Violence: Neoliberalism at the root of it

2016 is, in my estimation, the year of global violence. From Syria and Burma we have heard reports of genocide, in the United States hate crimes are on the rise, in Bangladesh minority groups are being attacked systematically. Given the current world order, neoliberalism, with a right wing and/or authoritarian tilt, this is perhaps inevitable. 

But first, here's a brief primer. Neoliberalism, an ideology marked by concepts of privatisation, trade liberalisation, economic liberalisation, deregulation, and personal responsibility, is a manifestation of free-market capitalism that suggests that wealth "trickles down" to the poor when wealth is allocated to top income earners of a country. Often termed 'Reagonomics' because it was under President Reagan in the United States (and Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom) that Milton Friedman and Hayek's idea of trickle down policy bore fruit in response to embedded liberalism's failure, neoliberal policies are a mechanism by which wealth is redistributed to the wealthy from the poor, by use of policies that favour the wealthy, such as tax breaks for investments, low corporate tax rates, deregulation, budget cuts, and deindustrialisation at home (Harvey 2003). The state actively partners with corporations by means of policies such as bailout packages and other schemes that allocate public property to corporations for commercial use. The EPZs that we see in the outskirts of Dhaka are a prime example. Arguably, as part of the neoliberal project, the state becomes the apparatus through which the capitalist class maintains its class power, albeit in various degrees in different parts of the world, while the working class find themselves de-unionised and exploited as real wages decrease and the welfare state is rolled back, or as the case may be – the welfare state never sees the light of day.

Hence, the neoliberal era did not do away with the state as many would argue; it transformed the role of the state from that of an interventionist to a partner of the corporate world; instead of intervening in the economy to prevent market failure (the key role of government in the pre-neoliberal era), the state allows for proliferation of donor-funded non-government organisations (NGOs), particularly in the developing world, to provide social services and public goods, including education and banking services for the marginalised, in the absence of government provision of goods and services. That little is known about whom NGOs are accountable to and where their funds come from is a problem that shrouds much of the developing world including Bangladesh (Banks, Hulme, and Edwards 2014).

Margaret Thatcher had claimed "there is no such thing as society —only individual men and women" to which we can apply the argument of scholars such as Ulrich Beck who suggest that under neoliberalism citizens have had to become entrepreneurs of their own lives, taking personal responsibility for their failures as public-private governance paved the way for entrepreneurial citizenship. This idea of individualism connects with ideas of private property, personal responsibility, and family values to create neoliberal subjects who are coerced into their new identities. As such, being an entrepreneur is not just about economic success but also personal development.

This creation of neoliberal subjects by making individuals become entrepreneurs of their own lives has happened both in old capitalist countries and developing countries such as Bangladesh that are new to capitalism. The World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) have coerced nations like Bangladesh to implement neoliberal policies, better known as "structural adjustment policies," based on the Washington Consensus. These structural adjustment policies aimed at liberalisation of developing nations have been criticised as an attack on institutions that "democratise gender relations and mitigate patriarchy by alleviating women's poverty and overwork" such as trade unions, welfare statism, and social solidarity.

It is under this neoliberal system created by such structural adjustment policies that various institutions have emerged – including microfinance – to empower women, along with industries that employ women. This creation of employment (at garment factories for instance) and self-employment for women should perhaps be lauded, but because it has happened within a patriarchal structure, what we see is a rise in neopatriarchy and gender inequality. This is perhaps where the distinction between old and new forms of patriarchy needs to be made; while the former is what Kandiyoti calls "classic patriarchy", the latter is a product of neoliberal policies that marginalise and isolate women while enhancing their participation in economic activities and the labour market. Women are now found to be in locations of tension and conflict as violent and coercive practices are used to extract labour from women. 

Neoliberalism is an attack on women's liberation. It has made women into workers, including low-wage workers, who work long hours, who are made to feel "responsible" for those long hours spent away from their homes – children and family, because patriarchy lives on, but in new forms. Women now have the double burden, as some call it, of providing resources and income as well as care for the family in a system that doesn't have adequate health care provision for its citizens, a system that doesn't make child care a priority which means most workplaces don't have child care options, where elder care is supposed to be provided by family members, whether or not they are able to. 

Sexual harassment at the work place, and on the streets, rape on public transportation, harassment on the way and back from work – all of these persist because neoliberalism while prioritising competition and efficiency has made women part of the work force, has not made the environment friendly towards them. It hasn't dismantled the system that has historically oppressed women and continues to oppress women. Instead, it has created isolation. So when women experience all these forms of oppression – at home, workplace, and on the streets – they have nowhere to turn for real help, which means the violence against them is maintained over time, in more and more locations.

At the same time neoliberalism creates inequality – even amidst increasing Gross Domestic Product, which is what we hear most about. But violence and inequality are "mutually constitutive" -- which is perhaps what Galtung (1969) was pointing to when he coined the term structural violence. He was among the first to explain how inequality fosters violence, which in turn creates more inequality. 

Thus, any effort to reduce violence must be accompanied by efforts to reduce inequality.

As we look to the future, this is what I hope we can do: recognise that without addressing the various forms of economic and social inequalities we cannot address violence. Recognise that structural problems – including climate change, poverty, weak institutions, bad governance, lack of sanitation and access to water, transportation, unsafe roads and streets, together with a culture of misogyny exacerbates structural violence. 

We must take it upon ourselves to make structural violence a priority by working towards dismantling the neoliberal structure that continues to produce it.

The writer is Assistant Professor, School of Social Work, University of Buffalo.