The nature of markets: on the affinity between masculinity and (neo)liberalism

ABSTRACT

The relationship between masculinity, neoliberalism, and capitalist economy is difficult to analyse. This is apparent when we consider recent studies of neoliberal capitalism, which are almost entirely books about men, and yet this feature consistently escapes critical attention. In contrast, this article brings this relation into focus, and suggests that the critique of hegemonic masculinities is an important feature of the critique of neoliberalism. The article first reviews existing literature on the intersection of masculinity and capitalism, which is increasingly being drawn towards the analysis of neoliberalism. It then briefly takes up Michel Foucault’s study of neoliberalism, especially his contention that classical liberalism’s concern with the nature of markets maintains an ambiguous persistence within the neoliberal project, in order to consider what it may have to offer to an analysis of masculinity and neoliberalism. Finally, I turn to one of the key thinkers in the intellectual development of neoliberalism – Ludwig von Mises – and provide a critical rereading of his 1944 book Bureaucracy. I argue that, beneath its veneer of economic rationality, the text mobilizes masculinity as a technology that is crucial to managing both the affective and economic insecurities generated by neoliberal conceptions of freedom in market-based societies.

KEYWORDS:

• Masculinity
• neoliberalism
• capitalism
• affect
• Mises

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributor

Steve Garlick is an Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Victoria, Canada. His research focuses on a range of issues concerning gender (especially masculinity), sexuality, technology, bodies, and social theory. He is the author of The Nature of Masculinity: Critical Theory, New Materialisms, and Technologies of Embodiment (UBC Press, 2016). His work has also been published in journals such as Body & Society, Critical Sociology, Men & Masculinities, and History of the Human Sciences.

Notes

1 I refer to ‘hegemonic masculinities’ and ‘masculinity’ throughout this article. The concept of ‘hegemonic masculinity’ was first introduced by Connell (1995) and has been very influential in the field of critical masculinity studies as it provides a way to theorize relationships between different forms of masculinity, as well as providing a focus on men’s domination over women. In an important reformulation of the concept (Connell and Messerschmidt 2005), Connell acknowledged the existence of multiple hegemonic masculinities. Accordingly, I always pluralize the term. This allows us to speak of ‘masculinity’ – as the concept which holds together the proliferation of hegemonic and other masculinities – without assuming a monolithic concept.