In 2014 Henry Giroux used the term “neoliberal violence” when writing about young people in the US protesting rising inequality, unemployment and the privatisation of public goods like health-care and education.
Now I’ve probably lost most people (unless you’re an academic type) with the term “neoliberal”. Sorry about that. But neoliberal violence has become a major focus of my PhD. The idea is important for how (particularly western) governments are doing their thing. Not just because of Trump or Brexit, but also because of all the issues like youth detention (Don Dale), education reform and the issues with energy in Australia.
So, here is a little intro to the idea. That will hopefully start to explain why it has become a central idea in my thesis.
Neoliberalism is hotly debated in academia. All sorts of elaborate ideas are being thrown around. This is one of my favourites:
Neoliberalism is best defined in opposition to “economic protection, state economic planning, state intervention, state regulation and mass social programs, all of which allegedly lead down the slippery slope of totalitarianism” (Dean, 2014: 151-152).
All clear? Good. But put simply, neoliberalism is the idea that people have individual rights (hence the liberal bit). But mostly this is emphasised as property rights (Fraser and Taylor, 2016: 3). And, there is a preference for “market solutions” (Bacchi, 2009: 276; Watts, 2013: 117). This just means that private enterprise can run things better than governments can.
This idea is often traced back to the end of world war 2 and a phenomenon called “the hollowing out of the welfare state” – sounds scary right? A guy by the name of Rhodes wrote a paper in which he argued that the British government is being “hollowed out”, by which he meant 4 things:
1) Privatising public intervention;
2) Shifting the service delivery of government departments to non-government agencies;
3) Shifting power from Brittan to the European Union; and
4) Less agency for public servants (Rhodes, 1984, pp. 138-139).
Other governments around the world started following suit, mainly because of (and this bit is the interesting bit) their inability to fulfil the promises made about reducing unemployment, reducing crime, reducing homelessness, etc etc.
To give you a quick example of how governments haven’t been able to do these things. This example is from juvenile justice:
A study in 2007 found re-offending rates in Australia range between 34% and 68%. This means in general terms that in the best case almost 4 out of 10 times the criminal justice system doesn’t prevent cycles of crime (Payne, 2007: 71-72).
Here is another one: A review of 548 crime prevention programs in the US by a guy called Lipsey (2009) found that juvenile crime prevention programs that were based on deterrent and surveillance actually increased the likelihood of reoffending (p. 139).
By the way, the ABC reported that in 2010 it cost $150 000 per year to keep 1 young person in detention. goo.gl/smA89v
Also, earlier this year the SA government mentioned that they were considering making changes to the youth justice system (goo.gl/YEVqmW). This idea comes around regularly. It’s a hot topic. And you know there is an election coming up soon (isn’t there always?).
So, what do governments do to try and fix this problem? They outsource. They become the “purchasers, rather than as providers, of services” (Healy, 2009: 402).
Now here is the trick. Yes, “the market” will probably run these services a whole lot cheaper than governments can. That’s how capitalism works. But it’s the market prioritises efficiency over public service values like: participation, justice, accountability and equity (Taylor, 2000: 53; Skelcher, 2000: 13).
This is how a “hollow” government can be violent. Efficiency might make sense when it comes to making M&Ms or toothpaste (however, I’m sure the ethical shopping movement might have some objections to this). Efficiency as the most important principle makes very little sense when it comes to providing services to young people (or any people). Or as Giroux puts it:
“As the welfare state is hollowed out, a culture of compassion is replaced by a culture of violence, cruelty, and disposability.” (p. 226)
The effects of neoliberal violence on young people and how they are resisting its ubiquitous mythology is the major theme of my thesis. I have a paper coming out soon that will look in more detail at neoliberal violence and youth. But if you are really interested now you can check a different paper I wrote about the alternative education system in South Australia (Here: goo.gl/9g4VF4). I don’t explicitly mention neoliberal violence, but the ideas are in there.
References:
Bacchi C. (2009) Analysing Policy: What’s the Problem Represented to Be?, Frenchs Forrest, NSW: Pearson.
Dean M. (2014) Rethinking neoliberalism. Journal of Sociology 50: 150-163.
Fraser H and Taylor N. (2016) Neoliberalisation, Universities and the Public Intellectual, UK: Palgrave Macmillian.
Healy K. (2009) A case of mistaken identity: The social welfare professions and New Public Management. Journal of Sociology 45: 401-418.
Lipsey MW. (2009) The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims and offenders 4: 124-147.
Payne J. (2007) Recidivism in Australia: findings and future research: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Skelcher C. (2000) Changing images of the state: overloaded, hollowed-out, congested. Public Policy and Administration 15: 3 – 19.
Taylor A. (2000) Hollowing out or filling in? Taskforces and the management of cross-cutting issues in British government. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 2: 46-71.
Watts R. (2013) On fictions and wicked problems: towards a social democratic criminology project in the age of neo-liberalism. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 2: 113-132.
Some Youthful Thoughts 