Social psychology and neoliberalism: A critical commentary on McDonald, Gough, Wearing, and Deville (2017)

Abstract

McDonald, Gough, Wearing, and Deville (2017) call for the discipline of social psychology to investigate issues of neoliberalism, consumption and self‐identity more seriously. We make two contributions in relation to their analysis. First, we highlight some current issues associated with neoliberalism as a concept that leave us in doubt regarding the analytical usefulness of the term. Due to its imprecision and over‐extension, predominant association with the left who use it pejoratively, and altered economic circumstances, we are increasingly skeptical of neoliberalism's analytical validity to social psychology. Second, we also stress the importance of interdisciplinarity, but suggest that empirical insights from mainstream social psychology have much to offer social scientists concerned with how current economic developments impact upon self‐identity and social behaviour. We conclude by pointing out that a greater openness to heterodoxy within and between critical and mainstream strands and the wider social sciences are required if social psychologists are going to make more persuasive impacts to the study and resistance of market logic.

Social psychology, consumer culture and neoliberalism: A response to Phelps and White (2018)

“…The election of Donald Trump to the Presidency of the United States and Britain's vote to exit the European Union have become emblematic of the rise of populism around the world. Trumps resurrecting of trade barriers and the scrapping of the Trans Pacific Partnership support Phelps and White's () thesis of a shift towards an ‘unspecified phase of capitalism’. However, while Trump may be against globalism (as he puts it), his tax cuts, ostensibly for the wealthy, attempts to dismantle the ‘affordable care act’, significant roll back of domestic and international environmental regulations and the appointment of Wall Street bankers to a number of high‐profile positions in his administration, indicate a ‘business as usual’ support for free‐market forces.…”

“…In dealing with this imprecision Cahill and Konings, (, p. 4) employ a pragmatic stance, writing that:

A label such as neoliberalism is of course not by itself capable of capturing the messy, complex dynamics and variegated details of social formations. The question is rather whether it provides a useful entry point, a way of looking at these processes.

The concept of neoliberalism is also challenged by Phelps and White (, p. 392) who write that “post‐financial crisis … we have entered into a new, currently unspecified phase of capitalism”. In the period following the 2008 global financial crisis it was widely assumed that neoliberalism would be swept away and replaced with some form of updated Keynesianism.…”

“…In Australia “neoliberalism persists as a framework for policies, policy makers and social orders” (Barnes, Humphrys, & Pusey, , p. 3). Based on these and other factors it is too premature at this stage to suggest that the “altered economic circumstances” that Phelps and White (, p. 395) refer to has ushered in the death throes of neoliberalism.…”

“…Phelps and White () advance an alternative to overcome some of the conceptual problems with neoliberalism – in particular its lack of precision – by advancing the notion of a ‘market‐derived logics’ (or ‘market logic and practices’). This could potentially become an important contribution to understanding the links between neoliberal political economy and key concepts in social psychology.…”

“…Our aim was not to analyse the conceptual contours of neoliberalism per se. However, we take Phelps and White's (, p. 390) point that neoliberalism lacks conceptual unity, as a consequence they are skeptical of its “analytical validity for social psychology”. We agree that the concept of neoliberalism is problematic, however, we argue that it is too early at this stage to walk away from it.…”