The shifting nature of the state under the era of globalization is argued upon by several scholars and is a part of various public discussions. This article explores neoliberalism and globalization, and its impact and process on the post-colonial Indian state. There are certain characterizations of neoliberal states that have been commonly accepted. With the understanding and comparison of two government-sponsored developmental programs that belong to different epochs, the intension is to formulate a perspective that might give us a reason to rethink these characterizations.
In exploring the markings of modern power, Michel Foucault coined the term “governmentality” – a concept meant to open up enquiry into the myriad of more or less calculated and systematic thoughts and actions that seek to shape, regulate or manage the way people conduct themselves by acting upon their hopes, circumstances and environment.1 He was of the opinion that governing a state is most effective when it colonizes modes of thought. Foucault’s own work examples in “The Subject and Power”, discuss a number of struggles of resistance that have developed over the past few years such as “opposition to the power of men over women, of parents over children, of psychiatry over the mentally ill, of medicine over the population, of administration over the ways people live”.2 Despite their diversity, these struggles were significant for Foucault because they share a set of common points that allow us to recognize them as local forms of resistance to governmentality. These oppositional struggles focus on the effects of power experienced by those individuals who are immediately subject to them.
While neoliberal governmentality seeks to minimize state power as much as...
... middle of paper ...
... of capital and communication. The era of globalization has challenged these theories and questioning the territorial sovereignty of the nation-state. The increased mobility of capital, representation and people has made national borders more porous and states’ control of regions increasingly insubstantial. These increasing alliances and networks, allow us to decode particular aspects of the nation-state, thereby raising questions on the inclusion of them onto the social space.
Works Cited
1. Foucault 1991, 1997; Barry et al. 1996; Dean 1999; Inda 2005; Suzana Sawyer and Edmund Terence Gomez 2008;
2. Gupta and Sharma 2006
4. Joerg Knieling and Frank Othengrafen, Spatial Planning and Culture
5. Corrigan and Sayer 1985; Fuller and Benei 2000; Mitchell 1999; Gupta 1995; Hansen and Stepputat 2001; Herzfeld 1992; Joseph and Nugent 1994; Scott 1998; Steinmetz 1999)
Tackett, J. L., Lahey, B. B., van Hulle, C., Waldman, I., Krueger, R. F., & Rathouz, P. J. (2013).
Kellermann, A., & Peleg, K. (2013, May 29). The New England journal of medicine. Retrieved from http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1305304
Segal, E. A., Cimino, A. N., Gerdes, K. E., Harmon, J. K., & Wagaman, M. (2013). A
Titsworth, W. L., Abram, Fullerton, J. A., Hester, J., Guin, P., Waters. M., Mocco, J. (2013).
(Flynn 1996, 28) One important aspect of his analysis that distinguishes him from the predecessors is about power. According to Foucault, power is not one-centered, and one-sided which refers to a top to bottom imposition caused by political hierarchy. On the contrary, power is diffusive, which is assumed to be operate in micro-physics, should not be taken as a pejorative sense; contrarily it is a positive one as ‘every exercise of power is accompanied by or gives rise to resistance opens a space for possibility and freedom in any content’. (Flynn 1996, 35) Moreover, Foucault does not describe the power relation as one between the oppressor or the oppressed, rather he says that these power relations are interchangeable in different discourses. These power relations are infinite; therefore we cannot claim that there is an absolute oppressor or an absolute oppressed in these power relations.
Foucault discusses the whole idea of power stressing much on the positions of those people who hold power in any societal setting and how they relate with their subjects to try and ensure that the power is exercised effectively without abandoning or neglecting a section of the subjects being ruled. He also discusses the issue of sex and connects it to power giving details of how sex and politics interrelate. Foucault, in his discussion, gives a detailed analysis on the relationship between power and objectives that those holding power seek to achieve in the long run. He goes ahead to describe the tactics that those in power and generally politics need to employ in order to realize results in view of both the governors and the governed. In his
Wynn, D., Kaufman, M., Montalban, X., Vollmer, T., Simon, J., Elkins, J., I Rose, J. W. (2010).
Zhang, Y. B., Harwood, J., Williams, A., Ylänne-McEwen, V., Wadleigh, P. M., & Thimm, C.
Brand, B., Classen, C., Lanins, R., Loewenstein, R., McNary, S., Pain, C., Putnam, F. (2009). A
Weiss, L. (1997),’Globalization and the Myth of the Powerless State’, in New Left Review, September-October, 225 (1), pp. 3-27 [Online].
Ronald M. Epstein, M., & Edward M. Hundert, M. (Downloaded from www.jama.com by guest on August
Colonialism was a concept of superiority of one territory over another; it was a concept that originated centuries ago. Colonialism had been put into action throughout a long line of history and did not end after World War II in 1945. Even with resistance and efforts from independent states after the war, colonialism did not disappear and continued as a dominant system. It remained and changed its form, resulted in the process of globalization, which continued to control over newly independent states following World War II. Globalization, a form of colonialism, maintained power for the system over states or regions through economic terms with the development of the World Bank, and its derivation of structural adjustments. This financial institution was formed and contributed to colonialism; it assisted in the economic affairs of colonized nation(s). Along with class, professor Manfred B. Steger's book, Globalization: A Very Short Introduction, and I.B. Logan and Kidane Mengisteab's article, "IMF – World Bank Adjustment and Structural Transformation in Sub-Saharan Africa," discussed the indirect rule of colonial powers through globalization.
ed. Ed. Alison Booth, J. Paul Hunter, and Kelly J. Mays. New York: Norton, 2005. 1556-1619.
Globalization has effect the role of the state immensely; as the process of present’s challenges to state sovereignty and autonomy. In spite of borders becoming more ill-defined and fluid in as a result of the process of globalization (Weiss 2000, 2-3). The state will remain relevant and necessary because citizens need a place to cast their votes, taxes have to be paid to particular authorities, which can be held accountable for pub...
There is an undeniable fact that there has been a rise in globalization. It has become a hot topic amongst the field of international politics. With the rise of globalization, the sovereignty of the state is now being undermined. It has become an undisputed fact that the world has evolved to a new level of globalization, the transferring goods, information, ideas and services around the globe has changed at an unimaginable rate. With all that is going on, one would question how globalization has changed the system that is typically a collection of sovereign states. Do states still have the main source of power? What gives a state the right to rule a geographically defined region? It is believed by many that due to the introduction of international systems and increasing rate of globalization, the sovereignty of the state has been slowly eroded over time. My paper has two parts: First, it aims to take a close look at how globalization has changed the way the economy worked, specifically how it opened doors for multinational corporations to rise in power. Second, to answer the question, is it possible for it to exist today? And even so, should it?