UK Anti-Austerity Resistance Through a Governmentality Lens

1
Word Count: 14,097
Anti-austerity within the UK: A
governmentality perspective on
resistance
A dissertation submitted to the
University of Manchester for the
degree of MA International
Development: Politics and
Governance in the Faculty of
Humanities
2015
Michael James O’Connor
School of Environment, Education and
Development

2
Word Count: 14,097
Abstract
A study using Foucault’s governmentality as a conceptual theory by which to investigate the
mentalities, practices and subjectivities of anti-austerity resistance within the UK. Austerity is a
political response to the financial crisis of 2007-2008. However, there exists a large amount of
resistance towards austerity within the UK. Despite this, there are few studies that seek to detail the
mentalities, practices and subjectivities of this movement. Furthermore, I argue that traditionally
resistance has been conceptualised in a way which views the resistance-government relationship as
polarised. As a consequence, conclusions made concerning the anti-austerity resistance in the UK
often obscure the true complexity of this entity. By undertaking a Foucauldian analysis, through the
concept of counter-conducts and Death’s (2010;2011) ‘Analytics of Protest’, I seek to remedy this.
Governmentality as a conceptual framework in this respect allows for incredibly nuanced
conclusions as to the mentalities, practices and subjectivities of anti-austerity resistance. I conclude
by considering resistance and government as being involved in a co-constitutive relationship, which
holds significance for discussing these aspects of anti-austerity resistance, whilst offering evidence
towards this movement as being a constituted of a complex and diverse array of actors and
mentalities.

3
Word Count: 14,097
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr. Sarah Hunt for her support as advisor for this
dissertation. Thank you for consistently providing clear, high quality feedback
and support throughout this project. Your help was much appreciated!
I would also like to thank Dr. Carl Death for his assistance in guiding me
through key concepts of Foucault’s governmentality, recommending insightful
books, as well as through his own analytics of protest which inspired the
structure of this investigation.
Finally, I would like to thank Dan Brockington, my tutor for this year.
Declaration
No portion of the work referred to in the dissertation has been submitted in support of an
application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other institute of
learning.

4
Word Count: 14,097
Intellectual Property Statement
i. The author of this dissertation (including any appendices and/or schedules to this
dissertation) owns certain copyright or related rights in it (the “Copyright”) and
s/he has given The University of Manchester certain rights to use such Copyright,
including for administrative purposes.
ii. Copies of this dissertation, either in full or in extracts and whether in hard or
electronic copy, may be made only in accordance with the Copyright, Designs
and Patents Act 1988 (as amended) and regulations issued under it or, where
appropriate, in accordance with licensing agreements which the University has
entered into. This page must form part of any such copies made.
iii. The ownership of certain Copyright, patents, designs, trade-marks and other
intellectual property (the “Intellectual Property”) and any reproductions of
copyright works in the dissertation, for example graphs and tables
(“Reproductions”), which may be described in this dissertation, may not be
owned by the author and may be owned by third parties. Such Intellectual
Property and Reproductions cannot and must not be made available for use
without the prior written permission of the owner(s) of the relevant Intellectual
Property and/or Reproductions.
iv. Further information on the conditions under which disclosure, publication and
commercialisation of this dissertation, the Copyright and any Intellectual
Property and/or Reproductions described in it may take place is available in the
University IP Policy (see
http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=487), in any relevant
Dissertation restriction declarations deposited in the University Library, The
University Library’s regulations (see
http://www.manchester.ac.uk/library/aboutus/regulations) and in The
University’s Guidance for the Presentation of Dissertations.

5
Word Count: 14,097
Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................... 6
1.1 INTRODUCING AUSTERITY .............................................................................6
1.2 Shape and scope of study.......................................................................7
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................. 11
2.1 THE CONTEXT OF THE FINANCIAL CRISIS 2007-2008............................................11
2.2 AUSTERITY AS A POLITICAL RESPONSE................................................................13
2.2.1 Post-1979..........................................................................................13
2.2.2 New Labour.......................................................................................14
2.2.3 The Coalition.....................................................................................17
2.2.4 Replacing the Public Sector with Volunteerism: the ‘Big Society’.......18
2.2.5 Social Implications ............................................................................19
2.3 AUSTERITY PROVES UNPOPULAR: EXPERIENCES OF RESISTANCE ...............................22
2.3.1 Why Resist?.......................................................................................22
2.3.2 Examples of Resistance within the UK...............................................22
2.3.3 How to conceptualise resistance? .....................................................24
3.0 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................... 25
3.1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS...................................................................................25
3.2 AIMS.........................................................................................................25
3.3 GOVERNMENTALITY: AS A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK............................................26
3.3.1 Why Governmentality? .....................................................................26
3.3.2 Exploring Governmentality: key concepts..........................................27
3.3.3 Governmentality on Resistance: Counter-conduct and the analytics of
protest.......................................................................................................28
3.4 STRUCTURE.................................................................................................31
4 RESULTS & ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 33
4.1 MENTALITIES OF RESISTANCE ..........................................................................33
4.2 PRACTICES OF RESISTANCE..............................................................................37
4.3 SUBJECTIVITIES OF RESISTANCE.....................................................................41
5. CONCLUSION............................................................................................ 45
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................................... 49

6
Word Count: 14,097
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Introducing Austerity
The financial crisis of 2007-2008 signalled the beginning of major economic, social and
political upheaval across Europe. A common political response to the economic problems
faced by many developed economies has been austerity (OECD, 2010). The UK is one of the
most pertinent examples of austerity policies being pursued as a major political response,
resulting in significant societal impacts. In essence, austerity is government policy oriented
towards the recuperation of debt incurred during the financial crisis, resulting from bailout
funds and fiscal stimulus packages (MacLeavy, 2011; Summers, 2009; Taylor-Gooby, 2009).
Austerity has come to define government policy aimed at frugal, sustainable fiscal practice
(MacLeavy, 2011). Fiscal prudency often produces policy choices that are unpopular with
citizens, and that are often incompatible with the needs and demands of the population.
Consequently, this effectively causes the government to become increasingly unresponsive
to their citizens (Mair, 2009; 2013). However, the overriding narrative justifying austerity is
that it is a necessary and unavoidable response to the economic situation of the UK
following the financial crisis.
Since austerity was adopted as a political response in many European nations, there has
been resistance towards it. Across Europe, anti-austerity resistance continues in various
forms. Following the recent 2015 UK elections, widespread protests have been held to rally
against the continued course of austerity (The People’s Assembly, 2014; TUC, 2015; Walsh,
2015). In the case of the UK, it is fair to say that the majority of resistance movements and
activism in opposition to austerity are mobilised by the disparity between government
actions and the reality of needs and demands of the population (The People’s Assembly,
2014; TUC, 2015; Walsh, 2015). More specifically, popular resistance to austerity has
manifested in response to welfare cuts and severe reductions in public spending (The
People’s Assembly; 2014 TUC, 2015; Walsh, 2015). The overriding grievance mobilising
resistance appears to be the sense that targeting the public sector and welfare state is

