Lyndsey Deaton

University of Oregon

Neoliberalism as an ideology and movement has considerably influenced the process of identity formation in the built environment. Leading scholars such as Michel Foucault in Birth of Bio-Politics and Wendy Brown in Undoing the Demos and Catherine Rottenberg in her work on neoliberal feminism have articulated two compatible but different perspectives for identity formation in a neoliberal world. However, both fail to capture the influence of neoliberalism’s secondary effects – such as changing development patterns and architectural typologies, which have historically been a leading factor in individuation. In this paper, I argue that these shifting neoliberal landscapes play a significant role in identity formation by redirecting expressions of place-based identity through virtual and material means. The neoliberal man may be entrepreneurial and feminist but she also uses new means of expression as a result of homogenized landscapes and the degradation of place-based identity.

INTRODUCTION

FIG. 1: HERETHERE sculpture by Steve Gillman in collaboration with Katherine Keefer straddles the Berkeley/Oakland boarder letting the public know when they’ve entered Berkeley, (Source: Maximilianklein, 2012).

We are in a crisis of urban identity - a crisis of placelessness brought about by a neoliberal ideology that promotes standardization, sprawl, and homogenization. If our societies loose place as part of our identity, then we will disinvest in geographic places and by extension in place-based communities. In environment-behavior studies, we call the claim on space based on psychological identification with a place territoriality and we symbolize our claim by possessive attitudes and displays of personalization (Pastalan, 1970).¹ In both humans and animals, territorial behavior is biologically based but in man it is also culturally shaped (Ardrey, 1966; Dubos, 1965). ²³ Claire Cooper Marcus clearly brought this concept into architectural studies in her seminal work House as a Mirror of Self in which she explains that a house has critical latent functions in representing occupant’s identity to society at large.⁴

There is a reciprocal relationship between man’s identity and territory - a claimed territory is a reflection of man’s identity and vice-versa. In this paper, I investigate the theoretical stakes of this relationship and suggest that as neoliberal landscapes homogenize and man divests his identity from place, man will shift his expression of identity toward material and virtual means ultimately reducing his spatial claim. The neoliberal landscapes will only be a reflection of economic efficiencies reducing differentiation and moving toward homogenization of the built environment.

NEOLIBERAL SUBJECTIVITIES

Neoliberalism is in the first instance a theory of political economic practices that proposes that human well being can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private property rights, free markets, and free trade.

-David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism⁵

When postulated as form of economy, neoliberalism appears innocuous and even as a logical system or maybe, a natural order. However, scholars such as David Harvey have delved deeply into the affect and subjectivities of neoliberalism to discover the degree to which this paradigm entangles man’s daily experience. Neoliberalism, and even the process by which it comes to be (neoliberalization), has challenged modernity, social relations, power structures, means of thought, norms, ethical beliefs, and the landscape. How does something so seemingly docile metastasize around the globe in less than three decades? Neoliberalism has not only become a way of thinking but also the normalized means of rationality and as such, it permeates every decision. Ultimately, it delivers false promises: social good will only increase as much as the frequency and reach of market transactions; human well-being is best advanced through liberating the individual entrepreneur; and, community cohesion is achieved through private property rights, free markets, and free trade (Harvey, 2007).⁶ As an ideology, it has captivated academia, business, governments, and interactions between individuals. In this way, neoliberalism has become hegemonic as it is incorporated into the smallest decisions of people to the largest moves of colliding nations.

More specifically, neoliberalism has direct subjectivities that have resulted in influenced and deviated states. All functions of government focus on increasing the responsibility of market functions from guaranteeing the quality and integrity of money to military defense – which supports private property (both physical and mental property) - to creating new markets (such as oceans, sustainability, etc.). It has influenced man’s identity formation process through restructuring social norms, through reprioritizing values such as competition, and through redistributing the division of labor. It has given rise to phenomenon such as globalization and dense interconnectivity. It drives the need for faster technological advancements and more expansive storage. It has transformed the urban landscape in material ways from the repetitive architecture of franchises, such as Starbuck’s 24,000 stores, to the increasing privatization of public spaces, such as NYC’s High Line (Starbucks.com, 2017; Nemeth and Hollander, 2009).⁷⁸

FIG. 2: (L) Starbuck’s standard design (Source: jetcityimage - Getty Images, 2018). (R) New York’s High Line (Source: Stockimages).

