The Neoliberal Paradigm And Civic Responsibility

international | anti-capitalism | opinion/analysis Saturday June 11, 2011 13:05 by Gerard Farrell

An article exploring the cultural effects of several decades of neoliberal ascendancy in the political arena. Previously published in the the 'Social and political review' of Trinity college Dublin; just putting it out there...

It is a commonplace of social theory that civic engagement is stronger in those who enjoy a greater amount of social capital. Conversely, a sense of responsibility to contribute to the smooth functioning of society is said to be weaker in those groups who have less of a stake in that society. (Giddens, 2006, pp.673-675). I will argue in this essay that this model requires modification to take into account a growing decline in civic responsibility in the west, which prevails not merely amongst social groups which are traditionally thought of as excluded, but is widespread in society as a whole. This decline has its roots in profound cultural changes that have taken place over the past thirty years, which are a consequence of the neoliberal political consensus in this period, and a mindset which this ideology has fostered in our society, in which the logic of markets, consumerism and personal autonomy have come to eclipse collectivist notions of social and civic responsibility.

THE IRRATIONALITY OF THE FREE-RIDER

An example of this ideologically-driven individualism, as opposed to an individualism which is motivated by rational self-interest, is apposite. During the cold spell of weather that affected Ireland in December 2010 Dublin’s local authorities were forced to introduce restrictions on the use of water due to supply shortages. This was because there had been a surge in demand, reportedly due to some householders leaving their taps running all night in order to prevent the pipes freezing. (Michael, 2010) The fact that it became necessary (despite appeals to the public to cut down on its consumption of water) for these restrictions to be put in place evoked little comment in the media but, if examined a little more closely, this incident reveals something quite remarkable. The householders who were attempting to serve their own interests in this case would have been doing so if they alone had thought of the idea. Of course, too many of their fellow-consumers had the same idea to make it workable. The upshot of a considerable amount of consumers behaving in this fashion was simply that the supply ran out for everybody. While the logic of this appears childishly simple, the fact was apparently not obvious enough for the public to police itself in the event; restrictions had to be imposed from without.

This anecdote bears many features of what theorists call a ‘free-rider problem.’ This occurs when some members of a group partake of a public good while avoiding any personal cost to themselves. More obvious examples of free-riding would include (literally) fare-dodging on pubic transport or a worker benefiting from a wage-increase that results from strike action in which they took no part. (Marshall and Scott, 2010) What is common to all these examples is that the free-rider may enjoy the benefits of the public good concerned, only if the majority of his fellow-consumers continue to bear the cost of its maintenance; we have seen what happens if everyone chooses to follow their example. One of neoliberalism’s founding fathers, Friedrich Hayek, argued that this is a problem inherent to any collectivised enterprise, in that no incentive is provided for the individual to take personal responsibility under such circumstances and that the effect of such a system, no matter how lofty the ideals which gave birth to it, would always be ‘antimoral.’ (Hayek, 2001, pp.217-218)

Hayek’s modern counterpart might advocate the privatisation of the water services in this case, arguing that, when customers are forced to pay according to the amount of water they consume, they will no longer be so ready to waste the resource. While this may be true on some level, it misses a fundamental point, which is that it does not stimulate personal responsibility at all; it merely replaces one form of coercion (that of state intervention, in this case, to restrict the availability of the water supply) with another form—the ‘invisible hand’ of the market. In fact, rather than fostering a sense of individual responsibility, such coercion by the market tends to define social irresponsibly as a desirable commodity to be aspired to by a privileged few, in that the higher one’s income is, the higher one’s capacity to waste water. A similar criticism has been levelled at the logic behind carbon trading. (Lohmann, 1999)

