为什么生命值得拯救?新自由主义、COVID-19和鲍里斯·约翰逊的公开声明

Q2 Arts and Humanities Praktyka Teoretyczna Pub Date : 2021-12-15 DOI:10.14746/prt2021.4.7
Jeremiah Morelock, Yonathan Listik, Mili Kalia
{"title":"为什么生命值得拯救?新自由主义、COVID-19和鲍里斯·约翰逊的公开声明","authors":"Jeremiah Morelock, Yonathan Listik, Mili Kalia","doi":"10.14746/prt2021.4.7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We apply Brown’s Foucauldian framework on neoliberalism to the COVID-19 crisis in the UK, and use qualitative content analysis to interpret the moral logics within 32 of Boris Johnson’s public statements on COVID-19. We present the content analysis in six parts. For the first four parts, we apply four elements of Brown’s framework: economization, governance, responsibilization, and sacrifice. Next, we explain two other moral logics—utilitarian and sympathetic. Johnson’s condensation of logics contains ideological connotations: neoliberal rationality serves the mass of people and the purpose of sympathy. Within Brown’s conceptual framework, the problem is not just the domination of the market, but the logic that grants the market legitimation as a human-centered logic. The adjustment we suggest is in recognizing the human-centered aspect as not a veneer for neoliberalism, but rather as a collection of disparate moral logics, combined with them smoothly on the surface, but messily underneath.","PeriodicalId":36093,"journal":{"name":"Praktyka Teoretyczna","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why is Life Worth Saving? Neoliberalism, COVID-19, and Boris Johnson’s Public Statements\",\"authors\":\"Jeremiah Morelock, Yonathan Listik, Mili Kalia\",\"doi\":\"10.14746/prt2021.4.7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We apply Brown’s Foucauldian framework on neoliberalism to the COVID-19 crisis in the UK, and use qualitative content analysis to interpret the moral logics within 32 of Boris Johnson’s public statements on COVID-19. We present the content analysis in six parts. For the first four parts, we apply four elements of Brown’s framework: economization, governance, responsibilization, and sacrifice. Next, we explain two other moral logics—utilitarian and sympathetic. Johnson’s condensation of logics contains ideological connotations: neoliberal rationality serves the mass of people and the purpose of sympathy. Within Brown’s conceptual framework, the problem is not just the domination of the market, but the logic that grants the market legitimation as a human-centered logic. The adjustment we suggest is in recognizing the human-centered aspect as not a veneer for neoliberalism, but rather as a collection of disparate moral logics, combined with them smoothly on the surface, but messily underneath.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36093,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Praktyka Teoretyczna\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Praktyka Teoretyczna\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14746/prt2021.4.7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Praktyka Teoretyczna","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14746/prt2021.4.7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

我们将布朗关于新自由主义的福柯框架应用于英国新冠肺炎危机,并使用定性内容分析来解释鲍里斯·约翰逊关于新冠肺炎的公开声明中的32个道德逻辑。我们将内容分析分为六个部分。在前四部分,我们应用了布朗框架的四个要素:节约、治理、责任化和牺牲。接下来,我们解释另外两种道德逻辑——功利主义和同情主义。约翰逊逻辑的浓缩包含着意识形态的内涵:新自由主义理性是为人民大众服务的,是同情的目的。在布朗的概念框架内,问题不仅在于市场的支配,还在于将市场合法化为以人为中心的逻辑的逻辑。我们建议的调整是认识到以人为中心的方面不是新自由主义的外表,而是一个不同道德逻辑的集合,表面上与之平滑结合,但内心混乱。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Why is Life Worth Saving? Neoliberalism, COVID-19, and Boris Johnson’s Public Statements
We apply Brown’s Foucauldian framework on neoliberalism to the COVID-19 crisis in the UK, and use qualitative content analysis to interpret the moral logics within 32 of Boris Johnson’s public statements on COVID-19. We present the content analysis in six parts. For the first four parts, we apply four elements of Brown’s framework: economization, governance, responsibilization, and sacrifice. Next, we explain two other moral logics—utilitarian and sympathetic. Johnson’s condensation of logics contains ideological connotations: neoliberal rationality serves the mass of people and the purpose of sympathy. Within Brown’s conceptual framework, the problem is not just the domination of the market, but the logic that grants the market legitimation as a human-centered logic. The adjustment we suggest is in recognizing the human-centered aspect as not a veneer for neoliberalism, but rather as a collection of disparate moral logics, combined with them smoothly on the surface, but messily underneath.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Praktyka Teoretyczna
Praktyka Teoretyczna Arts and Humanities-Literature and Literary Theory
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
„Na hałdach rosną ludzie”: literacka historia pogórniczych środowisk sprzymierzeńczych The Doomsday Economy: Colonial Violence, Environmental Catastrophe, and Burning Tires in Palestine Dialektyka natury i społeczeństwa przeciwko monizmowi. Esej recenzyjny z „Marx in the Anthropocene” Kohei Saita (2023, Cambridge University Press) Francuski atom a kapitał symboliczny Bourdieu Rewolucyjne siły reprodukcji? Esej recenzyjny wokół książki Stefanii Barci, „Forces of Reproduction: Notes for a Counter-Hegemonic Anthropocene” (2020, Cambridge University Press)
×
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