7
Word Count: 14,097
unjust and unfair. This narrative draws on the fact that the financial crisis was caused by
banks and other financial institutions engaging in risky and irresponsible behaviour (Crotty,
2009). Yet, the public sector and taxpayers are being made to pay for the failings of these
actors, through increased national indebtedness (Farnsworth, 2011; Gough, 2011; Lee,
2011a; Macleavy, 2011; Prabhakar, 2011). Furthermore, within the UK, austerity has been
carried forward by the coalition government under the rhetoric of a desperate need to cut
this deficit (Lee, 2011b). Austerity is presented as inevitably necessary. However, there are
inherent flaws in this argument of austerity as reinstating a prosperous growth cycle within
the economy. Resistance to this rhetoric point towards numerous voices in academia and
the financial sector underlining the fact that austerity does not provide the stimulus for
economic recovery, rather it has the opposite effect (Crotty, 2009; Farnsworth, 2011; Lee,
2011a; Krugman, 2010). This culminates in reinforcing the injustice and unfairness that
mobilised and motivates anti-austerity resistance. Organisers and leading actors in the anti-
austerity movement are attempting to rebuff the claim of austerity as necessary and
inevitable, to deny the government ownership of the conceptions of what is possible and
what is not (Cornwall & Gaventa, 2006). In this way, austerity is being understood and
defined as wholly ideological.
1.2 Shape and scope of study
Although there is a wealth of academic research into austerity, there remains a number of
shortcomings and limitations that are not addressed by the current available literature.
Firstly, there is a general lack of work covering resistance within the UK context. Information
is readily available within the media as well as other sources such as trade union reports.
However, academic literature providing a comprehensive analysis of UK anti-austerity
resistance is deficient. Analysis of resistance to austerity has largely focused on nations
other than the UK, mainly Greece. Academic literature is not completely devoid of any
mention of the UK context. However, this is often descriptive and merely a passing mention,
simply acknowledging the fact that resistance to austerity exists in the UK, or more
commonly to highlight the extremity of the situation in Greece (McKee et al., 2012;

8
Word Count: 14,097
Monastiriotis, 2011; Ponticelli & Voth, 2011; Rüdig & Karyotis, 2014). Secondly, I argue that
anti-austerity resistance has been misconceived in relation to its mentalities. The main
cause of this problem is the proliferation of a polarised view of resistance and government,
often being considered to lie at opposing sides of the spectrum (Death, 2011; Della Porta &
Tarrow, 2005; Drainville, 2002; Gills, 1997; Keck & Sikkink, 1998). Consequently, this has
resulted in the homogenisation of anti-austerity resistance within the UK, obscuring the
complexities and variances of its objectives and practices. I argue that this ignores the co-
constitutive relationship shared by resistance and government. This does not mean that
resistance and government do not differ in their specific aims, however it must be
recognised that they are not entirely separate or opposite entities, in fact their relationship
is co-constitutive (Death, 2011). As such, some studies have failed to fully detail the various
mentalities mobilising actors.
In response, this dissertation will utilise Foucault’s ‘Governmentality’ as a conceptual
framework by which to uncover the interrelated mentalities of resistance and government
concerning austerity. In particular, I will draw upon the notion of ‘counter-conducts’,
utilising Death’s (2010; 2011) ‘analytics of protest’. Such an investigation will focus on the
detailing of these mentalities and analysis of their interrelationship. Through this, certain
forms of resistance, their practices and mobilising rhetoric will be explored. Alongside this
analysis of resistance, the concept of counter-conduct requires a similar process take place
for governmental forms, as they are essential in constituting the resistance that appears to
oppose them. As such, governmentality offers a way in which to detail how resistance
conducts itself in relation to and within the limits of governmental power, similarly allowing
the investigation of how government conduct themselves in terms of their practices, and in
relation to resistance. As a result, governmentality offers a means by which to make
nuanced conclusions, covering areas the current literature does not reach.

9
Word Count: 14,097
1.3 Structure
The structure of this dissertation has been developed in order to provide a logical
progression through relevant material that engages with the overall aims of this project.
Chapter 2 consists of a literature review in order to explore existing academic work and to
explain where this study sits in relation to existing material. It is also used as a means by
which to offer context to anti-austerity resistance. Beginning with an exploration of the
causes of the financial crisis of 2007-2008, as well as detailing the position of the UK in
relation to these effects. Whilst austerity is not an entirely new concept, the financial crisis
undoubtedly triggered events leading to the establishment of this current round of
austerity. The literature review then moves on to explain austerity as a political response to
the economic crisis. This is accomplished by detailing and discussing academically
documented pre-conditions that opened the political landscape to austerity, why it has
been favoured and how it has been carried forward within the UK. As such, government
rhetoric and policy action is scrutinised. Logically, this section proceeds in chronological
order, moving through successive administrations, marking specific moments in the
establishment and practice of austerity as a mentality by which the UK has, and continues to
be governed. It is necessary to undertake such an exploration of austerity in order to explain
the conduct of government that resistance is opposing and reacting against. Subsequently,
the literature review then turns towards the ways in which anti-austerity resistance in the
UK has been conceptualised by academics. The discussion then moves onto examples of
anti-austerity resistance: when and where it took place, alongside who was involved in these
expressions of dissent.
At this point governmentality will be introduced as a concept, with reference to its
advantages over other theories when investigating resistance. The notions that constitute
governmentality as a conceptual framework by which to undertake this investigation will be
explored. Specifying the processes that contribute to forming governmentalities, the
importance of knowledge formation is highlighted in order to explain the pervasiveness of

10
Word Count: 14,097
ideology in political decisions. This is expanded as a way to analyse government conduct
through Dean’s (1999: 17-18) ‘analytics of government’. ‘Counter-conducts’ will then be
introduced as a theory developed simultaneously alongside the ‘conduct of conducts’, in
order to explain the choice of actors to resist and the co-constitutive relationship shared by
government and resistance. Death’s (2011) ‘analytics of protest’ is presented as a means by
which to capture the mentalities, practices and subjectivities of resistance. The results and
analysis chapter contains the subjection of data to Foucauldian analysis through Death’s
(2010; 2011) analytics of protest. In this chapter, I look to address the research questions set
out in the methodology towards producing nuanced analysis as to the mentalities, practices
and subjectivities of anti-austerity resistance within the UK. Furthermore, through this form
of analysis, the co-constitutive nature of the resistance-government nexus will be discussed.
The project concludes by assessing all the information provided in order to draw
illuminating conclusions relating to the aim of this study.

