Political Deficits: The Dawn of Neoliberal Rationality and the Eclipse of Critical Theory By William Andrew Callison A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science and the Designated Emphasis in Critical Theory in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Wendy Brown, Chair Professor Pheng Cheah Professor Kinch Hoekstra Professor Martin Jay Professor Hans Sluga Professor Shannon C. Stimson Summer 2019 Political Deficits: The Dawn of Neoliberal Rationality and the Eclipse of Critical Theory Copyright © 2019 William Andrew Callison All rights reserved. Abstract Political Deficits: The Dawn of Neoliberal Rationality and the Eclipse of Critical Theory By William Andrew Callison Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science and the Designated Emphasis in Critical Theory University of California, Berkeley Professor Wendy Brown, Chair This dissertation examines the changing relationship between social science, economic governance, and political imagination over the past century. It specifically focuses on neoliberal, ordoliberal and neo-Marxist visions of politics and rationality from the interwar period to the recent Eurocrisis. Beginning with the Methodenstreit (or “methodological dispute”) between Gustav von Schmoller and Carl Menger and the subsequent “socialist calculation debate” about markets and planning, the dissertation charts the political and epistemological formation of the Austrian School (e.g., Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich A. von Hayek), the Freiburg School (e.g., Walter Eucken, Wilhelm Röpke, Alexander Rüstow), the Chicago School (e.g., Henry Simons, Milton Friedman, Gary Becker), and the Frankfurt School (e.g., Max Horkheimer, Theodor W. Adorno, Jürgen Habermas). Combining archival research, textual interpretation, and theoretical reflection on these schools, it shows how critical theorists and political economists battled over the future of capitalism and socialism by redefining state, economy, and subjectivity in terms of their (ir)rationality. It also demonstrates the significance of the Austrian, Freiburg, Chicago and Frankfurt Schools’ free appropriation of Max Weber’s binary typologies, including markets vs. planning, formal calculation vs. substantive values, and rationality vs. irrationality. In turn, the dissertation argues that these and related approaches to political and economic rationalization displaced more radical visions of the political as collective struggle and self-rule—with profound implications for the “anti-political” crises of democracy today. 1 Table of Contents Acknowledgements ii Introduction Political Rationality in the Twentieth Century 1 Chapter 1 The Politics of the Rational: 35 The Austrian School, Max Weber, and the Socialist Calculation Debate Chapter 2 Constructions of Ordoliberal Rationality: 68 The Freiburg School, the Competitive Order, and the Social Question Chapter 3 Mutations of Neoliberal Rationality: 104 The Chicago School, Market Rule, and Crisis Management Chapter 4 The Rational Administration of Things: 124 The Frankfurt School, Weberian Dialectics, and Political Deficits Conclusion Political Deficits in the Twenty-First Century 167 i Acknowledgements This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, whose enduring love and support are what made it possible. My parents have weathered all of my highs and lows with care and humor, and for this I am forever grateful. I would like to thank Sarah and Corey, my sister and brother-in-law, for their bottomless joy and affection, and my Aunt Carol and Uncle Mike, for being such an important and caring presence during my many years in the Bay Area. I am also grateful for the loving hospitality of Dely, Shisho and my abuelita Elenita in Ecuador. And I wish to express my gratitude to Zona Roberts, my 99-year-old landlady and treasured friend, for her tireless activism in the independent living and disability rights movement, her daily wisdom with comedic flair, and her affordable monthly rate on the studio in the back. Wendy Brown has been my teacher, adviser, and dissertation Chair, but also so much more. With deep dedication to her pedagogical and professional craft, she has exemplified the art of illuminating complex texts and of meditating on matters of common concern that is political theory. Through the power of her example, and countless hours of deep and challenging conversation, Wendy has shaped the way I read and think. I am so grateful for this, and for all of her generosity, guidance, and support. My six-member committee not only reflects the interdisciplinary character of my studies at Berkeley, but also the scholars whose thinking and teaching have most influenced my development. Pheng Cheah’s seminars