THE CULTURAL CONSEQUENCES OF NEOLIBERALISM

Arguments such has Hayek’s have become familiar during the last three decades of neoliberal ascendancy in the political arena, to the point that state-ownership of any enterprise has come to be seen as an inherently lamentable thing. It would be easy to forget the reason why many utilities were nationalised in the first place. Early fire services, to give just one example, were run as private insurance companies, and would only put out the fires of buildings that displayed a plaque affirming that the resident was a subscriber. For this reason (and the fact that fires are just as likely to spread to insured as uninsured buildings) it was found more convenient over time for cities to form their own publicly-funded fire departments that offered their services to all. (Anderson, 1979) A re-emergence of the former model has been reported in the United States, where a home-owner living on the outskirts of South Fulton, Tennessee was told by the fire services that they would not act to put out the fire because he hadn’t paid the $75 fire protection fee. Indeed, they had arrived at the scene of his burning house only to protect his neighbours house, which was covered under the subscription program. (Murphy, 2010)

While it has often been contended that state intervention has a corrosive effect on personal responsibility, what has been less remarked upon is the consequences for civic responsibility resulting from the laissez-faire economic model. By this, I do not refer to the behavioural patterns that result from economic incentives, but rather those which result from the cultural consequences of neoliberalism. Accepting that neither state nor market intervention do much to promote responsibility raises the possibility that these ends are not brought about by political or economic systems at all, but that their presence or absence is in fact a cultural phenomenon. This in itself suggests the question: what kind of cultural conditions does the free-market create, and what effect do these conditions have on the way people relate to the society around them?

THE BURDEN OF SOCIETY

Margaret Thatcher’s famous response to a question on the subject of society was to assert that no such thing existed, only individuals and their families. (Keay, 1987) The difficulty with this is that society itself is a social construct, just as individuals and families are social constructs, and just as they are created and reproduced by culture, so can they be destroyed. In their own brutal (as well as ineffectual) way, movements such as the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia attempted to eradicate the institution of the family. If by society we mean a structured network of interdependencies which transcend individual or narrow group interests (such as the family or a club), then an attempt has been made in the last three decades by the more determined of neoliberalism's acolytes, to unmake much of this structure. Unlike the crude schemes of the Khmer Rouge, however, this project is not one that has been centrally-planned by a specific political party, but has emerged organically from the requirements and interests of an elite business class and has been articulated only by its ideologues in neoliberal and, more prominently since the financial crisis set in, free-market libertarian circles. The most obvious ideological example of this attack on the constraints imposed by society is their critique of the payment of taxes. While few in mainstream political discourse have argued for the total abolition of taxes, the impression has nevertheless become widespread that taxes are an imposition (even the phrase ‘tax burden’ has become common in everyday discourse, especially in the United States) on the population from without—a necessary evil perhaps, but an evil nonetheless. (Aldred, 2009, pp.79-102) This perception has become so deeply-rooted that few politicians are willing to admit their intention to raise taxes, even when the necessity to do so is glaringly obvious. Likewise, it has become difficult to openly discuss the spending cuts that necessarily follow cuts in taxation, or the consequences that will follow from them.

Given that many have, in the past, benefited from publicly-funded enterprises, why are they now so unwilling to pay for them? It may be on account of a perception that taxes raised are not being utilised in the public’s interest, or that inefficiency and overspending are problems endemic to publicly-funded services. Support for this impression has come in Ireland from the state itself, by a succession of ministers anxious to cut spending on the health service. There may, however, be something more irrational taking place here—a belief which has not come about as a result of experience with taxes, but instead reflects a deeper scepticism towards public spending in principle. It is not in the form of a political theory that this ideology (it is, nevertheless, an ideology) has tended to filter through to the public consciousness. Instead it has had its most lasting impact through the medium of advertising and consumerism—a world-view which place’s the individual and his or her interests above all else.

An example of this is the apparently growing belief amongst motorists that cyclists have less rights on the roads because they do not pay road tax. The fact that this is inaccurate (car-owners pay motor tax for their vehicles and cyclists contribute their share towards maintenance of the roads in general taxation) is irrelevant; it is the logic of the assertion which is telling—that payment of taxes is akin to a specific fee for the specific service, only available to those who can afford it. (Walker, 2010) This attests to a fundamental misunderstanding of the principle of public spending and taxation; it is the mentality not of the citizen but of the consumer. This is only one of many areas in which the mindset of consumerism has left many ill-equipped to understand basic economic concepts. This has become particularly apparent from the public response in many western societies to the financial crisis of the last few years.