11
Word Count: 14,097
2.0 Literature Review
2.1 The context of the Financial Crisis 2007-
2008
Although the global reach of the 2007-2008 financial crisis is undeniable, the impact has
varied across different national economies. The nature of its impact is dependent on
national-specific economic circumstances and political responses (Farnsworth, 2011; Gough,
2011). Subsequently, any attempt to understand the context of the UK must include a
detailing of the economic conditions at the moment of the crisis, along with the political
responses undertaken. The UK provides an interesting context for investigating austerity as
the enduring political response to the crisis. Alongside being one of the worst affected by
the financial crisis, the UK is also host to the City of London, one of the most dominant,
lightly-regulated financial centres in the world (Gough, 2011). It also happens that the
financial sector is incredibly powerful both politically and economically within the UK
(Longstreth, 1979; Ingham, 1984; Gamble, 1990; Farnsworth, 2011). As such, the UK played
a central role in the cause of the crisis, but also became one of the most threatened
developed economies by it, being heavily exposed to the risk that financial institutions
based in the City of London had accumulated. A result of the strong economic ties shared
between the UK and USA, the collapse of the US sub-prime market was to be felt almost
immediately by UK financial institutions (Crotty, 2009; Farnsworth, 2011; Gough, 2011).
Additionally, the UK has suffered the fate of most developed Western economies, in that
whilst the financial market in this context had proved extremely fruitful and economically
successful, the industrial sector has struggled since the 1960s (Longstreth, 1979; Ingham,
1984). Simultaneously, industry had been damaged by the persistent efforts of Margaret
Thatcher’s government and subsequent neoliberal-aligned political efforts since (Beech,
2011; Farnsworth, 2011; Lee, 2011a; b). As such, the financial sector had become the driving
force of the economy. The ripples of crisis continued to spread through various other
markets, notably the housing market, exhibiting a more protracted nature than in many
other economies.

12
Word Count: 14,097
Although austerity is not a new concept as a policy by which to govern, it must be explained
in the context of the recent financial crisis as producing unique conditions that resulted in a
turn towards austerity. The origins of the most recent financial crisis are widely accepted to
be the turn towards neoliberalism in the late 1970s. There can be little argument that
neoliberalism both produced the drive towards increasing financialisation and advocated it
as an example of entrepreneurial action within a free market economy (Callinicos, 2012;
Crotty, 2009). Callinicos (2012: 70) describes this as a moment where ‘a brutal monetary
squeeze was imposed, followed by a pragmatic shift towards increased reliance on asset-
price bubbles’ as a means to generate stimuli for economic growth. An inherent flaw in this
model is the fact that asset price bubbles are not permanent and are prone to collapsing
(Callinicos, 2012; Crotty, 2009). This is exactly what happened in the case of the 2007-2008
crisis, where the sub-prime mortgage bubble in the USA dramatically collapsed. Yet,
neoliberalism as a paradigm has persisted despite expectations that this crisis would be the
catalyst for a movement towards an alternative paradigm (Peck et al., 2012). Indeed, It is
true that neoliberalism as an ideology has become established with politicians, the media,
economists and social elites (Callinicos, 2012). However, this is insufficient to explain why
the turn to austerity, as a neoliberal response to this crisis, has been so extensive.
If we consider the view of many Marxist academics, that neoliberalism is essentially a class
project to benefit elites, whilst displacing costs onto the poor and working classes, austerity
is a logical response to financial crisis from powerful elites (Callinicos, 2012; Harvey, 2011).
David Harvey has argued that the austere policies advocated and deployed by governments
in the aftermath of the financial crisis exhibit ‘accumulation by dispossession’ (Harvey, 2007:
22; Harvey, 2011). That is to say, Harvey (2007; 2011) considers austerity to be part of, and
the tool by which, neoliberal ideology seeks to place assets and capital in the hands of the
few, at the cost of the many. Evidence towards this end can be seen in the lack of any real
disciplining of financial institutions post-crisis, as well as no real attempt to impose stricter
regulations on their practices (Crotty, 2009). Simultaneously, public and welfare spending
has become the target of cuts. Historically, the costs of crises fall upon the public sector, the
public paying the price for the failings of the private sector. ‘Failings’ is putting it mildly,

13
Word Count: 14,097
other authors such as Harvey (2011) consider these to be examples of more evidence in a
long line of private greed and malpractice (Crotty, 2009). It can therefore be interpreted
that the recent turn towards austerity is simply a continuation in publicising the costs of
financial crises. Indeed, the financial crisis has been transformed into ‘a crisis of the welfare
state’ (Gough, 2011: 50). Despite neoliberalism clearly fulfilling a central role in the crisis
and resulting austerity measures, it is not an automated entity. The individuals and
institutions which carry forward the tenets of neoliberalism as part of mentalities that guide
their actions are arguably more important in explaining how austerity has come to be the
policy of choice post-2008, rather than an overbearing ideology.
2.2 Austerity as a Political Response
2.2.1 Post-1979
The overriding political response in the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis was the
use of public finances to prop up failing financial institutions and banks, rescuing them from
collapse. Mainly, this occurred in the UK in the form of the nationalisation of a number of
key institutions, alongside pledging fiscal support to the banking sector. The figure pledged
by the UK government was just under 12% of GDP, with 6.6% of this being utilised by mid-
2010 (Gough, 2011: 55; IMF 2010). It was in part this incredibly expensive political response,
as well as the mobilisation of a general discontent surrounding the crisis and concerning the
perceived overspending of the Labour government (a claim which may be true in terms of
spending relative to GDP, but completely false in the form it was deployed – as the main
contributor to the onset of financial hardship within the UK) by political opposition (Beech,
2011; Driver, 2011; Farnsworth, 2011; Lee, 2011a; 2011b). This moment of critical state
intervention has proved critical in the subsequent development of the crisis, especially the
social costs that have been brought about as a result of political response. Ironically, many
of the factors that contributed towards this recent financial crisis are a result of the lurch
towards neoliberalism, as the governing paradigm, made by the post-1979 Conservative
government. Led by Margaret Thatcher, their key objective was the retrenchment of the

