ahistorical, economistic and materialistic, me-oriented, short-term and ecologically
myopic perspective on how the world works (Gill 2003: 119).
In this setup the regime level is marked by what Gill calls “new constitutionalism,” referring to the reifying establishment of laws and regulations necessary to
create fictitious commodities or market patterns in ever more areas of life. These
rules and norms armor the market civilization’s imaginary with legitimized options
of coercion against those unconvinced by its promises and unwilling to conform. As
a consequence, these institutions protect not only the interests of those groups and
individuals benefiting most from a market civilization, but also, slowly but surely,
turn the experienced reality of humans into what the theory foresees: ubiquitous
market patterns in which everyone has to possess and sell capital, labor or nature in
order to make a life (ibid.: 120–124).
The effect that this has on individual identities was described as psychogenesis
in Sect. 2.1 and dubbed “disciplinary neoliberalism” by Gill. He refers to Weber
(1864–1920) instead of Norbert Elias. Weber, the famous German sociologist,
analyzed how classes, status groups, political parties, etc., are all social phenomena
expressing the distribution of power in society and embodying typical customs.
They discipline without employing coercion those who wish to be part of them,
something that Gramsci also pointed out when arguing for the expansion of the law
into the private realm. In the words of Weber: “What is decisive for discipline is
that obedience of a plurality of men is rationally uniform” (Weber/Eisenstadt 1968:
28). In effect this means that everyone seeking to fit in with the standard groups of
society will, in a self-governing way, seek to master ideas, habits and social
practices in line with market society and new constitutionalism patterns (Gill 2003:
128–130).
Gill’s neo-Gramscian concepts offer a particular political-economist-style
interpretation of current path dependencies from mental to regime infrastructures
commensurate with the general MLP concept of transition studies. They show how
expressions of the mainstream paradigm and mind-set cut across the different levels
of structuration. Some present-day examples of the hegemony of market civilization
and disciplinary neoliberalism come to mind. You may not even have found anything awkward about some contemporary instances of fictitious commodification—
not even when someone talked about making the labor market more flexible,
improving the return on investment on financial products or expanding the
Emissions Trading System. And great examples of new constitutionalism can be
found everywhere. One of my favorites is the 2013 coalition agreement of the
parties making up the current German government. It refers unabashedly to a health
‘economy,’ a culture ‘economy’ and a ‘bioeconomy’ as if this was the natural way
of viewing and organizing what were formerly public goods, human rights, the arts,
or nature and agriculture.
After fictitious commodities, Polanyi of course also singled out the importance
of the idea or social myth of endless gain and growth for the democratic governance
of highly unequal societies: eventually, everyone should benefit from the expanding
cake, and as a consequence everyone contributing to growth is serving the common
good, regardless of what is hiding behind the numbers.
5.1 The Role of Mind-Sets in Unlocking Path Dependencies …
153
myopic perspective on how the world works (Gill 2003: 119).
In this setup the regime level is marked by what Gill calls “new constitutionalism,” referring to the reifying establishment of laws and regulations necessary to
create fictitious commodities or market patterns in ever more areas of life. These
rules and norms armor the market civilization’s imaginary with legitimized options
of coercion against those unconvinced by its promises and unwilling to conform. As
a consequence, these institutions protect not only the interests of those groups and
individuals benefiting most from a market civilization, but also, slowly but surely,
turn the experienced reality of humans into what the theory foresees: ubiquitous
market patterns in which everyone has to possess and sell capital, labor or nature in
order to make a life (ibid.: 120–124).
The effect that this has on individual identities was described as psychogenesis
in Sect. 2.1 and dubbed “disciplinary neoliberalism” by Gill. He refers to Weber
(1864–1920) instead of Norbert Elias. Weber, the famous German sociologist,
analyzed how classes, status groups, political parties, etc., are all social phenomena
expressing the distribution of power in society and embodying typical customs.
They discipline without employing coercion those who wish to be part of them,
something that Gramsci also pointed out when arguing for the expansion of the law
into the private realm. In the words of Weber: “What is decisive for discipline is
that obedience of a plurality of men is rationally uniform” (Weber/Eisenstadt 1968:
28). In effect this means that everyone seeking to fit in with the standard groups of
society will, in a self-governing way, seek to master ideas, habits and social
practices in line with market society and new constitutionalism patterns (Gill 2003:
128–130).
Gill’s neo-Gramscian concepts offer a particular political-economist-style
interpretation of current path dependencies from mental to regime infrastructures
commensurate with the general MLP concept of transition studies. They show how
expressions of the mainstream paradigm and mind-set cut across the different levels
of structuration. Some present-day examples of the hegemony of market civilization
and disciplinary neoliberalism come to mind. You may not even have found anything awkward about some contemporary instances of fictitious commodification—
not even when someone talked about making the labor market more flexible,
improving the return on investment on financial products or expanding the
Emissions Trading System. And great examples of new constitutionalism can be
found everywhere. One of my favorites is the 2013 coalition agreement of the
parties making up the current German government. It refers unabashedly to a health
‘economy,’ a culture ‘economy’ and a ‘bioeconomy’ as if this was the natural way
of viewing and organizing what were formerly public goods, human rights, the arts,
or nature and agriculture.
After fictitious commodities, Polanyi of course also singled out the importance
of the idea or social myth of endless gain and growth for the democratic governance
of highly unequal societies: eventually, everyone should benefit from the expanding
cake, and as a consequence everyone contributing to growth is serving the common
good, regardless of what is hiding behind the numbers.
5.1 The Role of Mind-Sets in Unlocking Path Dependencies …
153