THE DIRECT SUBJECTIVITY OF PLACE

In this era of globalization, international priorities stemming from neoliberal values have given way to an international society. This is the society of wealth. The wealthy rely on a few firms for urban design and architectural services that render a tight aesthetic culture with little diversity. As these select firms incestuously rely on each other for inspiration, they drive post-modern “starchitecture” farther from local and traditional needs. The landscapes of globalization are successful at fulfilling their destiny as mechanisms for global markets and places of capital investment. In American today, municipalities such as San Francisco face extreme housing shortages while the most desirable real estate in the center of the city remains vacant. In the neoliberal landscape, real estate is capital. Housing is an investment to be preserved.

Access to design and build these internationally recognized constructions is tightly controlled. Only those architects and urban designers who replicate the values of neoliberalism are rewarded with commissions. Projects promoting values contrary to neoliberal ideology, such as reused materials, cooperative housing models, and reduced dependence on utility services are cast aside or appropriated to a lower class of consumer. In this way, architecture and urban designs are regarded as commodities to be used by consumers. Consumers are negotiating the path forward for the landscapes of our cities. No longer are urban designs the collective responsibility of democratic practices but rather they are the result of business deals with elite enterprises through tax waivers,; the result of sensationalized international architecture; and, of developers commodifying the building delivery process into interchangeable and pre-fabricated components.

As globalization and commodification have pushed toward a cosmopolitan ideal of architecture, urban landscapes are becoming homogenized. Franchises and the many other international conglomerates have coordinated with developers to not only reproduce identical floor plans of individual buildings but also identical community developments through shopping centers, strip centers, and mixed-use communities. Once, the landscape of Austin, TX was uniquely doted with live oak trees, turn-of-the-century brick facades, and tight city blocks. Now, the city is riddled with stucco-faced franchises in strip-center developments that surround ocean-like parking lots. Now, the city of Austin closely resembles far-off places such as Germany and South Africa. Indicators of place are reduced to accent marks on storefront names and comparing menus in fast-food restaurants like McDonalds (where differences, such as the McAllo Tikki sandwich in India versus the McPollo Italiano sandwich in Chile, become fascinating differences).

FIG. 3: Metal buildings with stucco facades arranged in a strip-center with large apron parking (L-R: Austin, USA; Frankfurt, Germany; Capetown, South Africa).

The saturation in sameness is a direct neoliberal subjectivity. However, these parent subjectivities also produce distinct “child” subjectivities similar to the way in which the French post-Marxist, Jaques Derrida, identified nested symbols and signs of language in his theory of deconstruction (Tormey and Townshend, 2001).⁹ Nested subjectivities are relational; they tie backwards to the inherent cause (neoliberalism) and forwards to the fruits of the ideology (identity).

The child subjectivity of homogenized landscapes is the fragmentation of social traditions and cultural practices that are rooted in place, referred to here as identity. However, some scholars, like Michel Foucault, Wendy Brown, and Catherine Rottenberg, already consider identity to be a direct subjectivity. For architectural scholars, the question becomes focused on the relationship between the parent and child neoliberal subjectivities of identity; are they compatible, contrasting, or indifferent? To answer this, we must first clearly understand the process of identity formation, commonly referred to as individuation.

INDIVIDUATION

We develop a distinct personality at the individual scale that continues with us through particular stages of life. This includes characteristics that are possessed and by which we are recognized or known – similar to a reputation. Through individuation, we are able to distinguish ourselves from others. Constructing identity figuratively involves metaphorical or symbolic representation of thoughts or emotions in an expressive way, creating a conceptual visual representation. Identity is created through acts of production, expression, and qualities of our experiences. Using Breakwell’s model as a framework, there are four principles of identity, which guide action: distinctiveness, continuity, self-esteem, and self-efficacy (Breakwell, 1986).¹⁰ Some social theorists, such as Abram, suggest that self-esteem is the only motivation for action with respect to identity. However, Breakwell gives equal status to all and does not consider this an exhaustive list.¹¹

Identity is linked to racial and cultural heritage, sexual preference, and issues of gender, age, and social class. Early socialization and the enduring force of expectations also shape identity from family, friends, and community. Some aspects of our identity are socially constructed while other aspects are self-determined. Not all aspects of identity are loudly projected; sometimes identity is hidden, protected, or cautiously revealed.