14
Word Count: 14,097
public sector, limiting the size and scope of its operations (Beech, 2011; Driver, 2011;
Farnsworth, 2011; Lee, 2011a). This action extolled a central tenet of neoliberalism, that the
public sector suppressed entrepreneurialism, stifled business competitiveness and produced
ineffectively regulated labour markets (Crotty, 2009; Thrift et al., 2012). Post-1979
Conservative success was built on this narrative that the interfering state led by Labour was
the cause of economic hardship and directly linked to the 1970s economic crisis. The
Conservatives successfully related Labour policies to the economic problems of the time.
The 2010 and 2015 general elections exhibit strong similarities, whereby Labour was
associated with economic incompetency. Furthermore, the Labour government that was
voted out of office in 2010 was a different entity altogether than the 1979 administration,
the result of a move towards embracing neoliberal ideology over that of socialism,
rebranded as ‘New Labour’ (Prabhakar, 2011). As a result of successive Conservative
governments and Labour administrations, the UK became one of the first nations to open its
financial and currency markets to the doctrine of free trade advocated by neoliberal
ideology, indeed, it is one of the most liberalised economies in the world (Beech, 2011;
Farnsworth, 2011; Lee, 2011a).
2.2.2 New Labour
It is important to momentarily turn towards New Labour, in order to properly explain the
context for the implementation of austerity, as well as to elucidate the fact that despite the
Conservative party being traditionally viewed as the party of neoliberalism, this ideology
remains persuasive across the spectrum of British politics. Assuming office in 1997, the
Labour party had rebranded itself as ‘New Labour’, sharing more in common with the
preceding Conservative government than the last Labour administration of the 1970s
(Farnsworth, 2011; Prabhakar, 2011). It was very much pro-business and pro-
entrepreneurialism, resulting in one of its foremost decisions to give independence to the
Bank of England, signalling a commitment to a laissez-faire approach to financial regulation
(Beech, 2011; Crotty, 2009; Prabhakar, 2011). Indeed, New Labour continued with the
minimalistic regulation approach initiated by the previous Conservative government. Ed
Balls, when Economic Secretary to Gordon Brown, spoke at the British Bankers Association

15
Word Count: 14,097
in 2006, he guaranteed that this approach would continue to be employed by the then
Labour administration. Additionally, Balls also reaffirmed neoliberal ideals as favourable
policy: ‘to rely on market forces and competition policy to promote efficiency through open
and competitive markets’ (Ed Balls; speech to the British Bankers Association, 11th October
2006). Alongside a commitment to neoliberal principles concerning economic activity and
financial regulation, New Labour heavily increased the dependence on private sector-led
investment by enlarging the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) (Farnsworth, 2011; Prabhakar,
2011). PFI is a scheme to actively seek private sector sources of investment for public
infrastructure works. The rationale behind this decision followed the lines of: the
investment burden would be taken on at the expense of the private sector, limiting the risk
assumed by the public sector. In order to secure public support, Labour promised not to
increase income taxes, limiting the options available to the party when it needed to raise
funds through taxation (Farnsworth, 2011). It was forced to renege on this promise when
the financial crisis hit, eventually raising income tax for the wealthiest to 50%. However,
simultaneously the government worked hard to ensure the individuals in this socio-
economic bracket continued to proffer. Consequently, it proved the party to be ineffectual
in addressing economic inequality, a trend which has been widening ever since, and forcing
it to utilise the welfare system to redistribute, via the medium of targeted benefits, rather
than through taxation (Beech, 2011; Joyce & Sibieta, 2013; Kennedy, 2013; Prabhakar,
2011). This was coupled with the pressure of a competing commitment to increasing
investment in key public services. Consequently, Labour had ended up in a situation
whereby a conflicting programme of increased spending but low-taxation led to spending as
a percentage of GDP increased by approximately 8% from 1997 to 2007 (Farnsworth, 2011:
257). These competing commitments began to fall apart dramatically as the economy went
into freefall during the onset of the crisis. As Farnsworth (2011: 257) explains, that ‘while
accumulated public debt was low in 2007’ this conflict of commitments is the primary cause
behind ‘the size of the annual deficit had been steadily rising from the mid-2000s’ (Chote et
al, 2008). This was eventually used against New Labour by the Conservative party during the
2010 election race.

16
Word Count: 14,097
However, despite the previous detailing of Labour’s commitment at the time to
neoliberalism as the guiding paradigm, the political response employed by Gordon Brown
emphasised internationally coordinated state intervention. This marked a significant
discontinuity in neoliberalism, favouring a move towards Keynesianism, demonstrating the
variable nature of government conduct and mentalities (Beech, 2011; Prabhakar, 2011).
Such policy manifested with national economies encouraged to flood the system with huge
sums of investment, in order to provide stimulus and protect key financial institutions. The
funds to undertake these actions were sought through national borrowing, itself as a means
by which to reinvigorate the financial sector. Brown not only made it his mission to rescue
the UK economy, but also the global economy. A key cause of the crisis, banks’ negligence
and the failure to properly regulate their activities, is especially pertinent in the UK context
(Crotty, 2009). The guiding political attitude of laissez-faire regulation, in addition to the
power afforded to the financial sector and the reliance on profits generated by them,
caused the UK experience of this impact to be overwhelming. Subsequently, the
ramifications of allowing these institutions to fail would be far too devastating to allow
(Beech, 2011; Crotty, 2009; Farnsworth, 2011; Lee, 2011a). These institutions has become
so greatly exposed to risk generated by US sub-prime mortgages and so greatly integrated
into the UK economy, that they became the corner-stones of the whole economy. Simply
put, if they were removed, the economy would come crashing down. As such, the incredible
sums of money involved in bringing them into public hands indicated the definitive moment
when the crisis became a truly public crisis, with every individual taxpayer in the UK
shouldering the huge debt obligations of the newly nationalised banks (Crotty, 2009;
Farnsworth, 2011; Macleavy, 2011; Lee, 2011a; Taylor-Gooby, 2009).

