Search results

In a context that is directly linked to the interest movement that was borrowed by institutions of higher education, authors such as Michel Freitag (1995, 2002, 2008, 2011), Bill Readings (1997) or Michel Seymour (2013) focused on the misappropriation of the foundations of education, in favor of the economic needs of the new corporatist society.

Through his work on the idea of recognition, Axel Honneth (1996, 2007a, 2007b, 2010, 2014) has managed to draw an interesting critique of contemporary Western society and the “use” it makes of individuals. With the publication of Disrespect: The Normative Foundation of Critical Theory (Honneth, 2007b) and Reification: A Recognition Theoretical View (Honneth, 2007a), Honneth sets the tone for the demanding character of his critique, which calls for a reconsideration of the intrinsic value of subjects, with regard to their own needs, their freedom and their identity.

Considering that higher education institutions tend to focus more and more on private interests, for example, by considerably diminishing professors’ academic freedom over the years, it seems imperative to question these power relations between them and civil society (which, of course, is not homogeneous). This will be the subject of our chapter, which will be based on works from both philosophy and sociology.

This paper aims to better understand why neoliberal governance is so resilient to the crises that frequently affect all or part of the economy.

The argument of this paper relies on a macroanalysis of discourses surrounding the Global Financial Crisis.

Drawing on Girard and Foucault’s work, this paper argues that the resilience of neoliberalism partly ensues from the proclivity of this mode of governing to foster, for reasons that this paper seeks to highlight, spontaneous and widespread processes of scapegoating in times of turmoil. As a consequence of these processes, crises often are collectively construed as resulting from frauds: the blame is focused on specific actors whose lack of morality is denounced, and this individualizing line of interpretation protects the regime from systemic questioning.

Particular actors, rather than the system itself, are made accountable when things go wrong. Consequences are paramount. Today’s political economy is characterized with a proclivity toward social reproduction. While substantive change is possible in theory, considerable challenges are involved in practice in overcoming the dominance of neoliberalism in society.

Although Girard’s work has exerted significant influence over a number of disciplines in the social sciences, his ideas have not yet been widely used in governance and accountability-related research. Anthropological theorizations – such as those proposed by Girard – are valuable in providing us with a sense of how power develops in the economy.