15 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2018
    1. This is why, in the seemingly interminable debates about the ‘validity’ of neoliberalism as an analytical term, both sides are right: yes, on the one hand, the term is vague and can seemingly be applied to any manifestation of power, but, on the other, it does cover everything, which means it cannot be avoided either.

      Neoliberalism's ambiguity: it can describe anything, and yet is also everything.

  2. Sep 2018
    1. Now an impoverished Marxist cultural critique suggests that such encounters between people, qua humans with richly diverse lives, are the very opposite of — or further, directly opposed by — the alienated encounters underwritten, if not compelled, by money. You see this kind of argument when people say “the ‘sharing economy’ is an oxymoron that has nothing to do with sharing because people are lending their underutilized resources for financial recompense.” However, what has always seemed to me most interesting about many ‘sharing economy’ platforms is not that they are spaces outside of commercialism, but rather ways of affording a re-embedding of economic exchanges in social relations within commercialism. When I ride-share or home-share, there might be money changing hands, but the actual experience of the ‘service’ is of two people (when there are face-to-face encounters) who cannot entirely withdraw into prescribed roles of employee and customer. This is why these ‘sharing economy’ experiences tend to be awkward, in ways that I have tried to argue are in fact deconstructive of the monolithically abstract idea of capitalism.These moments underline that there can be ‘sharing’ within economies, that relations between strangers do occur at levels or in ways beyond what is covered by their monetization. Service designing, it seems to me, is precisely the pursuit of these forms of sociality that exceed commercialism even within commercial interactions. This is the quality that a well-designed service encounter will manifest, a quality that will differentiate such a service from other less-designed ways of managing or engineering services.Service designers should therefore be expertly sensitive to these emergent and sometimes even resistant socialities. Designers should understand that at the very core of their practice is all that is concealed by excessively capitalistic perspectives: the hidden labor of informal economies; the emotional and aesthetic labor provision that service interactions compel from providers without adequate recompense; the satisfiers that make care work rewarding beyond their inequitable pay scales; the moments of delight involved in the comfort of strangers. All of these, it should be clear, are political, sensitivities that acknowledge oppression and exploitation via gender, race and class.All this is why service design is never just the design of this or that service, but part of the wider project of redesigning work and generating sustainable livelihoods. For instance, service design is not tangential to current debates about the roboticization of jobs. Service design is unavoidably involved in Transition Design, toward or away from meaningful work, or rather perhaps toward or away from quality ways of organizing the resourcing of new kinds of society.
    1. Whereas the original liberals wanted law to be stable and general, pursuing only the most limited functions, the neoliberal vision is of a state that is an active part of the guarding, maintaining, and promoting liberty itself, as understood by a particular vision of what should be. It asserted that liberalism is so important that it must be the primary goal of the state to see it realized.

      Good piece on Walter Lippmann, a "founding father of neoliberalism" according to this article.

  3. Aug 2018
    1. In this consumerist-led version of proletarianization, which is very per-tinent to what is happening with the commodification of higher educa-tion, the argument is that ‘consumers are “discharged” of the burden as well as the responsibility of shaping their own lives and are reduced to units of buying power controlled by marketing techniques’ (p. 34). For example, in rating and ranking scales and league tables, marketing agencies have essentially appropriated the decision-making process from students and their parents. Today’s ‘cognitive capitalism’, Lemmens says, is producing the ‘systematic destruction of knowledge and the knowing subject’ (p. 34), in what Stiegler calls the ‘systematic industri-alization of human memory and cognition’ (p. 34). As Stiegler (2010b) cryptically puts it, what is at stake is ‘the battle for intelligence’ (p. 35) which had its most recent genesis in the ‘psychopathologies and addic-tive ‘behavior patterns’ (Lemmens 2011, p. 34) brought about by the ‘logic of the market’ ushered in by Thatcher and supported by Reagan. This unleashed ‘a cultural and spiritual regression of unprecedented magnitude, transforming the whole of society into a machine for profit maximization and creating a state of “system carelessness” and “systemic stupidity” on a global scale’ (p. 34). It is literally ‘a global struggle for the mind’ in a context where there is an erasure of ‘consciousness and sociality’ (p. 35)

      Draws on labour process theory and the work of Stiegler to conceptualise the de-professionalisation of academic workers and their proletarianisation. This relates to the arguments about how economic rationales have colonised all areas of social life.

