Judith Butler

Judith Butler is an American philosopher best known for her stances on feminism, gender roles in society and lesbian and gay rights movements. She is highly educated with her B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. all achieved from Yale University, and she has been a teaching professor at several academically appraised universities. On top of all this, Butler is the Hannah Arendt Professor of Philosophy at the European Graduate School located in Switzerland. She is an influence to all generations and is an important advocate for marginalized groups in society.

Historically speaking, Butler’s contributions are not very well known due to most of her work being done in the present and very recent past, however her work is still and always will be very relevant and important. The history surrounding women’s rights and individual sexuality is harmful, brutal and unjust, it is from the works of people like Butler that these platforms have transformed and improved dramatically in this modern era. So it is obvious to say that Butler’s efforts and views today have a huge impact on the future and how society changes over time, although it is also evident that she has already contributed and impacted the history of many movements.

Butler’s impacts on history are generated from her published work including several books written on the subjects of gender and sex. Her very first book was all about the idea of desire based on the opinion of Hegel and was titled Subjects of Desire: Hegelian Reflections in Twentieth-Century France. With this book she brought forth different interpretations and viewpoints that were seen in society in the 20th century. By introducing these different opinions in her published work, Butler was on the road to generating a more inclusive yet vastly opinionated environment surrounding all types of controversial topics. This type of environment had not been seen much at this time due to the fact that topics like this were taboo and thought of as unnatural to speak openly about, Butler helped crush that narrative.

Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, known to be one of Butler’s most well known books, was published in 1990. During this time, third wave feminism was practically in full swing and continued to grow into a massive global movement. It is obvious to see that Butler’s work had an influence on this, her book was written all about social creations and ideas, stereotyping and the injustice based on it. Third wave feminism is known as a more modern movement of feminism that is based on these same issues along with basic women’s rights and everything else feminists are fighting to change. Butler definitely sparked the flame of some individuals in the late 20th century who now call themselves proud feminists in 2017.

 

That same book, Gender Trouble, is also said to be the main influence on the creation of what is known as queer theory. Queer theory is an approach that studies gender as a nonessential part of one’s identity, since it is a social construct, gender and sexuality are looked at as non- correlating characteristics. Queer theory just shows how gender, sex and desire are not connected, how they differ and that they are individualistic. This entire body of thought did not even exist until Butler and other modern thinking individuals expressed their thoughts and published them into society. The creation of an entire way of thinking that was entirely new to the 20th century was generated by Butler, and that is her major historical impact.

Without her opinionated influence on this queer theory creation, Butler’s impact would be minimal and society would appear so different to what it is today. It would not be continuously working towards improving equal rights and freedoms for all no matter the gender or sexuality expressed by individuals, and it is so important that this continues to happen. The impact Judith Butler has had on the topics of gender, sexuality, feminism and social constructs will always be substantial to all individuals in society.

Montesquieu

Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu was born on January 18^th, 1689. Montesquieu was a French political philosopher during the Age of Enlightenment. He was an aristocrat from the south of France, in the region of Bordeaux. While Montesquieu held a high position in the traditional French society, he is most known for criticizing the system of government through his famous works, “The Persian Letters” and “De L’Esprit de Lois (Spirit of the Laws).” Montesquieu is a historically significant figure as his ideas had direct influence upon later thought and the development of government institutions.

In Persian letters, Montesquieu constructs a story that criticizes the church and state, using satire to remark the lack of liberty and religious tolerance in the characters. Arguably, his most famous and effective work was the Spirt of the Laws where he classifies the different systems of government: monarchism, republicanism, and despotism. It is through this work that Montesquieu composes new ideas on the systematic relations of government. His work supported the idea that different governments were able to thrive in different environments and outlined the importance of the separation of powers within government. His ideas on the separation of powers would form the three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. This work was inspired by the corruptness of the aristocracy which Montesquieu believed was because of Louis XIV’s absolute government. Spirit of the Laws is viewed as a significant document of political science in the Age of Enlightenment.  While Montesquieu preceded the generation of intellectuals who were intrigued by man’s natural place in the universe, he himself accepted the idea that man is both intelligent and a creation of God. He reflected the philosophes who were defined by discovery and curiosity of the laws that God set in motion. It is these beliefs that enabled Montesquieu to divulge and immerse himself in the discovery of the laws by which man were to govern themselves.

