Neoliberalism as an Anthropological Transformation

efsyn.gr

OPINION
28.07.25 17:00
Elias Ioakimoglou*

When neoliberalism took power, first with Thatcher and immediately after with Reagan, everyone thought that what was coming was simply a particular way of managing capitalism. We now know that neoliberalism, that is, the capitalism of our time, is not limited to managerial choices, nor only to structural changes that alter institutions of the labor market and the financial system, and others that are necessary when you want to manage the system in a new, different way. There is something else, equally serious: neoliberalism attempts an anthropological change, to produce a new type of human being in its own image and likeness of its own perception of people.

Selfish and Greedy

Against the entire philosophical tradition of humanity, after fifty-five years of uninterrupted hegemony, neoliberalism attempts, with some success, to produce a new type of human being in the image and likeness of homo economicus, a fantastical being who puts his rationality at the service of his selfishness and greed, a being that supposedly constitutes the essence of what we all ultimately are. This assumption, that this is what we are, tends to function as a self-fulfilling prophecy, as happens with ideology in general: if we believe that this is how people are, then we will also act as selfish and immoral beings who pursue, in a perfectly rational way, exclusively. their individual interest.

Two Nobel laureates explained in the decades following the rise of neoliberalism that this selfish, greedy, and rational being does not exist. The first, David Kahneman¹, proved that people are not so rational and can persistently fail to understand what they are doing wrong, even when given repeated and clear explanations regarding the rational solution to their problem. The other, Amartya Sen², more important in this respect, explained more clearly that sometimes, and rather often, we do not act selfishly, but with empathy, moral commitment to a promise, moral obligation, duty, and devotion. We are "rational fools," says Amartya Sen.. Therefore, people act sometimes according to self-interest and sometimes based on values that belong to the value system of collectivity and solidarity.

However, the critical observations of Kahneman, Sen, and others had not matured yet. Neoliberalism followed its path unhindered because the promises it had made at the beginning of its run had not yet been completely disproven. Now, however, these same critical observations are absolutely timely.

In addition to the myth that we are all inherently selfish and greedy, there are other aspects of neoliberalism's attempt to produce a new type of human being.

Truth, Beauty, Goodness, and Justice

In 1994, Eric Hobsbawm³ warned us that humanity was already at a critical threshold of anthropological transformation. He found that in 1994, the rational and value components of the world as we knew it until then had already been questioned and that the road to barbarism had been opened.

This was also a critical observation, which, after captivating the political circles of the Left, was quickly forgotten because it was premature. How timely it is now, however, is explained by Dany-Robert Dufour⁴: 

"Neoliberalism and its ideological appendages, relativism and postmodernism, attempt to redefine four concepts: Truth, Beauty, Goodness, and Justice. This undertaking is carried out against a philosophical tradition that has been hegemonic since Plato⁵ and Aristotle⁶ fought against the Sophists and reaches the moment when Margaret Thatcher and her ilk undertook to redefine the meaning of our existence in the reformatory of postmodern sophists."

Of the four concepts that are in the process of redefinition, let's see what is happening with the concept of Truth.

The criteria of rationalism, in order to accept a judgment as correct, are two: first, the judgment must not violate the rules of Logic and, second, it must not be contradicted by the "criterion of practice" (that is, by what actually happens in reality). This second is a criterion of objectivity in the sense that whatever is true has an objective existence, does not depend on our subjectivity, our perception, and our disposition.

When a judgment does not violate these two criteria, it can be socially validated as correct, not as an individual assumption (where everyone can believe whatever they want), but socially (that is, approved by others as valid).

The Onset of the Barbarians

Postmodernism⁷ and relativism are the theories of liberation from the constraints of the criteria used by rationalism. Now, aphorisms, self-identification, tweets with the president of the USA's nonsense, pseudo-syllogisms, and battles of impressions are triumphant. Here, everything is valid or invalid depending on our disposition, and our values are also relative. There is not one and only truth, but many small narratives, and everything hangs in the air without a material basis, that is, without objective existence. Even the laws of nature are simply social conventions, they say, but they refuse to verify this because they do not dare to jump from the 21st floor of a building, as Alan Sokal, professor of Theoretical Physics, challenged them to do in a great discussion held thirty years ago.

Yet, how does this postmodern mush enjoy social validation, since it is not socially validated based on the criteria of rationalism? Pseudo-validation simply consists in the recognition of our peers: If we make a claim that others accept, regardless of its validity in logic or practice, it can achieve pseudo-social validation, especially within a political or social group. The more those who believe in a belief multiply, the faster it spreads, with the demand to appear as truth. This validation is false from the point of view of logic, but it is very real from the point of view of its practical consequences when it turns into mass ideology, demagoguery, and material power.

This is where we are now, in the antechamber of barbarism that Eric Hobsbawm warned us about. A relatively opaque antechamber, because the anthropological transformation does not proceed mainly with laws and declarations, and very rarely dances on the central political stage. It consists of processes that develop out there, in social life.

(1) Kahneman D. (2003), Maps of Bounded Rationality, The American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449-1475 and Kahneman D. (1994), New Challenges to the Rationality Assumption, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 150(1), 18-44.

(2) Sen A.K. (1977), Rational Fools: A Critique of the Behavioural Foundations of Economic Theory, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 6, No. 4 (Summer), 317-344.

(3) Eric Hobsbawm (1994[2004]), The Age of Extremes, Themelio editions.

(4) Dany-Robert Dufour (2018), Le bon, le juste et le beau, Revue du MAUSS n° 51, La Découverte editions.

(5) Plato, Sophist, translation by Dimitris Glinos, Zacharopoulos editions.

(6) Aristotle, Organon 3: Topica Z-Θ, On Sophistical Refutations, Cactus editions, 1994.

(7) Kostas Skordoulis and Eugenia Koleza (1997), "Postmodern" relativism and scientific rationality (Regarding the Sokal affair), Theseis magazine, issue 60.