What is wrong with "personal responsibility"?

As a university tutor, I read a lot of scholarship critiquing traditional and digital media from a Marxist perspective. Most striking is the somewhat baffling reiteration that “personal responsibility” is a bad thing.

Let me elaborate via particularly pertinent example. In 2009 the scholars Laurie Oullette and James Hay published a paper proposing that reality television programs are a symptom of our neo-liberal context. They argue that the narratives of programs such as The Biggest Loser and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy effectively instruct people on how to modify their conduct and assume personal responsibility for their health, their finances and general welfare. The “problem” identified by Oullette and Hay is that these responsibilities were once, under pre-1980 Keynesian economic regimes, assumed by the State (presumably ensuring universal access to key services). According to their reckoning, the ascension of neoliberal economics has led to the shrinking of governments - through the privatisation of formerly public assets, deregulation of the market, and the emergence of public-private partnerships to deliver key public services - and citizens must now take responsibility for their own welfare.

There are of course a number of problems with this particular proposal. First is the misinformation regarding the “shrinking” of the State through privatisation and deregulation. While the trend has certainly been to privatise formerly public companies, assets and services, the size and spending of governments have grown exponentially in the same period. This is demonstrated by a 2008 study of the expansion of the Australian government since 1972, as reflected in the number of policy interventions (which doubled between 1997-8 and 2007-8), increased taxes and spending, and decreased savings; trends that have further accelerated in the last four years.

A second important example of scholarly misinformation is the tendency to collapse of the distinction between the values and practices associated with libertarianism and neoliberalism. By and large anarcho-libertarians advocate the universal adoption of principles such as non-aggression, which logically requires individuals to accept personal responsibility for their decisions and wellbeing, and the concomitant abolition of governments on the basis that they are the foremost perpetrators of violence. While often linked to such values via the use of key terms such as deregulation and personal responsibility, neoliberalism ultimately borrows this rhetoric to mask the growth of the military-industrial complex, and its deployment to criminalise, punish and tax an ever-increasing number of citizens and activities. Moreover, policy interventions, such as IP, are more often designed to bolster already existing monopolies rather than liberate trade.

Most staggering however, is that in a rush to advocate the governmental redistribution of private wealth as the most appropriate strategy to overcome systemic inequality and injustice (undeniably well-intentioned causes), there is a tendency in academia to dismiss, out of hand, the very notion of “personal responsibility” as bad. It is a “neo-liberal” value and therefore evil.

The repetitive and uncritical characterisation of personal responsibility as an undesirable phenomenon, within university scholarship, is nonsensical to say the least. Without the very basic expectation that all individuals assume at least a modicum of personal responsibility, the entire fabric of society would disintegrate. Students must complete their work to pass courses, employees must be productive to generate income for themselves and their employers, and murderers need to be held accountable for the lives that they have stolen. For every decision that we do and don’t make, there are consequences. Needless to say that it is more than a little ironic to suggest that politicians, those individuals most notorious for abusing power for personal gain, be entrusted as the first and last bastion of social responsibility.


There seems to me a certain undercurrent of fear that pervades such scholarship. This leads me to question why the prospect of personal responsibility posses such a grand threat for these intellectual giants. Is it a fear of society being plunged into a post-apocalyptic hell when our moral compass is no longer centralised and institutionalised? Does it stem from a genuine concern for those lower down the socio-economic and intellectual ladder, those who apparently lack the necessary moral and intellectual fibre to avoid the undesirable consequences of poor life choices? Or is it perhaps, the prospect of having to bear the brunt of responsibility for their own life choices? For instance, the fear that when given the choice, those who toil for their hard earned dollars are unlikely to accept responsibility for the taxes that pay the wages of those ensconced in their ivory towers.

For more info see:
Kirsty Laurie and Jason McDonald "A perspective on trends in Australian government spending" 
http://lowpollutionfuture.treasury.gov.au/documents/1352/PDF/03_spending_growth.pdf
Oullette and Hay "Makeover television, governmentality and the good citizen."

 Amanda Malel Trevisanut is currently working as an academic tutor and research assistant. Your comments and thoughts are most welcome. You can contact her at amandatrevisanut@gmail.com

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"Only whites can be racist": debunking a very dangerous lie

Image
Yesterday, by way of anecdote, I proposed that academia is at least in part, responsible for the mainstream media acceptance and rationalisation of violent anti-white racism . See here if you missed it. Admittedly the points made were largely anecdotal and provided little in the way of evidence. What I offer today is more substantial in terms of evidence, and is provided in the form of a critique of what is a largely unchallenged field of study within the humanities, known as critical race and whiteness theory (CRW). My knowledge of CRW stems from my PhD research where I leaned the claims of the theory to discuss the representation of national identity in Australian film and television. If you are interested my dissertation is linked here . I am no longer a proponent of CRW theory and here’s why…  Critical race and whiteness (CRW) really began to coalesce as a theory within the humanities from the late 1990s. The interdisciplinary field CRW has deep roots within pos...
Read more

The Lack of Ethics in Cultural Policy Studies

Image
Cultural Policy Studies emerged as a distinct subfield within Cultural Studies in the early 1990s, and is distinguished from its parent field by its focus on activism through policy. Adherents of cultural studies have traditionally aimed to illuminate how power is maintained by an elite few in the West through its examination of cultural practices and meanings. Cultural policy studies goes one step further and involves itself within the institutions that actively regulate the cultural industries such that the inequalities exposed through cultural studies scholarship might be eliminated. The huge problem with this approach is that it is a blatant program of social engineering, and one which lacks any foundation of ethical principles to guide its practitioners.  Insofar as the field is founded upon the philosophies of the French postmodern thinkers of the 1960s and 70s such as Michel Foucault, who deny the possibility of objective truth, cultural value (criteria of artistic ...
Read more

What's so bad about Nazism?

Image
What is it about Nazism that people find so abhorrent? What are those elements of Nazism that we recognize in the words and actions of the politically empowered that make us rise up and say “no more”? Is it the harsh lesson of how quickly the forked tongue of a charismatic leader can whip up support to condemn a whole race of people to extermination? Is it the uncanny ability to identify the next despot, paving his or her road to political victory by spinning tales of unearned wealth and privilege accruing to an elite minority? Both sides of the contemporary political spectrum increasingly invoke Hitler to raise the alarm about the imminent danger of the next fascistic regime. It is however, towards the left that I pitch this question, because the Hitler-Nazi-Fascist triad has largely been invoked by the left to foreground the re-emergent politicization of race, and valorization of racism. And while I certainly do not condone racism I believe that this focus is detriment...
Read more