      This seems to mirror similar arguments put forward by Nikolas Rose and Michel Dean and other post-structuralists such as drawing on Foucault's governmentality

    2. Far from ‘competition’ supposedly driving ‘innovation’, Connell (2013) argues that it does the reverse. In the first instance, what a neo-liberal conception of the university produces, is the ‘reproduction of global dependency’ (p. 2)—through a ‘neocolonial dependence...built into performativity through international rankings of journals, depart-ment and universities’, whereby local intellectual cultures are under-mined and obliterated through an unhealthy reliance on ‘impact factors and ‘citations’ (p. 2). Secondly, the ‘entrenchment of social hierarchies in knowledge production and circulation’ (p. 2), act to further sediment privilege in the already advantaged—institutionally, in Australia in the older so-called ‘sandstone’ universities, and individually in the scions of the privileged who attend them.

      The neocolonial nature of the research performativity regime and its epistemological dominance.

    3. rgues that the very fibre of democracy which we understand to be ‘individual and collective self-rule’ and which we take to be ‘a perma-nent achievement of the West’ and that cannot be ‘lost’, is in the process of being completely ‘overwhelmed and ... displaced by the economium to enhance capital value, competitive positioning, and credit ratings’ (p. 10)

      Is this a problematic argument? The collapsing of the ideas of democracy and liberty into the category of the ´West´.

    4. Transformed in this process is the very nature of knowledge:Neoliberalization replaces education aimed at deepening and broadening intelligence and sensibilities, developing historical consciousness and her-meneutic adroitness, acquiring diverse knowledge and literacies, becom-ing theoretically capacious and politically and socially perspicacious, with [forms of] education aimed at honing technically-skilled entrepreneurial actors adept at gaming any system. (p. 123)

      neoliberalism and the transformation of knowledge and knowledge work

    5. By way of explaining why there is so much internal unrest and dissention in universities, Boyer (2011) says that the ‘dominant critical narrative’ emerges from the ‘dissipat[ion of] organizational and collegial auton-omy in order to better saturate universities with market-oriented prin-ciples (knowledge as commodity, faculty as wage labour, administration as management, student body as consumer public, university as market-place)’ (pp. 179–180).The loudest opposition to this intensified neoliberal regime has come from ‘faculty’ who, ‘among the three estates of the university (students, faculty, administrators)...has experienced the deepest erosion of auton-omy under the current reforms’ (Boyer 2011, p. 180). Coupled with this is the view that students stand to ‘enhance their social power with their new image as sovereign consumers, and the re-imagination of the uni-versity as a kind of for-profit corporation run by profit-minded managers has helped to cement the political hegemony of administrators’ (Boyer 2011, p. 180).

      Boyer's argument is that faculty feel neoliberalism more intensely than administration of students because it is felt as a direct assault on autonomy. c.f Nixon and Walker on the issue of autonomy and academic freedom as sectional interest in tension with a wider agenda for freedoms.

    6. In other words, neoliberalism works through the way in which it ‘dissemi-nates market values and metrics to every sphere of life and construes the human itself exclusively as homo oeconomicus’ (Brown 2015, p. 176). Brown (2015)

      a definition of the way neoliberalism as ideology, governance and economic ordering frames all life in market terms

  4. Oct 2017
    1. Cultural critic Douglas Rushkoff has said, “I’ve given up on fixing the economy.  The economy is not broken.  It’s simply unjust.”

      Strong words from Douglas Rushkoff: "The economy is not broken. It's simply unjust."

  5. Sep 2017
    1. people’s behavior and emotions are affected by the people that they know, the people that those people know, and so on – in other words, by the social network which an individual is integrated in

      This is the essence of sociology. And is the fundamental challenge to the logic of individualism and neoliberalism.

  6. Jan 2017
    1. as instrumentalities

      So isn't this the same argument that critics attribute to neo-liberalization of our education system, that is has become too instrumentalized?

  7. Oct 2016
  8. Sep 2015
    1. neoliberalism precisely goes to work by psychologizing political difference, individualizing structural exclusions and mystifying political change
    2. the queer custom of re-appropriating terms of abuse and turning them into affectionate terms of endearment. When we obliterate terms like “tranny” in the quest for respectability and assimilation, we actually feed back into the very ideologies that produce the homo and trans phobia in the first place!