Vygotsky, in his book Mind in Society, viewed the ‘self’ as a complex, emergent phenomenon continually produced in and by individuals in their interchanges with others and with the culturally transformed material world (Vyogsty, 1978).¹² His writings reflect ideas about socio-genetic formation of self, in the ways in which social interaction, mediated by symbolic forms, provide crucial resources and ever present constraints for self-making. Eric Erikson’s notion of constructing identity not only reflects a culminating summary of past life but also an ongoing construction created as the basis for future meaningful adult life (Erikson, 1946).¹³ He proclaims identity’s function is future-oriented as it is developed through life stages; successful orientation produces specific personality traits, which are changing and building upon experiences.

While much is written about identity, for the purposes of this argument I consider the following truths to carry forward in the construction of neoliberal identity.

• Identity is multi-faceted: distinctiveness, continuity, self-esteem, and self-efficacy

• Identity is created through actions, expressions, and experiences

• Identity is culturally, socially, and personally influenced

• Identity is displayed through symbols

• Identity is rooted in futurity

NEOLIBERAL IDENTITY

To establish identity as a direct neoliberal subjectivity I will review two prominent concepts of neoliberal identity. The first is concept is the entrepreneurial man deeply described by scholars Michel Foucault and Wendy Brown. The second concept is neoliberal feminism explored by Catherine Rottenberg. These concepts are not exclusive and may be compatible. They demonstrate that neoliberalism influences identity, as previously defined, in specific ways.

ENTREPRENEURIAL MAN | FOUCAULT & BROWN

The Foucauldian perspective analyses Gary Becker’s theory of Human Capital for neoliberalism’s effect on identity and concludes in a distinction: neoliberalism substitutes liberalism’s homo oeconomicus as an entrepreneurial man (who’s foundationary principle is competition) vice a man of exchange (who’s foundationary principle is consumption). In Foucault’s Bio-Politics lectures he successfully describes the identity implications of a neoliberal subject’s whose identity is founded on entrepreneurism rather than on consumption (Brown, 2015).¹⁴ Wendy Brown, then, explored the transition of man from political and sensory beings to entrepreneurial beings in her book, Undoing the Demos, which responded to Foulcault’s theories of neoliberal identity. In a neoliberal world, she argues, we are individual entrepreneurs, who require advertising, investment, and differentiation to express ourselves.

To understand how Foucault and Brown reached this conclusion it is necessary to understand their image of neoliberalism – that of American neoliberalism. Using his notorious research strategy of looking to history to understand and critique the modern condition, Michel Foucault, cast neoliberalism as an altogether different form of governance than liberalism. After the Civil War, America sought to recover its meager economy and looked to economists to determine how to initiate economic growth. Government leaders followed Adam Smith’s ideas of a free market economy that would manage itself (laissez faire). This was the birth of the liberal economy (liberalism) – a market that would allow exchange to establish the true value of commodities. In this arrangement, the government should have limited power or interventions in the market to ensure the market was determining the price of goods and services.

However, following World War II (and more importantly the heavy government intervention into the economy by FDR’s New Deal), economists and policy makers believed that there was too much government manipulation and influence on the market. They developed new polices that restricted government spending, privatized public assets, and reduced corporate responsibilities to the state under the ideology of the same liberal principles of Smith. However, what happened, according to Foucault, was altogether different.

Foucault saw this new wave of liberalization extend outside of the capitalist market and into the human condition – into relationships, families, bodies, and thinking. He called this American neo-liberalism. Under this system, Americans do not act according to common sense but with a sense that prioritizes economics. This means of interaction was an evolution of man from homo sapien to homo oeconomicus.¹⁵ Homo oeconomics “…is not a man of exchange or man the consumer; he is the man of enterprise and production” (Foucault, 2014, p. 147).¹⁶ Reflecting back on identity formation, we can see that Foucault is claiming changes to individuation through a focus on futurity by means of productivity.