17
Word Count: 14,097
2.2.3 The Coalition
Despite being receiving international recognition over the effort made to stimulate both
national and global economies, the opinion domestically was increasingly negative. Echoing
the 1970s, Brown and Labour were portrayed as indecisive and incompetent, with the
financial crisis as supposed evidence towards this end (Farnsworth, 2011). Consequently,
the 2010 election resulted in the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties forming a
coalition government, inheriting an economy severely indebted by bailout measures and
stimulus packages undertaken in the wake of the crisis (Macleavy, 2011; Lee, 2011a; 2011b;
Summers, 2009; Taylor-Gooby, 2009). The Conservatives were incredibly successful in
attributing the cause of the crisis to failings of the preceding Blair and Brown governments,
which played a large part in their position in forming a coalition. As such, this translated into
the operating rhetoric of the Conservative-led government: that public borrowing and
expenditure levels were unsustainable, holding up examples of Ireland and Greece as
warnings if cuts to spending failed to be implemented (Farnsworth, 2011).
In making this rhetoric the guiding principle of political response to the crisis, it is evident
that the government had prescribed and implemented a solution based on ideological
premises. Although, under the pretext of the financial crisis, questions concerning ideology,
its implementation and impacts are virtually non-existent. As such, a campaign of spending
cuts, retrenchment of the public sector and bringing the budget deficit into order under the
headline of austerity has been successfully rolled out as inevitable, devoid of any ideological
affiliation (Farnsworth, 2011; TUC, 2015). As such, the impression was given that, with full
access to government data informing decision making, there was no other possible course
of action that could be taken. However, the key policies and overwhelming rhetoric
employed by the coalition administration have a distinct neoliberal feel to them. No doubt
any reduction in spending requires reductions to the public sector, yet, the size and scope of
cuts suggests an overall mentality of retrenchment concerning the state (Beech, 2011;
Driver, 2011; Farnsworth, 2011; Meade, 2010; Lee, 2011a; 2011b) A move which appears
contradictory when considering the responsibility of rescuing the national and global
economy was born by the state. However, the way that the debt accumulated by financial

18
Word Count: 14,097
institutions was passed onto the state smacks of a perverse irony. One which is not lost on
actors engaging in resistance to austerity.
2.2.4 Replacing the Public Sector with
Volunteerism: the ‘Big Society’
The campaign of public retrenchment is apparent in David Cameron’s notion of the ‘Big
Society’. Rather than depending on the state to fulfil various services or roles within society,
individuals and communities should instead rely on each other. Shifting responsibility from
the state to civil society is both a means towards public sector roll-back as an ends, in
addition to promoting the notion that civil society is in fact a more appropriate place to fulfil
the needs of citizens and communities (Farnsworth, ). Furthermore, it is clear that
volunteerism under the ‘Big Society’ was intended to mitigate the effects of public spending
cuts in order to endear public opinion. Thus, the political response of spending cuts has in
itself required compensatory action. It is also a means by which to make permanent the
transition away from high-levels of public spending. This was confirmed both by Cameron, in
an interview with The Guardian in 2010, urging avoiding restoring public spending to pre-
crisis levels and also through the consistency of rhetoric and action along these lines in the
2015 election campaign, in which the Conservatives under this narrative prevailed. As such,
those taking a cynical viewpoint on this matter make the point that the Conservatives have
successfully mobilised the crisis as an impassioned plea to restructure the national economy
due to the perceived failings of the state (under Labour), presenting public spending as the
causing the extent of impact experienced by the UK (Beech, 2011; Farnsworth, 2011).
Incredibly, the role of banks and other financial institutions have been successfully struck
from the collective memory, and are absent from this narrative. Consequently, the coalition
government had been given a mandate to pursue deep and far-reaching cuts, beginning in
June 2010, of government departments. Where the cuts were most drastic, some
departments experienced a 25% reduction in their funding, alongside a projected cut of

19
Word Count: 14,097
overall spending of approximately 5% of GDP from 2011 to 2015 (Farnsworth, 2011). Such
was the magnitude of these cuts that the Institute for Fiscal Studies remarked that ‘In total,
the cut in central government public services spending as a share of national income now
planned by the Coalition will more than reverse the entire increase we saw under Labour’
(IFS, 2010). It is also extremely important to add that Crawford (2010), undertaking analysis
for the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS, hereafter), suggests that the cuts would
disproportionately negatively impact upon the poorest within society. A trend which has
been realised in Chancellor George Osbourne’s most recent budget announcements (2015).
Although the very poorest in society have been spared further hardship by this budget, the
working poor are the hardest hit, whilst the scale of losses steadily decrease in relation to a
household’s wealth, save the wealthiest bracket which experiences a slight loss (Elliot,
2015). As such, the IFS declared the 2015 budget to disproportionately affect some of the
poorest brackets of society, especially those in work, whilst also making the tax and benefits
systems increasingly regressive (Elliot, 2015).
2.2.5 Social Implications
In light of the successive declarations of considerable cuts aimed at the public sector, it is
important to examine the policy implications upon UK society. Although these cuts continue
to be presented as a necessary course of action forced by the huge amounts of public debt
accumulated by Labour, the role of private sector financial institutions appears to be
obscured in this narrative. As has been covered, the main cause of public debt rising so
rapidly was the need to produce vast amounts of finances to rescue the collapsing financial
sector and to stimulate demand as a means of achieving economic growth (Macleavy, 2011;
Summers, 2009; Taylor-Gooby, 2011). However, at the centre of the government (since
2010) narrative is a need for this public debt to be swiftly dealt with via cutting public
spending. In reality, it appears that austerity measures appear a means by which to
reallocate financial resources from the public realm towards the private sector, from the
poorest to the richest in society (Elliot, 2015; Farnsworth, 2011; Lee, 2011b). At the same
time, the government is refusing to substantially raise taxation for the wealthiest in society
and for financial institutions that helped to create the crisis. Instead, the 2015 budget again

20
Word Count: 14,097
places the burden of cost upon the poorest in society. Additionally, the tax system and
benefit schemes have been made increasingly regressive (Elliot, 2015). This follows a trend
of low taxation for high earners and corporations that has lasted since the 1980s. As such,
the UK can count itself as one of the most unequal nations in the world (Joyce & Sibieta,
2013; Kennedy, 2013; Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009). This was reinforced by the
disproportionate weighting given to spending cuts beginning in 2010, at a ratio of spending
cuts to tax rises at 59:41 in year one (2010), rising to 77:23 in year five (2015-2016)
(Farnsworth, 2012: 264).
Comparing the scope of retrenchment being imposed upon the public sector to the costs of
rescuing the private sector, it is clear to see that the public sector is being made to fail. The
immense amount of debt accumulated by the state when rescuing private entities requires
continued expense on behalf of the state in order to service this debt, and indeed to
continue financially supporting financial institutions. Inevitably, sustained levels of debt will
also result in sustained and increasingly extreme cuts to public services, a practice which
seems incredibly unnecessary, unless of course it is driven by ideological mentalities with
certain ideas on how to govern (Farnsworth. The argument that this drive for austerity is
ideological rather than a credible political response can be clearly seen in this resistance to
tax increase, favouring cuts, and even cuts to taxation of businesses. The Coalition
government undertook a reduction of corporate tax from 28% to 24% during their term of
office, alongside selective exemptions from national insurance and corporation tax for small
businesses, alongside a reduction of income tax from 21% to 20% (Farnsworth, :264).
Although, there has been some attempt to raise revenues from taxation through the
increase in VAT from 17.5% to 20%, this is a regressive form of taxation (Murphy, 2010).
Furthermore, a change in VAT impacts heavily upon the poorest in society, due to essential
items becoming increasingly expensive. This represents an increase in taxation of a socio-
economic group which already experiences disproportionate taxation, paying the most tax
as a percentage of income than any other group (Tetlow, 2015). Additionally, this increase
of VAT generates hardly any revenue at £13billion when compared to simultaneous tax cuts
of £12billion, and effectively the government are doing little better than breaking even
(Farnsworth, 2011 :264). In addition, Lee (2011a: 65) estimates that more than £160 billion

