The essence of neoliberalism語言文化論文

Theessenceofneoliberalism語言文化論文Theessenceofneoliberalism語言文化論文新自由主義(Neoliberalism)是英國當(dāng)代政治思想的主要派別。主張?jiān)谛碌臍v史時(shí)期維護(hù)個(gè)人自由，調(diào)解社會(huì)矛盾，維護(hù)自由競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的資本主義制度。因此成為一種經(jīng)濟(jì)自由主義的復(fù)蘇形式，自從1970年代以來在國際的經(jīng)濟(jì)政策上扮演著越來越重要的角色。下面是學(xué)習(xí)啦我為大家精心準(zhǔn)備的語言文化論文：Theessenceofneoliberalism。僅供大家參考!Theessenceofneoliberalism〔新自由主義的本質(zhì)〕全文如下：Asthedominantdiscoursewouldhaveit,theeconomicworldisapureandperfectorder,implacablyunrollingthelogicofitspredictableconsequences,andprompttorepressallviolationsbythesanctionsthatitinflicts,eitherautomaticallyor-moreunusually-throughtheintermediaryofitsarmedextensions,theInternationalMonetaryFund(IMF)andtheOrganizationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment(OECD)andthepoliciestheyimpose:reducinglabourcosts,reducingpublicexpendituresandmakingworkmoreflexible.Isthedominantdiscourseright?Whatif,inreality,thiseconomicorderwerenomorethantheimplementationofautopia-theutopiaofneoliberalism-thusconvertedintoapoliticalproblem?Onethat,withtheaidoftheeconomictheorythatitproclaims,succeedsinconceivingofitselfasthescientificdescriptionofreality?Thistutelarytheoryisapuremathematicalfiction.Fromthestartithasbeenfoundedonaformidableabstraction.For,inthenameofanarrowandstrictconceptionofrationalityasindividualrationality,itbracketstheeconomicandsocialconditionsofrationalorientationsandtheeconomicandsocialstructuresthataretheconditionoftheirapplication.Togivethemeasureofthisomission,itisenoughtothinkjustoftheeducationalsystem.Educationisnevertakenaccountofassuchatatimewhenitplaysadeterminingroleintheproductionofgoodsandservicesasintheproductionoftheproducersthemselves.Fromthissortoforiginalsin,inscribedintheWalrasianmyth(1)ofpuretheory,flowallofthedeficienciesandfaultsofthedisciplineofeconomicsandthefatalobstinacywithwhichitattachesitselftothearbitraryoppositionwhichitinduces,throughitsmereexistence,betweenaproperlyeconomiclogic,basedoncompetitionandefficiency,andsociallogic,whichissubjecttotheruleoffairness.Thatsaid,thistheorythatisdesocialisedanddehistoricisedatitsrootshas,todaymorethanever,themeansofmakingitselftrueandempiricallyverifiable.Ineffect,neoliberaldiscourseisnotjustonediscourseamongmany.Rather,itisastrongdiscourse-thewaypsychiatricdiscourseisinanasylum,inErvingGoffmansanalysis(2).Itissostrongandsohardtocombatonlybecauseithasonitssidealloftheforcesofaworldofrelationsofforces,aworldthatitcontributestomakingwhatitis.Itdoesthismostnotablybyorientingtheeconomicchoicesofthosewhodominateeconomicrelationships.Itthusaddsitsownsymbolicforcetotheserelationsofforces.Inthenameofthisscientificprogramme,convertedintoaplanofpoliticalaction,animmensepoliticalprojectisunderway,althoughitsstatusassuchisdeniedbecauseitappearstobepurelynegative.Thisprojectaimstocreatetheconditionsunderwhichthetheorycanberealisedandcanfunction:aprogrammeofthemethodicaldestructionofcollectives.Themovementtowardtheneoliberalutopiaofapureandperfectmarketismadepossiblebythepoliticsoffinancialderegulation.Anditisachievedthroughthetransformativeand,itmustbesaid,destructiveactionofallofthepoliticalmeasures(ofwhichthemostrecentistheMultilateralAgreementonInvestment(MAI),designedtoprotectforeigncorporationsandtheirinvestmentsfromnationalstates)thataimtocallintoquestionanyandallcollectivestructuresthatcouldserveasanobstacletothelogicofthepuremarket:thenation,whosespacetomanoeuvrecontinuallydecreases;workgroups,forexlethroughtheindividualisationofsalariesandofcareersasafunctionofindividualcompetences,withtheconsequentatomisationofworkers;collectivesforthedefenceoftherightsofworkers,unions,associations,cooperatives;eventhefamily,whichlosespartofitscontroloverconsumptionthroughtheconstitutionofmarketsbyagegroups.Theneoliberalprogrammedrawsitssocialpowerfromthepoliticalandeconomicpowerofthosewhoseinterestsitexpresses:stockholders,financialoperators,industrialists,conservativeorsocial-democraticpoliticianswhohavebeenconvertedtothereassuringlayoffsoflaisser-faire,high-levelfinancialofficialseagertoimposepoliciesadvocatingtheirownextinctionbecause,unlikethemanagersoffirms,theyrunnoriskofhavingeventuallytopaytheconsequences.Neoliberalismtendsonthewholetofavourseveringtheeconomyfromsocialrealitiesandtherebyconstructing,inreality,aneconomicsystemconformingtoitsdescriptioninpuretheory,thatisasortoflogicalmachinethatpresentsitselfasachainofconstraintsregulatingeconomicagents.Theglobalisationoffinancialmarkets,whenjoinedwiththeprogressofinformationtechnology,ensuresanunprecedentedmobilityofcapital.Itgivesinvestorsconcernedwiththeshort-termprofitabilityoftheirinvestmentsthepossibilityofpermanentlycomparingtheprofitabilityofthelargestcorporationsand,inconsequence,penalisingthesefirmsrelativesetbacks.Subjectedtothispermanentthreat,thecorporationsthemselveshavetoadjustmoreandmorerapidlytotheexigenciesofthemarkets,underpenaltyoflosingthemarketsconfidence,astheysay,aswellasthesupportoftheirstockholders.Thelatter,anxioustoobtainshort-termprofits,aremoreandmoreabletoimposetheirwillonmanagers,usingfinancialdirectoratestoestablishtherulesunderwhichmanagersoperateandtoshapetheirpoliciesregardinghiring,employment,andwages.Thustheabsolutereignofflexibilityisestablished,withemployeesbeinghiringonfixed-termcontractsoronatemporarybasisandrepeatedcorporaterestructuringsand,withinthefirmitself,competitionamongautonomousdivisionsaswellasamongteamsforcedtoperformmultiplefunctions.Finally,thiscompetitionisextendedtoindividualsthemselves,throughtheindividualisationofthewagerelationship:establishmentofindividualperformanceobjectives,individualperformanceevaluations,permanentevaluation,individualsalaryincreasesorgrantingofbonusesasafunctionofcompetenceandofindividualmerit;individualisedcareerpaths;strategiesofdelegatingresponsibilitytendingtoensuretheself-exploitationofstaffwho,simplewagelabourersinrelationsofstronghierarchicaldependence,areatthesametimeheldresponsiblefortheirsales,theirproducts,theirbranch,theirstore,etc.asthoughtheywereindependentcontractors.Thispressuretowardself-controlextendsworkersinvolvementaccordingtothetechniquesofparticipativemanagementconsiderablybeyondmanagementlevel.Allofthesearetechniquesofrationaldominationthatimposeover-involvementinwork(andnotonlyamongmanagement)andworkunderemergencyorhigh-stressconditions.Andtheyconvergetoweakenorabolishcollectivestandardsorsolidarities(3).Inthisway,aDarwinianworldemerges-itisthestruggleofallagainstallatalllevelsofthehierarchy,whichfindssupportthrougheveryoneclingingtotheirjobandorganisationunderconditionsofinsecurity,suffering,andstress.Withoutadoubt,thepracticalestablishmentofthisworldofstrugglewouldnotsucceedsocompletelywithoutthecomplicityofalloftheprecariousarrangementsthatproduceinsecurityandoftheexistenceofareservearmyofemployeesrendereddocilebythesesocialprocessesthatmaketheirsituationsprecarious,aswellasbythepermanentthreatofunemployment.Thisreservearmyexistsatalllevelsofthehierarchy,evenatthehigherlevels,especiallyamongmanagers.Theultimatefoundationofthisentireeconomicorderplacedunderthesignoffreedomisineffectthestructuralviolenceofunemployment,oftheinsecurityofjobtenureandthemenaceoflayoffthatitimplies.Theconditionoftheharmoniousfunctioningoftheindividualistmicro-economicmodelisamassphenomenon,theexistenceofareservearmyoftheunemployed.Thisstructuralviolencealsoweighsonwhatiscalledthelabourcontract(wiselyrationalisedandrenderedunrealbythetheoryofcontracts).Organisationaldiscoursehasnevertalkedasmuchoftrust,co-operation,loyalty,andorganisationalcultureasinanerawhenadherencetotheorganisationisobtainedateachmomentbyeliminatingalltemporalguaranteesofemployment(three-quartersofhiresareforfixedduration,theproportionoftemporaryemployeeskeepsrising,employmentatwillandtherighttofireanindividualtendtobefreedfromanyrestriction).Thusweseehowtheneoliberalutopiatendstoembodyitselfintherealityofakindofinfernalmachine,whosenecessityimposesitselfevenupontherulers.LiketheMarxismofanearliertime,withwhich,inthisregard,ithasmuchincommon,thisutopiaevokespowerfulbelief-thefreetradefaith-notonlyamongthosewholiveoffit,suchasfinanciers,theownersandmanagersoflargecorporations,etc.,butalsoamongthose,suchashigh-levelgovernmentofficialsandpoliticians,whoderivetheirjustificationforexistingfromit.Fortheysanctifythepowerofmarketsinthenameofeconomicefficiency,whichrequirestheeliminationofadministrativeorpoliticalbarrierscapableofinconveniencingtheownersofcapitalintheirindividualquestforthemaximisationofindividualprofit,whichhasbeenturnedintoamodelofrationality.Theywantindependentcentralbanks.Andtheypreachthesubordinationofnation-statestotherequirementsofeconomicfreedomforthemastersoftheeconomy,withthesuppressionofanyregulationofanymarket,beginningwiththelabourmarket,theprohibitionofdeficitsandinflation,thegeneralprivatisationofpublicservices,andthereductionofpublicandsocialexpenses.Economistsmaynotnecessarilysharetheeconomicandsocialinterestsofthetruebelieversandmayhaveavarietyofindividualpsychicstatesregardingtheeconomicandsocialeffectsoftheutopiawhichtheycloakwithmathematicalreason.Nevertheless,theyhaveenoughspecificinterestsinthefieldofeconomicsciencetocontributedecisivelytotheproductionandreproductionofbeliefintheneoliberalutopia.Separatedfromtherealitiesoftheeconomicandsocialworldbytheirexistenceandaboveallbytheirintellectualformation,whichismostfrequentlypurelyabstract,bookish,andtheoretical,theyareparticularlyinclinedtoconfusethethingsoflogicwiththelogicofthings.Theseeconomiststrustmodelsthattheyalmostneverhaveoccasiontosubmittothetestofexperimentalverificationandareledtolookdownupontheresultsoftheotherhistoricalsciences,inwhichtheydonotrecognisethepurityandcrystallinetransparencyoftheirmathematicalgames,whosetruenecessityandprofoundcomplexitytheyareoftenincapableofunderstanding.Theyparticipateandcollaborateinaformidableeconomicandsocialchange.Evenifsomeofitsconsequenceshorrifythem(theycanjointhesocialistpartyandgivelearnedcounseltoitsrepresentativesinthepowerstructure),itcannotdispleasethembecause,attheriskofafewfailures,imputabletowhattheysometimescallspeculativebubbles,ittendstogiverealitytotheultra-logicalutopia(ultra-logicallikecertainformsofinsanity)towhichtheyconsecratetheirlives.Andyettheworldisthere,withtheimmediatelyvisibleeffectsoftheimplementationofthegreatneoliberalutopia:notonlythepovertyofanincreasinglylargesegmentofthemosteconomicallyadvancedsocieties,theextraordinarygrowthinincomedifferences,theprogressivedisappearanceofautonomousuniversesofculturalproduction,suchasfilm,publishing,etc.,throughtheintrusiveimpositionofcommercialvalues,butalsoandabovealltwomajortrends.Firstisthedestructionofallthecollectiveinstitutionscapableofcounteractingtheeffectsoftheinfernalmachine,primarilythoseofthestate,repositoryofalloftheuniversalvaluesassociatedwiththeideaofthepublicrealm.Secondistheimpositioneverywhere,intheupperspheresoftheeconomyandthestateasattheheartofcorporations,ofthatsortofmoralDarwinismthat,withthecultofthewinner,schooledinhighermathematicsandbungeejumping,institutesthestruggleofallagainstallandcynicismasthenormofallactionandbehaviour.Canitbeexpectedthattheextraordinarymassofsufferingproducedbythissortofpolitical-economicregimewillonedayserveasthestartingpointofamovementcapableofstoppingtheracetotheabyss?Indeed,wearefacedherewithanextraordinaryparadox.Theobstaclesencounteredonthewaytorealisingtheneworderofthelone,butfreeindividualareheldtodaytobeimputabletorigiditiesandvestiges.Alldirectandconsciousinterventionofwhateverkind,atleastwhenitcomesfromthestate,isdiscreditedinadvanceandthuscondemnedtoeffaceitselfforthebenefitofapureandanonymousmechanism,themarket,whosenatureasasitewhereinterestsareexercisedisforgotten.Butinreality,whatkeepsthesocialorderfromdissolvingintochaos,despitethegrowingvolumeoftheendangeredpopulation,isthecontinuityorsurvivalofthoseveryinstitutionsandrepresentativesoftheoldorderthatisintheprocessofbeingdismantled,andalltheworkofallofthecategoriesofsocialworkers,aswellasalltheformsofsocialsolidarity,familialorotherwise.Thetransitiontoliberalismtakesplaceinanimperceptiblemanner,likecontinentaldrift,thushidingitseffectsfromview.Itsmostterribleconsequencesarethoseofthelongterm.Theseeffectsthemselvesareconcealed,paradoxically,bytheresistancetowhichthistransitioniscurrentlygivingriseamongthosewhodefendtheoldorderbydrawingontheresourcesitcontained,onoldsolidarities,onreservesofsocialcapitalthatprotectanentireportionofthepresentsocialorderfromfallingintoanomie.Thissocialcapitalisfatedtowitheraway-althoughnotintheshortrun-ifitisnotrenewedandreproduced.Butthesesameforcesofconservation,whichitistooeasytotreatasconservative,arealso,fromanotherpointofview,forcesofresistancetotheestablishmentoftheneworderandcanbecomesubversiveforces.Ifthereisstillcauseforsomehope,itisthatforcesstillexist,bothinstateinstitutionsandintheorientationsofsocialactors(notablyindividualsandgroupsmostattachedtotheseinstitutions,thosewithatraditionofcivilandpublicservice)that,undertheappearanceofsimplydefendinganorderthathasdisappearedanditscorrespondingprivileges(whichiswhattheywillimmediatelybeaccusedof),willbeabletoresistthechallengeonlybyworkingtoinventandconstructanewsocialorder.Onethatwillnothaveasitsonlylawthepursuitofegoisticinterestsan