greetings fellow foucauldians,
perhaps, this is a good place for me to interject, following the discussion
concerning "the market," hayek and foucault... just fyi, hayek's place in
the history of economic thought is located firmly in the "austrian
tradition" (or "school" if you prefer), and he follows fairly strictly his
predecessors--starting with menger (who is often credited as being one of
the founders of modern economic theory--along with jevons and walras). the
austrian school differs from neoclassical economic theory (the mainstream
theory) in only one significant way--they tend to eschew mathematical
reasoning and equilibrium theory in general. this does not mean that they
at all advocate an historical or sociological economics (they were in fact
the opponents of the german historical school in the famous "fight over
methodology")... they perhaps are even more conservative in political
matters than their neoclassical brethren, and essentially reach all the
same conclusions even though they differ about the method concerning the
use of mathematics... i believe foucault (erroneously) was drawn to this
school of economic thought because he believed that it represented "a
freedom" from governmentality... which it does, at least if one believes
its rhetoric... but, foucault came to "liberalism" late in life, and i
think this implicit advocation of the market over government was a mistake
on his part... mainly because it certainly is not clear that the market
mechanism is in any meaningful sense freer for the common people... the
significant fact being that the market only provides freedom to those that
can afford it... and so it represents a type of coercion that, while
different from that of a government, is just as real and just as
oppressive... i find it frankly surprising that he would find much of
interest in their writings since their methodologies are so different...
the austrians and neoclassical theorists start by assuming that which
foucault would want to question--the rational economic subject (as someone
has already noted--this is the very kernel of the enlightenment project)...
and so i think it odd that he was not attracted to more historically
oriented economists such as sombart, veblen or polanyi... i believe, as an
economist, that foucault's ideas about history, knowledge and power (and i
am thinking primarily here about _discipline and punish_) are just as
relevant (if not more so) to the more capitalistic aspects of modern
society such as the factory, the school, and so on... if one stops to think
about where the panopticon is most effective, it is not necessarily with
big brother, rather i would say it is with big business... think of the
insurance industry for example... business interests want to "know" their
consumers... perhaps even more than uncle sam does... anyway, it is not
clear to me why foucault was drawn to this branch of liberal thought... my
only guess is that it represents liberal thought almost to the extreme...
that is, it tends towards libertarianism... perhaps this is where foucault
was heading? i would appreciate any insights on this subject... i would
hate to think that foucault just jumped on the western world's conservative
bandwagon in the 1980s without really thinking it through...
yours,
david.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David J. Wiltsee
Dept. of Economics
University of Utah
david.wiltsee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
WILTSEE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
perhaps, this is a good place for me to interject, following the discussion
concerning "the market," hayek and foucault... just fyi, hayek's place in
the history of economic thought is located firmly in the "austrian
tradition" (or "school" if you prefer), and he follows fairly strictly his
predecessors--starting with menger (who is often credited as being one of
the founders of modern economic theory--along with jevons and walras). the
austrian school differs from neoclassical economic theory (the mainstream
theory) in only one significant way--they tend to eschew mathematical
reasoning and equilibrium theory in general. this does not mean that they
at all advocate an historical or sociological economics (they were in fact
the opponents of the german historical school in the famous "fight over
methodology")... they perhaps are even more conservative in political
matters than their neoclassical brethren, and essentially reach all the
same conclusions even though they differ about the method concerning the
use of mathematics... i believe foucault (erroneously) was drawn to this
school of economic thought because he believed that it represented "a
freedom" from governmentality... which it does, at least if one believes
its rhetoric... but, foucault came to "liberalism" late in life, and i
think this implicit advocation of the market over government was a mistake
on his part... mainly because it certainly is not clear that the market
mechanism is in any meaningful sense freer for the common people... the
significant fact being that the market only provides freedom to those that
can afford it... and so it represents a type of coercion that, while
different from that of a government, is just as real and just as
oppressive... i find it frankly surprising that he would find much of
interest in their writings since their methodologies are so different...
the austrians and neoclassical theorists start by assuming that which
foucault would want to question--the rational economic subject (as someone
has already noted--this is the very kernel of the enlightenment project)...
and so i think it odd that he was not attracted to more historically
oriented economists such as sombart, veblen or polanyi... i believe, as an
economist, that foucault's ideas about history, knowledge and power (and i
am thinking primarily here about _discipline and punish_) are just as
relevant (if not more so) to the more capitalistic aspects of modern
society such as the factory, the school, and so on... if one stops to think
about where the panopticon is most effective, it is not necessarily with
big brother, rather i would say it is with big business... think of the
insurance industry for example... business interests want to "know" their
consumers... perhaps even more than uncle sam does... anyway, it is not
clear to me why foucault was drawn to this branch of liberal thought... my
only guess is that it represents liberal thought almost to the extreme...
that is, it tends towards libertarianism... perhaps this is where foucault
was heading? i would appreciate any insights on this subject... i would
hate to think that foucault just jumped on the western world's conservative
bandwagon in the 1980s without really thinking it through...
yours,
david.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David J. Wiltsee
Dept. of Economics
University of Utah
david.wiltsee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
WILTSEE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~