The Biopolitics of Human Capital
In his 1979 lectures titled The Birth of Biopolitics, Michel Foucault explored how modern governments manage and influence human life at its most fundamental level. Central to his exploration is the concept of Biopolitics, a form of political rationality that focuses on managing life and populations. This marks a significant shift in how power operates, moving from traditional, repressive forms of power that seek to limit and control, to more positive forms that aim to foster, enhance, and optimize life.
Foucault's analysis challenges traditional notions of power and governance. In earlier times, sovereign power was exercised through the right to "take life or let live," exerting control through overt repression. However, with the advent of biopower, the focus shifts to "make live and let die." This represents a move from direct domination to subtle regulation, where power infiltrates the very fabric of biological life. Instead of ruling through force, power shapes individuals by enhancing their capacities and managing populations to optimize the functioning of the state.
Under neoliberalism, biopolitics takes on a new dimension by reconfiguring individuals as bearers of human capital. Neoliberalism emphasizes market mechanisms, competition, and the economization of social relations, integrating economic principles into the most intimate aspects of human existence. Individuals are encouraged to see themselves as "entrepreneurs of the self," where personal attributes such as skills, knowledge, health, and even personal qualities become assets to be developed and managed.
This shifts the perception of labor from a commodity exchanged for wages to a form of capital that individuals must continually cultivate. The worker becomes both the producer and the product, responsible for enhancing their own value in an increasingly competitive market. Labor is no longer just a transaction; it's an investment in oneself, aligning with the neoliberal ethos of personal responsibility and self-enterprise.
This reconceptualization aligns with Foucault's concept of biopolitics, where governance extends into the personal thoughts and behaviors of individuals. Power is exercised not just through external constraints but by shaping desires, aspirations, and self-conceptions. By internalizing market values, individuals become complicit in their own regulation, perpetuating a system that prioritizes economic efficiency over other dimensions of human flourishing.
Neoliberalism's emphasis on human capital transforms how societies organize and govern. The economy no longer operates merely through the exchange of goods and services but becomes a general social and economic regulator, a principle of political rationality that permeates all aspects of life. This shift necessitates a profound change in the role of government and the nature of political intervention.
This transformation requires a reconceptualization of traditional liberalism. Neoliberalism sets itself apart from classical liberalism by separating the market economy from the idea of "laissez-faire," which means minimal government interference. While classical liberalism aimed to create a free space for the market within the existing political system, neoliberalism tries to shape all political power based on market principles. It's not about carving out a space for the market to operate freely but about applying the logic of the market to how the government functions overall.
To make this happen, neoliberalism requires the government to actively build and maintain the framework that allows competition to work effectively. This includes actions like stabilizing societal conditions and shaping the environment in which people live and work. Instead of directly controlling economic activities, the government focuses on influencing the broader context—things like the legal system, education, technology, and even cultural norms.
An illustrative example is the approach to agriculture in post-war Europe. Neoliberal thinkers like Walter Eucken argued that European agriculture had never fully integrated into modern society due to outdated practices, overpopulation in rural areas, and insufficient technology. To enable agriculture to function effectively, government intervention was necessary—not by manipulating prices or propping up unprofitable farms but by addressing population distribution, improving technology, reforming laws, and even changing how land was used. The goal was to modify these underlying factors to create conditions where agricultural communities could thrive independently.
This approach signifies a shift from viewing social policy as a safety net to seeing it as a means to encourage self-reliance and personal development. Under neoliberalism, social policy isn't about equalizing access to resources or providing welfare through redistribution. Instead, it emphasizes personal responsibility and encourages individuals to take charge of their own well-being. This involves ensuring that people have the opportunities and support to invest in their own growth and security.
Neoliberalism's emphasis on individual responsibility aligns with the concept of biopolitics by extending certain values into everyday life. Personal development, education, health, and even parenting are framed as personal projects. The boundaries between different areas of life blur as individuals are encouraged to view all aspects of their lives through the lens of self-improvement and competition. Success and failure are seen as outcomes of personal effort, shifting attention away from broader societal factors like inequality or lack of access to resources.
This perspective has profound implications for society. By treating life as a series of personal investments, other important values such as community, creativity, and empathy may be overshadowed. The relentless focus on productivity can lead to burnout, alienation, and a sense of inadequacy among those who cannot meet the demanding standards set by this worldview. Social cohesion may weaken as individuals view themselves primarily as self-interested competitors, undermining bonds of solidarity and mutual support.
Foucault's analysis also highlights how neoliberalism transforms the role of institutions like the legal system. A society that promotes self-enterprise and competition requires a robust legal framework to manage increased interactions and potential conflicts. The judicial institution becomes central in maintaining the conditions necessary for this competitive environment to function smoothly.
Moreover, neoliberalism's focus on competition and self-management influences how governmental policies are designed and implemented. The aim isn't to create a society characterized by uniform consumption and conformity but to foster one where the concept of the self-managed individual is the dominant mode of organization. This involves promoting private ownership, supporting small and medium-sized enterprises, decentralizing decision-making, and encouraging industries that allow for personal initiative.
However, this emphasis on individual responsibility can exacerbate social inequalities. Not everyone has equal access to the resources and opportunities necessary to invest in their personal growth. Factors like socioeconomic status, educational disparities, and systemic discrimination can limit individuals' ability to succeed. By framing these challenges as personal shortcomings rather than systemic issues, neoliberalism can obscure the need for collective action and policies that address inequality.
Foucault's exploration of the biopolitical concept of human capital under neoliberalism offers a critical lens for examining the intersection of power, life, and governance in modern societies. It reveals how control extends beyond policies and institutions into the realm of individual subjectivity, shaping desires and self-conceptions according to certain ideals. By redefining individuals as self-managing entities, neoliberalism involves them in their own regulation, aligning personal goals with broader societal objectives.
This analysis invites us to consider alternatives to the neoliberal model. If the current framework emphasizes individual responsibility and self-driven improvement, what other ways might we envision the relationship between the individual and society? How can we address structural inequalities and create conditions that allow for diverse forms of well-being beyond constant self-optimization?
Foucault's examination of the biopolitical concept of human capital under neoliberalism highlights a significant transformation in how we understand life and labor. It reflects a mode of governance that extends economic rationality into the core of human existence, transforming individuals into entrepreneurs of the self, into machine-skills. While this framework offers certain advantages in terms of personal empowerment and efficiency, it also poses challenges related to inequality, freedom, and the commodification of life.
Engaging critically with these developments is essential for navigating the complexities of contemporary society. By examining the underlying assumptions and effects of the human capital paradigm, we can explore possibilities for more equitable and humane ways of organizing our collective life. This requires not only policy changes but also a cultural shift in how we conceive of success, value, and the good life.
Foucault's analysis remains relevant as we grapple with the implications of neoliberal policies in our current context. The rise of gig economies, precarious work, and the emphasis on lifelong learning and adaptability reflect the enduring influence of neoliberal thought. Understanding the biopolitical mechanisms at play allows us to critically assess our societies' trajectories and consider alternative paths that prioritize human dignity and collective well-being over relentless competition.
*This week’s recommended film is Punishment Park (1971) by Peter Watkins. A pseudo-documentary set in an alternate America, where dissidents are subjected to a brutal training exercise.