What do you think?
Rate this book
Friendship in an Age of Economics: Resisting the Forces of Neoliberalism
We live in an age of economics. We are encouraged not only to think of our work but also of our lives in economic terms. In many of our practices, we are told that we are consumers and entrepreneurs. What has come to be called neoliberalism is not only a theory of market relations; it is a theory of human relations. Friendship in an Age of Economics both describes and confronts this new reality. It confronts it on some familiar that of friendship. Friendship, particularly close or deep friendship, resists categorization into economic terms. In a sustained investigation of friendship, this book shows how friendship offers an alternative to neoliberal relationships and can help lay the groundwork for resistance to it.
- GenresPhilosophy
164 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2012
5 people are currently reading
179 people want to read
About the author
Todd May
28 books206 followersTodd May was born in New York City. He is the author of 18 books of philosophy. He was philosophical advisor to NBC's hit sit-com The Good Place and one of the original contributors to the New York Times philosophy blog The Stone. Todd teaches philosophy at Warren Wilson College.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
November 11, 2019
This is a very good book. I consider this to be my first foray into contemporary continental political philosophy and the experience has been very rewarding. Whereas much of what I read in the analytical sphere is predicated on examining competing political virtues and uncovering flaws in reasoning, May's book is not attacking any political philosophy as such, but is instead focused on examining how the public sphere influences the private sphere and, in a way, breaks down the false dichotomy that is often set up by liberal political theorists in separating the personal and the political.
May begins, in chapter one, by briefly explaining what he means by neoliberalism. Neoliberalism, as he takes it, is roughly characterized by the views of the Chicago School of economics (and also likely those who still adhere to the Austrian School) in which a laissez-faire approach is taken and the market is organized through individuals simply acting in their own self-interest. He notes that such policies have been disastrous - Thatcherism and Reaganism led to large increases in wealth inequality without supplying the 'trickle-down' that was promised. As well, the Chicago School-promoted government of Pinochet in Chile was similarly disastrous, benefitting the best-off at the expense of the worst-off.
In chapter two, May seeks to explain the Foucaultian concept of 'figures'. Figures, May claims, are those archetypes that dominant the current ethos. These figures, for Foucault, include the masturbating child, the hysterical woman, the Malthusian couple and the perverse adult. These figures are pervasive in a society's ethos such that every person is, at least partially, defined with respect to their adherence to one or more of the figures. While people are not solely defined in terms of which figure they are, they are at least partially.
In chapter three, then, May hijacks the concept of figures to explain what he takes the figures of neoliberalism to be - the consumer and the entrepreneur. The consumer is focused solely on their own pleasure - things are viewed solely as a means of acquiring pleasure and no more. The entrepreneur is focused solely on how things can serve their furtherance; take for example, networking - the entrepreneur views networking as simply a tool to help them further their own career. While we are not wholly defined in terms of being a consumer or an entrepreneur, we are at least partially. This is not to merely say that we consume as the consumer does or use things as the entrepreneur does, it is to say that we are at least partially defined by these things. Being a consumer or being an entrepreneur is integral to our identity and is not merely just a way in which we act. These figures, although originating in neoliberalism and the economic sphere, has come to bleed into other spheres. In a word, the political begins to bleed into the personal, influencing how we act there, as well as in the economic sphere.
Chapter four sets out to define friendship, drawing from Aristotle and others, May characterizes three separate types of friendships - ones that bring us pleasure, ones that have utility and those that are deep, or true. The latter two forms are roughly similar to the figure of the consumer and the entrepreneur - the consumer views friendships solely as a means of bringing pleasure whereas the entrepreneur views friendships solely as a way to further themselves by using or catapulting off of the friend. The third type, now bleeding into chapters four and five, is characterized as follows:
1. Involve a mutual trust
2. Involve a shared history
3. Involve an interest in the person as a whole, not their individual characteristics
4. Involve an ability to share amongst each other regarding deep and meaningful aspects of one's life as well as challenge or support each other regarding these thing
This is not to say these friendships lack pleasure or utility, but simply to say that what is distinct about these friendships is these four features. Additionally, the reason we value these friendships is because they impart meaning to our lives - having these deep relationships makes our life seem more worthy of living. Importantly, this meaning is not reducible down to either pleasure or utility - it is a separate function of deep or true relationships. One could possible explain this by reference to our social nature (as Aristotle puts it, man is a political animal). However, May himself does not necessarily take to try and explain why we value deep friendships in this way that is irreducible - we simply do.
