Chad,
Yes.
I do think that this topic is absolutely about governmentality, which is
why it attracted my attention.
I am interested in the way in which liberal discourse once implemented
becomes illiberal and seems almost despite itself to work back/forward
towards the all-embracing control envisioned in 'police' as described by
Foucault, ( but I found Pascale Pasquino's description in 'the Foucault
Effect' even more helpful).
If we take it, from Foucault that 'police' is part of the genealogy of
contemporary notions of govt just as much as 'soverignty' and
liberalism, then obviously there is going to be demand out there for the
? security that police offers ( I am trying - perhpas not very
effectively to remind myself that police doesn't mean police!!! But a
form of governance based on the concept that the subject is knowable,
and that the forms of govt can therefore be arranged so that everything
is at its most efficient, reliable and so on. ) there remains therefore
an expectation of govt that it will work to achieve the predictable,
secure controlled form of governmance. Have I got this right?
But liberalism, at any rate as understood by Hayek, and for certain
purposes Menger, depends upon the unknowable , the completely
free-choosing subject. This subject cannot be so planned for. that is
why Hayek sees the market as indispensable to freedom - it is a
discovery procedure for uncovering the unpredictable preferences of the
subject. Yet in a form of liberalism dependent upon 'homo economicus'
that is, the completely predictable form of the subject, we can return
to the manipulation of the polity through the desires and appropriate
incentives which economic 'science' allows us to define and 'know'.
Hence, I think, we have a return to 'police'.
This is getting back to zero-tolerance eventually!
The demand for zero-tolerance depends upon an assumption that the
individual when s/he transgresses is rational, i.e. that they do these
things knowing that they will get away with it or not. the Z_T argument
would have to be, i suppose, that if the possiblity that they will get
away with it is zero, they will not do it. Therefore we are dealing with
a rational subject, whose system of incentives is knowable. And
manipulable therefore. Simply put, they are making choices.
I don't imagine that there is a conscious wish to put these people into
the prison system, but there is an enormous investment in insurance and
security building up - we are far behind the U.S in such matters and our
police force is widely regarded as unable to cope with crime. In fact
the govt says it is unable to cope, and yet is trying to reduce the
police force further - same with the fire brigade and so on. the
commisioner in charge of reducing the fire brigade is a representative
of the insurance industry!! - this has been an ongoing scandal for some
months - but the govt will not abandon him, despite their embarrassment.
Where govt responsiblity for crime is an externality, simply a charge on
the taxpayer, private responsibility in the form of insurance is a
commercial activity, contributes to GNP and is a benefit to commerce
etc. So the more people can be frightened of criminals, the richer the
country is, and the more we can impress the IMF.
In the context of schooling, and of the market for schools - I don't
know if it is the same everywhere, but here now every school is
competing for pupils, and is therefore under constant pressure to
demonstrate that its school is safer, more academic, better at sport
etc. One of the easiest ways in which to demonstrate the superiority of
your school is to make it a 'positional good', i.e. make it difficult to
get into or to stay in. This can be done by judicious exclusion. ZT
could be seen as simply an extreme form of this.
Home schooling is an interesting phenomenon. I discovered on the home
page of the Foundation for Economic Education, apparently established in
the U.S. by Mises, a series of lessons on economics specifically written
for homeschoolers, of predictable political cast. Homeschooling fits
into the elision of women and children into the 'individual' seen as the
man of the household responsible for their wellbeing - and opinions. As
per Margaret Thatcher - 'there is no society, only the individual ( and
his family) '. What is interesting also here is that at the same time
that homeschooling is official policy the govt has instituted a
programme called "Parents as first Teachers' and other similar
programmes, which are aimed at making sure that parents follow the
approved pattern of upbringing! So withdrawal of govt is accompanied by
more intervention, but suitably reworded.
I apologise to everyone that this is so long. Congratulations if you
reached the end!!
Nesta
Yes.
I do think that this topic is absolutely about governmentality, which is
why it attracted my attention.
I am interested in the way in which liberal discourse once implemented
becomes illiberal and seems almost despite itself to work back/forward
towards the all-embracing control envisioned in 'police' as described by
Foucault, ( but I found Pascale Pasquino's description in 'the Foucault
Effect' even more helpful).
If we take it, from Foucault that 'police' is part of the genealogy of
contemporary notions of govt just as much as 'soverignty' and
liberalism, then obviously there is going to be demand out there for the
? security that police offers ( I am trying - perhpas not very
effectively to remind myself that police doesn't mean police!!! But a
form of governance based on the concept that the subject is knowable,
and that the forms of govt can therefore be arranged so that everything
is at its most efficient, reliable and so on. ) there remains therefore
an expectation of govt that it will work to achieve the predictable,
secure controlled form of governmance. Have I got this right?
But liberalism, at any rate as understood by Hayek, and for certain
purposes Menger, depends upon the unknowable , the completely
free-choosing subject. This subject cannot be so planned for. that is
why Hayek sees the market as indispensable to freedom - it is a
discovery procedure for uncovering the unpredictable preferences of the
subject. Yet in a form of liberalism dependent upon 'homo economicus'
that is, the completely predictable form of the subject, we can return
to the manipulation of the polity through the desires and appropriate
incentives which economic 'science' allows us to define and 'know'.
Hence, I think, we have a return to 'police'.
This is getting back to zero-tolerance eventually!
The demand for zero-tolerance depends upon an assumption that the
individual when s/he transgresses is rational, i.e. that they do these
things knowing that they will get away with it or not. the Z_T argument
would have to be, i suppose, that if the possiblity that they will get
away with it is zero, they will not do it. Therefore we are dealing with
a rational subject, whose system of incentives is knowable. And
manipulable therefore. Simply put, they are making choices.
I don't imagine that there is a conscious wish to put these people into
the prison system, but there is an enormous investment in insurance and
security building up - we are far behind the U.S in such matters and our
police force is widely regarded as unable to cope with crime. In fact
the govt says it is unable to cope, and yet is trying to reduce the
police force further - same with the fire brigade and so on. the
commisioner in charge of reducing the fire brigade is a representative
of the insurance industry!! - this has been an ongoing scandal for some
months - but the govt will not abandon him, despite their embarrassment.
Where govt responsiblity for crime is an externality, simply a charge on
the taxpayer, private responsibility in the form of insurance is a
commercial activity, contributes to GNP and is a benefit to commerce
etc. So the more people can be frightened of criminals, the richer the
country is, and the more we can impress the IMF.
In the context of schooling, and of the market for schools - I don't
know if it is the same everywhere, but here now every school is
competing for pupils, and is therefore under constant pressure to
demonstrate that its school is safer, more academic, better at sport
etc. One of the easiest ways in which to demonstrate the superiority of
your school is to make it a 'positional good', i.e. make it difficult to
get into or to stay in. This can be done by judicious exclusion. ZT
could be seen as simply an extreme form of this.
Home schooling is an interesting phenomenon. I discovered on the home
page of the Foundation for Economic Education, apparently established in
the U.S. by Mises, a series of lessons on economics specifically written
for homeschoolers, of predictable political cast. Homeschooling fits
into the elision of women and children into the 'individual' seen as the
man of the household responsible for their wellbeing - and opinions. As
per Margaret Thatcher - 'there is no society, only the individual ( and
his family) '. What is interesting also here is that at the same time
that homeschooling is official policy the govt has instituted a
programme called "Parents as first Teachers' and other similar
programmes, which are aimed at making sure that parents follow the
approved pattern of upbringing! So withdrawal of govt is accompanied by
more intervention, but suitably reworded.
I apologise to everyone that this is so long. Congratulations if you
reached the end!!
Nesta