What is neoliberalism ? What are its historical roots ? In a large-scale work, Serge Audier undertakes to reconstruct the intellectual archeology of this complex and multiple movement. There Life of ideas publishes three critical reviews in two days, from three different perspectives, as well as the author’s response.
If there are numerous critiques of neo-liberalism, if the use of the term “ neo-liberal » to qualify anti-statist economic and social policies is widespread, it is clear that its history is still in its infancy: how was this current formed ? How were the theories that claim to be formed? ? How did the actors in this story relate to each other? ?
Serge Audier, in Neoliberalism(s) (Grasset), intends to answer these questions. In this work, he strives to produce a “ intellectual archeology » of a movement of thought difficult to grasp as its sources are numerous and its developments differentiated. The book offers a reflection that is both general and detailed on what we designate by the term “ neoliberalism “, there Life of Ideas chose to offer his review to three readers, each adopting a different perspective. The debate concerns as much the methodological choices of the author as the intellectual and political consistency to be given to the term “ neoliberalism » in different historical contexts.
– The philosopher Vincent Valentin highlights the richness of the work and its contribution: taking the history of neo-liberalism seriously and putting an end to the systematic discredit that generally accompanies it. However, the deconstruction that Serge Audier engages in can lead to a paradoxical result: dissolving the unity of the concept to such an extent that we end up doubting its existence.
– The historian Jean Solchany in turn salutes the extent of the work carried out by Serge Audier ; the work, which strives to go back to the sources of a current that is both influential and diffuse, will be a landmark. But his approach, intellectual history, is perhaps too exclusive: it pushes us to neglect social and cultural history and tends to downplay the importance of the networks which give neo-liberalism its unity.
– Historian Émile Chabal finally maintains, in his report, that if the work of Serge Audier is essential for understanding the plural nature of neo-liberalism, it does not sufficiently specify the transformations of this ideology in the 1970s.
– Serge Audier, in his response to these readings, believes that traditional interpretations (Foucauldian, Bourdieusian, Marxist), although they have immense virtues, have ended up freezing neo-liberalism, whereas it is essential to account for its plural dimension, which comes largely from the difference in historical contexts. Failure to do so would lead to a significant misunderstanding of the influence of neo-liberalism.