From here, in chapter six, May seeks to show how deep friendships are an alternative to neoliberalism, or an alternative to the dominant figures of the consumer and entrepreneur. This is mostly because, as noted about, deep friendships are not reducible down into the features that characterize the two dominant figures. He notes some objections to this idea, notably from Derrida, who claims that gift-giving, a prominent feature in friendships, is actually incompatible with friendship as gift-giving necessarily gives rise to a counter-obligation to re-pay the debt, or at least acknowledge it. This then, seeks to show that the figures of the consumer and entrepreneur bleed into friendships and is not an alternative to them at all - friendships are simply a personal expression of the dominant figures. May responds to this worry by stating that gift-giving is not necessarily characterized in the way Derrida supposes - in deep friendships, the rich, shared history friends have causes them to not view gift-giving in such a way; it allows friends to both give, and not count the cost, as well as receive, and not count the cost. May suggests that if friendships are characterized by the counter-obligation arising as a result of gift-giving, this signifies a problem within the relationship and not a necessary feature of gift-giving in friendship itself. This reply seems plausible.
The final chapter attempts to show that through friendship, we can resist neoliberalism. This is because, May takes it, friendship requires that we relate to each other as equals, not equals in this way or that way, but wholly as equals. Movements of solidarity necessary to overcoming neoliberalism require this sort of equality - we must see each other as equals in order to problematize the aspects of neoliberalism that give rise to rampant inequality and often leave people behind. By training to view others as equal in friendship and trust one another, we prepare ourselves for these movements of solidarity.
May's most important critique, although not treated with the kind of depth and rigour as I would have hoped, is that deep friendships give us motivation to resist neoliberalism. Deep friendships are an important good and since the figures of the consumer and entrepreneur bleed into the personal sphere, these is a resultant effect which is to view friendships in terms of the values of the market. If we view friendships the same way we view market transactions, it closes off the possibility of deep friendships. Since friendships are an important good, acknowledging that neoliberalism and its figures have this effect, it gives us reason to oppose neoliberalism and market thinking in general.
My biggest concern with the book is that the point in the last paragraph is relegated to only three or so pages. More generally, I found that much more was done in the way of descriptive work, i.e. explaining neoliberalism and friendship, than actually offering his positive thesis which is that friendship is a way to resist neoliberalism. More important, when he did focus on his positive thesis, he focused more-so on the instrumental benefits of deep friendships, rather than the value of deep friendships in themselves. By viewing them in such a way he allows his own market thinking to pervade into the sphere of deep friendships - they are not just valuable in light of how they prepare us for movements of solidarity necessary for formal resistance of neoliberal forces. Rather, and more importantly, friendships are intrinsically good and valuable, and if we truly want to resist market forces in the personal sphere, this is the point that ought to be hammered home. If we want to stop thinking of things merely as a means to some other thing, we must put our foot down and shout no, that the value is not reducible to some other aspect. Friendships make for a meaningful life and we ought to preserve them in light of that, rather than focusing on any other feature or instrumental benefit of them.
May begins, in chapter one, by briefly explaining what he means by neoliberalism. Neoliberalism, as he takes it, is roughly characterized by the views of the Chicago School of economics (and also likely those who still adhere to the Austrian School) in which a laissez-faire approach is taken and the market is organized through individuals simply acting in their own self-interest. He notes that such policies have been disastrous - Thatcherism and Reaganism led to large increases in wealth inequality without supplying the 'trickle-down' that was promised. As well, the Chicago School-promoted government of Pinochet in Chile was similarly disastrous, benefitting the best-off at the expense of the worst-off.
In chapter two, May seeks to explain the Foucaultian concept of 'figures'. Figures, May claims, are those archetypes that dominant the current ethos. These figures, for Foucault, include the masturbating child, the hysterical woman, the Malthusian couple and the perverse adult. These figures are pervasive in a society's ethos such that every person is, at least partially, defined with respect to their adherence to one or more of the figures. While people are not solely defined in terms of which figure they are, they are at least partially.
