Sorry, Wynship.
To Campbell's list I would add Barry Hindess, but nonetheless, there is
a big gap: it seems to me that neo-liberalism could be added to
Foucault's list of significant changes in the conceptualization of govt
in 'Governmentality'.
'Homo economicus' is challenged outside this literature: it is only
seen, even within economics as a 'model' which is useful for modelling
purposes, and is not supposed to represent an accurate picture of human
beings ( this according to Buchanan and Tullock 1962) and by some
others, e.g. Hayek, is rejected as being too deterministic: the
distinguishing feature of the Austrian school is supposed to be the
'subjective' theory of value, i.e. human beings cannot be reduced to the
kind of mechanistic animal portrayed by homo economicus. Hayek rejects
Mises' critique of socialism, because he has used such a rationalistic
model: he argues that if human beings really are so rationalistic, i.e.
predictable, then centralized planning which he equates with socialism
is a logical outcome.
The Foucauldian argument though would surely have to be that people are
infinitely malleable, and that homo economicus is no more than a
cultural artefact???? To see human beings otherwise would be to argue
for some kind of essentialism which I would have thought theoretically
unacceptable within the Foucauldian view, if such a categorization can
be allowed.
Nesta
To Campbell's list I would add Barry Hindess, but nonetheless, there is
a big gap: it seems to me that neo-liberalism could be added to
Foucault's list of significant changes in the conceptualization of govt
in 'Governmentality'.
'Homo economicus' is challenged outside this literature: it is only
seen, even within economics as a 'model' which is useful for modelling
purposes, and is not supposed to represent an accurate picture of human
beings ( this according to Buchanan and Tullock 1962) and by some
others, e.g. Hayek, is rejected as being too deterministic: the
distinguishing feature of the Austrian school is supposed to be the
'subjective' theory of value, i.e. human beings cannot be reduced to the
kind of mechanistic animal portrayed by homo economicus. Hayek rejects
Mises' critique of socialism, because he has used such a rationalistic
model: he argues that if human beings really are so rationalistic, i.e.
predictable, then centralized planning which he equates with socialism
is a logical outcome.
The Foucauldian argument though would surely have to be that people are
infinitely malleable, and that homo economicus is no more than a
cultural artefact???? To see human beings otherwise would be to argue
for some kind of essentialism which I would have thought theoretically
unacceptable within the Foucauldian view, if such a categorization can
be allowed.
Nesta