一位(具有新自由主义思想的)人类学家眼中的教练。对 Michal Mokrzan 的著作《晚期资本主义时代的阶级、资本与教练》进行论战

Q4 Arts and Humanities
Czas Kultury Pub Date : 2023-03-30 DOI:10.61269/wnbe2190
Michał Kruszelnicki
{"title":"一位(具有新自由主义思想的)人类学家眼中的教练。对 Michal Mokrzan 的著作《晚期资本主义时代的阶级、资本与教练》进行论战","authors":"Michał Kruszelnicki","doi":"10.61269/wnbe2190","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article is a polemics with Michał Mokrzan’s book: <i>Class, Capital and Coaching in the Age of Late Capitalism. Persuasion of Neoliberal Governmentality</i> (2019). Among quite a few objections one comes to the fore. Mokrzan effaces to a large extent the critical potential of Foucault’s thought, perceiving it only as a source of useful concepts for the analysis of methods used in coaching for optimizing individuals. No far-reaching conclusions are drawn here regarding the limitation of human freedomand self-determination through new discourses at the service of the modern statebiopower. Is such a domesticated Foucault still the Foucault we have come to know as a relentless opponent of even most sophisticated and inconspicuous forms of power? And even given Foucault’s ambiguous attitude towards neoliberalism and all the hope the was putting in the idea of free market as a factor limiting power, does not coaching remain an almost exemplary tool employed by modern state in purpose of disciplining individuals and augmenting their economic usefulness? Is it thus right – in the light of Foucault’s thought – to simultaneously claim that coaching is “neoliberal governmental technique” and afirm/promote it? keywords: Michał Mokrzan, Michel Foucault, polemics, coaching, neoliberalism, anthropology, governmentality, neoliberal regulation of individuals","PeriodicalId":36912,"journal":{"name":"Czas Kultury","volume":"579 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Coaching okiem (neoliberalnie myślącego) antropologa. Polemicznie nad książką Michała Mokrzana „Klasa, kapitał i coaching w dobie późnego kapitalizmu”\",\"authors\":\"Michał Kruszelnicki\",\"doi\":\"10.61269/wnbe2190\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article is a polemics with Michał Mokrzan’s book: <i>Class, Capital and Coaching in the Age of Late Capitalism. Persuasion of Neoliberal Governmentality</i> (2019). Among quite a few objections one comes to the fore. Mokrzan effaces to a large extent the critical potential of Foucault’s thought, perceiving it only as a source of useful concepts for the analysis of methods used in coaching for optimizing individuals. No far-reaching conclusions are drawn here regarding the limitation of human freedomand self-determination through new discourses at the service of the modern statebiopower. Is such a domesticated Foucault still the Foucault we have come to know as a relentless opponent of even most sophisticated and inconspicuous forms of power? And even given Foucault’s ambiguous attitude towards neoliberalism and all the hope the was putting in the idea of free market as a factor limiting power, does not coaching remain an almost exemplary tool employed by modern state in purpose of disciplining individuals and augmenting their economic usefulness? Is it thus right – in the light of Foucault’s thought – to simultaneously claim that coaching is “neoliberal governmental technique” and afirm/promote it? keywords: Michał Mokrzan, Michel Foucault, polemics, coaching, neoliberalism, anthropology, governmentality, neoliberal regulation of individuals\",\"PeriodicalId\":36912,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Czas Kultury\",\"volume\":\"579 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Czas Kultury\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.61269/wnbe2190\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Czas Kultury","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.61269/wnbe2190","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

这篇文章是与米克沃夫·莫克赞的著作《晚期资本主义时代的阶级、资本和辅导》的论战。新自由主义政府的说服</i>(2019)。在众多反对意见中,有一条是最突出的。莫克赞在很大程度上抹掉了福柯思想的批判潜力,认为它只是一种有用的概念来源,用于分析用于优化个人的指导方法。在为现代国家权力服务的新话语中,关于人类自由和自决的限制,这里没有得出深远的结论。这样一个被驯化了的福柯,还是我们所熟悉的那个毫不留情地反对最复杂、最不起眼的权力形式的福柯吗?即使考虑到福柯对新自由主义的模棱两可的态度,以及他把所有的希望都放在自由市场作为限制权力的因素上,教练不是仍然是现代国家用来约束个人和增强其经济效用的一种近乎典范的工具吗?根据福柯的思想,在声称教练是“新自由主义的政府技术”的同时,肯定/促进它,这是正确的吗?关键词:米夏沃夫·莫克赞、米歇尔·福柯、论战、辅导、新自由主义、人类学、治理学、个人的新自由主义调控
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Coaching okiem (neoliberalnie myślącego) antropologa. Polemicznie nad książką Michała Mokrzana „Klasa, kapitał i coaching w dobie późnego kapitalizmu”
The article is a polemics with Michał Mokrzan’s book: Class, Capital and Coaching in the Age of Late Capitalism. Persuasion of Neoliberal Governmentality (2019). Among quite a few objections one comes to the fore. Mokrzan effaces to a large extent the critical potential of Foucault’s thought, perceiving it only as a source of useful concepts for the analysis of methods used in coaching for optimizing individuals. No far-reaching conclusions are drawn here regarding the limitation of human freedomand self-determination through new discourses at the service of the modern statebiopower. Is such a domesticated Foucault still the Foucault we have come to know as a relentless opponent of even most sophisticated and inconspicuous forms of power? And even given Foucault’s ambiguous attitude towards neoliberalism and all the hope the was putting in the idea of free market as a factor limiting power, does not coaching remain an almost exemplary tool employed by modern state in purpose of disciplining individuals and augmenting their economic usefulness? Is it thus right – in the light of Foucault’s thought – to simultaneously claim that coaching is “neoliberal governmental technique” and afirm/promote it? keywords: Michał Mokrzan, Michel Foucault, polemics, coaching, neoliberalism, anthropology, governmentality, neoliberal regulation of individuals
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Czas Kultury
Czas Kultury Social Sciences-Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信