Montesquieu lived during the revolutionary time marked by a series of processes that Europe underwent in the global transition to modernity. Intellectuals of this time, namely philosophes, were acquiring different information and developing new ideas that would transform society; for example, individualism, toleration, progress, and natural rights. This time is referred to as the Enlightenment. Montesquieu was an Enlightenment figure and represented many of its newly presented ideals through his works. This being the belief and understanding of natural laws, rather than supernatural, in terms of governing the universe. Montesquieu had travelled to places across the world in his research of government and politics, including England. Much of his works were inspired by the thoughts of intellectuals like Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Specifically, John Locke, who stressed the notion that it was the government jobs to protect the divine rights of the people, and firmly believed in “life, liberty, and property”. These ideas are apparent within Montesquieu’s Spirit of Laws, where the principles of all different governments were set into place.

Montesquieu’s critiques against the system of government was influenced by the time, where he along many other philosophes questioned what was considered ‘accepted belief’. Montesquieu outlined three different forms of government: monarchism, republicanism, and despotism in terms of the new Enlightenment idea of the social contract. He strongly believed that government should not be based upon the divine right of rule, but through the social contract. It is in the social contract that an implicit agreement is made between the government and the people, where the people give up some of their freedoms to receive a life of protection under the government. He used his work to explain how governments might be protected from corruption. He saw governments ruled by despotism dangerous for any government that ruled otherwise, and argued it was important to take preventative measures by a system in which different bodies exercised legislative, executive, and judicial power, and in which all were bound by the rule of law.

Montesquieu died on February 10^th, 1755 but his political ideas remain relevant to this day. His theory of the separation of powers has had an impact on theories in liberal politics, and on the founders of the constitution of the United States. In terms of drafting the constitution, the founders of the document itself were influenced by Montesquieu and his connection to the separation of powers. One of the American founders named James Madison, drew inspiration from Montesquieu’s idea that to secure the liberty and freedom of the people, and to prevent corruption within the government, there must be a divide amongst the powers of government. Montesquieu stated in the Spirit of Laws: “were the executive power not to have a right of restraining the encroachments of the legislative body, the latter would become despotic; as it might arrogate to itself what authority it pleased, it would soon destroy all the other powers.” With this influential knowledge, the Founding Fathers established the three branches of government within the federal constitution: executive (the President), legislative (the Congress), and the judiciary (the Supreme Court).

Chantelle Boyles

Key Terms:

Absolutism- the political doctrine and practice of unlimited, centralized authority, and absolute sovereignty, as vested in a monarch or dictator. The essence of an absolute system is that the ruling power is not subject to regularized challenge or check by any other power.

Despotism- the exercise of absolute power, in a cruel or oppressive way.

Individualism- a concept that places the focus on the individual (as opposed to the community) and the removal of barriers to achieve the highest amount of freedom for everyone.

Natural Rights- an innate set of rights and freedoms given by God that cannot be taken away or restricted by government.

Philosophe- a term for intellectuals in all fields of inquiry during the Enlighenment.

Works Cited

England and the French Enlightenment. Accessed November 12, 2017. http://www3.gettysburg.edu/~tshannon/hist106web/site6/england_and_the_french_enlighten.htm

Enlightenment Ideals. Accessed November 12, 2017. http://www.pelister.org/MAJ302/AmericanEnlightenment/EnlightenmentIdeals.html.

“BARON DE MONTESQUIEU.” Baron de Montesquieu: A Short Biography. Accessed November 12, 2017. http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/montesquieu/montesquieu-bio.html.

Bok, Hilary. “Baron de Montesquieu, Charles-Louis de Secondat.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. July 18, 2003. Accessed November 12, 2017. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/montesquieu/.

“Charles Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu.” Montesquieu, Separation of Powers, the Constitution, and the Founding Fathers. Accessed November 12, 2017. http://www.americassurvivalguide.com/montesquieu.php.

“Charles-Louis de Secondat.” Biography.com. December 08, 2016. Accessed November 12, 2017. https://www.biography.com/people/charles-louis-de-secondat-21292453.

“Online Library of Liberty.” Montesquieu and the Separation of Powers – Online Library of Liberty. Accessed November 12, 2017. http://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/montesquieu-and-the-separation-of-powers.

