新自由主义英国的弹性、基础设施和反社会契约

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q2 ANTHROPOLOGY
Benjamin O. L. Bowles
{"title":"新自由主义英国的弹性、基础设施和反社会契约","authors":"Benjamin O. L. Bowles","doi":"10.1177/0308275X221120171","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"‘Resilience’, a quintessentially neoliberal concept, has never been a politically neutral discourse, its intellectual roots situated in the work of Friedrich Hayek and the birth of neoliberal economics. Nevertheless, resilience in infrastructure is often cast as a technocratic, apolitical consideration. This article argues that this is not the case. Using data collected during fieldwork with the UK Government Cabinet Office during a consultation on how to make infrastructure ‘resilient by design’, resilience discourse is shown to be a tool with which government departments, regulators and companies make communities increasingly responsible for the provision and maintenance of their own infrastructure while justifying service failures as inevitable. This is an under-explored discursive battleground in the neoliberal reframing of the social contract as anti-social; concerning the profit-driven logics of corporate entities as balanced by the rights of individual consumers, and no longer about the relationship between ‘the state’ and a collective civil society.","PeriodicalId":46784,"journal":{"name":"Critique of Anthropology","volume":"42 1","pages":"270 - 285"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Resilience, infrastructure and the anti-social contract in neoliberal Britain\",\"authors\":\"Benjamin O. L. Bowles\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0308275X221120171\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"‘Resilience’, a quintessentially neoliberal concept, has never been a politically neutral discourse, its intellectual roots situated in the work of Friedrich Hayek and the birth of neoliberal economics. Nevertheless, resilience in infrastructure is often cast as a technocratic, apolitical consideration. This article argues that this is not the case. Using data collected during fieldwork with the UK Government Cabinet Office during a consultation on how to make infrastructure ‘resilient by design’, resilience discourse is shown to be a tool with which government departments, regulators and companies make communities increasingly responsible for the provision and maintenance of their own infrastructure while justifying service failures as inevitable. This is an under-explored discursive battleground in the neoliberal reframing of the social contract as anti-social; concerning the profit-driven logics of corporate entities as balanced by the rights of individual consumers, and no longer about the relationship between ‘the state’ and a collective civil society.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46784,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critique of Anthropology\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"270 - 285\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critique of Anthropology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0308275X221120171\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critique of Anthropology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0308275X221120171","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

“弹性”,一个典型的新自由主义概念,从来就不是一个政治中立的话语,它的思想根源位于弗里德里希·哈耶克的工作和新自由主义经济学的诞生。然而,基础设施的弹性往往被视为技术官僚的、非政治的考虑。本文认为事实并非如此。在与英国政府内阁办公室就如何使基础设施“设计具有弹性”进行磋商期间,使用在实地调查中收集的数据,弹性话语被证明是政府部门,监管机构和公司使社区越来越多地负责提供和维护自己的基础设施,同时证明服务故障是不可避免的。在新自由主义将社会契约重构为反社会的过程中,这是一个未被充分探索的话语战场;关注企业实体的利润驱动逻辑,以个体消费者的权利为平衡,而不再关注“国家”与集体公民社会之间的关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Resilience, infrastructure and the anti-social contract in neoliberal Britain
‘Resilience’, a quintessentially neoliberal concept, has never been a politically neutral discourse, its intellectual roots situated in the work of Friedrich Hayek and the birth of neoliberal economics. Nevertheless, resilience in infrastructure is often cast as a technocratic, apolitical consideration. This article argues that this is not the case. Using data collected during fieldwork with the UK Government Cabinet Office during a consultation on how to make infrastructure ‘resilient by design’, resilience discourse is shown to be a tool with which government departments, regulators and companies make communities increasingly responsible for the provision and maintenance of their own infrastructure while justifying service failures as inevitable. This is an under-explored discursive battleground in the neoliberal reframing of the social contract as anti-social; concerning the profit-driven logics of corporate entities as balanced by the rights of individual consumers, and no longer about the relationship between ‘the state’ and a collective civil society.
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
Critique of Anthropology
Critique of Anthropology ANTHROPOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
8.30%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Critique of Anthropology is dedicated to the development of anthropology as a discipline that subjects social reality to critical analysis. It publishes academic articles and other materials which contribute to an understanding of the determinants of the human condition, structures of social power, and the construction of ideologies in both contemporary and past human societies from a cross-cultural and socially critical standpoint. Non-sectarian, and embracing a diversity of theoretical and political viewpoints, COA is also committed to the principle that anthropologists cannot and should not seek to avoid taking positions on political and social questions.
×
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