THINK YOURSELF RICH

This response has revealed a prevalent lack of knowledge about how capitalism as an economic system functions. The relationship which exists between Capital and Labour, or even the fact that such separate classes exist, has been largely ironed-over or blurred in the media and has resulted in widespread bafflement at this particular downturn in the business cycle. During the Celtic Tiger period, it was ‘our’ economy which was spoken of as doing well, even though some benefited to a much greater extent than others and that at its height, economic inequality in Ireland was reported to be second only to that of the U.S. amongst western nations. (Chrisafis, 2004) Likewise, since the bubble has burst, it is ‘we’ who must tighten our belts to put the public finances on an even keel once more. In the shadow of such discourse, basic economic concepts such as surplus value, despite being vital to an understanding of how profit is created, are unfamiliar to the public and the Marxist concept of class conflict (or God forbid, class war) almost sounds as if it could arouse accusations of hate speech. Likewise, the growing stress on individual responsibility for one’s fate, what Gordon has referred to as ‘the managerialization of personal identity and personal relations which accompanies the capitalization of the meaning of life’ (Gordon, 1991, p.44), has encouraged a belief that we are all equally to blame for the economic difficulties facing us, and has made it possible for Brian Patterson, former chairman of the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority, to claim that ‘everybody’ was responsible for the property boom and bust which led to Ireland’s economic ruin. (Molloy, 2010)

It is in such a context of bewilderment and anger that the Tea Party movement has grown to prominence in the United States. Espousing a free-market brand of Libertarianism and borrowing much of its rhetoric from positions as radical as anarcho-capitalism, it represents in essence a more populist and strident version of the neoliberal views which have become orthodox amongst the ruling elite in America since the introduction of Reaganomics in the eighties. Despite the fact that lack of regulation has led to some of the worst excesses which brought about the financial crisis, the Tea Party’s driving aspiration seems to be less regulation and interference by government and the liberation of an entrepreneurial spirit which, it is believed, will bring the economy out of recession. This is an essentially negative theory in that it defines freedom as the mere absence of constraint, rather than proposing any positive measures to enable people to exercise their freedom. There is, in fact, good reason to believe that the Tea Party is little more than a campaigning platform for the Republican party, disguising itself as a grassroots political movement as it seeks to reinvigorate itself in the aftermath of electoral defeat to Barack Obama, (Krugman, 2009) and that, while commandeering the language of freedom, it actually represents a blueprint for society which favours rule by business interests ahead of the state—in other words, more of the same. Indeed, Noam Chomsky has likened its potential attractiveness to a beleaguered population to that of Nazism in 1920s Germany. (Rothschild, 2010)

It is interesting to compare the public response to this latest crisis of capitalism in the west and in Latin America. In the relatively affluent nations of the west (or rather 'the North' as this socio-political block is more often referred to in Latin America) the population has, ostensibly, greater access to information and educational resources than the poorer classes of central and south America. It is nevertheless amongst the latter that a coherent ideological resistance to the neoliberal paradigm has emerged and a vigorous political alternative from grassroots movements in countries such as Venezuela and Bolivia. (Eckstein, 2001) On the other hand, it is tempting to see the higher levels of 'education' in the west, especially in the managerial stratum of society, as at least partly representing higher levels of indoctrination. As Chomsky has observed, propaganda is largely directed towards the privileged; for the mass of the population, there is distraction in the form of sports, celebrities, etc. (Chomsky, 2005) An example of this indoctrination, to which children are exposed from an early age is the cult of the entrepreneur. This has been promoted for some time in both the media and official government policy. So prevalent has it become in western popular culture that it goes almost unnoticed.