Further Reading:

 

“SPIRIT.” Montesquieu: The Spirit of Laws. Accessed November 12, 2017. http://www.constitution.org/cm/sol.htm.

Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand was a Russian-American novelist who was born in born in Saint Petersburg, Russia in 1905 who moved to the United States in 1926, she would live there until her death in New York in 1982 at the age of 77. Ayn Rand is most famous for her works The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957). Rand stated in her journals published after her death that Atlas Shrugged was her magnum opus, the book that most captured her unique ideology which she called objectivism (Rand, 704). Objectivism is the belief that one’s life is purely in the pursuit of one own’s happiness, she believed that the only system which allowed this idea to reach its true potential was a very laissez-faire capitalistic society.

Rand had a very critical view of government intervention in any factors of life after the Bolsheviks seized her father’s shop in 1918 during the October Revolution and Russian Civil War. “The incident convinced her of the destructiveness of government action in the name of good intentions, making her certain that destructiveness was fundamental to communism and to most government programs” (Smant, 1521). It is not surprising that when Rand wrote both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged she was very pro-capitalist and free market, given that the rise of Communism, the Cold War, and her previous life experiences. Her inherent distrust in governmental authorities and any kind of greater good mentality had led her to believe that your only goal was to serve yourself, others cannot be relied upon and had absolutely no incentive to ever help you themselves.

Objectivism was really the founding of the idea of libertarianism in which we view and understand it today. Many libertarians view Rand is a very positive light because she brought a moral case for free enterprise even though she herself did not view libertarians in high regard calling them “hippies of the right” (Block, 64). This moral case for one hundred percent free enterprise where corporations would and should be able to do everything they desire outside of any type of government interference really sparked life into the movement cause it to grow ever more and become more mainstream as it appeared to a more general public and audience that it wasn’t as cold and emotionless as an idea as it may have first appeared.

 

The effects of Ayn Rand’s works can be seen throughout the modern political landscape, and especially the political mindset and ideals of the American Republican Party. Many prominent members of the GOP such as former presidential nominee Mitt Romney and his former running mate Paul Ryan, who is now the current speaker of the House of Representatives, have proclaimed a love for Rand’s works and have latched onto them as an ideal to stride America towards. The ideas of objectivism, that one’s responsibly it too themselves alone is used to justify an exclusion of the people seen as below themselves. “Ranďs unabashed championing of economic elites was also echoed by Romney’s own notorious dismissal of the 47 percent of Americans who don’t earn enough money to pay income tax and therefore needn’t be bothered with” (Hussein, 99).

This idea where vat swaths of the population can simply be ignored because they do not directly benefit you at the current moment can be said to truly be the culmination of everything Rand argued in her series of books, her political beliefs, and her philosophies of objectivism. She leaves behind a legacy which can be said to have created a more selfish and divided world, a world where her ideals have presusaed and enforced a belief within lawmakers, the rich, and the poor that have led to an increase of wealth inequality and where human empathy for one other has diminished in a world of “all for me and none for you”.

 

William DeJong

Bibliography

Rand, Ayn. Journals of Ayn Rand . Edited by David Harriman and Leonard Peikoff. New York: Dutton, 1999.

Ibish, Hussein. “The United Sades of America.” The Baffler , no. 22 (2013): 97-109. Smant, Kevin J. The American Historical Review 116, no. 5 (2011): 1521.

Block, Walter E. “Ayn Rand, Religion, and Libertarianism.” T he Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 11, no. 1 (2011): 63-79.

Expanded Readings
Parille, Neil. “Ayn Rand Nation.” The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 12, no. 2 (2012): 279-82.

Hicks, Stephen R. C. “Egoism in Nietzsche and Rand.” T he Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 10, no. 2 (2009): 249-91.

Montmarquet, James. “Prometheus: Ayn Rand’s Ethic of Creation.” T he Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 11, no. 1 (2011): 3-18.

