From
David Harvey's A
Brief History of Neoliberalism
Part
1 - Construction of political consent across a sufficiently large
spectrum of the population
How was
neoliberalization accomplished, and by whom? The answer in countries
such as Chile and Argentina in the 1970s was as simple as it was
swift, brutal, and sure: a military coup backed by the traditional
upper classes (as well as by the US government), followed by the
fierce repression of all solidarities created within the labour and
urban social movements which had so threatened their power.
But
the neoliberal revolution usually attributed to Thatcher and Reagan
after 1979 had to be accomplished by democratic means. For a shift of
this magnitude to occur required the prior construction of political
consent across a sufficiently large spectrum of the population to win
elections. What Gramsci calls ‘common sense’ (defined as ‘the
sense held in common’) typically grounds consent.
Common
sense is constructed out of long-standing practices of cultural
socialization often rooted deep in regional or national traditions.
It is not the same as the ‘good sense’ that can be constructed
out of critical engagement with the issues of the day. Common sense
can, therefore, be profoundly misleading, obfuscating or disguising
real problems under cultural prejudices. Cultural and traditional
values (such as belief in God and country or views on the position of
women in society) and fears (of communists, immigrants, strangers, or
‘others’) can be mobilized to mask other realities.
Political
slogans can be invoked that mask specific strategies beneath vague
rhetorical devices. The word ‘freedom’ resonates so widely within
the common sense understanding of Americans that it becomes ‘a
button that elites can press to open the door to the masses’ to
justify almost anything. Thus could Bush retrospectively justify the
Iraq war. Gramsci therefore concluded that political questions become
‘insoluble’ when ‘disguised as cultural ones’. In seeking to
understand the construction of political consent, we must learn to
extract political meanings from their cultural integuments.
So how,
then, was sufficient popular consent generated to legitimize the
neoliberal turn?
The
channels through which this was done were diverse. Powerful
ideological influences circulated through the corporations, the
media, and the numerous institutions that constitute civil society ––
such as the universities, schools, churches, and professional
associations.
The
‘long march’ of neoliberal ideas through these institutions that
Hayek had envisaged back in 1947, the organization of think-tanks
(with corporate backing and funding), the capture of certain segments
of the media, and the conversion of many intellectuals to neoliberal
ways of thinking, created a climate of opinion in support of
neoliberalism as the exclusive guarantor of freedom. These movements
were later consolidated through the capture of political parties and,
ultimately, state power.
Appeals
to traditions and cultural values bulked large in all of this. An
open project around the restoration of economic power to a small
elite would probably not gain much popular support. But a
programmatic attempt to advance the cause of individual freedoms
could appeal to a mass base and so disguise the drive to restore
class power. Furthermore, once the state apparatus made the
neoliberal turn it could use its powers of persuasion, co-optation,
bribery, and threat to maintain the climate of consent necessary to
perpetuate its power. This was Thatcher’s and Reagan’s particular
forte, as we shall see.
[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]
[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]
This was a great interview, on contact is one of the best shows on RT
ReplyDeleteIndeed.
Delete