The ideology of movements such as the Tea Party is also informed by the notion that economic growth is stimulated primarily by unleashing the inner forces of enterprise which government can only provide an obstacle to. An emphasis on self-reliance and personal development dovetails neatly with the neoliberal economic programme for obvious reasons, and has been manifested in popular culture in other, less obvious ways. The growing interest in new-age religion (in varying degrees of dedication) is an interesting example of this. It has borrowed selectively from Buddhism and Hinduism to stress the importance of the individual and his or her control over their own fate. Filtered through western capitalism, the concept of karma can be made to lend a spiritual legitimacy to what appears a rather cut-throat doctrine; it also provides a comforting organising principle in a world where the individual’s fate often appears far from in their own hands. This tendency to direct energies towards personal instead of social transformation can be traced to the post-Nixon years in America, when that politically-active segment of the hippie movement grew disenchanted with the possibility of changing America politically, and focussed instead on fulfilling the dictates of Gandhi’s oft-quoted direction to be the change you wish to see in the world. (Curtis, 2002) The extent to which this disposition has entered the popular consciousness is reflected in the huge sales of self-help books, many of which preach some sort of new-age beliefs alongside a surprisingly materialist ethos. Titles such as Attract money by best-selling author Robert Griswold and Think Yourself Rich by Joseph Murphy, attest to the correlation. Poverty, the latter writer insisted, is a disease of the mind. (Murphy, 2006, p.121)

CONCLUSION

Such beliefs accord well with an ideology that posits the potential for everyone to be a millionaire. Of course, it is a false promise. Not everybody can be a millionaire because wealth cannot exist without its correlative in poverty. Likewise, not everybody can leave the tap running all night to stop the pipes from freezing. I have attempted, in this essay, to show how the precepts of a political ideology, neoliberal capitalism, have filtered through to the cultural bedrock of modern society and have manifested themselves in various ways. Ultimately, a lack of civic engagement in activities such as labour unions or co-operatives is in the interests of Capital. It is in such a cultural climate that western society has undergone a degree of atomisation, in which individuals compete with each other relentlessly, ostensibly in the pursuit of their own self-interest; such competition is in fact far from in the interests of the participants.

Bibliography
Aldred, Jonathan, The skeptical economist: revealing the ethics inside economics, London, 2009.
Anderson, Annelise Graebner, ‘The Development of Municipal Fire Departments in the United States,’ Journal of Libertarian Studies, Oxford, 1979.
Chrisafis, Angelique, ‘Celtic Tiger roars again - but not for the poor,’ The Guardian, 7 October 2004. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/07/ireland, accessed 22 December 2010.
Chomsky, Noam, ‘On War and Activism’ interviewed by Charngchi Way, 9 December 2005 . http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20051209.htm, accessed 4 February 2011.
Curtis, Adam, The Century of the Self, episode three, BBC television, 2002.
Eckstein, Susan (ed.), Power and popular protest: Latin American social movements, Berkeley, 2001.
Giddens, Anthony, Sociology , Cambridge, 2006.
Gordon, Colin, ‘Governmental rationality: an introduction’ in Burchell and Gordon (eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, Chicago, 1991.
Hayek, Friedrich, The road to serfdom, London, 2001.
Krugman, Paul, ‘Tea Parties Forever,’ New York Times, 12 April 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opinion/13krugman.html, accessed 22 December 2010.
Lohmann, Larry, The Dyson effect: carbon "offset" forestry and the privatisation of the atmosphere, Sturminster Newton, 1999.
Marshall, Gordon and Scott, John (eds.), A Dictionary of Sociology. Oxford University Press 2009. http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview....e870, accessed 18 December 2010.
Michael, Jason, ‘Dublin water restrictions imposed,’ The Irish Times, 7 December 2010. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1207/....html, accessed 18 December 2010.
Molloy, Thomas, ‘Everybody to blame for crisis, says ex-regulator,’ The Irish Independent, 4 December 2010. http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/everybody-to-b....html, accessed 22 December 2010.
Murphy, John K., ‘Fire Subscription Services: A Legal and Moral Conundrum ,’ http://www.fireengineering.com/index/articles/display.a....html
Murphy, Joseph, 2006, The Power of Your Subconscious Mind, London: Pocket, 2006.
Rothschild, Matthew, ‘Chomsky Warns of Risk of Fascism in America,’ The Progressive, 12 April 2010, http://www.progressive.org/wx041210.html, accessed 22 December 2010
Thatcher, Margaret , interviewed by Douglas Keay, Woman’s Own, 31 October 1987.
Walker, Peter, ‘Cyclists are not road tax dodgers,’ The Guardian, 18 March 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog...ivers, accessed 22 December 2010.