Gerzadowicz, Stephan, and Michael Follow. “AYN RAND RATIONALISTS.” The American Scholar 79, no. 2 (2010): 6-7

Pluralism

Identification

Pluralism cannot be defined as a singular entity – it exists in multiple fields and forms. Kateb identifies four central kinds of pluralism in Flathman’s Pluralism: “the inner plurality of every individual human being; the pluralism of diverse individuals in a given society; social or cultural pluralism…and global pluralism” (12). Though, as he addresses in his work, Kateb has omitted religious pluralism. We understand that pluralism, in its most general sense, is essentially a coexistence of more than one entity, whether these entities are political doctrines, ethical codes, cultural practices, or conflicting ideologies. Robert Talisse, in Value Pluralism and Liberal Politics, asserts that pluralism is “used to characterize the attitude of open-mindedness and the willingness to non-repressively tolerate…the diversity of worthwhile pursuits to which humans may devote themselves” (88). Talisse illustrates here the relationship between pluralism and peaceful coexistence within diverse societies. However, and in keeping with the theme of this course, the focus will be on political pluralism. In The Idea of Political Pluralism, Galston defines political pluralism as “an understanding of social life that comprises multiple sources of authority—individuals, parents, civil associations, faith based institutions, and the state, among others—no one of which is dominant in all” (96). By defining political pluralism as a social “understanding” rather than a decisive political system, Galston implies that it does not, or should not, exist on its own in terms of political governance, he simply identifies it in his work as an aspect of politics which is necessary to a more harmonious society, one in which no source of authority dominates the other to potentially cause conflict. In terms of a ‘when’, political pluralism can be traced back as having began in 19^th century Europe, “as a reaction to the growing tendency to see state institutions as plenipotentiary” (Galston 101), indeed in reaction to the growing consciousness of state autocracy.

Historical significance

Galston offers his view on the importance of pluralism to contemporary politics, referring to state control, he poses that the state “…may not seek to force their citizens into one-size-fits-all patterns of desirable human lives. Any public policy that relies on, promotes, or commands a single conception of human good…as equally valid for all individuals is…illegitimate” (Galston 96). Galston highlights the necessity of pluralism in politics to the human experience, that a political system must be pluralistic in order to be inclusive, and to match the diversities inherent in societies. He later makes the assertion that political pluralism exists as “an alternative to all forms of civic totalism”, presenting it as our most viable option to avoid a tyrannical state. Galston continues, “…pluralism rejects the instrumental/teleological argument that individuals, families, and associations are adequately understood as ‘for the sake of’ some political purpose” (106), here illustrating pluralism’s promotion of individual liberties. Pluralism’s promotion of a liberal, inclusive society that rejects totalitarianism has been extremely influential to contemporary society as revolts continue to erupt around the world in the face of tyranny (e.g. the 2011 Arab Spring, the Palestinian intifada, political activism in the West). Pluralism, as a philosophy in reaction to plenipotentiary government, illuminates an emergence of opposition amongst many towards this lack of democracy, and a movement towards democratic liberalism as a possible solution. Galston roots this growing awareness of plenipotentiary government in Western history, “This tendency took various practical forms in different countries: French anticlerical republicanism, British parliamentary supremacy, the drive for national unification in Germany and Italy against subordinate political and social powers” (Galston 101).

Key historical proponents

Though preceding the movement for political pluralism by roughly two centuries, Hobbes (1588-1679) famously defended autocratic government, while contradicting the fundamentals of pluralism. He believed, referring to autocratic government, that “any less robust form of politics would in practice countenance divided sovereignty…an open invitation to civic conflict and war” (Galston 101). Supporters of Hobbes’ political views fervently opposed the liberal pluralists of the 19^th century. Galston also identifies Rousseau as having views that conflict with the later emerging pluralism, Rousseau believed that, “Loyalties divided between the republic and other ties…are bound to dilute civic spirit. And the liberal appeal to private life as against public life will only legitimize selfishness at the expense of the spirit of contribution and sacrifice without which the polity cannot endure.” Rousseau attacks the still relevant idea of liberal individualism, instead advocating a complete loyalty to the state. In doing so, Rousseau provided the framework for an argument used by many anti-pluralists in the 19^th century, as well as in the modern day. A prominent anti-pluralist influenced by Rousseau is Emile Combes (1902-1905), Galston explains, “Emile Combes, a turn-of-the-century premier in the French Third Republic, declared that “there are, there can be no rights except the right of the State, and there [is], and there can be no other authority than the authority of the Republic”” (Galston 102). Combes clearly advocates complete state control, an ideal that is inconsistent with pluralism’s focus on individual liberties.