21
Word Count: 14,097
of tax would not have been paid or received up to 2015, owing to a lack of political will to
reform the tax system. This is further evidence of the poorest in society disproportionately
bearing the cost of subsidising the wealthiest. Furthermore, the vast inequality present in
British society is clearly increasing as a result of the austerity programme being
implemented.
The austerity agenda initiated by the Coalition and carried on by the Conservative
government also includes heavy cuts to social security benefits, including targeting
claimants and those whom are considered undeserving of benefits (Driver, 2011; Lee,
2011a; 2011b).This programme of social security reorganisation began with the Coalition
initiating a process of reassessment for those on Incapacity Benefit, in April 2011. Alongside
reviewing the status of benefit claimants, the Coalition announced that benefits would be
scaled down for those failing to actively seek employment or those whom rejected offers of
employment (Farnsworth, 2011: 265). This includes benefits being withdrawn for varying
intervals, ranging from one month to three years depending on the severity of their
perceived aversion to employment, penalising individuals for refusing offers of employment
despite a lack of effort to determine the suitability of the job to the individual. In addition to
this, pensions have also been targeted, with the qualifying state pension age being raised to
66 for men in 2016 and 2020 for women. Furthermore, the value of benefits were altered,
commencing 2011, following increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), rather than the
Retail Price Index (RPI). This is significant as the CPI typically operates at a lower rate than
the RPI, due to the exclusion of housing costs and is a move that the Coalition expected
would cut £6billion from the benefits budget (The Economist, 2010). This decision was
justified by the argument that many people receiving benefits also qualify for housing
benefit, therefore they were considered to have been receiving more than they should
have. The changes that were employed by the Coalition restructured the public sector in a
way that will not deliver any significant savings, but the changes to service management and
delivery were substantial (Driver, 2011; Farnsworth, 2011; Lee, 2011b). Overall, the state
has experienced a withdrawal from involvement in services, whilst the private sector has
increased its involvement alongside other actors within civil society under the ‘Big Society’.

22
Word Count: 14,097
2.3 Austerity Proves Unpopular: Experiences of
Resistance
2.3.1 Why Resist?
Generally, within Europe resistance to austerity has been expressed following actions by
democratically elected bodies, and as protests taking place in the streets (Hartleb, 2011). It
is also important to note that this is accompanied by persistent apathy on behalf of voter
participation. Within the UK, this translates into a 66.1% participation rate in 2015, up 1%
from 2010, but a 10% decrease since 1992 and, respectively, the 4th and 3rd lowest election
turnouts since 1945 (UK Political, 2015). Additionally, this has resulted in the current
Conservative government being elected by only 24% of the population of the UK. As such,
whilst it is valid to consider protests as being mobilised in reaction to government decisions,
within the context of the UK, it is fair to presume that a significant share of resistance is
undertaken by those whom either did not take part in the democratic election process, or
whom did not choose to be ‘governed by them’ (Foucault, 2007b: 44). Although, this still
represents a mobilisation of resistance around political agendas (Hartleb, 2011).
Subsequently,
2.3.2 Examples of Resistance within the UK
The most common way in which resistance to austerity is expressed in the UK context is
through protest, in response to the conduct of government. November and December of
2010, six months following the formation of a Conservative-Liberal Democrat government,
saw the first protest of what has loosely been termed ‘the Anti-Austerity movement’. It
began with student protests against the proposed cuts to funding for further education and
the raising of the tuition fee cap (from £3,000 to £9,000) resulting from the Independent

23
Word Count: 14,097
Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance (2010). Organised by the National
Union of Students (NUS) and the University and College Union (UCU), between 30-50,000
people attended the demonstration in Central London on the 10th of November. This was
followed on the 24th of November with the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts
(NCAFC) organising a national mass walk-out of education, as well as a demonstration in
Whitehall, London. Surrounding these geographical focal points, similar forms of affiliated
protest was undertaken in other locations nationally. The overwhelming tactics utilised
during these instances of resistance were that of protest marches combined with the
occupation of symbolically significant buildings. The student protests of 2010 were followed
by numerous expressions of resistance during 2011. January 2011 saw another NCAFC
organised protest in London, whilst the Trade Union Congress (TUC), UCU and National
Union of Students (NUS) held a ‘future that works’ rally in Manchester, attracting c.5000
people. Through March 2011, there were widespread protests in various locations across
the UK. The GMB and UK Uncut organised a protest in Knightsbridge, London on the 3rd
March against tax evasion, as well as another UK Uncut organised protest outside Barclays
bank in Bolton, opposite the town hall. This was followed by protests throughout March, the
overwhelming majority organised by UK Uncut, against a wide array of issues, namely: tax
evasion; the conduct of banks post-financial crisis; public sector cuts and against austerity in
general. In June of the same year, a one-day strike, J30, was held by public sector workers
against the then planned changes to pension plans and retirement policies. Following this,
various public sector unions organised through the TUC with up to two million public sector
workers going on strike. This forced widespread closure of schools, cancellation of non-
urgent NHS operations and various other service disruptions. However, the government
proclaimed that the protests were not nearly as significant as the TUC had claimed, pointing
to the continued operation of many key services and maintaining that the turnout was far
less than the TUC had publicised.

