, family, healthcare, religion, and the economy” (Openstax, p. 15). Each of these institutions greatly impacts the individuals it encounters in different, yet necessary ways, and it is extremely rare that an individual deals with only one in their lifetime. In fact, the institutions one belongs to can change quite frequently. “The functionalist perspective emphasizes the interconnectedness of society by focusing on how each part influences and is influenced by other parts” (Mooney, Knox, & Schacht, 2007). Spencer’s writings and development of theories influenced Emile Durkheim, who began to apply these same theories to his own works. While trying to determine how societies can change and survive over time, Durkheim
The pieces on liberalism and conservatism has shown how different the two ideologies mean compared to the labels we see in American politics. The media has made it seems as though conservatives (which in the U.S. is becoming synonymous with Republican) is all against change, while liberals (Democrats) lie in the exact opposite of the spectrum: promoting changes. However, the essays by Locke, Berlin, and Oakeshott showed us how the two ideologies are much deeper than that. It is not just a manual of how to govern a nation, but rather ideals and philosophies. Furthermore, while contemporary politics have created an illusion that there is a clear and definite distinction between liberalism and conservatism, these essays show that they actually do overlap in many ways. In "Two Concepts of Liberty", Berlin categorizes liberty as "positive" and "negative". Positive liberty defines freedom as an individual being able to control his life and decisions in his own interests. On the other hand, in negative liberty, freedom exist when an individual is free from external interference. The major difference between the two concepts of liberty is that positive liberty focuses on the capability of an...
...J. Foster, An Outline of History of Political Theory: Machiavelli to Marx, Toronto: Forum House.
Strauss, Leo, and Joseph Cropsey. History of Political Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
one may ask whether or not the ideas and goals of classical liberalism have been
Hutcheon, P.D. Leaving the Cave: Evolutionary Naturalism in Social Scientific Thought. Ithaca: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1996.
Toye, Richard. "H.G.Wells and the New Liberalism." Twentieth Century British History 19.2 (2008): 156-185. Oxford Journals. Database. 21 Nov 2013.