As for supporters of pluralism, these included “Berlin and his many contemporary disciples, including William Galston, George Crowder, John Kekes, and John Gray” (Talisse 88), as advocates of value pluralism – a pluralism which rejects the idea of living life “based on a singular ordering of values” (Galston 96). Berlin acknowledges criticisms of pluralism that dismiss it for allowing the existence of contradicting ideals, Berlin asserts that conflicting values were a necessary consequence of pluralism, “According to Berlin we must trade off between equality and liberty, not because we do not command the resources to realize them both, but because it is in the nature of the values themselves to collide” (Talisse 89).

Fatima Al Setri

 

Bibliography

Kateb, George. “Flathman’s Pluralism.” The Good Society Vol. 15, No. 3 (2006): 11-14. Print.

Talisse, Robert B. “Value Pluralism and Liberal Politics.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice Vol. 14 No. 1 (2011): 87-100. Print.

Galston, William A. “The Idea of Political Pluralism.” Nomos Vol. 49 (2009): 95-124. Print.

Existentialism

Identification:

The philosophy known as existentialism is believed to ponder the existence of human nature, the purpose, and the meaning behind the fundamental freedoms inherited from the consciousness of humans. This theory has most commonly been known due to the work of existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre, whose philosophy grew following the end of World War 2 and the liberation of Paris. Sartre, a writer from France, had been acknowledged as an originator of the movement which enlightened the masses to be the conductor of one’s own life, by advocating existentialism as freedom. Sartre does this by communicating how people are ‘free organic individuals’ in order to defend intrinsic values against a world of mass destruction.

Historical Significance:

The movement known as existentialism stood for defending man’s human dignity and opposing all forms of determinism for oneself. This point of view has shaped contemporary society, as well as the 20^th century, to dismiss authoritarianism from those of autonomy, as well as in a religious perspective. From the growing of existentialism, individuals began to reject ideas such as figures of authority, the Church, and God. Such viewpoints were not uncommon in the Enlightenment period, in which influential leaders such as Voltaire aimed to crush the Catholic church, while Jean-Jacques Rousseau opposed the conformity of a state due to the presumption it would cause class divisions. Both famous points of view regarding the Enlightenment are derived from existentialism, as Voltaire and Rousseau advocate to oppose regularity and conformity within man’s surroundings, despite their contrasting views. In contemporary society, existentialism is much more common and accepted, as large amounts of the world’s population do not practice a religion. Many individuals identify as atheist and do not believe in a God, which contributes to Sartre’s philosophy that if man exists to be free, man must not be subjected to those who deprive him of his independence, therefore rejecting the existence of God.

Key Historical Proponents:

While Jean-Paul Sartre is most associated with the influential theory of existentialism, as well as Simone de Beauvoir, their philosophy has been heavily critiqued in the past. For example, in 1986, after Sartre’s time of living, David Detmer published a novel named ‘Freedom as a Value: A Critique of the Ethical Theory of Jean-Paul Sartre,’ which contributed to significant debates regarding Sartre’s philosophy. Although one of Sartre’s famous pieces such as ‘Is Existentialism a Humanism?’ was published near the end of World War 2, individuals later in the past have identified critiques of his work. An example of Detmer’s critique involves how he argued that Sartre advocates that ethical subjectivism follows from a value of anti-realism. This means that Sartre believed that ethical sentences express propositions that are a subject of an opinion and not based on external reality. Additionally, other views regarding existentialism include the idea that it is an alternate form of bourgeoise individualism, that brings upon social solidarity that hinders individual freedom rather than enhancing it. Another view conflicting existentialism is from David Roberts’s novel called ‘Existentialism and Religious Belief,’ published in 1959. He states that according to Sartre’s philosophy those who hinder man’s freedom should be dismissed, but God gave man freedom and should not be identified with the same properties of consciousness as those in society. Therefore, while existentialism was severely influential, many refute such beliefs.

Rola Tuffaha

 

Bibliography

Flynn, Thomas. Existentialism : A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, UK, 2006. ProQuest

Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/mcmu/detail.action?docID=430845.

Smith, T. (2015). Existentialism. Research Starters: Education (Online Edition).

