Is neoliberalism bad for your health?
The nature of public debates can sometimes be surprising to those exploring the field of economics; while it is good to discuss beliefs and dogmas, certain ideologies rarely seem to be the subject of major debates—and neoliberalism is one such example.
Ousama Bouiss, Paris Dauphine University – PSL and Florence Rodhain, University of Montpellier
While the so-called “liberal” mindset— characteristic of the rationalist tradition of the Enlightenment—places the principles of liberty, equality, solidarity, and democracy at the heart of our Constitution, an ideology seems to have “stealthily” (in the words of political scientist Wendy Brown) carried out its revolution. This neoliberal ideology, based on a form of generalized market rationality, is well known to management researchers.
First of all, to understand “neoliberalism,” Alain Supiot suggests beginning the analysis by reading the Declaration of Philadelphia, adopted on May 10, 1944, by the General Conference of the International Labor Organization (ILO). This liberal-inspired text, aimed at building on the achievements of the New Deal implemented by Roosevelt in the United States, seeks to offer an alternative model to the ideology that views human beings as resources. Thus, this declaration promotes social justice and is based on the defense of four fundamental freedoms proclaimed by Roosevelt: freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and freedom from want and fear. Furthermore, the ILO sets itself the goal of supporting public programs to enable workers to gain access “to occupations in which they may find satisfaction in fully utilizing their skills and knowledge and in contributing as effectively as possible to the common good.”
The Rise of Competition
However, as Supiot notes, while the spirit of this declaration places social justice at the center of discussions about work, a “major shift” has led to the establishment of neoliberal ideology. Its primary characteristic is to view human beings as a resource that can be organized and managed according to the laws of science. Thus, labor is conceived as a commodity, and democracy is abandoned in favor of market forces, while social justice is sacrificed in favor of competition. According to sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, at the institutional level, this gives rise to “a Darwinian world of everyone against everyone else, at every level of the hierarchy, where the driving forces behind commitment to one’s work and the company are insecurity, suffering, and stress.”
Do we personally suffer from neoliberal ideology?
This latest statement by the renowned sociologist echoes a recent study conducted by a team of social psychology researchers and published in *The British Journal of Social Psychology*. While neoliberalism has become the quintessential dominant ideology worldwide, there has been little empirical research into its impact on the psyche. The researchers were able to demonstrate that neoliberalism, by promoting and seeking to increase a competitive spirit while reducing the sense of connection to others, thereby increases feelings of loneliness, which leads to psychological distress… and thus impacts health.
Previous research had already shown that social isolation, loneliness (imposed rather than chosen), and living alone are among the most powerful determinants of mortality. Other studies have shown that loneliness is linked to stress hormones and affects the proper functioning of the immune and cardiovascular systems. Loneliness—when it is imposed rather than chosen—therefore has a major impact on health. By promoting it, neoliberalism affects human health. Of course, the subjective quality of social connections also matters, beyond their quantity.
Neoliberalism promotes and values individualism and thus impacts health through two related mechanisms, the authors explain. The first is the view of the individual as an entrepreneur competing with others, who must ensure his or her own personal development. The responsibility for success rests solely on the shoulders of the isolated individual; this breaks the bonds of solidarity, reduces well-being, and increases feelings of insecurity, anxiety, stress, and depression.
Furthermore, neoliberalism distances individuals from group life and its potential healing effects. Indeed, belonging to one or more groups, being supported by them, and having a strong sense of social identity are the foundation of social and psychological resources that help improve health.
Are the democratic foundations of our collective life under threat?
However, such an approach seems insufficient to political theorist Wendy Brown of the University of California, Berkeley, who views neoliberalism as a “stealth revolution.” In her book Undoing the Demos, she demonstrates how neoliberal ideology was constructed through the synthesis of economic ideas (drawn from Austro-Germanordoliberalism and the Chicago Monetarist School) and its “stealthy” implementation. For Brown, the main characteristic of neoliberalism is not the competitive ideal as the overarching logic for regulating the social world, but rather the idea that this competition must be produced by the state. Consequently, “growth is the state’s raison d’état.”
This then leads to the gradual spread of competitive logic even into the management of public affairs, as well as to a strengthening of authoritarianism. Thus, “public life is reduced to problem-solving and the implementation of programs—a conception that sidelines or eliminates politics, conflict, and deliberation regarding shared values and common goals.” Furthermore, according to both Wendy Brown and Alain Supiot, neoliberal ideology contributes to a weakening of the law, which is itself subject to economic logic. As Supiot puts it:
“The rule of law is thus replaced by‘law shopping,’ so that the law is subject to a utility calculation, rather than economic calculations being subject to the law.”
A law against neoliberal “separatism”?
The various scientific studies cited in this article strongly support economist Joseph Stiglitz’s conclusion: “Neoliberal fundamentalism is a political doctrine that serves private interests; it is not based on economic theory. It is now clear that it is not based on historical experience either. This lesson is the only benefit to be drawn from the threat facing the global economy.” What should we do with this lesson? Enact a law to combat “neoliberal separatism”? Indeed, there is no shortage of researchers who have worked on this subject. The few studies by eminent scholars from various disciplines clearly demonstrate the risks that neoliberalism poses to our individual and social health.
For Alain Supiot, a legal scholar, philosopher, and professor at the Collège de France, a possible solution lies in reforming labor law. In the face of the digital revolution, neoliberalism has revealed its inability to provide norms for organizing collective life that are capable of addressing the challenges of social justice and equality. The challenge, then, is “to establish a certain form of economic democracy, without which political democracy can only continue to wither away.” To this end, he calls for efforts to “give everyone greater autonomy and responsibility in managing their working lives, while providing new forms of security.”
Finally, according to sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, “it is in fact the persistence or survival of the institutions and agents of the old order—which is in the process of being dismantled—along with the work of all categories of social workers, as well as all forms of social, familial, and other forms of solidarity, that prevent the social order from collapsing into chaos despite the growing number of people living in precarious conditions.” Thus, resistance to neoliberal ideology could involve the formation of “collectives oriented toward the rational pursuit of collectively developed and approved goals.”
In short, as proposed by Wendy Brown and many others before her—such as the philosopher Bertrand Russell and the novelist George Orwell—a radical return to democracy that would necessarily subordinate market rationality to democratic rationality, which would replace governance by numbers with governance through deliberation; and competition for profit with the exchange of reasons for the sake of truth and the common good.
Ousama Bouiss, Ph.D. candidate in strategy and organizational theory, Paris Dauphine University – PSL and Florence Rodhain, Associate Professor (HDR) in Information Systems, University of Montpellier
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Readthe original article.