Neoliberalism and Socialisation in the Contemporary City: Opposites, Complements and Instabilities

Abstract

This paper explores some dialectics of neoliberalism and socialisation in contemporary urbanism. The significance of socialisation-nonmarket cooperation between social actors-in both production and reproduction has tended to increase in the long term. Socialisation does not always take politically progressive forms, yet it always has a problematic relation with private property and class discipline. Socialisation of diverse forms grew during the long boom, but this exacerbated the classic crisis tendencies of capitalism and resulted in increasing politicisation. Neoliberalism offered a resolution of these tensions by imposing unmediated value relations and class discipline, fragmenting labour and capital and fostering depoliticisation. However, this has led to manifest inefficiencies and failure adequately to reproduce the wage relation. Many longstanding forms of socialisation have therefore been retained, if in modified forms. Moreover, substantially new forms of urban socialisation have developed in cities. This paper examines the role of business organisations, industrial clusters, top-down mobilisation of community and attempts at "joined-up" urban governance. It is argued that these fill gaps in socialisation left by neoliberalism. Their neoliberal context has largely prevented their politicisation, in particular heading off any socialist potential. Indeed, the new forms of urban socialisation have internalised neoliberal social relations and often deepened social divisions. Thus, paradoxically, they can achieve the essential aims of neoliberalism better than "pure" neoliberalism itself. Nevertheless, these forms of socialisation are often weakened by neoliberalism. Contemporary urban class relations and forms of regulation thus reflect both opposition and mutual construction between neoliberal strategies and forms of socialisation. The paper ends by briefly contrasting this theorisation with associationalist and regulationist approaches.

Neoliberalism in Provincial Cultural Policy Narratives: Perspectives from Two Coasts

“…6 Flexible structures are the hallmark of provincial administration in the smaller provinces and are sometimes identified as trends in new public management theories. They allow capital, labour, and other interests to shift their political focus expediently (Gough, 2002). We agree that such ministry reshuffling might be casually interpreted as a move to associate culture with economic objectives rather than education or health (as a public good or mechanism to promote social cohesion), in line with neoliberal agendas of the political party in power.…”

Work Clubs and the Big Society: reflections on the potential for ‘progressive localism’ in the ‘cracks and fissures’ of neoliberalism

“…These changes in neoliberalism's scalar constitution have been necessary to manage 'the perverse economic consequences and pronounced social externalities of narrowly market centric forms of neoliberalism' (Peck and Tickell, 2002: 388). Within this context , voluntary and community sector organisations function as Burkean 'little platoons' (Peck and Tickell, 2002: 390) that enthusiastically, but ineffectually, attempt to mop up the consequences of uneven neoliberal development through these 'flanking measures' (Jessop, 2002: 452; see also Brenner and Theodore, 2002;Gough, 2002).…”

The difference between local and national capitalism, and why local capitalisms differ from one another: A Marxist approach

“…Within a locality, then, employment, labour force, built environment and services for people are mutually determining and tendentially coherent with other. Harvey (1989 Ch.5) has termed this ensemble the 'structured coherence' of the locality; Cox (1998) refers to it as 'local dependencies', while Gough (2001) has termed it the 'local socio-economic nexus'. This type of coherence is specific to the local scale.…”