In chapter three, then, May hijacks the concept of figures to explain what he takes the figures of neoliberalism to be - the consumer and the entrepreneur. The consumer is focused solely on their own pleasure - things are viewed solely as a means of acquiring pleasure and no more. The entrepreneur is focused solely on how things can serve their furtherance; take for example, networking - the entrepreneur views networking as simply a tool to help them further their own career. While we are not wholly defined in terms of being a consumer or an entrepreneur, we are at least partially. This is not to merely say that we consume as the consumer does or use things as the entrepreneur does, it is to say that we are at least partially defined by these things. Being a consumer or being an entrepreneur is integral to our identity and is not merely just a way in which we act. These figures, although originating in neoliberalism and the economic sphere, has come to bleed into other spheres. In a word, the political begins to bleed into the personal, influencing how we act there, as well as in the economic sphere.
Chapter four sets out to define friendship, drawing from Aristotle and others, May characterizes three separate types of friendships - ones that bring us pleasure, ones that have utility and those that are deep, or true. The latter two forms are roughly similar to the figure of the consumer and the entrepreneur - the consumer views friendships solely as a means of bringing pleasure whereas the entrepreneur views friendships solely as a way to further themselves by using or catapulting off of the friend. The third type, now bleeding into chapters four and five, is characterized as follows:
1. Involve a mutual trust
2. Involve a shared history
3. Involve an interest in the person as a whole, not their individual characteristics
4. Involve an ability to share amongst each other regarding deep and meaningful aspects of one's life as well as challenge or support each other regarding these thing
This is not to say these friendships lack pleasure or utility, but simply to say that what is distinct about these friendships is these four features. Additionally, the reason we value these friendships is because they impart meaning to our lives - having these deep relationships makes our life seem more worthy of living. Importantly, this meaning is not reducible down to either pleasure or utility - it is a separate function of deep or true relationships. One could possible explain this by reference to our social nature (as Aristotle puts it, man is a political animal). However, May himself does not necessarily take to try and explain why we value deep friendships in this way that is irreducible - we simply do.
From here, in chapter six, May seeks to show how deep friendships are an alternative to neoliberalism, or an alternative to the dominant figures of the consumer and entrepreneur. This is mostly because, as noted about, deep friendships are not reducible down into the features that characterize the two dominant figures. He notes some objections to this idea, notably from Derrida, who claims that gift-giving, a prominent feature in friendships, is actually incompatible with friendship as gift-giving necessarily gives rise to a counter-obligation to re-pay the debt, or at least acknowledge it. This then, seeks to show that the figures of the consumer and entrepreneur bleed into friendships and is not an alternative to them at all - friendships are simply a personal expression of the dominant figures. May responds to this worry by stating that gift-giving is not necessarily characterized in the way Derrida supposes - in deep friendships, the rich, shared history friends have causes them to not view gift-giving in such a way; it allows friends to both give, and not count the cost, as well as receive, and not count the cost. May suggests that if friendships are characterized by the counter-obligation arising as a result of gift-giving, this signifies a problem within the relationship and not a necessary feature of gift-giving in friendship itself. This reply seems plausible.
The final chapter attempts to show that through friendship, we can resist neoliberalism. This is because, May takes it, friendship requires that we relate to each other as equals, not equals in this way or that way, but wholly as equals. Movements of solidarity necessary to overcoming neoliberalism require this sort of equality - we must see each other as equals in order to problematize the aspects of neoliberalism that give rise to rampant inequality and often leave people behind. By training to view others as equal in friendship and trust one another, we prepare ourselves for these movements of solidarity.
May's most important critique, although not treated with the kind of depth and rigour as I would have hoped, is that deep friendships give us motivation to resist neoliberalism. Deep friendships are an important good and since the figures of the consumer and entrepreneur bleed into the personal sphere, these is a resultant effect which is to view friendships in terms of the values of the market. If we view friendships the same way we view market transactions, it closes off the possibility of deep friendships. Since friendships are an important good, acknowledging that neoliberalism and its figures have this effect, it gives us reason to oppose neoliberalism and market thinking in general.
