David Harvey Interview: American Universities as Neoliberal Think Tanks

Within the interview with David Harvey, he discusses the rise (or creation, more or less) of neoliberalism in the United States in the 1970s. Harvey states that the United States' capitalist upper class needed to create think tanks of-sort because they could not rely on the higher education infrastructure in the states to act in the way they needed, or to emphasize the needs of a late-capitalist society, as these institutions were too progressive, or liberally minded.

In this answer, Harvey states that now, the American universities don't act as they used to, and thusly, we don't really need these think tanks because the universities will do the work of capitalists for them, and bring forth the "ideals" of neoliberalism, commerce, and capitalism.

Do you see this at work on our campus? Does Ohio University fit into this mold of a neoliberal think tank? Can you think of universities that are key examples of becoming a capitalist think tank?

Week 11 - David Harvey on Neoliberalism

[Interview] How does Harvey define neoliberalism and how does he distinguish it from capitalism? What is the political history and struggles behind the rise of neoliberal policies?
[Spaces of Hope] What are some of the main aspects of globalization, according to Harvey (CH4)? How do changes in global capitalism effect the spatial and human geography of the city of Baltimore (CH8)?

David Harvey Interview

In this interview, author David Harvey gives a very well thought out argument as to what neoliberalism is and why people need to understand the concept. He begins by giving his interpretation of  what neoliberalism is, calling it a “…political project carried out by the corporate capitalist class as they felt intensely threatened both politically and economically towards the end of the 1960s and 1970s.” He explains that this “project” was carried out to stem the flow of revolutionary and communist movements that were occurring all over the globe. The capitalist class was looking for a way to regain control over the laboring classes. I think that the most important part of his interview was at the very end, where he stated that “The reorganization process and turn to flexible accumulation during neoliberal times has produced a Left that is also, in many ways, it’s mirror: networking, decentralized, non-hierarchical.” This mirror element between the Left and neoliberalism is a key factor in why he believes that the Left needs to focus more on ending capitalism rather than ending neoliberalism. He argues that in the Global North, there hasn’t been enough resistance to neoliberalism because people are more focused on securing individual freedoms over collective freedoms. There have been places where the struggle to improve daily life has been fought, but in the Global North, there isn’t really a sense that capitalism in itself is the problem.

Week 8 (Post Facto) - American Factory

In the documentary "American Factory," what are some of the challenges posed by contemporary developments in factories run by multinationals? What do the workers at Fuyao Dayton gain or loose by joining this new company? How do the challenges of the American workers reflect those of workers outsourced the world over? How might the ills of outsourced labor effect American labor conditions in the future?

Week 7.1 and 7.2 - Labor, Neoliberalism, Gender

The readings (by Ong and Hoffman) this week focus on different types of labor in a neoliberal economy. In each of the readings, how does gender matter? What is its role in the respective economy? What are the characteristics of labor in the respective readings? How do spiritual beliefs emerge in the Malaysian factory and does this say about the pressures of neoliberal economy on women in the Global South? What shape does labor take in Mayengema's mining sites (Hoffman Reading)? How is masculinity and the body shaped by this type of labor? 

Work of Waiting 6.1

According to June Hee Kwon, the social relationship of migrant workers to their respective waiting partners in the aftermath of the Korean Wind, emphasizes the unrecognized distinction between the labor of the waiting, alongside the chosen spouse migrating to Korea for better opportunity. Social relations are different for the Korean Chinese because their marriage or kinship is highly reliant on remittance through their partners. Kwon's case studies of the families separated due to lack of work and the economic interdependence faced by  Yanbian "botolis," greatly signifies the toxic nature of capitalism and the eventual drift or resentment it causes among these families. 

The case-study I found most interesting was of Mr. Ho whose wife was the sole breadwinner of the family, ultimately shifting her personality to regard money as the most important thing in her life. Mr Ho's account stressed the constructive and destructive natures of money, which transformed the bond between him and his wife, to what was once held by patriarchal constructs is now subjecting Mr. Ho to feelings of feminization and insecurity due to the dominant role of his wife (490). Kwon's analysis of this remittance-based relationship provided an insight into specific capitalistic economies that pushes vulnerable individuals into depths of money oriented relations, where the migrant worker becomes the dominant figure and those who are waiting as constantly dependent and powerless without their spouses.

Blog Post 6.1

How are social relationships shaped by different aspects of capitalism? How do different configurations of social relationships shape specific capitalism economies, global or local?

“Were those transfers gifts or compensation? If gifts, Kritzik had to pay gift tax on the money; if compensation the sisters had to pay income tax” (Zelizer 829). This quote from the first case described by Zelizer showcases that a simple exchange of funds in an interpersonal relationship can be monitored and have legal repercussions. The connection of money, taxation, and capitalism creates a market for legal action to be taken. For personal matters such as receiving a divorce, getting married, or just being in a long term relationship, court is often included. With court comes court fees, lawyer fees, and many more costs.  This creates a sense that personal relationships are ruled by capitalism as these are all seen as necessary services. As well as the idea of womens sexulaity being owned by men being connected often with divorce. The type of defined relationship also calls into question how one is taxed. If a domesticate partners exchanges money, then it is tax free. Where as a lover-mistress or patron-prostitute exchange would be taxed. Although in differing ways. In the lover-mistress scenario it is the lover who is taxed (which resembles the ideologie that it is the man’s duty to finance his female counterpart). While in the patron-prostitute scenario it is the prostitute that is taxed for “income” (which appears as a punishment for sexuality). These legal cases all boil down to the label of the social relationship. After deciding the social relationship, the legal rulings are made. Thus showcasing that capitalism has shaped social relationships to the point that social relationships now define the compensation.