Search

Copyright of Politische Vierteljahresschrift is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This Article discusses the significance of law in neoliberal theory and practice. Prefaced by a brief look at the role that law plays in the theories of the ordo- and neoliberal thinkers Franz Böhm and Friedrich August von Hayek, the subsequent chapters focus on the work of James Buchanan and his brand of neoliberalism, which combines constitutional economics public choice theory. Buchanan's core demand is a balanced-budget amendment to the constitution. The following Sections examine this measure in its various aspects before the final section switches to the world of "actually existing neoliberalism" with a discussion of the various reforms of the economic governance structure of the European Union in recent years, particularly the "Fiscal Compact", which amounts to the real world equivalent of a balanced-budget amendment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article looks into the relationship between neoliberalism and democracy. Topics include a brief summary of the beginnings of neoliberalism in relation to the crisis of liberalism, the technocracy and self-binding rules that cause the restriction of democracy, and the concepts of institutional competition and consumer sovereignty. It also discusses the impact of referendums and tax revolts on representative democracy.

In the article, the author presents a comparative analysis of critical approaches to the state by examining the governmentality theory of Michel Foucault and the strategic-relational approach of Bob Jessop. It cites the 1975 book by Foucault titled "Discipline and Punish," in which he contends that power comes from below. The book "Philosophy of Right," by Georg Wilhelm Hegel is also cited.

The article considers Antonio Gramsci's hegemony, Michel Foucault's responsibilization and Johan Galtung's structural violence as counter-theses to the concept of neoliberalism. While Gramsci espouses an expanded notion of the integral state which includes civil society, Foucault emphasizes the primacy of individuals as a free and responsible agent of society. Galtung suggests that there is an impairment of human life within the neoliberal social structure.

