What do you think?
Rate this book
Prisoners of Reason: Game Theory and Neoliberal Political Economy
Is capitalism inherently predatory? Must there be winners and losers? Is public interest outdated and free-riding rational? Is consumer choice the same as self-determination? Must bargainers abandon the no-harm principle? Prisoners of Reason recalls that classical liberal capitalism exalted the no-harm principle. Although imperfect and exclusionary, modern liberalism recognized individual human dignity alongside individuals' responsibility to respect others. Neoliberalism, by contrast, views life as ceaseless struggle. Agents vie for scarce resources in antagonistic competition in which every individual seeks dominance. This political theory is codified in non-cooperative game theory; the neoliberal citizen and consumer is the strategic rational actor. Rational choice justifies ends irrespective of means. Money becomes the medium of all value. Solidarity and good will are invalidated. Relationships are conducted on a quid pro quo basis. However, agents can freely opt out of this cynical race to the bottom by embracing a more expansive range of coherent action.
364 pages, Paperback
First published November 30, 2015
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
March 10, 2016
Sonja Amadae's "Prisoners of Reason" is a well-argued and highly relevant analysis of the origins of neoliberal thought in game theory. The advent of game theory (most commonly known in context of the Prisoner's Dilemma) came in the Cold War amidst the attempt to find a way to solve the seemingly insolvable nuclear dilemma. She explains, "By accepting that national security depends on wielding deterrent threats to wage nuclear war, game theory offers an abstract formal means to model the security dilemma and evaluate the credibility of threats." She shows how the confining logic of the Prisoner's Dilemma led to the failure of MAD (mutually assured destruction) as a deterrence strategy and the rise of NUTS (Nuclear Utilization Target Selection) in its stead, even despite the otherwise pacific inclinations of President Jimmy Carter. But game theory's reach soon extended beyond this specific dilemma and came to be introduced into social and political thought and the understanding of human evolution itself (Dawkins's selfish gene).
Amadae explains lucidly how the foundational assumptions of game theory--that all individuals act only out of self-interest and are willing to break any agreement, that all sources of value can be reduced to one metric for evaluating outcomes, etc.--are incompatible with classical liberalism and its emphasis on fair play and commitment to promises made. The game theoretic and neoliberal understanding of the individual leads to a heavily coercion-based social contract, a hollowing out of the concept of consent, and a belief in the futility of collective action.
Amadae makes astute connections between the rise of neoliberal thought and the rise of surveillance and mass incarceration. Classical liberals often placed a strong value on education: they believed that inculcating a certain set of values (and knowledge) would guarantee the harmonious functioning of society within the context of a minimal state. Although classical liberal punishment (such as Bentham's panopticon) can look rather horrifying in retrospect, there was still an emphasis on "rehabilitative education," per se. Welfarist or social liberals see redistribution as a key tool to guaranteeing buy-in to the social contract: if people see the system as fair, they will not defect. But neoliberalism rejects the premises that underlie these strategies. If all individuals are potential criminals because they would all defect if given the chance (no matter what their economic status or education), then the only tool available is coercive sanctions.
Amadae asserts that there is nothing inevitable about neoliberal subjectivity: we need not believe the game theoretic assumptions about human nature nor must we act by them. And this is particularly important within the context of higher education, where the social and political agents of the future are trained. We need to understand the foundational assumptions of such theories--as well as their limitations--if we are to avoid being trapped by them in our thinking.
For those interested in understanding neoliberalism and those interested in nuclear politics, this is a must-read.
Amadae explains lucidly how the foundational assumptions of game theory--that all individuals act only out of self-interest and are willing to break any agreement, that all sources of value can be reduced to one metric for evaluating outcomes, etc.--are incompatible with classical liberalism and its emphasis on fair play and commitment to promises made. The game theoretic and neoliberal understanding of the individual leads to a heavily coercion-based social contract, a hollowing out of the concept of consent, and a belief in the futility of collective action.
Amadae makes astute connections between the rise of neoliberal thought and the rise of surveillance and mass incarceration. Classical liberals often placed a strong value on education: they believed that inculcating a certain set of values (and knowledge) would guarantee the harmonious functioning of society within the context of a minimal state. Although classical liberal punishment (such as Bentham's panopticon) can look rather horrifying in retrospect, there was still an emphasis on "rehabilitative education," per se. Welfarist or social liberals see redistribution as a key tool to guaranteeing buy-in to the social contract: if people see the system as fair, they will not defect. But neoliberalism rejects the premises that underlie these strategies. If all individuals are potential criminals because they would all defect if given the chance (no matter what their economic status or education), then the only tool available is coercive sanctions.
Amadae asserts that there is nothing inevitable about neoliberal subjectivity: we need not believe the game theoretic assumptions about human nature nor must we act by them. And this is particularly important within the context of higher education, where the social and political agents of the future are trained. We need to understand the foundational assumptions of such theories--as well as their limitations--if we are to avoid being trapped by them in our thinking.
For those interested in understanding neoliberalism and those interested in nuclear politics, this is a must-read.
Displaying 1 of 1 review