My biggest concern with the book is that the point in the last paragraph is relegated to only three or so pages. More generally, I found that much more was done in the way of descriptive work, i.e. explaining neoliberalism and friendship, than actually offering his positive thesis which is that friendship is a way to resist neoliberalism. More important, when he did focus on his positive thesis, he focused more-so on the instrumental benefits of deep friendships, rather than the value of deep friendships in themselves. By viewing them in such a way he allows his own market thinking to pervade into the sphere of deep friendships - they are not just valuable in light of how they prepare us for movements of solidarity necessary for formal resistance of neoliberal forces. Rather, and more importantly, friendships are intrinsically good and valuable, and if we truly want to resist market forces in the personal sphere, this is the point that ought to be hammered home. If we want to stop thinking of things merely as a means to some other thing, we must put our foot down and shout no, that the value is not reducible to some other aspect. Friendships make for a meaningful life and we ought to preserve them in light of that, rather than focusing on any other feature or instrumental benefit of them.
Read
December 12, 2025I will enjoy anything Todd writes, but a huge caveat would be that the book truly narrows down on being specifically about the topic. For good reason, yet it felt too restrictive at times.
April 21, 2014
// REVIEW LACKING //
"We live in an age of economics." And this book costs a whopping £37.95.
Borrowed it at the library. While reading it, I found major proof errors over and over again. Between chapters, the author introduced the same philosophers again, as if you were reading a non-coherent collection of essays. The same quotes are presented several times, each time as if they were there for the first time. You get the impression that the book has a short memory failure. You could at least expect some proof reading and editing when reaching that far down in your pocket for a short book that does not exactly seem to be the magnum opus of Mr. May. The book could very well be better off if it was cut down from 150 pages to 100. Probably someone will be so kind to scan it eventually, and share it with their friends, so they don't have to get an extra job to finance this book.
For those who don't care to read, watch and listen to this video a couple of times, and you get the material more or less: http://www.anarchist-developments.org...
Todd May's book is a good example of a book, where the whole is not greater than its parts, but instead the other way around. I find the overall conclusions and style of the book too indecisive, which sometimes is deeply frustrating. We are dealing with an "anarchist" speaking in the language of american academic sociologists. It is probably a book made for students in some class on neoliberalism and "contemporary social movements", which would explain the price of the book too.
But yes, there are actually parts, fragments, associating thoughts, a sentence here or there, that gives this book some kind of justification. Many of them rhetorical or poetic innovations. Some of them the exhausting labour of reading and reviewing other sociological work and digging up the few usable tools they may contain.
[I don't recommend reading this book, as there are other more urgent texts to read on friendship and resistance. Now you got the warning. I may be back to share some of the things I found in it if anyone desires to hear, just shout]
"We live in an age of economics." And this book costs a whopping £37.95.
Borrowed it at the library. While reading it, I found major proof errors over and over again. Between chapters, the author introduced the same philosophers again, as if you were reading a non-coherent collection of essays. The same quotes are presented several times, each time as if they were there for the first time. You get the impression that the book has a short memory failure. You could at least expect some proof reading and editing when reaching that far down in your pocket for a short book that does not exactly seem to be the magnum opus of Mr. May. The book could very well be better off if it was cut down from 150 pages to 100. Probably someone will be so kind to scan it eventually, and share it with their friends, so they don't have to get an extra job to finance this book.
For those who don't care to read, watch and listen to this video a couple of times, and you get the material more or less: http://www.anarchist-developments.org...
Todd May's book is a good example of a book, where the whole is not greater than its parts, but instead the other way around. I find the overall conclusions and style of the book too indecisive, which sometimes is deeply frustrating. We are dealing with an "anarchist" speaking in the language of american academic sociologists. It is probably a book made for students in some class on neoliberalism and "contemporary social movements", which would explain the price of the book too.
But yes, there are actually parts, fragments, associating thoughts, a sentence here or there, that gives this book some kind of justification. Many of them rhetorical or poetic innovations. Some of them the exhausting labour of reading and reviewing other sociological work and digging up the few usable tools they may contain.
[I don't recommend reading this book, as there are other more urgent texts to read on friendship and resistance. Now you got the warning. I may be back to share some of the things I found in it if anyone desires to hear, just shout]
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews