What Kind of ‘Big Government’ is the Big Society? A Reply to Bulley and Sokhi-Bulley

IF 2.1 2区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS British Journal of Politics & International Relations Pub Date : 2014-05-21 DOI:10.1111/1467-856X.12046
Christopher Byrne, Peter Kerr, Emma Foster
{"title":"What Kind of ‘Big Government’ is the Big Society? A Reply to Bulley and Sokhi-Bulley","authors":"Christopher Byrne,&nbsp;Peter Kerr,&nbsp;Emma Foster","doi":"10.1111/1467-856X.12046","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>This article\n </p><ul>\n \n <li>Contributes to the debates applying Foucauldian theory to contemporary British Politics and invigorates the debate through a discussion with Bulley and Sokhi Bulley</li>\n \n <li>Develops understandings of contemporary British Politics under the Coalition government, particularly in light of the ‘Big Society’ project.</li>\n \n <li>Compares, through a Foucauldian framework, the differences and similarities between the New Labour (1997–2010) and Coalition (2010–) Governments</li>\n \n <li>Ultimately argues that the Coalition Government is demonstrative of a hybrid of the neo-liberal governmentality typical of the New Labour governments and a partial reversion to a more rudimentary Thatcherite form of neo-liberal governmentality.</li>\n </ul>\n <p>This article is a reply to Bulley and Sokhi-Bulley's recent article on the Big Society. We put forward two main criticisms of Bulley and Sokhi-Bulley's governmentality-focused approach in our alternative reading of the Big Society. Firstly, we argue that, given the ethopolitical strategies Bulley and Sokhi-Bulley focus their attention on are unlikely to produce the kind of transformation in the ethical outlook of citizens they suppose, the real historical significance of the Big Society must lie elsewhere. Secondly, we argue that Bulley and Sokhi-Bulley overlook the lines of continuity and discontinuity linking the Big Society to the forms of neo-liberal governmentality that have preceded it in British politics. In the final section of the article, we argue that the Cameron project amounts to both a partial continuation of the type of neo-liberal governmental rationality characteristic of the New Labour project and a partial reversion to a more rudimentary Thatcherite form of neo-liberal governmentality.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":51479,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Politics & International Relations","volume":"16 3","pages":"471-478"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2014-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/1467-856X.12046","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Politics & International Relations","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-856X.12046","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

This article

  • Contributes to the debates applying Foucauldian theory to contemporary British Politics and invigorates the debate through a discussion with Bulley and Sokhi Bulley
  • Develops understandings of contemporary British Politics under the Coalition government, particularly in light of the ‘Big Society’ project.
  • Compares, through a Foucauldian framework, the differences and similarities between the New Labour (1997–2010) and Coalition (2010–) Governments
  • Ultimately argues that the Coalition Government is demonstrative of a hybrid of the neo-liberal governmentality typical of the New Labour governments and a partial reversion to a more rudimentary Thatcherite form of neo-liberal governmentality.

This article is a reply to Bulley and Sokhi-Bulley's recent article on the Big Society. We put forward two main criticisms of Bulley and Sokhi-Bulley's governmentality-focused approach in our alternative reading of the Big Society. Firstly, we argue that, given the ethopolitical strategies Bulley and Sokhi-Bulley focus their attention on are unlikely to produce the kind of transformation in the ethical outlook of citizens they suppose, the real historical significance of the Big Society must lie elsewhere. Secondly, we argue that Bulley and Sokhi-Bulley overlook the lines of continuity and discontinuity linking the Big Society to the forms of neo-liberal governmentality that have preceded it in British politics. In the final section of the article, we argue that the Cameron project amounts to both a partial continuation of the type of neo-liberal governmental rationality characteristic of the New Labour project and a partial reversion to a more rudimentary Thatcherite form of neo-liberal governmentality.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
大社会是什么样的“大政府”?对Bulley和Sokhi-Bulley的回复
本文有助于将福柯理论应用于当代英国政治的辩论,并通过与Bulley和Sokhi的讨论激发辩论。Bulley发展了对联合政府下当代英国政治的理解,特别是在“大社会”项目的背景下。通过福柯式的框架,比较新工党(1997-2010)和联合政府(2010 -)政府之间的异同,最终认为联合政府是新工党政府典型的新自由主义治理方式和部分回归到更基本的撒切尔式新自由主义治理方式的混合体。这篇文章是对Bulley和Sokhi-Bulley最近关于大社会的文章的回复。在我们对《大社会》的另类解读中,我们对Bulley和Sokhi-Bulley的以政府为中心的方法提出了两个主要批评。首先,我们认为,鉴于Bulley和Sokhi-Bulley关注的民族政治策略不太可能产生他们所认为的公民道德观的那种转变,大社会的真正历史意义必须在其他地方。其次,我们认为,Bulley和Sokhi-Bulley忽略了将“大社会”与之前在英国政治中出现的新自由主义治理形式联系起来的连续性和非连续性的线条。在文章的最后一部分,我们认为卡梅伦计划相当于新工党计划特征的新自由主义政府理性类型的部分延续,以及对新自由主义治理的更基本的撒切尔形式的部分回归。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: BJPIR provides an outlet for the best of British political science and of political science on Britain Founded in 1999, BJPIR is now based in the School of Politics at the University of Nottingham. It is a major refereed journal published by Blackwell Publishing under the auspices of the Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom. BJPIR is committed to acting as a broadly-based outlet for the best of British political science and of political science on Britain. A fully refereed journal, it publishes topical, scholarly work on significant debates in British scholarship and on all major political issues affecting Britain"s relationship to Europe and the world.
期刊最新文献
Crisis politics of dehumanisation during COVID-19: A framework for mapping the social processes through which dehumanisation undermines human dignity. Britain's COVID-19 battle: The role of political leaders in shaping the responses to the pandemic. COVID-19 vaccine apartheid and the failure of global cooperation. Alcohol policy, multi-level governance and corporate political strategy: The campaign for Scotland's minimum unit pricing in Edinburgh, London and Brussels. 'The Pope's own hand outstretched': Holy See diplomacy as a hybrid mode of diplomatic agency.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1