24
Word Count: 14,097
2.3.3 How to conceptualise resistance?
Hartleb (2011: 6) raises an interesting point, writing from ‘the standpoint of an input-output
model for political systems’. He details how the orthodox view of how this model is
considered as working with ‘opinions or demands (inputs)’ originating from the public,
media, interest groups and political parties being enacted ‘by governments through
legislation (outputs)’ and governance strategies (Ibid.,: 6). However, Hartleb (2011: 6) notes
‘it seems that inputs now often arise as a consequence of outputs that have already been
generated’. In the case of austerity, it can definitely be considered to have occurred via the
latter process, an output that has generated numerous inputs. In turn, it can also be said
that these resultant inputs themselves generate revised outputs. Whilst this ‘input-output’
model is certainly relevant and applicable, it is incredibly rigid and narrow. Hence,
governmentality offers a similarly relevant means by which to view the government-
resistance nexus that exists around austerity, but in a more comprehensive and reflexive
manner. The model described by Hartleb (2011) alludes to the co-constitutive relationship
that exists between government and resistance, however it offers no means by which to
analyse or explain the intricacies of such an interconnection. Furthermore, whilst it may
imply a co-constitutive relationship, such a model continues to work from the view of a
polarised, rigid structure of the resistance-government nexus (Death, 2011; Della Porta &
Tarrow, 2005; Drainville, 2002; Gills, 1997; Keck & Sikkink, 1998). Consequently, the ‘input-
output’ approach to theorising anti-austerity resistance is limiting. This arises from the fact
that there is next to no engagement with resistance as a dynamic, complex entity. Rather, it
is seen as merely performing mechanically in response to or as generating actions. Within
this model, therefore, resistance appears isolated as an entity, and as acting out of a pre-
determined function to resist for the sake of resisting. This is the type of conceptualisation
this study looks to avoid, and to remedy through the utilisation of governmentality: through
counter-conducts and the analytics of protest.

25
Word Count: 14,097
3.0 Methodology
3.1 Research Questions
1. What are the rationales or mentalities mobilising anti-austerity resistance in the UK?
2. To what extent do the practices utilised by the anti-austerity resistance differ
depending on mentalities and objectives of certain actors?
3. What consequences do subjectivities have in terms of the functioning of these
practices?
4. To what extent is the relationship between government and anti-austerity resistance
co-constitutive rather than polarised?
3.2 Aims
 To demonstrate that the relationship between anti-austerity resistance and
government is co-constitutive rather than polarised.
 To provide a nuanced account of the mentalities, practices and subjectivities of anti-
austerity resistance, representing it as a complex and dynamic movement, rather
than in reductionist terms.

26
Word Count: 14,097
3.3 Governmentality: as a conceptual
framework
3.3.1 Why Governmentality?
Austerity is undeniably a political technique, or technology, within a wider system of
governance in the UK. Despite the existence of a wide range of literature concerning the
analysis of austerity, there remains a marked absence of work detailing a truly
comprehensive analysis of the anti-austerity movement within the UK. This is particularly
true regarding analysis of mentalities, practices and subjectivities. Consequently, there
exists a polarisation concerning the resistance-government nexus on austerity. Within
academia, there is a problem with viewing resistance as simply against or opposed to
government. As such, I argue that this limits the engagement of some work concerning
resistance. In assuming or portraying resistance in this way, an already determined set of
ideas on the objectives and mentalities of a dissenting movement emerges as simply
opposite to that of government. Furthermore, practices and subjectivities of such
movements are subsequently misinterpreted in a similar way. Austerity is typically
presented in the public realm, as wholly apolitical and devoid of ideology (Beech, 2011;
Farnsworth, 2011; Lee, 2011a; TUC, 2015). This reflects upon resistance in a similarly
polarising manner. Resistance is implicitly considered as being rigidly anti-establishment. It
is clear, that there is discontinuity and confusion surrounding resistance to austerity (Death,
2011; Della Porta & Tarrow, 2005; Drainville, 2002; Gills, 1997; Keck & Sikkink, 1998). The
problem here is the position of some academic literature, which creates implied
assumptions on the mentalities of resistance, obscuring understandings of the objectives,
practices and subjectivities of actors involved and the movement as a whole.
Governmentality as a variation in conceptualising resistance, on the other hand, offers
clarity on these issues. A limitation of deploying governmentality as a conceptual framework
is evident in its refusal to reveal a pre-set criteria by which to undertake investigation and
draw conclusions on progressive resistance movements. However, it is intended as a

27
Word Count: 14,097
heuristic tool, by which to conceptualise resistance in certain ways. This, I argue, is
incredibly useful in addressing the concerns raised by this paper in relation to current
failings and obscurities demonstrated by some academic literature on the subject. By
guiding investigation heuristically, governmentality offers the opportunity to identify and
analyse unique characteristics of the anti-austerity movement that have previously been
overlooked. Consequently, utilising governmentality as a conceptual framework, I will
address these concerns outlined above and offer a nuanced analysis towards rectifying the
problem of polarising the resistance-government nexus, also analysing the mentalities,
practices and subjectivities of resistance towards this end.
3.3.2 Exploring Governmentality: key concepts
Governmentality is a complex theory, subsequently, it is useful to discuss broadly before
pinpointing key components that will be effective in this investigation. Governmentality,
deconstructed, plainly means the collective thought that constructs certain forms of
governance, the mentality of government (Dean, 1999). A central tenet of governmentality
is the function of collective thinking in establishing particular governmentalities and
approaches to governance. Collective thinking exhibits a process of conceptualisation that
constitute collective attitudes towards authority and attempts by which to govern – by
whom, how, and over what – in turn, this process is informed through ‘theories, ideas,
philosophies and forms of knowledge that are part of our social and cultural products’
(Dean, 1999: 16). Accordingly, the output of this practice as manifestations rooted in
numerous variant knowledges, beliefs and attitudes held by individuals and collectives
within society (Foucault, 1977). As a result, the substance and configurations of knowledges
that arise to form theories prove fundamental in the formation of governmentalities and the
operation of governance. In attempting to utilise this feature of governmentality to
investigate the formation of an austerity mentality that exists currently, it is crucial that
Dean’s (1999: 17-18) ‘analytics of government’ is taken into consideration within the
methodical research process. The analytics of government contains four key identifiable
features of collective thinking that consequently combine to constitute a governmentality.
First is ontology, concerning the precise object of governance, being who or what is

