In this essay, I will be discussing Michel Foucault “The Birth of Biopolitics”. These lectures took place at the college de France in 1978-1979. I will be answering the question ‘What does Michel Foucault understand to be specific differences between the liberalism of the eighteenth century England and the Neo-liberalism of twentieth century United States insofar as both are modes of governmentality?’ I will analyze the differences between liberalism and neo-liberalism. In addition, I will also explain what is the notion of governmentality and its importance in relation to England and the United States. Lastly, I will give my opinion as to why it is important to understand Foucault and his teachings.
“The Birth of Biopolitics” builds on …show more content…
In other words, how can biopolitcs be made compatible with a liberal system of government. Foucault defines liberalism as an ‘art of government’ which contributed to our understanding of the eighteenth century. Liberalism explains this form of rationality associated with liberalism primarily through its own internal understanding of its own incompetence at governing which results in the auto-limitations on governmental reason itself. It seems that Foucault was unable to define a system of government as liberal in the first place. He was then unable to assess the compatibility of biopolitcs with his liberal ideas. There was a wide range of perspectives in which liberalism was contested. An aspect of liberalism is the idea of raison d’Etat (known also as reason of state) and the “self-limitation of governmental reason… what does this mean?…What is this new type of rationality in the art of government, this new type of calculation that consists in saying and telling government”(Foucault 20), of what should be left alone. “I think this is broadly what is called liberalsim”(Foucault 20). Liberalism is the solution that comprises of the maximum limitations of government practices. To better understand this notion, he takes a great deal of time explaining this in his first few lectures distinguishing the difference …show more content…
He careful avoids the assumption that American neo-liberalism is a diffused version of the German ordoliberalism thinking. A social market economy is a market that is constantly supported by the political regulations and would be flanked by social interventions such as housing policy, support for the unemployed etc. This concept of social policy was based on the difference between the economic and the social domains. While of the other hand, the American neo-liberalism has features that distinguish itself from the classic liberalism approach.“In all texts of the neo-liberals you find the theme that government is active, vigilant, and intervening in a liberal regime, and formulae that neither the classical liberalism of the nineteenth century nor the contemporary American anarcho-capitalism could accept”(Foucault 133). The American neo-liberalism attempts to re-define the economic domain. In addition, economists such as Gary Becker proposed a model called Homo Economics, in which the non-random responses of an individual changes in his/her environment which can be studied in economic science. Foucault believes that a worker should not be seen as an object of just supply and demand in the form of labour (the labour theory by Marx). But, every individual should be seen as an enterprise
“The Birth of Biopolitics” builds on …show more content…
In other words, how can biopolitcs be made compatible with a liberal system of government. Foucault defines liberalism as an ‘art of government’ which contributed to our understanding of the eighteenth century. Liberalism explains this form of rationality associated with liberalism primarily through its own internal understanding of its own incompetence at governing which results in the auto-limitations on governmental reason itself. It seems that Foucault was unable to define a system of government as liberal in the first place. He was then unable to assess the compatibility of biopolitcs with his liberal ideas. There was a wide range of perspectives in which liberalism was contested. An aspect of liberalism is the idea of raison d’Etat (known also as reason of state) and the “self-limitation of governmental reason… what does this mean?…What is this new type of rationality in the art of government, this new type of calculation that consists in saying and telling government”(Foucault 20), of what should be left alone. “I think this is broadly what is called liberalsim”(Foucault 20). Liberalism is the solution that comprises of the maximum limitations of government practices. To better understand this notion, he takes a great deal of time explaining this in his first few lectures distinguishing the difference …show more content…
He careful avoids the assumption that American neo-liberalism is a diffused version of the German ordoliberalism thinking. A social market economy is a market that is constantly supported by the political regulations and would be flanked by social interventions such as housing policy, support for the unemployed etc. This concept of social policy was based on the difference between the economic and the social domains. While of the other hand, the American neo-liberalism has features that distinguish itself from the classic liberalism approach.“In all texts of the neo-liberals you find the theme that government is active, vigilant, and intervening in a liberal regime, and formulae that neither the classical liberalism of the nineteenth century nor the contemporary American anarcho-capitalism could accept”(Foucault 133). The American neo-liberalism attempts to re-define the economic domain. In addition, economists such as Gary Becker proposed a model called Homo Economics, in which the non-random responses of an individual changes in his/her environment which can be studied in economic science. Foucault believes that a worker should not be seen as an object of just supply and demand in the form of labour (the labour theory by Marx). But, every individual should be seen as an enterprise