重新定义21世纪的自由:新自由主义vs.去增长

IF 3.8 2区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS New Political Economy Pub Date : 2023-07-04 DOI:10.1080/13563467.2022.2149719
Felix Windegger, C. Spash
{"title":"重新定义21世纪的自由:新自由主义vs.去增长","authors":"Felix Windegger, C. Spash","doi":"10.1080/13563467.2022.2149719","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The hegemonic role of neoliberal ideas in today’s political-economic thought and practice has shaped the common way of thinking about freedom in Western society and more generally in the international community. This involves a negative, individualistic and market-centred interpretation of the concept. In contrast, visions of a degrowth society offer a radical alternative based on Cornelius Castoriadis’ notion of individual and social autonomy. We present both positions and explain their differences. We then follow this up by reporting on a questionnaire conducted at the 2018 Degrowth Conference in Malmö, Sweden. This empirical study of the degrowth movement probes the extent to which advocates actually follow the Castoriadian as opposed to the hegemonic neoliberal theory. While participants were found to hold positions consistent with the Castoriadian theory, we also identify contradictory and under-conceptualised aspects in their understanding of freedom. This points to the need for the degrowth movement to directly address its theoretical foundations, and elaborate on and strengthen its vision of freedom compatible with a future degrowth society in order to avoid potential co-option and becoming sub-hegemonic.","PeriodicalId":51447,"journal":{"name":"New Political Economy","volume":"28 1","pages":"554 - 573"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reconceptualising freedom in the 21st century: neoliberalism vs. degrowth\",\"authors\":\"Felix Windegger, C. Spash\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13563467.2022.2149719\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The hegemonic role of neoliberal ideas in today’s political-economic thought and practice has shaped the common way of thinking about freedom in Western society and more generally in the international community. This involves a negative, individualistic and market-centred interpretation of the concept. In contrast, visions of a degrowth society offer a radical alternative based on Cornelius Castoriadis’ notion of individual and social autonomy. We present both positions and explain their differences. We then follow this up by reporting on a questionnaire conducted at the 2018 Degrowth Conference in Malmö, Sweden. This empirical study of the degrowth movement probes the extent to which advocates actually follow the Castoriadian as opposed to the hegemonic neoliberal theory. While participants were found to hold positions consistent with the Castoriadian theory, we also identify contradictory and under-conceptualised aspects in their understanding of freedom. This points to the need for the degrowth movement to directly address its theoretical foundations, and elaborate on and strengthen its vision of freedom compatible with a future degrowth society in order to avoid potential co-option and becoming sub-hegemonic.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51447,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"New Political Economy\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"554 - 573\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"New Political Economy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2022.2149719\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Political Economy","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2022.2149719","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

新自由主义思想在当今政治经济思想和实践中的霸权作用,塑造了西方社会乃至国际社会对自由的共同思考方式。这涉及对这一概念的消极、个人主义和以市场为中心的解释。相比之下,去增长社会的愿景提供了一个基于Cornelius Castoriadis的个人和社会自治概念的激进选择。我们提出了两种立场,并解释了它们之间的差异。然后,我们通过在瑞典Malmö举行的2018年去增长会议上进行的问卷调查进行了跟进。这种对去增长运动的实证研究探讨了倡导者实际上在多大程度上遵循Castoriadian,而不是霸权的新自由主义理论。虽然发现参与者持有与Castoriadian理论一致的立场,但我们也发现他们对自由的理解中存在矛盾和概念化不足的方面。这表明,去增长运动需要直接解决其理论基础,并阐述和加强其与未来去增长社会相容的自由愿景,以避免潜在的合作选择和成为次霸权。
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
Reconceptualising freedom in the 21st century: neoliberalism vs. degrowth
ABSTRACT The hegemonic role of neoliberal ideas in today’s political-economic thought and practice has shaped the common way of thinking about freedom in Western society and more generally in the international community. This involves a negative, individualistic and market-centred interpretation of the concept. In contrast, visions of a degrowth society offer a radical alternative based on Cornelius Castoriadis’ notion of individual and social autonomy. We present both positions and explain their differences. We then follow this up by reporting on a questionnaire conducted at the 2018 Degrowth Conference in Malmö, Sweden. This empirical study of the degrowth movement probes the extent to which advocates actually follow the Castoriadian as opposed to the hegemonic neoliberal theory. While participants were found to hold positions consistent with the Castoriadian theory, we also identify contradictory and under-conceptualised aspects in their understanding of freedom. This points to the need for the degrowth movement to directly address its theoretical foundations, and elaborate on and strengthen its vision of freedom compatible with a future degrowth society in order to avoid potential co-option and becoming sub-hegemonic.
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
CiteScore
10.10
自引率
9.50%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: New Political Economy aims to create a forum for work which combines the breadth of vision which characterised the classical political economy of the nineteenth century with the analytical advances of twentieth century social science. It seeks to represent the terrain of political economy scholarship across different disciplines, emphasising original and innovative work which explores new approaches and methodologies, and addresses core debates and issues of historical and contemporary relevance.
期刊最新文献
Varieties of central banking: the Nordic Model beyond a fiscal-centric approach Understanding power, culture and institutional change: a revised approach to political settlements analysis The ecological currency hierarchy: empirical support for currency power driven asymmetries in environmental and social autonomy Towards a degrowth transition: bringing interests back in Rentier capitalism, social reproduction, and the limits of liberalism: mapping gendered asset value in Kuwait
×
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