Why is Ashley so infatuated with the individual liberal subject as a research project? What value or pay-off is there to be had? Structures, systems, and institutions has a pay-off in terms of how things work. Fore example, see the difference between Harvey’s analysis vs. a Foucault analysis on page 10 of Chandler’s book.
I just checked out Chandler's book and its just a theory without any real world implementation. There is no real world neoliberal program (in terms of a policy and governance regime) to control and make neoliberal subjects. There are a few policy recommendations and nonprofit actions. But that is nothing compared to the economic variety. Which was and is a comprehensive, radical, and transformational policy and governance regime. You need to throw that book away its useless. You can tell David I will debate him if you want.
AF's theory is intriguing, but I have some doubts. To quote from her Compact piece:
"When schools without plumbing receive gender-identity curricula, it becomes clear this is not about local need. It is about making new kinds of people suited to a new kind of world-building, which no longer happens in bricks and steel but inside people’s heads."
I agree that "local need" is not what this is about, and maybe I'm also willing to grant that there is a desire on the part of the UNESCO workers to make "new kinds of people" -- but is there evidence that new kinds of people are being made? If there isn't, then can't the endeavor best be seen as a jobs program for the, uh, "global north"? Something that does neither harm nor good, except trivially?
I’m only in the first 30 min, but her thesis is bizarre and flat out wrong. The liberal subject is absolutely part of religion, tradition, and conservatism. She should read Sombart’s “The Spirit of Modern Capitalism,” and Weber’s “The Protestant Ethic.” Not to mention modern day “Christian Entrepreneurialism,” Ayn Rand’s “Industrial Statesmen,” Muslim oil Sheiks, the history of male property ownership and the right to vote,
In addition, the self-made man, the “creative class,” job creators, social media producers, etc.
Margaret Thatcher is ideal subjectivity or not?
She is confusing the Liberal subject with the “market individual.”
Why are you so infatuated with the liberal individual and subjectivity as a research project? What is the value to be gained? I don't see any. Structures, systems, and institutions are superior.
For example, compare Havey's analysis compared to a Foucault analysis. On page 10 of Chandler's book.
The liberal subject is not just "evident" in many traditions. It was born and came out specifically from European Princes. If you want me to quote Sombart's book I will.
Why is Ashley so infatuated with the individual liberal subject as a research project? What value or pay-off is there to be had? Structures, systems, and institutions has a pay-off in terms of how things work. Fore example, see the difference between Harvey’s analysis vs. a Foucault analysis on page 10 of Chandler’s book.
I just checked out Chandler's book and its just a theory without any real world implementation. There is no real world neoliberal program (in terms of a policy and governance regime) to control and make neoliberal subjects. There are a few policy recommendations and nonprofit actions. But that is nothing compared to the economic variety. Which was and is a comprehensive, radical, and transformational policy and governance regime. You need to throw that book away its useless. You can tell David I will debate him if you want.
AF's theory is intriguing, but I have some doubts. To quote from her Compact piece:
"When schools without plumbing receive gender-identity curricula, it becomes clear this is not about local need. It is about making new kinds of people suited to a new kind of world-building, which no longer happens in bricks and steel but inside people’s heads."
I agree that "local need" is not what this is about, and maybe I'm also willing to grant that there is a desire on the part of the UNESCO workers to make "new kinds of people" -- but is there evidence that new kinds of people are being made? If there isn't, then can't the endeavor best be seen as a jobs program for the, uh, "global north"? Something that does neither harm nor good, except trivially?
I’m only in the first 30 min, but her thesis is bizarre and flat out wrong. The liberal subject is absolutely part of religion, tradition, and conservatism. She should read Sombart’s “The Spirit of Modern Capitalism,” and Weber’s “The Protestant Ethic.” Not to mention modern day “Christian Entrepreneurialism,” Ayn Rand’s “Industrial Statesmen,” Muslim oil Sheiks, the history of male property ownership and the right to vote,
In addition, the self-made man, the “creative class,” job creators, social media producers, etc.
Margaret Thatcher is ideal subjectivity or not?
She is confusing the Liberal subject with the “market individual.”
My thesis is bizarre and wrong because aspects of the liberal subject are evident in many traditions?
Why are you so infatuated with the liberal individual and subjectivity as a research project? What is the value to be gained? I don't see any. Structures, systems, and institutions are superior.
For example, compare Havey's analysis compared to a Foucault analysis. On page 10 of Chandler's book.
The liberal subject is not just "evident" in many traditions. It was born and came out specifically from European Princes. If you want me to quote Sombart's book I will.
How you are you? Long time no see. :)
You can go back to many traditions to find the roots of it, as I've said regarding Catholicism.
But thanks for following me around on the Internet again. Hope it was fun.
https://theopolisinstitute.com/leithart_post/the-state-ethic-and-the-spirit-of-capitalism/