In the style of the criticism we ha

In the style of the criticism we have been considering, our aim here is not so much to reject as to find ways to modify the governmental approach. But in no sense would we claim to address the arguments of the critics in their entirety. Rather, the more modest aim is to begin to restore attention to the specificity of practices of governing (Barratt, 2008). The identification of rationalities that span institutional fields remains vital, not least as a means of illuminating commonalities in different fields of political struggle. The intention here is to balance this by respecting the singular forms of government. We share the nominalist perspective of Dean and Hindess (1998): modes of government appear in definite institutional, social or professional settings and should be assigned a time and place. The focus here is on how particular categories of person are formed or ‘made up’. But genealogical enquiry can serve also as a reminder of forgotten possibilities in the sense of historical experiences that have been suppressed in the course of time, which can nonetheless be of relevance to contemporary struggles (Barratt,2003;Burchell,1996). Accordingly, our interest





Here is not only in the emergence of a particular mode of participatory governmentality, but also in certain episodes in the history of the British left and the women’s movement.
A certain humility is nonetheless implied in the account that follows. The past is not a place we can return to; at best, it can offer resources – in the form of ideas or practices - that we can adapt in our own present circumstances. We would suggest that any attempt to expand the political imagination or to imagine alternative futures should as a minimum requirement take the form of an intimation, as anything more than this runs the risk of constraining the inventiveness of political actors or implying a definitive position. What is ultimately required is a labour of invention and imagination by those who struggle. Thus, we offer here analysis and argument that might be of relevance to those movements of the left debating the question of the organization of the state (e.g. shah and goss, 2007) or the developing alliances of public sector trade unionists and activists now pursuing struggles in the context of liberal conservative austerity measures.







‘modernized’ bureaucracy and the birth of participatory governmentality
New labour was evidently not the first labour party faction to have attempted significant ‘modernization’ of the central administration. Harold wilson’s neo-Fabian image of a ‘regenerated’ Britain in which expertise and science would arrest the decline of the nation (theakston,1992) encouraged the reformers associated with the Fulton committee report (1968) and their proposals to enhance management and specialization in the Civit Service. Though limited in their practical effects, the management reforms of the 1960s prefigured the NPM. ‘Modernisation’ under Blair, however, followed a variety of paths. For the developments with which we are concerned, the decisive turn or historical break is perhaps the ‘Third Way’(Blair,1998). Many familiar positions associated with New Lebour are developed in this text, including the redefinition of ‘equality’ to refer to ‘equality of opportunity’ and the idea of ‘partnership’ as the means to deliver efficient and customer-sensitive public services. But the Third Way also offered a critique of the administration of government premised on the ‘maturity’ of British society. Britain, it was argued, was now passing through a new era or modern age. The increased flow of information made possible by technological developments - an ‘information revolution’ - as well as educational developments in the post-WW2 period had changed the citizenry, encouraging a demand for more democracy. A ‘deepening of democracy’ should mean not only devolving power Wales and Scotland, greater community influence in local government decision making or support for local community initiatives.


Crucially, a ‘new openness and responsiveness’ on the part of central government and the administrative machinery of the state was now also needed. A form of administration that gave greater attention to the voices of citizens in respect to decisions that affected them and encouraged public debate would lead to improved political decision making. Society, as Blair saw it, was a ‘laboratory of ideas’ concerning how social needs might be best met.

The arguments of the third way suggest the influence of an array of intellectual and political sources. Importantly, there was a certain epochal quality to the argument. In this respect, recent commentary has highlighted new Labour’s debt (Andrews, 2004; Finlay, 2003) to debates encouraged by elements of the British communist party during its final years. As the party’s magazine Marxism today came under the control of a Gramscian faction in the party (Hall and Jacques, 1983), and particularly with the ascendancy of Thatcherite neo-liberalism, a new and wide-ranging debate ensued over the future direction of the British left. What underpinned much of this debate was a sense of ‘new times’. The favoured analysis of those who initiated the debate relied on the notion of a transformed post-Fordist economy and society (Hall and Jacques, 1983). Diverse phenomena, from working practices to social and political identities, were taking new varied and flexible forms to which the political left were compelled to respond. For Charles Leadbeater (1988), like blair, a political topography shaped by the conservatives under Margaret thatcher required not only a new sensitivity to customer choice and efficiency in the delivery of public services, a balancing of social rights and responsibilities, but a new era of democracy in the administration of the state.