on poststructuralism and materialism were some of my most exhilarating at Berkeley, thanks to his interpretative precision, rigorous questioning, and exacting comments on my work. Kinch Hoekstra has been the very model of a careful reader and thinker, and I have been very fortunate to observe both his historical and Socratic style of inquiry in different fora over the years. Martin Jay’s work has long been an inspiration to me, and working with him at Berkeley has been immensely rewarding. His feedback has vastly improved this work, and our conversations (and disagreements) about Jürgen Habermas have sharpened my thinking on this and other subjects. Hans Sluga has been a valuable and delightful interlocutor, from our summer meetings to discuss Michel Foucault’s lectures to wide-ranging conversations following the 2016 election. Shannon Stimson’s personal and professional support, including a writing workshop she organized for graduate students, was absolutely indispensable during my first years at Berkeley. Michel Feher has been a sort of unofficial outside reader whose insightful feedback has informed and transformed this dissertation. In addition to his deep and sustained engagement with different parts of the manuscript, I would like to thank Michel for the inspiration that is his friendship, his writing, and his thinking. Zachary Manfredi and Milad Odabaei are dear friends and intellectual collaborators who have each shaped this dissertation in ways that are hard to fathom. I would like to thank Zak for our countless late-night conversations, for our shared projects and adventures, and for his own work, which I value deeply. I would like to thank Milad for the friendship that blossomed out of Wendy’s “Marx and Neoliberalism” seminar and grew through “Europe at a Crossroads,” and for his expansive way of thinking and questioning that has always pushed toward the limits of my own. Without Rosie Wagner and Ezra Furman I would be a different person. Rosie has been a guiding light and a brilliant colleague since my first evening in Berkeley. Ezra has been a spiritual guide ever since her arrival just a few months later. Their friendship means the world to me. ii Mathias Poertner’s friendship brightened my time in Berkeley and took me across three continents in our joint travels. I am in Mathias’ debt for so many things from late-night German language practice, to knowledge of German politics, to life-saving airline assistance. I am very lucky to have had Mathias and Danny Choi, two formidable political scientists, as “roommates” willing to field and contest my critiques of social scientific methods. My first years at Berkeley were exciting and eventful thanks to Mathias, Danny, Elsa Massoc, Leo Cohen, Denise van der Kamp, Rhea Myerschough, Shad Turney, Tomas Bril Mascarenhas, and many others in my cohort. Azar Dakwar and Sayres Rudy are the rarest kind of friends, and not just because I met each at conferences. Azar’s big heart and critical mind have been an oasis, and I treasured his semester- long visit in Berkeley. Sayres’ passionate intellect and generous feedback have been true gifts. Thomas Biebricher and Quinn Slobodian’s work on neoliberalism and ordoliberalism was an inspiration for me before I met either of them, and my friendship and collaboration with each has opened new paths of research and reflection. The political theory community at Berkeley has given my work meaning and direction. I was lucky to have Caitlin Tom, Rosie Wagner and Sam Zeitlin in my theory cohort and as my friends. Ali Bond and Nina Hagel warmly welcomed me to campus, offered wise guidance during my early years in the program, and were incredible interlocutors every step of the way. I would also like to thank other political theorists at Berkeley, including Nabil Ansari, Mark Fisher, Geoff Upton, Paul Martorelli, Jack Jackson, Richard Ashcroft, Quinlan Bowman, Nathan Pippenger, and Brian Judge. Jaeyoon Park, a recent arrival and dear friend, has been a delight to think with over the past several years. I would also like to thank my comrades Jay Varellas, Jake Grumbach and Katie Beall for their important work as departmental stewards in our graduate student union. My time at Berkeley was enriched by friendships that began outside of the department and deepened through long conversations on and off campus. I learned so much from, and am so grateful for, friends like Emily O’Rourke, Steve Levay, Jerilyn Sambrooke, Julian Jonker, Mukul Kumar, Kfir Cohen, Ari Edmunson, Tom Gilbert, and Nick Gooding. I am also grateful for the generous support given to me by Berkeley faculty, including Sarah Song, Andrius Galasanka, Steve Vogel, Dan Blanton, Suzanne Guerlac, Judith Butler, and Saba Mahmood. And I am thankful for