I asked
myself the question posed above as I was reading Michèle Lamont’s book, Seeing Others, How to Redefine Worth in a Divided World. The passage quoted below seems central to Michèle Lamont’s book:
“The hegemony of the
American dream manifests in the emphasis Americans put on neoliberal virtues of
material success, self-reliance, individualism, entrepreneurialism, and
competitiveness. These criteria of worth have gained more and more influence as
“models of ideal selves,” and encourage many to internalize blame for the
increasing precarity of their lives. This model can also lead people to seek
out a scapegoat group to blame.” (p 31)
Those sentences seem
to suggest that neoliberalism encourages people to either internalize blame for
misfortune or to seek scapegoat groups to blame.
Internalizing blame
The author doesn’t
explain why she believes neoliberalism can cause people to “internalize blame
for the increasing precarity of their lives”, but she lists several references
in the notes section which may support her claims. The one which seems likely
to be most relevant is an article by Glen Adams, Sara Estrada-Villalta, Daniel
Sullivan, and Hazel Rose Markus entitled ‘The Psychology of Neoliberalism and
the Neoliberalism of Psychology’, Journal of Social Issues 75 (1), 2019.
Adams et al use the term ‘neoliberalism’ to refer to an
economic and political movement that came to prominence in the late 1970s,
advocating “deregulation of markets and free movement of capital with an
emphasis on fluidity and globalization”. Such usage of ‘neoliberalism’ to refer
to advocacy of free markets is now common, even though the term was once generally understood
to refer to advocacy of left-leaning policies, e.g. a ‘social market economy’, rather
than free markets. Like most advocates of free markets, I would prefer to be referred
to as a classical liberal or libertarian, but I can usually assume that I am among
good company when I am labelled as a neoliberal.
The authors argue that neoliberalism encourages “an
entrepreneurial approach to self as an ongoing development project, an
imperative for individual growth and personal fulfillment, and an emphasis on
affect regulation”. I don’t object to that characterisation. It describes some
aspects of the approach to human flourishing in Part III my book, Freedom,
Progress, and Human Flourishing.
However, the authors suggest that neoliberalism also supports
psychological “responsibilization” - an ugly word for an ugly concept. The claim
they make is that neoliberals advocate that individuals should not only accept personal
responsibility for problems which it may be possible to ameliorate through
behaviour change (such as obesity and substance abuse) but also to accept
responsibility for misfortune more generally.
Neoliberals
argue that free markets tend to reward individual effort, but that doesn’t mean
that they believe that economic misfortune is always attributable to lack of
individual effort. In fact, one of the characteristics of neoliberalism is
recognition that social problems of poverty, unemployment etc. are often
attributable to foolish government economic policies that are opposed to economic freedom.
I don’t
know any neoliberal who would suggest that individuals should “internalize
blame” for any disruption of their lives associated with innovation and
competition. Neoliberals are more likely to suggest that people who lose jobs
or other remuneration because of the disruptive impact of innovation and
competition should view such setbacks as beyond their control. The potential
for such setbacks is a price that previous generations have willingly paid to
enable to enable their descendants to enjoy the benefits of economic growth. Deirdre McCloskey – a prominent classical liberal – has
coined the term, ‘bourgeois deal’, to refer to the willingness of people to
accept the potential for their lives to be disrupted by innovation and
competition in exchange for ongoing expansion of economic opportunities. (See Bourgeois Equality.)
I doubt
that many psychologists would suggest that their clients should “internalize”
blame for all the bad things that happen to them. When psychologists suggest
that individuals should take responsibility for their lives, I am sure that the
vast majority would mean that individuals should focus on taking personal
responsibility for problems that are within their locus of control.
Who is
responsible for the scapegoat narrative?
It took me
some time to work out why Michèle Lamont believes that neoliberalism encourages
people to seek out scapegoat groups to blame for misfortune. Her reasoning evidently
has more to do with her belief that Donald Trump is a neoliberal than with the
beliefs of neoliberals.
On the page following the passage quoted above, Lamont writes:
“From Ronald Reagan to
Donald Trump, neoliberalism has come to be understood as a precondition for a
successful society”.
I believe
that free markets help societies to become and remain successful, but it is hard
to understand how anyone could perceive Donald Trump to be an advocate of that
view. While in office, Trump administered the final blow to the “neoliberal consensus” on international trade that
characterised the post-Cold War period, and he currently favors further
restrictions on international trade and international movement of labor.
