Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 23:46:21 +1200 From: "na.devine" <na.devine-AT-auckland.ac.nz> Subject: Re: Foucauldian examinations of The Market 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
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005