The concept of responsibilization that originally emerged out of the context of the so-called Governmentality Studies is now widely used in various social sciences to describe a governing technology particularly attuned to the challenge of neoliberalism, i.e. how to govern free individuals. However, in seemingly paradoxical simultaneity with the hegemeony of neoliberalism that relies heavily on individual choice, freedom and responsibility, two powerful scientific discourses exist that appear to undermine these assumptions vehemently, namely genetics and neuroscience. Starting from a discussion of the strengths and limits of the notion of responsibilization, the article argues for the need to introduce the complementary concept of irresponsibilization that can be interpreted as a form of what Foucault in his lectures on the History of Governmentality refers to as ‘counter-conduct’ – in this case, against the neoliberal governing technology of responsibilization. The article proceeds to explore to what extent genetics and neuroscience can be considered discourses fuelling forms of genetic and/or neuro-irresponsibilization, which would make sense of the seemingly paradoxical co-hegemony of neoliberalism, on the one hand, and genetics and neuro-science, on the other. However, the article ultimately argues that, upon closer inspection of the findings in these disciplines and how they are used, it turns out that constituting oneself as a ‘somatic individual’ as a form of counter-conduct comes at a considerable cost, notably new forms of genetic and/or neuro-responsibility. Thus, the article closes with the twofold conclusion that wherever there is responsibilization, there is also irresponsibilization and that genetic and neuro-irresponsibilization are risky strategies of counter-conduct that might bring in responsibilization on a different level through the back door again. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The task of this paper is to offer an analysis of the Faith-Based and Community Initiative (FBCI) established by George W. Bush and continued under the Obama administration based on a critical and decentred approach to governance (networks). The paper starts out by placing FBCI in the context of the welfare reform of 1996 arguing that both share certain basic assumptions, for example, regarding the nature of poverty, and that FBCI can be interpreted as a response to the relative failure of some aspects of the reform of 1996. In what follows, FBCI is analysed as a typical case of (welfare) state restructuring from government to governance. Emphasis is given to the way discourses and traditions such as communitarianism and public choice have shaped the formation of this new governance arrangement in the field of social service delivery in order to strive for a 'decentring' of FBCI by drawing attention to actors' beliefs and worldviews. Finally, I argue that it is not least because of a divergence of such views between policy-makers and faith-based organizations that the effect of FBCI remains for the time being limited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper offers a critical analysis of the 'Faith-Based and Community Initiatives' established by the Bush administration in 2001 and expanded under the Obama administration. After situating the programme in the context of the welfare reform of 1996 and the 'new paternalism' (Lawrence Mead) built into it, the paper proceeds to introduce and discuss Michel Foucault's concept of 'pastoral power' as it is developed in his lectures on the history of governmentality. Using this concept as a critical heuristic device the paper analyses and problematizes the relations of care and concomitant processes of subjectification prevalent in faith-based organizations and, particularly, their mentoring programmes. In a final step, the paper argues that these relations of care can be interpreted as a departure from or at least a partial transformation of neoliberalism that produces not only new subjectivities but also novel forms of governing that combine the activating rhetoric of neoliberalism with religious (spiritual transformation) and illiberal (supervisory intervention) elements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The scholarly works of Jürgen Habermas and Michel Foucault have been subject to ongoing scrutiny for a number of decades. However, less attention has been given to their activities as public intellectuals and the relation between these and their philosophical and theoretical projects. Drawing on their own conceptualization of the role of the intellectual, the article aims to illuminate these issues by examining Habermas’ advocacy of a ‘Core Europe’ and his defense of NATO bombardments in Kosovo in 1999 as well as Foucault’s involvement with the Groupe d’Information des Prisons (GIP) and a wide variety of his interviews, op-ed articles, etc. In showing that the intellectuals’ views differ in important ways from those of the scholars but nevertheless inhabit a crucial position in the overall edifice of their oeuvres, the article concludes that the practices of theorists deserve more attention for a comprehensive and more nuanced account of their thought. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The essay aims at an assessment of whether and to what extent the history of governmentality can be considered to be a genealogy. To this effect a generic account of core tenets of Foucauldian genealogy is developed. The three core tenets highlighted are (1) a radically contingent view of history that is (2) expressed in a distinct style and (3) highlights the impact of power on this history. After a brief discussion of the concept of governmentality and a descriptive summary of its history, this generic account is used as a measuring device to be applied to the history of governmentality. While both, the concept of governmentality and also its history retain certain links to genealogical precepts, my overall conclusion is that particularly the history of governmentality (and not necessarily Foucault's more programmatic statements about it) departs from these precepts in significant ways. Not only is there a notable difference in style that cannot be accounted for entirely by the fact that this history is produced in the medium of lectures. Aside from a rather abstract consideration of the importance of societal struggles, revolts and other forms of resistance, there is also little reference to the role of these phenomena in the concrete dynamics of governmental shifts that are depicted in the historical narrative. Finally, in contrast to the historical contingency espoused by genealogy and the programmatic statements about governmentality, the actual history of the latter can be plausibly, albeit unsympathetically, read in a rather teleological fashion according to which the transformations of governmentality amount to the unfolding of an initially implicit notion of governing that is subsequently realised in ever more consistent ways. In the final section of the essay I turn towards the field of governmentality studies, arguing that some of the more problematic tendencies in this research tradition can be traced back to Foucault's own account. In particular, the monolithic conceptualisation of governmentality and the implicit presentism of an excessive focus on Neoliberalism found in many of the studies in governmentality can be linked back to problems in Foucault's own history of governmenality. The paper concludes with suggestions for a future research agenda for the governmentality studies that point beyond Foucault's own account and its respective limitations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper explores ways to bring the approaches of J. Habermas and M. Foucault into a productive dialogue. In particular, it argues that Habermas's concept of deliberative democracy can and should be complemented by a strategic analysis of the state as it is found in Foucault's studies of governmentality. While deliberative democracy is a critical theory of democracy that provides normative knowledge about the legitimacy of a given system, it is not well equipped to generate knowledge that could inform the choice of strategies employed by (collective) actors from civil society — especially deliberative democrats — vis-à-vis the state to pursue their goals. This kind of strategic knowledge about strengths and vulnerabilities of a given state is provided by Foucault's reading of the state as driven by varying governing rationalities. Since, particularly in his later works, Habermas finds strategic action normatively acceptable under certain circumstances, I argue that societal actors could profit from an integrated approach that incorporates Foucault's strategic analysis into the framework of deliberative democracy. This approach would yield critical knowledge of both a normative and strategic, action-guiding nature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]