Here, Foucault counters Marx’s view of labor power as wage stating that under American neo-liberalism man is not a function of his labor power but is an individual enterprise – homo oeconomicus is human capital. His human capital cannot be sold at market rate but only as an investment into an enterprise. This new species does not rent the body to earn wages as described by Marx but rather invests in himself (through education, pedigree, fitness, etc.) to earn income.

Largely, Wendy Brown agrees with Foucault in the transition of neo-liberalism as a deeper form of liberalism with philosophical, social, and political implications. She states that neoliberalism shifts the balance so that people and the state maximize value through entrepreneurialism. One example is that of higher education and the other is that of changing American goals (now to ‘broad-based growth’) (Brown, 2015).¹⁷ Brown argues that the conduct of the government under neoliberalization is synonymous with the conduct of firms. For Brown, neoliberalism is different from liberalism in the following ways:

1. We are all homo oeconomicus (it is a soft power that conditions thinking and therefore influences everyone unconsciously).

2. Our value is in competition (not just in economics but this drives inequality because that is needed for exchange).

3. The main sphere of capital is investment in ourselves.

This presents the contradiction of neoliberalism; it is a system philosophically based on government abstinence but yet, conditions the government to operate as a corporation to serve and facilitate the economy. Yet, Brown also brings in another evolution that she argues is still deeply embedded into homo oeconomicus. This species is homo politus who lived in “polis,” who bartered over engaging in the market and reigned dominant until the end of the 20^th century when homo oeconomicus grabbed power. She differentiates the two by a slight deviation in motivation with the former motivated by consumption and the latter motivated by competition. This is a separate claim by Brown regarding individuation. Because entrepreneurial man is motivated by competition, differentiation (recall a key component of identity formation) is a heightened priority.

Like Foucault, Brown reaches back to history and quotes Aristotle as identifying this species but makes note that he found homo oeconomicus to be “unnatural” (Idem, p. 86)¹⁸ Unlike Foucault, Brown investigates deeper, exploring the gender of this species. She finds that this species is not a gender but a role – the role of the powerful man within the family unit. In the system of neoliberalism, women are intensely subordinated because the support services that are eliminated disproportionately disadvantage women (idem, p. 105).¹⁹ This is the third claim within entrepreneurial man as a neoliberal identity. The social roles dictated by gender influence man’s actions, expressions, and experiences.

Foucault and Brown develop neoliberal identity as the entrepreneurial man. By claims of futurity through productivity, the enhanced need for distinction, and changes in social roles neoliberalism influences the identity formation process. However, both scholars fail to integrate indirect subjectivities into their argument. All evidence is based off of the direct subjectivities regarding entrepreneurial man. Next, we look at another casting of neoliberal identity in Catherine Rottenber’s neoliberal feminism.

ROTTENBERG: NEOLIBERAL FEMINISM

In the article, “Neoliberal Feminism and the Future of Human Capital” Catherine Rottenberg used two recent and popular works of feminist literature to draw a few main conclusions about the normative place of feminism in neoliberal societies. The first work is Sheryl Sandburg’s best selling book, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead, which was published in 2013 (Sandberg).²⁰ The second, published just a few months earlier is Anne-Marie Slaughter’s article in the Atlantic, “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All.”²¹ Together, Rottenberg argues that society has moved from a post feminist movement back into a feminist one that is being normalized (Rottenberg, 2017).²²

Evaluating the recent increase in feminist declarations and the social acceptability of feminism, Rottenberg lay’s out three claims:

1. A new feminism is on the rise that presents ‘balance’ as its normative frame and ideal. This new feminist subject is individuated and her identity is informed by a cost-benefit analysis. Society is encouraging women to shift focus from future risks to promises of individual fulfillment (specifically career and maternity) for enhanced future returns. She uses two examples to support this claim: “the glorification of hookup culture among high-potential women on college campuses and the new availability of egg freezing as part of the benefits package of corporations such as Facebook.”²³

