Why was the discourse of family values so pivotal to the conservative and free-market revolution of the 1980s and why has it continued to exert such a profound influence on American political life? Why have free-market neoliberals so often made common cause with social conservatives on the question of family, despite their differences on all other issues? In this book, Melinda Cooper challenges the idea that neoliberalism privileges atomized individualism over familial solidarities, and contractual freedom over inherited status. Delving into the history of the American poor laws, she shows how the liberal ethos of personal responsibility was always undergirded by a wider imperative of family responsibility and how this investment in kinship obligations is recurrently facilitated the working relationship between free-market liberals and social conservatives.
Neoliberalism, she argues, must be understood as an effort to revive and extend the poor law tradition in the contemporary idiom of household debt. As neoliberal policymakers imposed cuts to health, education, and welfare budgets, they simultaneously identified the family as a wholesale alternative to the twentieth-century welfare state. And as the responsibility for deficit spending shifted from the state to the household, the private debt obligations of family were defined as foundational to socioeconomic order. Despite their differences, neoliberals and social conservatives were in agreement that the bonds of family needed to be encouragedand at the limit enforcedas a necessary counterpart to market freedom.
In a series of case studies ranging from Bill Clinton's welfare reform to the AIDS epidemic and from same-sex marriage to the student loan crisis, Cooper explores the key policy contributions made by neoliberal economists and legal theorists. Only by restoring the question of family to its central place in the neoliberal project, she argues, can we make sense of the defining political alliance of our times, that between free-market economics and social conservatism.
5 有用 Gawiel 2025-03-14 09:39:55 美国
新自由主义和新保守主义如何在维护家庭问题上达成一致?这个问题也许看起来很小,却为理解当下美国提供了绝佳视角。新自由主义主张家庭作为投资和风险的承担者(例如父母担保学生贷款),新保守主义批评女权运动、种族平权运动对于传统白人家庭价值的冲击,于是殊途同归,如果自由市场等于风险和个人脱离社群,那么家庭既是自由市场的避风港、又是最好的投资伙伴、又是礼崩乐坏下怀旧传统的寄托。而且写得非常好!极其清楚,几十年... 新自由主义和新保守主义如何在维护家庭问题上达成一致?这个问题也许看起来很小,却为理解当下美国提供了绝佳视角。新自由主义主张家庭作为投资和风险的承担者(例如父母担保学生贷款),新保守主义批评女权运动、种族平权运动对于传统白人家庭价值的冲击,于是殊途同归,如果自由市场等于风险和个人脱离社群,那么家庭既是自由市场的避风港、又是最好的投资伙伴、又是礼崩乐坏下怀旧传统的寄托。而且写得非常好!极其清楚,几十年经济理论娓娓道来,作者又立场鲜明。 (展开)
6 有用 Sea son 2021-04-19 15:11:36
沿着Wendy Brown的脉络,puzzle是美国70年代以后为何出现了罕见的neoliberal 和 neoconservative联合?明明对family取向不同,两拨人因为都视“Fordist family wage”为大敌成了同盟。作者追溯了70年代各种进步运动以及他们对传统家庭结构的巨大冲击,激怒了右翼致使强强联手,一个为了追求“self efficient family”,一个怀念m... 沿着Wendy Brown的脉络,puzzle是美国70年代以后为何出现了罕见的neoliberal 和 neoconservative联合?明明对family取向不同,两拨人因为都视“Fordist family wage”为大敌成了同盟。作者追溯了70年代各种进步运动以及他们对传统家庭结构的巨大冲击,激怒了右翼致使强强联手,一个为了追求“self efficient family”,一个怀念midcentry family order,殊途同归,最终都为扼杀任何non-normative family union。作者犀利无比,痛批左派identity politics,甚至不惜指责Nancy Fraser不够radical. Again, Making kin not babies. (展开)
3 有用 Jean-François 2022-07-26 12:36:22
cover to cover读完了。其实话题最相关的只有前几章,但因为对70s至今的美国社会政治演变很感兴趣,索性读完补补历史背景知识。论据翔实,论证严密且左翼进步立场坚定,很受启发和感染。
2 有用 LambdaFunction 2025-03-30 13:59:43 江苏
新自由主义和新保守主义在经济和文化两条战线上联盟并以复兴家庭传统,痛击新左派为口号展开了对福利国家和工薪阶层权力扩张的战争,而如今这场战争的结果却让人们忘记了战争的起因,仿佛新自由主义秩序是凯恩斯主义经济政策运作不下去的经济策略调整而不是一次反动主义者的反革命行动。
0 有用 一块红布 2025-10-12 06:25:15 加拿大
这是今年对我帮助最大的书。我也同意友邻说的,如果只把新自由主义理解成某种凯恩斯主义政策下危机的经济政策因应,会完全错失重点。这本书好就好在它不是缘木求鱼式的预先认定新自由主义和保守主义价值等于一套信念,再对他们的信念加以批判的做法。作者非常看重政策面究竟是什么样的力量在行事?这些人的政治目标是什么?为了实现战略目标他们理念上要做出怎样的调整?