Discussion began per usual with those present posing questions:
1) A general request was made to expand on the three points Foucault makes/develops in this section (p. 130-132)—specifically how these points relate to enterprise. There was a general agreement that enterprise was the unit/point of analysis and could be substituted with another analytic object, like competition. There was some general concern as to whether or not F had fully elaborated the difference between Adam Smith and the Ordoliberals. One point of distinction is that Smith believed a free space/market must be created, whereas the Ordoliberals viewed the economy as creating this space of freedom through its operations.
2) Another question was raised as to whether an opposition must exist between the ‘agenda’ F discusses and governmentality. The agenda/non-agenda distinction was read as synonymous with the public/private distinction. A debate ensued as to whether or not the private is real or truly free because it is the product of a controlled environment. This does not mean that liberty of choice is controlled, of course, but the problem remains as to whether or not this issue of negative liberty/bio-political ‘free’ space is ever private or free.
3) There was a brief return to the issue of why F is or is not talking to the Marxists/communists in the room. Similarly, we asked, is Habbermas having any influence on F’s thought at this point?
4) Taking F on his word about the neoliberals, what is his take on monopoly--or is he simply descriptive?
5) A two part question was then raised: can we rehash the shift that occurred in previous chapter and explain its influence on what F says here, specifically with reference to the difference between classical/naturalized lib (lib of 18th/19th century) and neo-lib (i.e. what is this difference and what is the proper term use?); 2) p. 147ish, how does the new theory associated with neo-liberalism pan out and relate to the old/original form of liberalism? Especially in relation to commodity, exchange, monopoly, competition, and enterprise society--how do these map on to the shift he is describing?
It was pointed out, in response to this question, that there are two registers/lines of argument or response: liberal and critical theory. So part of the confusion in this chapter is that F is simultaneously tracing liberal justification and making side comments in relation to critical theory. This raised several other questions: Was critical theory late on the scene/irrelevant? Do critiques of Critical Theory even apply to what F is talking about (p. 149., bottom of first paragraph)?
Some responded by noting that capitalism does operate as Marcuse and other Marxists say...but shifts in capitalist society actually assimilated resistance movements etc. making the critiques of Marcuse etc. fall stillborn, but also the enterprise has taken up these movements to try and prevent mass culture/afford ‘individualism.’
The point ended up being: if there is something wrong with this, Marcuse isn’t going to help us see it/solve it.
The difference between cultural Marxism and bio-politics was then raised in terms of the control and manipulation of life, which led to the problem of species-being and a brief discussion of the Foucault/Chomsky debate. Foucault wants to reject this species being life talk, where as those who appeal to modern/liberal/enlightenment notions of ‘species-being’ or a natural human essence risk reproducing the problems they are trying to reject through their revolution because said beliefs are implicit to the very thing they are trying to reject.
F has to account for culture/doesn’t want to purely reject it...but this does not contain within it the notion of life being addressed by bio-politics.
Thus, Foucault is not satisfied with Marxism because it cannot address these other problems associated with bio-politics.
Marcuse can be stuck in matrix of the bio-political world without seeing the biopolitical machinations.
We need to resist/be wary of the system appropriating and reconstructing, which means we need to be wary of ourselves.
Point was made that F isn’t concerned with commodification, but is rather interested in the dynamics of competition and enterprise. This raised a larger issue of whether or not these things are seperable—commodification and enterprise/competition. We agreed that both are present--competition/enterprise and commodification—and the point, for F, is determining and analyzing which one is predominant for liberalis versus the neoliberals.
Purpose of neoliberal model is not to become rich off of selling goods, but is rather to market in order to perpetuate/build up a cultural movement etc.
Example: Viral Phenomenon, like flash mobs, which move certain enterprises.
Commodification and enterprise/exchange are linked, but not the same.
Part of what makes enterprise so insidious is that it is formed and guided by someone else--i.e. you are merely following and reproducing something that you did not create.
Example: Merchants of cool.
This returned us to the issue of statistics and populations: i.e. Who determines these needs, beliefs, ideas, etc.? Is it the person who is being tapped for marketing ideas or the marketing agent.
No comments:
Post a Comment