Downloading of the Risks of Social Life Often Makes Individuals Feel More Vulnerable and Renders Their Lives More Precarious
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CRITICAL THEORY, DEMOCRACY, AND THE CHALLENGE OF NEOLIBERALISM Critical Theory, Democracy, and the Challenge of Neoliberalism BRIAN CATERINO AND PHILLIP HANSEN UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESS Toronto Buffalo London © University of Toronto Press 2019 Toronto Buffalo London utorontopress.com Printed in Canada ISBN 978-1-4875-0546-2 Printed on acid-free, 100% post-consumer recycled paper with vegetable-based inks. Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Title: Critical theory, democracy, and the challenge of neoliberalism / Brian Caterino and Phillip Hansen. Names: Caterino, Brian, author. | Hansen, Phillip, 1949– author. Description: Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: Canadiana 20190096950 | ISBN 9781487505462 (hardcover) Subjects: LCSH: Democracy – Philosophy. | LCSH: Critical theory. | LCSH: Neoliberalism. | LCSH: Liberty – Philosophy. | LCSH: Frankfurt school of sociology. Classification: LCC JC423 .C38 2019 | DDC 321.8—dc23 CC-BY-NC-ND This work is published subject to a Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivative License. For permission to publish commercial versions please contact University of Tor onto Press. This book has been published with the help of a grant from the Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences, through the Awards to Scholarly Publications Program, using funds provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. University of Toronto Press acknowledges the financial assistance to its publishing program of the Canada Council for the Arts and the Ontario Arts Council, an agency of the Government of Ontario. Funded by the Financé par le Government gouvernement of Canada du Canada Contents Acknowledgments vii Introduction 3 1 Macpherson, Habermas, and the Demands of Democratic Theory 18 2 Reason, Truth, and Power: The Challenges of Contemporary Critical Theory 52 3 Critical Theory and Neoliberalism 104 4 Towards a Critical Theory of Democracy: Deliberation, Self-interest, and Solidarity 155 5 Towards a Critical Theory of Democracy: The Frankfurt School and Democratic Theory 194 6 Towards a Critical Theory of Democracy: Participatory Democracy and Social Freedom 232 Conclusion: Critical Theory and Radical Reform 282 Notes 295 Index 333 Acknowledgments This book is the product of a lengthy conversation over nearly three decades about the requirements and demands of critical social and political theory in the face of contemporary challenges. We hope to con- tribute to ongoing discussions and debates and welcome any comments our readers might have about our ideas and concerns. Both of us want to thank the readers for the Press for their helpful comments and criticisms. We are grateful as well to the Awards to Scholarly Publications Program of the Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences for its financial support. But we want especially to thank Daniel Quinlan, our editor for the Press, who has been stalwart in his support of this project and who has expertly ensured the smooth passage of our manuscript from submis- sion to publication. Daniel’s enthusiasm and overall professionalism epitomize the very best qualities of an outstanding academic editor. Brian Caterino would like to thank Lori for her support during the writing of this project. Phillip Hansen would like once more to thank the Bushwakker semi- nar group – Joe, Fay, and Lorne – for yet again being an anchor of friend- ship and support. Sadly, Sheila is no longer with us. But she lives on in our memories of times shared and cherished. But above all, Laureen – for whom, as ever, there are no words enough … CRITICAL THEORY, DEMOCRACY, AND THE CHALLENGE OF NEOLIBERALISM Introduction Contemporary democratic theory represents a paradox. While academic analysis is a robust enterprise, democratic practice in Western society is increasingly fragile and under siege. There is little shortage of opinion on democratic designs, but very few designs on institutions. To be sure, much has been written about how democracy relates to globalization and the nation-state, to immigration and multiculturalism, to human rights and international and cosmopolitan notions and institutions of justice. Yet contemporary states that claim to be or are considered to be thriving democracies present a far less rosy picture. This picture is at odds with currently dominant accounts of democ- racy, which have been powerfully shaped by a triumphant liberalism, in particular its neoliberal form. This development is the culmination of a dynamic that began after the Second World War. Neoliberals like Friedrich Hayek, as well as chastened liberals like Karl Popper and Isa- iah Berlin, feared