Lamont’s
claim that neoliberalism encourages people to seek out scapegoat groups to
blame seems to rest on the behavior of Donald Trump. She observes that in 2015 former
president Trump advanced a false narrative in which immigrants from Mexico were
rapists and drug dealers. (pp 51-2). During the 2016 campaign Trump appealed to
“America’s forgotten workers” by recognizing their plight and “by blaming globalization
and immigration for it”. (p 70)
Lamont also
suggests that Trump provided “an empowering narrative” for the working class
“who are often perceived as “the losers of the system”. (p 165). Early in the
book, she notes:
“Instead of
depicting ‘everyday Americans’ as ‘deplorables’, as Hillary Clinton was
perceived to do in the 2016 presidential campaign, her opponent Donald Trump affirmed
their worth in his various electoral speeches, explaining their loss of social
status as a result of globalization and immigration.” (p 8)
Lamont’s
narrative
The title
of Lamont’s book, “seeing others”, refers to “acknowledging people’s existence
and positive worth, actively making them visible and valued, reducing their
marginalization, and openly integrating them into a group”. (p 6) She suggests
that having one’s sense of worth affirmed “is a universal need that is central to
our identity as human beings and our quality of life”. (p 7) She urges that we “bridge
boundaries with those who are different” via “ordinary universalism”, or “emphasizing
similarities over differences”. (p 144)
I don’t
object to those sentiments, and I doubt whether many other neoliberals would
either. It is certainly appropriate to recognize that ordinary universalism can
be “a vital counterweight” to “Nationalist populism, Islamophobia, and
xenophobia” which “are on the rise in many countries”. (p 146) As an advocate
of ordinary universalism, however, I think it is unfortunate that the author
was not sufficiently “inclusive” to recognize that anti-Semitism also belongs on
that list.
I also object
to the idea that “individualist approaches” to improving wellbeing “may harm
more than they help, since they pull people’s attention away from more
meaningful efforts”. (p 48) The author seems to be suggesting that excessive attention
is given to approaches that help individuals to improve their assessments of their
own worth. Instead, she urges:
“We need to
ask ourselves hard questions about how we decide who matters and what we can do
to create a more inclusive society.”
It seems to me that people who are lacking
in regard for their own worth are unlikely to make a positive contribution to ensuring
that the worth of others is appropriately recognized.
Much of the
book is devoted to a discussion of how it is possible to change hearts and
minds in order to reduce stigmatization of marginalized groups, and thus build a
more inclusive society. That discussion is largely beyond the scope of this
essay.
In Chapter
7, however, the author discusses the result of a survey of the attitudes of Gen Z students
(aged 18 to 23). She seems a little perplexed that Gen Z tend to “embrace some
neoliberal ideals – hard work and success” but is pleased that they “combine
personal professional aspirations with the promotion of collective well-being”.
The author
claims that apart from “the wealthiest of the wealthy” every other group “finds
itself reeling from an onslaught of difficulties, disappointments, and
anxieties, grasping for dignity and stability”. (p 47) That is implausible
and seems at odds with her message about destigmatization of marginalized
groups. However, it fits well with another theme of Lamont’s narrative.
As already
mentioned, Lamont suggests that Trump provided “an empowering narrative” for
the working class. She suggests that the Democratic party should counter that with
“messages of solidarity and dignity”:
“Redirecting
working class anger toward the one percent is more likely to sustain fruitful
alliances than driving wedges between diverse categories of workers who have so
much in common.” (p 159)
Is
Lamont’s narrative good?
It seems to
me that appropriate criteria to consider whether a narrative is good include whether
it encourages ethical behaviour and whether it is factually accurate.
Regarding ethical
behaviour, Michèle Lamont seems to be seeking to “mobilize” good narratives when
she suggests:
“We
engineer our world together by mobilizing narratives that expand recognition of
who is worthy.”
Leaving aside engineering, the
message she is attempting to convey seems to be that narratives have a role in
reinforcing the ethical intuition that we should respect other humans and behave
with integrity toward them, irrespective of gender, sexual preference, race, nationality, religion, wealth,
social status, political affiliations etc. I am not entirely convinced that she
would include ideological opponents among those who are “worthy”, but she does acknowledge
that “it is worth trying to understand even people we may strongly disagree
with”. (p 159).
On the
question of factual accuracy, Lamont’s narrative, which suggests that the workers
have reason to be angry with the wealthy one percent, seems to me to be just as
questionable as Donald Trump’s narrative which suggests that the workers have
reason to be angry about globalization and immigration. Neither of those
narratives promotes an accurate understanding of economic reality.
Conclusion
In this
essay I have examined Michèle Lamont’s narrative that neoliberalism encourages
people to either internalize blame for misfortune or to seek scapegoat groups
to blame. My conclusion is that her claim that neoliberalism encourages people
to internalize blame is baseless. Her claim about seeking to blame scapegoat
groups seems to be based on the false belief that Donald Trump is a neoliberal.
Good narratives
should encourage ethical behaviour and be factually accurate. One of Lamont’s
objectives in this book seems to be to “mobilize” good narratives that reinforce
the ethical intuition that we should behave with integrity toward all other
humans. However, the factual accuracy of her narrative that workers have reason
to be angry with the wealthy one percent is highly questionable. If accepted by
governments that approach would encourage unethical redistributions of incomes
and further dampen incentives that are essential to the ongoing growth of widespread economic
opportunities.