|Dean '10 Jodi, Professor of Political Science at Hobart and William Smith Colleges, "Complexity as capture--neoliberalism and the loop of drive" http://www.academia.edu/859473/Complexity_as_capture_neoliberalism_and_the_loop_of_drive
Given the convergence between finance and critical theory around the notion of complexity, it's not surprising to find an overlap with Friedrich Hayek. The rejection of accountability, of politics, repeats his argument against economic planning: we cannot know. For Hayek the problem of the economy is a problem of knowledge. As he points out, economic knowledge is widely distributed; much of it is local, a matter of the availability of materials and workers and infrastructure. Economic knowledge is also subject to constant change. Infinite particulars of time and place, chance and circumstance, call for constant modulation. ³It wouldseem to follow,´ Hayek concludes, ³that the ultimate decisions must be left to the people who are familiar with these circumstances, who know directly of the relevant changes and of theresources immediately available to meet them.´¶ His argument against central economic planning, then, is that it is impossible because knowledge cannot be totalized. Total knowledge, complete knowledge, is unobtainable. Foucault specifies the idea that limits on knowledge are limits on government as the economic rationality of liberalism. Liberalism extends the problem of economic knowledge into a more fundamental incompatibility between ³the non-totalizable multiplicity of economicsubjects of interest and the totalizing unity of the juridical sovereign.´¶ Insisting that the totality of economic processes cannot be known, liberal economics renders a sovereign view of the economy impossible. In other words, for the liberal, the limit of sovereign knowledge is a limiton sovereign power. As Foucault puts it, homo economicus tells the sovereign, ³You must not because you cannot. And you cannot in the sense that you are powerless. And why are you powerless, why can't you? You cannot because you do not know, and you do not know because you cannot know.´¶ Just as the impossibility of complete knowledge served as a wedge against sovereign power, so does the inability to know emerge as an attempt to block or suppress politics, to displace matters of will and action onto questions of knowledge.
Our alternative is a regulated paradigm shift for decision-making framework that recognizes a material foundation for autonomy as a prerequisite to democratic communication.
Briscoe '12 Felicia, Professor of Education at UTSA, "Anarchist, Neoliberal, & Democratic Decision-Making: Deepening the Joy in Learning and Teaching" Education Studies, Vol. 48, Issue 1
A More Equal Distribution of Resources Emma Goldman describes anarchism as “an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life” (1907, 68). Rocker (1938) describes the effects of acute inequality in the distribution of resources: Our present economic system, leading to a mighty accumulation of social wealth in the hands of a privileged minority and to a continuous impoverishment of the great masses of the people . . . sacrificed the general interests of human society to the private interests of individuals and thus systematically undermined the relationship between man and man [sic]. People forgot that industry is not an end in itself, but should be only a means to insure to man his material subsistence and to make accessible to him the blessings of a higher intellectual culture. Where industry is everything and man is nothing begins the realm of ruthless economic despotism whose workings are no less disastrous than political despotism. (2)19 Although Rocker wrote in 1938, the polarization of wealth20 and the elevation of industry (or business/corporate interests) over human interests remain true.21 An equal distribution of economic power or resources is fundamental to equalizing power relationships. One anarchist, Fotopoulos (2008), describes this necessary “economic democracy . . . as the authority of the people demos in the economic sphere, implying the existence of economic equality in the sense of an equal distribution of economic power” (442). Without equal power relations brought about by a fairly equal distribution of wealth, the individual autonomy advocated by deep democracy and anarchism cannot be operationalized. Each Person Directly Participates in Decisions Affecting Her or His Life (Autonomy) Anarchism’s and deep democracy’s call for a more equal distribution of resources helps to create the conditions necessary for autonomy. Perhaps the single most important foundation of anarchist thought is autonomy, as described by Anna Goldman (2010): [Anarchism is] based in the understanding that we are best qualified tomake decisions about our own lives.Anarchists believe that we must all control our own lives,making decisions collectively about matters, which affect us. Anarchists believe and engage in direct action. (para 7) Several scholars have analyzed the importance of autonomy to human experience. Although Paulo Freire (1970) does not describe himself as an anarchist, his analysis of autonomy in regards to determining one’s own thoughts and actions is often quoted by anarchists such as Spring (2008). Freire (1970) discusses the death that occurs without autonomy: Overwhelming control—is necrophilic; it is nourished by love of death, not life. Based on a mechanistic, static, naturalistic, spatialized view of consciousness; it transforms students into receiving objects. It attempts to control thinking and action, leads men to adjust to the world, and inhibits their creative power. (64) Freire’s description of overwhelming control resonates with Mr. Jackson’s description of his experience in an urban school, with students being “tested to death” under the current policies. A number of scholars22 note that without equal power relationships, there is little autonomy; without autonomy, authentic communication becomes impossible.
Share with your friends: