Thomas Biebricher

Bio: Thomas Biebricher is an academic researcher from Goethe University Frankfurt. The author has contributed to research in topics: Governmentality & Neoliberalism (international relations). The author has an hindex of 13, co-authored 34 publications receiving 614 citations. Previous affiliations of Thomas Biebricher include University of Florida.

Habermas and Foucault: Deliberative Democracy and Strategic State Analysis

Abstract: The paper explores ways to bring the approaches of J. Habermas and M. Foucault into a productive dialogue. In particular, it argues that Habermas's concept of deliberative democracy can and should be complemented by a strategic analysis of the state as it is found in Foucault's studies of governmentality. While deliberative democracy is a critical theory of democracy that provides normative knowledge about the legitimacy of a given system, it is not well equipped to generate knowledge that could inform the choice of strategies employed by (collective) actors from civil society — especially deliberative democrats — vis-a-vis the state to pursue their goals. This kind of strategic knowledge about strengths and vulnerabilities of a given state is provided by Foucault's reading of the state as driven by varying governing rationalities. Since, particularly in his later works, Habermas finds strategic action normatively acceptable under certain circumstances, I argue that societal actors could profit from an integrated approach that incorporates Foucault's strategic analysis into the framework of deliberative democracy. This approach would yield critical knowledge of both a normative and strategic, action-guiding nature.

Habermas, Foucault and Nietzsche: A Double Misunderstanding

Abstract: The article analyses Habermas' interpretation of Foucault in the Philosophical Discourse of Modernity and argues that the former misunderstands the Foucaultian project of genealogy fundamentally. While Habermas assumes that Foucault aims at a strictly scientific approach to the writing of history it can be shown that Foucaultian genealogy is strongly characterised by rhetorical aspects, creating a hybrid model of critique that stands in between science and literature. The essay goes on arguing that this misreading can be explained with reference to Habermas' reconstruction of Nietzsche's philosophy in the Philosophical Discourse. On the basis of this clarification the article analyses what a Habermasian position vis-a-vis genealogy including the rhetorical element would look like. Making use of Habermas' remarks on Derrida in the Philosophical Discourse the essay concludes that, counter-intuitively, a rhetorically understood genealogy has to be considered a valid philosophical approach even on Habermas' own terms.

Neoliberalism and Democracy

Abstract: The relation between neoliberalism and democracy has always been fraught with tensions, as even the very first experiments with neoliberal reforms in Chile and other South American countries during the 1970s indicate. In most of these cases it was military dictatorships or other kinds of authoritarian regimes that pushed through measures aimed at marketization, liberalization and individualization. And while neoliberal reforms in the OECD world were initiated and implemented by democratically elected governments, the question as to what extent the ensuing processes of neoliberalization would ultimately undermine democracy in its various aspects has led to a lively and ongoing political as well as scholarly debate.1 More recently, new neoliberal challenges to democracy have emerged in the wake of financial and economic crises. Consider for example the current developments in the Eurozone. In countries like Greece the “internal devaluation” of the economy through wage reductions in the public sector, the liberalization of labor markets and cuts in social policy are decreed and pushed through against the resistance of large parts of the Greek populace. Consider also that in his Post-Democracy and the sequel called The Strange Non-death of Neoliberalism Colin Crouch argues that it is mainly the extraordinary power of corporations that is to blame for bringing about post-democratic conditions.2 The recent bailouts of a number of such massive corporations that are deemed “too big to fail” in the financial sector also present a double challenge to democracy. To the extent that they were portrayed as specimen of “there is no alternative” politics the situation borders on extortion because the hand of the legislative as the representative of the sovereign demos is in effect forced by private organizations. Second, given the need to operate swiftly in rescue operations during times of emergency the executive branches of states centralize decision-making procedures that sideline the legislature. Legislative oversight in such processes is practically non-existent. To be sure, the political world around us presents a surplus of material that could be used for a discussion of this topic. In this article I would like to explore the relation between neoliberalism and democracy from a slightly more focused perspective by taking a step back from both phenomena in their actually existing form in order to instead scrutinize the critical accounts of democracy in what I will call varieties of neoliberal thought. Neoliberal thought is not a homogenous intellectual current, despite important family resemblances between the various approaches. In the first section I therefore introduce my working definition of neoliberalism. It is my further assumption that neoliberal theory is best understood as a body of thought that is not exclusively concerned with economics but rather with political economy, and thus it includes a political philosophy replete with views on the state and democracy as well.3 Based on this definitional and conceptual foundation I proceed to scrutinize the various positions on democracy that can be found in the works of some of the leading figures of neoliberal theory as it is defined here. I will not present an exhaustive survey of everyone whom I consider to be a neoliberal in this sense. Rather, I will try to group together positions into three broad types of critical engagement with democracy from the point of view of neoliberalism. An analytical distinction can be made between those who argue for a restriction of democracy through various forms of non-majoritarian institutions and decision-making procedures that range from the rule of law to authoritarian and technocratic rule; those who would like to replace democratic procedures with market coordination citing normative as well as functional reasons for this preference; and finally, those who argue for the complementation of representative democracy through direct democratic measures. In my view these can be understood as three stylized lines of critical engagement with representative democracy from the perspective of neoliberal thought. Most of the article will be devoted to the development of this threefold typology of varieties of neoliberal thought. These critical accounts of democracy, in turn, require and deserve thorough critiques that probe the validity of their assumptions as well as substantive arguments and offer an assessment of the normative desirability of the suggested alternatives were they put into practice. Such an exhaustive critique lies beyond the scope of this article, which is primarily interested in developing a comprehensive understanding of neoliberal reasoning on democracy based on an examination of the aforementioned varieties. This preliminary step, it is hoped, will facilitate endeavors at an comprehensive critique in

Revisiting Johan Galtung's Concept of Structural Violence

Abstract: This symposium is organized around a common concern: if we, as political scientists, limit ourselves to an analytics of violence that points solely to agents and intentions, we are sure to miss the...

The culture of control: crime and social order in contemporary, society

Abstract: Nos últimos trinta trinta anos, houve profundas mudanças na forma como compreendemos o crime e a justiça criminal. O crime tornou-se um evento simbólico, um verdadeiro teste para a ordem social e para as políticas governamentais, um desafio para a sociedade civil, para a democracia e para os direitos humanos. Segundo David Garland, professor da Faculdade de Direito da New York University, um dos principais autores no campo da Sociologia da Punição e com artigo publicado na Revista de Sociologia e Política , número 13, na modernidade tardia houve uma verdadeira obsessão securitária, direcionando as políticas criminais para um maior rigor em relação às penas e maior intolerância com o criminoso. Há trinta anos, nos EUA e na Inglaterra essa tendência era insuspeita. O livro mostra que os dois países compartilham intrigantes similaridades em suas práticas criminais, a despeito da divisão racial, das desigualdades econômicas e da letalidade violenta que marcam fortemente o cenário americano. Segundo David Garland, encontram-se nos dois países os “mesmos tipos de riscos e inseguranças, a mesma percepção a respeito dos problemas de um controle social não-efetivo, as mesmas críticas da justiça criminal tradicional, e as mesmas ansiedades recorrentes sobre mudança e ordem sociais”1 (GARLAND, 2001, p. 2). O argumento principal da obra é o seguinte: a modernidade tardia, esse distintivo padrão de relações sociais, econômicas e culturais, trouxe consigo um conjunto de riscos, inseguranças e problemas de controle social que deram uma configuração específica às nossas respostas ao crime, ao garantir os altos custos das políticas criminais, o grau máximo de duração das penas e a excessivas taxas de encarceramento.

The Future of the Capitalist State.

Abstract: List of Boxes. List of Tables and Figure. Preface. Abbreviations. Introduction. 1. Capitalism and the Capitalist Type of State. 2. The Keynesian Welfare National State. 3. The Schumpeterian Competition State. 4. Social Reproduction and the Workfare State. 5. The Political Economy of State Rescaling. 6. From Mixed Economy to Metagovernance. 7. Towards Schumpeterian Workfare Postnational Regimes?. Notes. References. Index.

Persuasion and Healing: A Comparative Study of Psychotherapy

Abstract: Psychoanalysis, individual psychology, gestalt therapy, client-centered counseling, faith healing, hypnosis, encounter groups, transactional therapy, behavior modification, and existentialist analysis are some of the different treatments available for unhappy, fearful, and anxious sufferers. The proponents of each method offer a theoretical explanation of their rationale and report sizable numbers of successes. Which is the best method? Which is the most correct theory? Are any of them of any value? Or should everyone be treated with pills or diet or surgery? Jerome D. Frank, professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins, believes there is real value in psychotherapy, which he describes as treatment that "relies primarily on the healer's ability to mobilize healing forces in the sufferer by psychological means." However, he believes that the principal value lies not in the postulated theoretical bases but in factors that are common to all the various forms of therapy. He points out that all patients