Smith, T., & Eshleman, M. C. (2015). A critique of freedom as a value: defending the early Sartre against

moral relativism. Sartre Studies International, 21(2), 108+ Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/ps/i.do?p=LitRC&sw=w&u=ocul_mcmaster&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA448030754&asid=786e830af32a437d51e627f4efc25a40

Udokang, E. J. (2016). Implications of Sartre’s humanistic existentialism. Journal of Comparative 

Literature and Aesthetics, 39(1-2), 83+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/ps/i.do?p=LitRC&sw=w&u=ocul_mcmaster&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA473922762&asid=5748bdebf1e8b2129105f32293e3d098

Wardle, D. (2016). A contemporary sense of existentialism. South African Journal of Philosophy, 35(3),

336-344. doi:10.1080/02580136.2016.1209932

Neoliberalism

Identification 

Neoliberalism is a form of liberalism that favours a capitalistic society in order to benefit the rich and improve the market. All decisions made are to benefit corporations and financial institutions. Neoliberalism was the political theory for capitalistic economies as it is meant to separate the economy from the state and to regulate the state’s power in economic, civic, and private life. Neoliberalism became common sense throughout the 20^th century as it focused on the “suffrage” of white men as they worked to rebuild institutions. It has now become a major part of politics influencing the way in which the government is run.

Historical significance

Neoliberalism is an ideology that hides the inequalities of wealth and power, class, race, and sexuality by pushing theses inequalities to the private sector of society. Neoliberalism focuses on the separation of private and public life, believing that the state should be the main part of the public while the family and individual matters are private. The privatization of assets to human life such as roads, hospitals, water, and education has allowed the state to charge people for basic human needs highlighting the corrupt and greedy capitalistic society that Neoliberalism has concocted. While the state gives some attention to private life, it is often only given to the ideal form of a family: a white, heterosexual, rich and successful couple. Individualism is a key component to this form of liberalism as individuals in society have to use self-help if they do not fit the ideal of society. Neoliberalism often erases the inequalities that are linked between race, gender, sexuality, and class – favouring equality over equity. Neoliberalism can help to illuminate the struggles of the past few years such as the financial crisis of 2007, the rise of white supremacists, and the reassertion of U.S. power in the Middle East. A society that ignores the obvious inequalities of the citizens within in exchange for a stronger market will ultimately lead to aggression and tension both within the nation and outside of it.

Key historical proponents

Friedrich Hayek (May 8^th, 1989 – March 23^rd, 1992), an Austrian economist, was often seen as the “father” of Neoliberalism as his economic and social ideas influenced the ideologies of Neoliberal thought. Hayek ideas helped to limit democracy in a Neoliberal society as all social justice reforms were ignored and any attempt to reform would ultimately benefit the rich. Similarly, many politicians used Neoliberalism ideas to benefit themselves and separate the elite from the rest of society. Politicians such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were prime examples of the evident inequalities caused by Neoliberalism. They both pushed privatization onto society which benefitted the market and financial institutions, as well as the rich. Their campaigns and decisions were all influenced by the effect it would have on themselves – the elite. Likewise, Neoliberalism would often disguise itself as democracy and non-politics while the Democratic Party during Reagan’s time in office often took a more conservative approach to decisions that were made. Neoliberalism has become natural and common sense to society as those in power have opted to embrace it in personal interest and benefits rather than oppose it for the sake of the inequalities in society.

Elisabeth Johnson

 

Bibliography

Duggan, Lisa. The Twilight of Equality? Massachusetts: Beacon Press, 2003. Print.

Fast, Travis W. The Profound Hegemony of Neoliberalism: Economic Theory, Public Policy and Capitalist Accumulation, York University (Canada), Ann Arbor, 2012, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I, http://libaccess.mcmaster.ca/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/1323540026 ?accountid=12347.

Rodrigues, João. “Where to Draw the Line between the State and Markets? Institutionalist Elements in Hayek’s Neoliberal Political Economy.” Journal of Economic Issues, vol. 46, no. 4, 2012, pp. 1007-1033, Business Premium Collection, http://libaccess.mcmaster.ca.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/login?url=https://search-proquest- com.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/docview/1243335124?accountid=12347.

Ryan, Matthew. “CONTESTING ‘ACTUALLY EXISTING’ NEOLIBERALISM.” The Journal of Australian Political Economy, no. 76, 2016, pp. 79-102, Business Premium Collection; International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); Political Science Database; Politics Collection, http://libaccess.mcmaster.ca/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/1755076858 ?accountid=12347.