2. Based on Foucault’s ideas of ‘technology of self,’ she suggests that this is part of a conversion process to transform women into neoliberal human capital. Rottenburg accepts David Harvey’s definition of neoliberalism and his claim that it is slowly colonizing all facets of our world. She then moves onto Wendy Brown’s claim that neoliberalism’s objective is to “self-invest in ways that enhance its figurative credit rating and attract investors” (Brown, 2015).²⁴ Essentially, convincing women to invest in their means of production during their most fertile years is a type of conversion to productive human capital. Reproductive tasks and childcare are downgraded to women deemed ‘disposable’ since they are neither ambitious nor skilled.

3. Neoliberalism fractures around the conversion of women into human capital and their reproductive potential. Therefore, the sexual division of labor is not absolved or balanced, but rather re-naturalized in ‘various and complex’ ways (Rottenberg, 2017).²⁵

In Rottenberg’s neoliberal order, feminism as a movement is re-crafted and exploited to support the development of human capital. Through these relations, the identity formation processes for all genders are influenced. Women are sold the image of productivity as progressive feminism and reproduction as a form of modern slavery. Neoliberal feminism is in part a reaction to the bifurcation of the private and public juxtaposition of liberal feminism that gendered and served to naturalize the sexual division of labor. It narrates a story that women can have it all – that reproduction can be part of the story of the modern woman but not until after she has completed her role as human capital. The media encourages young, high-potential women to postpone but not renounce reproduction. Further, with technological advances in neoliberal societies, productive women will soon be able to outsource reproduction, childcare, and traditional roles in lieu of their role in a neoliberal society. Here Rottenburg is claiming changes to individuation by means of futurity.

Ultimately, Rottenberg argues, this will lead to a futurity in neoliberal feminism in which the sexual division of labor will be absolved but a new division of class will differentiate reproductive and childcare roles from roles of human capital.

Thus, neoliberal feminism simultaneously – and frighteningly – helps to produce a small class of aspirational subjects who self-invest wisely and augment their capital value and a large class of women who are rendered expendable, exploitable, and disposable.²⁶

-Catherine Rottenburg, Neoliberal Feminism, p. 345

According to Rottenburg, this shift between public and private domains and social conversion of women toward human capital influences women’s identity formation. Values are placed on skills toward productivity while requirements for childcare and reproductive health are devalued. This claim ties back to the social and cultural practices behind identity formation. Women as role models change from great mothers with qualities of nurturing, caring, and teaching to great managers with qualities of leadership, empowerment, and communication. As the means of production become priority, so too will actions, expressions, and experiences of all genders. This is the third claim Rottenberg makes about identity formation and neoliberal feminism. But, a fourth claim is engrained in the sub-text of the analysis: that of changes to self-efficacy for women and the self-esteem of men. As the sexual division of labor is reduced, women are empowered as human capital and traditional roles of leadership by men are challenged.

Both individuation influences covered in this section – the entrepreneurial man and neoliberal feminism – are compatible and, while not explicit, embedded. They respond to the direct effects of neoliberalism as an ideology that permeates society through rational thinking and the meritorious conversion of man into human capital. However, neither Foucault nor Brown nor Rottenberg address the secondary effects of neoliberalism on individuation.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PLACE

Recalling Derrida’s theory of deconstruction, I argue in the following section that secondary effects of neoliberalism are nested and defined relationally. Harvey stated that neoliberalism would colonize everything but I assert that it will do so in a nested way – ultimately the result but possibly not the cause. Understanding this nested structure may lead us to a new understanding about the influences on identity such as the significance of place. I have established that the homogenization of landscapes is a direct neoliberal subjectivity. Scholars have already correlated identity formation and geographic place. Using a similar analysis framework, I will assess these findings using the common indicators of identity formation as previously established by Rottenberg.

The first principle of individuation is the desire to maintain personal distinctiveness or uniqueness. Research into settlement identity (Roberta Feldman) and community identity (David Mark Hummon) has focused on the perceived distinctiveness associated with being a city, town, or county person (Hummon, 1990).²⁷ This research suggests that distinctiveness summarizes a lifestyle and establishes us as having a specific type of relationship with our home environment, which is clearly distinct from any other type of relationship.

