Historicising the Neoliberal Spirit of Capitalism

What is new about neoliberalism? Such a question immediately implies that certain objects and processes can be defined as ‘neoliberal’ and, importantly, that the contents of the ‘neo’ can be explained by reference to a larger phenomenon called liberalism. A veritable galaxy of things are now attached to the term ‘neoliberalism’, if not as some primary identifying marker then at least as one descriptive property among others. This chapter seeks to offer a window through which to problematize and analyse this core, if recalcitrant, question. In keeping with other debates in the social sciences, it proposes that the frame of neoliberalism tries to capture something about developments in capitalism since the 1970s, with commodification, financialization, and general moves towards ‘market-based’ modes of regulation or governmentality being major debates in the literature (Harvey 2005; Brenner et al. 2010; Peck et al. 2012; Springer 2010, 2012). While accepting this temporal frame as a starting point, the chapter seeks to contextualize the history of neoliberalism in two ways. First, the chapter sheds a sharper light on the relationship between capitalism and its mechanisms of legitimation, particularly at the level of everyday experience. Second, within the inevitable space constraints, the argument traces certain threads of meaning that connect the history of the liberal tradition to the present, specifically the themes of individualism, universalism, and meliorism. Thus, the chapter aims to reveal how justifications for neoliberal capitalist practices are the product of a long history of social struggles that are, moreover, often confusing, multifarious, and even contradictory. Ironically, once this perspective is recognized, the task of deciphering contemporary neoliberalism arguably becomes harder, particularly concerning efforts to understand where certain ideas and values tied to neoliberalism acquire their commonsensical power. If neoliberalism is a moving concept then scholarship needs to be equally adept at moving with it

Schools, families, and social reproduction

Neoliberal educational discourse across the Global North is marked by an increasing homogeneity, but this masks significant socio-spatial differences in the enactment of policy. The authors focus on four facets of roll-out neoliberalism in English education policy that have expanded the function of primary schools, and redrawn the boundary between state and family responsibilities. Specifically, these are increased state support for: (1) working parenthood through provision of wraparound childcare; (2) parent-child relationships through school-led provision of parenting classes; (3) parental involvement in children’s learning; and (4) child development through schools’ fostering of extracurricular activities. The politics of policies that both enhance state responsibility for, and influence in, matters that were previously within the purview of families are complex. The collective impact of these developments has been both to reform how the work of daily and generational social reproduction is done, and to reshape the social reproduction of a classed and gendered society

Preaching to the choir: patterns of non/diversity in youth citizenship movements

Within many youth-focused or youth-led civic and political action groups in the UK, a common discursive refrain is the importance of promoting equality and diversity in politics in order to empower the participation of marginalised young people and communities. This chapter explores the dynamics of diversity in two youth-led UK political groups, in order to understand rhetorical positions and material outcomes of organisational commitments to prioritising diversity. Reflecting on the implications of the contrasting ‘diversity’ repertoires of both organisations (Momentum and My Life My Say), this chapter explores how economic, social and historical contexts inflect youth citizenship spaces and suggests how strategies for effective diversification of youth citizenship movements can begin to expand possibilities for meaningful inclusion practices in youth politics