that the values of Western society had come under attack and indeed had been subordinated to “collectivist,” socialist commitments. They rejected the social democratic version of liberalism – that of John Dewey stands out here – and reformulated a version of the classical liberal conception of the possessive individual, one who is a maximizer of goods. This line of thought, carried forward and further developed by contemporary neoliberalism, is sceptical of the idea of a general will or a participatory democracy. Yet these neoliberal models are not simply a recasting of the clas- sical Hobbesian or Lockean perspectives. Combined with theories of social choice, they posit models of social action that have an affinity with a large-scale market economy in which the rationality of consum- ers is identified with a concatenation of choices. This methodological individualism has a weak link to the moral individualism of classical liberalism and its notion of limited sovereignty. While contemporary 4 Critical Theory, Democracy, and the Challenge of Neoliberalism neoliberalism calls for the deregulation of economic relationships and the marketization of spheres of society previously regulated norma- tively, it paradoxically rests on the surveillance and control of indi- vidual behaviour designed to ensure that this behaviour conforms to market standards. Neoliberal regimes value fealty to the market over commitment to traditional democratic norms. The rejection of more radical accounts of democratic possibilities is not restricted to neoliberals of whatever theoretical orientation. The idea of a democracy dedicated to the overthrow of hierarchical power rela- tions throughout the width and breadth of society, and to the subjec- tion of social forces to conscious regulation, has withered. Most theories reject the notion that there is any alternative to a moderate revision of existing institutions. Concerns about social and economic structure are safely consigned to the domain of distributive justice, where the tensions and problems they generate can be successfully addressed and man- aged. There is little fundamental engagement with the constraints, struc- tural conditions, and historical possibilities associated with contempo- rary capitalism. In other words, there is little evidence of critical political economy in the outlook and theoretical assumptions of much current thinking about democracy. (And a good deal of what political economy does find its way into this theory is decidedly neoclassical and micro- economic, with an emphasis on individual maximization and rational choice; this is the case even for theories harbouring a critical intent.) One important basis for this restrictive view can be traced to “third way” conceptions of politics in contemporary democracies. Although primarily associated with Tony Blair and Bill Clinton during their days in office as, respectively, prime minister of the United Kingdom and president of the United States, and hence most prominent during the late 1990s and early 2000s, third way accounts of political possibili- ties continue to provide an important subtext to contemporary public life in leading liberal democratic polities. According to Anthony Gid- dens, a key adviser to Blair and an important architect of the position, the third way model lays out a revised social democratic alternative to both free market capitalism and state socialism – but without the “statist” commitments of classical postwar social democracy. The third way rejects market fundamentalism but also dismisses state socialism as an implausible option in the face of the supposedly unchallengeable superiority of markets as coordinators of economic activity. Third way assumptions undergird a limited set of possibilities based on an incre- mental approach to social justice and inequality. To be sure, proponents of the third way profess commitment to social cohesion and community. However, they typically call for neoliberal Introduction 5 rather than Keynesian economic policies to achieve their goals. This has led in practice to deregulation and marketization that is incompat- ible with the reduction of inequality. In the United States during the Clinton administration, pursuit of the neoliberal agenda brought forth policies of welfare reform, prison expansion, bank deregulation, and (later) school privatization, often in the name of personal responsibility. Subsequent administrations, both Democrat and Republican, have not deviated significantly from this approach. Even those who do not follow the third way have been subtly influ- enced by the post- Keynesian change in the political and economic cli- mate. For many citizens, the question of what a good life means has decidedly narrowed and the barriers to achieving it have become more imposing. It is now more or less taken for granted that there are signifi- cant