ผลลัพธ์ (ไทย) 1:

In the style of the criticism we have been considering, our aim here is not so much to reject as to find ways to modify the governmental approach. But in no sense would we claim to address the arguments of the critics in their entirety. Rather, the more modest aim is to begin to restore attention to the specificity of practices of governing (Barratt, 2008). The identification of rationalities that span institutional fields remains vital, not least as a means of illuminating commonalities in different fields of political struggle. The intention here is to balance this by respecting the singular forms of government. We share the nominalist perspective of Dean and Hindess (1998): modes of government appear in definite institutional, social or professional settings and should be assigned a time and place. The focus here is on how particular categories of person are formed or ‘made up’. But genealogical enquiry can serve also as a reminder of forgotten possibilities in the sense of historical experiences that have been suppressed in the course of time, which can nonetheless be of relevance to contemporary struggles (Barratt,2003;Burchell,1996). Accordingly, our interest Here is not only in the emergence of a particular mode of participatory governmentality, but also in certain episodes in the history of the British left and the women’s movement.กระนั้นมีนัยบางบทในบัญชีต่อไปนี้ ผ่านมาไม่มีเราสามารถกลับไป ดีที่สุด มันสามารถเสนอทรัพยากร – ในรูปของความคิดหรือแนวทางปฏิบัติ - ที่เราสามารถปรับเปลี่ยนในสถานการณ์ปัจจุบันของเราเอง เราจะแนะนำว่า ความพยายามใด ๆ เพื่อขยายจินตนาการทางการเมือง หรือคิดทางเลือกในอนาคตควรเป็นข้อกำหนดขั้นต่ำใช้แบบฟอร์มของการ intimation เป็นอะไรที่มากกว่านี้ทำงานเสี่ยงกีด inventiveness ของนักแสดงทางการเมือง หรือหน้าที่ตำแหน่งทั่วไป สิ่งจำเป็นที่สุดคือ แรงงานประดิษฐ์และจินตนาการผู้ต่อสู้ ดังนั้น เรามีที่นี่วิเคราะห์และอาร์กิวเมนต์ที่อาจมีความเกี่ยวข้องกับการย้ายที่ของซ้ายโต้วาทีคำถามขององค์กรของรัฐ (เช่นชาห์และ goss, 2007) หรือพันธมิตรการพัฒนาของภาครัฐสหภาพแรงงานและนักเคลื่อนไหวที่ใฝ่หาย่างในบริบทของเสรีนิยมหัวเก่าความเข้มงวดมาตรการขณะนี้ระบบราชการ 'ทันสมัย' และการเกิดของ governmentality มีส่วนร่วมNew labour was evidently not the first labour party faction to have attempted significant ‘modernization’ of the central administration. Harold wilson’s neo-Fabian image of a ‘regenerated’ Britain in which expertise and science would arrest the decline of the nation (theakston,1992) encouraged the reformers associated with the Fulton committee report (1968) and their proposals to enhance management and specialization in the Civit Service. Though limited in their practical effects, the management reforms of the 1960s prefigured the NPM. ‘Modernisation’ under Blair, however, followed a variety of paths. For the developments with which we are concerned, the decisive turn or historical break is perhaps the ‘Third Way’(Blair,1998). Many familiar positions associated with New Lebour are developed in this text, including the redefinition of ‘equality’ to refer to ‘equality of opportunity’ and the idea of ‘partnership’ as the means to deliver efficient and customer-sensitive public services. But the Third Way also offered a critique of the administration of government premised on the ‘maturity’ of British society. Britain, it was argued, was now passing through a new era or modern age. The increased flow of information made possible by technological developments - an ‘information revolution’ - as well as educational developments in the post-WW2 period had changed the citizenry, encouraging a demand for more democracy. A ‘deepening of democracy’ should mean not only devolving power Wales and Scotland, greater community influence in local government decision making or support for local community initiatives.Crucially, a ‘new openness and responsiveness’ on the part of central government and the administrative machinery of the state was now also needed. A form of administration that gave greater attention to the voices of citizens in respect to decisions that affected them and encouraged public debate would lead to improved political decision making. Society, as Blair saw it, was a ‘laboratory of ideas’ concerning how social needs might be best met. The arguments of the third way suggest the influence of an array of intellectual and political sources. Importantly, there was a certain epochal quality to the argument. In this respect, recent commentary has highlighted new Labour’s debt (Andrews, 2004; Finlay, 2003) to debates encouraged by elements of the British communist party during its final years. As the party’s magazine Marxism today came under the control of a Gramscian faction in the party (Hall and Jacques, 1983), and particularly with the ascendancy of Thatcherite neo-liberalism, a new and wide-ranging debate ensued over the future direction of the British left. What underpinned much of this debate was a sense of ‘new times’. The favoured analysis of those who initiated the debate relied on the notion of a transformed post-Fordist economy and society (Hall and Jacques, 1983). Diverse phenomena, from working practices to social and political identities, were taking new varied and flexible forms to which the political left were compelled to respond. For Charles Leadbeater (1988), like blair, a political topography shaped by the conservatives under Margaret thatcher required not only a new sensitivity to customer choice and efficiency in the delivery of public services, a balancing of social rights and responsibilities, but a new era of democracy in the administration of the state.