Stuart Hall on the NeoLiberal Revolution

The shorter version is in the Guardian; the longer (h/t Paul Gilroy) is here in PDF. Here, he argues (rightly) for the pertinence of the term “neoliberalism,” even if it seems to capture everything and nothing:

The term ‘neoliberal’ is not a satisfactory one. Its reference to the shaping influence of capitalism on modern life sounds recidivist to contemporary ears. Intellectual critics say the term lumps together too many things to merit a single identity; it is reductive, sacrificing attention to internal complexities and geohistorical specificity. I sympathise with this critique. However, I think there are enough common features to warrant giving it a provisional conceptual identity, provided this is understood as a first approximation. Even Marx argued that analysis yields understanding at different levels of abstraction, and critical thought often begins with a ‘chaotic’ abstraction – though we then need to add ‘further determinations’ in order to ‘reproduce the concrete in thought’. I would also argue that naming neoliberalism is politically necessary, to give resistance content, focus and a cutting edge…

One comment

Comments are closed.