In Hummon’s earlier study, “City mouse, country mouse,” urban enthusiasts were adamant not only that they were city people but also were convinced of the benefits associated with living in the urban environment (idem, p. 25).²⁸ These benefits were compared with the negative aspects of living in suburbia or the country, not only did these aspects distinguish themselves as city people, but their lifestyles were positively contrasted with the lives of those living in different settlement types. The distinctiveness felt by a city person has a highly positive valence attached to it.

This city identity represents a distinctive lifestyle usually coupled with a string positive affect with regard to that lifestyle. We, therefore, do seem to use a place in order to present ourselves as distinct from others. In addition to settlement identifications, Marco Lalli, in his article “Urban related identity,” discusses specific place identifications: “the bond to a particular part of town also contributes to one’s differentiation from residents in other town areas” (Lalli, 1992, p. 285).²⁹ The first claim of homogenized landscapes challenges the role of place as a traditional indicator of distinctiveness in identity formation. The second claim is embedded in this and effects the social and cultural traditions within a place.

Our association with a specific town or area of town people enables us to differentiate ourselves from people from other parts of town. In one of the early studies of cognitive maps and neighborhood image, John Eyles found that aspirations to have an address in a fashionable part of London resulted in the bending of the perceived neighborhood boundaries so that the respondent’s address would be seen in Highgate Village, creating an identification to which specific attributes were ascribed, e.g. ‘Highgate Village residents are smart, therefore if my address is Highgate Village, I too am smart’ (Eyles, 1968).³⁰ Eyles study shows that place has traditionally supported the principle in individuation of self-esteem. As landscapes homogenize, public spaces (albeit privatized) are flattened and private spaces are used to demonstrate value.

Finally, there is something unique about place and identity formation regarding territoriality. According to John Lang, leading scholar in architectural theory and urban design:

Human territories vary considerably in size and locale; not only are they of place but of artifacts and ideas as well, and they are marked by a wide array of physical barriers and symbolic markers. Humans simply have a much larger [then animals] number of territories and ways of dealing with them.

-Jon Lang, Privacy, Territoriality, & Space, p. 145³¹

Nezar AlSayyad, in his book, Transitions: the 'Real', the Hyper and the Virtual, states that “globalization has often resulted in the deterritorialization of identity, place, and tradition” (idem, p. 38).³² As an architect, I am familiar with the fragmentation of the profession into new processes and patterns of building production that reduce the need for site-specific design. Symptoms of these development patterns are scattered across the United States and abroad in the form of urban sprawl, life-style shopping centers, and franchises. The forth claim is in regards to territoriality – that homogenized landscapes are less likely to be symbols of identity.

In this summary of homogenized landscapes and identity, I have supported four claims through which homogenized landscapes influence individuation: through distinctiveness, self-esteem, social and cultural changes, and symbols. However, this indirect neoliberal subjectivity is compatible and potentially supports (or is supported by) Foucault’s, Brown’s, and Rottenberg’s direct neoliberal subjectivity.

In this essay, I dissected the neoliberal subjectivities of individuation to demonstrate that neoliberal subjectivities are nest and relational. Using this framework, I established that there are incomplete analysis of neoliberal subjectivities such as those of Foucault’s, Brown’s, and Rottenburg’s work on neoliberal individuation. By looping indirect neoliberal subjectivities into the analysis we can come to a more complete understanding of the effects of neoliberalism on the value of place. This is significant because indirect subjectivities may have serious consequences. In the example shown, neoliberal individuation divests from the traditional role of place. Through neoliberal processes, what used to be markers of culture, traditions, expectations, territory, and social relations are now normalizing. As neoliberal landscapes homogenize and man divests his identity formation from these places, man will look to other means for symbols of identity – perhaps toward material and virtual means - as his territorial claim subsides. Ultimately, neoliberal landscapes are becoming a reflection of economic efficiencies reducing differentiation and moving toward cosmopolitanization of the built environment.

REFERENCES