28
Word Count: 14,097
governed. Secondly, ascetics attempts to address the processes of governance, how one
practices governance. Thirdly, deontology relates to the form of the object when
experiencing governance, who an individual is when exposed to governing practices. Lastly,
teleology addresses the objectives of governance, why the need for particular expressions of
governance exist (Dean, 1999). Clearly, the analytics of government directly addresses ways
in which to conceptualise the formation of governmentalities, as well as analysing
expressions of these though governance, being occupied with collective thinking
incorporated/encompassed in ‘programmes for the direction and reform of conduct’ (Dean,
1999: 18). As such, it can be understood that collective thinking informs the formation of
technologies deployed to control and rationalise conduct, readily apparent in functions of
governance – which is also true for institutions involved in the design and implementation
of such policies.
3.3.3 Governmentality on Resistance: Counter-
conduct and the analytics of protest
The analytics of government goes on to highlight the weight of ‘truth’ – knowledge that is
professed as infallible and legitimate – in relation to the role it plays in producing such
policies and mentalities of institutions, as a social, cultural and political product (Dean,
1999). A number of important points can be drawn to this regarding the investigation of
austerity and resistance to it. Firstly, that populaces seek to govern others whilst
participating in self-governing behaviour. Secondly, as a product of social, cultural and
political processes, there exists great scope for alternative truths to manifest through these
means. Thirdly, considering that ‘truth’ is pervasive within attempts to govern, it must also
be understood that the resilience of governance policy subsequently exhibits a heavy
reliance on the strength of the ‘truth’ upon which it draws upon. At this point it is also
important to point out that the strength or resilience of a truth is not merely dependent on
its scientific infallibility. The role of social, cultural and political pressures ensure that some
truths endure despite scientifically produced knowledges that suggest otherwise.

29
Word Count: 14,097
Governmentality is particularly suited to produce a comprehensive, in-depth study of
resistance to austerity in the context of the UK over that of liberal or realist investigation.
This advantage comes as a result of governmentality being concerned with the means by
which actors’ actions are situated in certain theories and concepts. Foucault (1982: 220-221)
terms this the ‘conduct of conducts’, the way in which action is brought about. The ‘conduct
of conducts’ itself conveys various technologies and practices that actors engage with and
employ with the intention to govern individuals or groups own conduct towards their own
end (Dean, 1999; Foucault, 1982; Sending & Newman, 2006). Resistance in this project will
be conceptualised through the Foucauldian notion of ‘counter-conducts’ explained by
Foucault (2007b: 75) as ‘the will not to be governed thusly, like that, by these people, at this
price’. Counter-conducts, as it suggests, is the opposing notion to Foucault’s (1982: 220-221)
‘conduct of conducts’. Both theories emanated through Foucault’s work on governmentality
and are intimately linked, signifying the mutually constitutive nature of the resistance-
government nexus (Cadman, 2010; Death, 2010; 2011).
The process of counter-conducts will be observed and analysed by drawing on Carl Death’s
(2010; 2011) ‘analytics of protest’, which in turn has utilised and modified Mitchell Dean’s
aforementioned ‘analytics of government’. By deploying Death’s (2010; 2011) ‘analytics of
protest’, forms of resistance will be subjected to an analyses of mentalities, practices and
subjectivities. Undertaking analysis in this way is intended to produce conclusions which
offer greater depth than the existing extremely polar views on resistance to austerity, part
of a wider problem in the polarisation in academia of power and resistance (Death, 2011;
Della Porta & Tarrow, 2005; Drainville, 2002; Gills, 1997; Keck & Sikkink, 1998).
Furthermore, utilising governmentality as a conceptual framework by which to investigate
this topic moves beyond understanding resistance as being personified through specific
groups or actors (Death, 2010; 2011). Rather, resistance is understood as dynamic, varying
in its forms and manners of expression. In order to achieve this, analysis will focus on the
way mobilising mentalities were constituted in relation to government conduct, how
resistance is practiced, and what self-regulation has been imparted by dissenters on their
own practices. This dichotomy that presents resistance as a homogenous entity, completely
at odds with objects of power, engaging in struggle to gain power through diminishing that

30
Word Count: 14,097
of the existing holder, is refuted by counter-conducts and in the analytics of protest. Such a
dismissal originates from Foucault considering liberation to be a false concept, one which
presumes the individual exists to be freed or emancipated (Death, 2010; 2011; Foucault,
1997: 282). As such, the idea that an individual is resistant even before the act of resistance
takes place is problematised by this rejection of liberation (Cadman, 2010; Death, 2010;
2011). Rather, Foucault (2007a: 194) focusses attention on ‘revolts of conduct’, resistance to
certain expressions of particular governmentalities, encompassing technologies of
governance. Revolts of conduct are distinctly different to those resisting against political
sovereignty or economic exploitation (Cadman, 2010; Death, 2010; 2011). In settling on the
term ‘counter-conduct’ Foucault is intentionally specifying opposition towards processes
that are practiced with the intention of regulating the conduct of others (conduct of
conducts) (Meade, 2010). Resistance of this nature engages with the problem of ‘how not to
be governed like that, by that, in the name of those principles, with such and such an
objective in mind and by means of such procedures, not like that, not for that, not by them’
(Foucualt, 2007b: 44). Rather than an attempt to destroy government in all its forms, it is
the ability to mitigate the extent to which participants are governed, or ‘the will not to be
governed thusly, like that, by these people, at this price’ (Foucault, 2007b: 45). Furthermore,
the outlook of counter-conduct understands resistance as existing within the territory of
government, rather than being an entirely separate entity (Cadman, 2010; Death, 2010;
2011; Meade, 2010; Rose, 1999). Resistance and government are closely interrelated, given
that forms of resistance exist as a result of, even being associated with, government
practices, approaches and power relationships they are challenging (Death, 2011). For
instance, within neoliberal governmentality freedom or liberty is promoted and protected,
including that of self-regulating spheres; civil society; the economy; entrepreneurialism
(Cadman, 2010; Peck et al., 2012; Rose, 1999). The common view that resistance is the polar
opposite of government does not make sense in relation to resistance of a certain
governmentality, such as neoliberalism, that is governing through ‘freedom’ since it is
inevitable that resistance will utilise such freedoms towards their own ends (Rose, 1999).
Clearly, orthodox conceptualisations of resistance are inaccurate and on occasion
contradictory. Furthermore, through such an example, we see the way that counter-
conducts

31
Word Count: 14,097
3.4 Structure
The results and analysis chapter of this project will be divided into three clear sections:
Mentalities of Resistance; Practices of Resistance and Subjectivities of Resistance.
Mentalities of Resistance offers a review of the rationales and justifications deployed by
resistance in regards to government conduct. Practices of Resistance seeks to identify the
key techniques utilised by resistance actors, whilst examining what it is these tactics reveal
about the movement itself, how it is (self-) disciplined, including the relationship with
government. Subjectivities of Resistance evaluates the state and realities of the anti-
austerity movement, representing insight into the nature of relationships within the
movement, as well as the ways conduct and self-discipline emerges through exchanges
between internal actors. As has been explained in the preceding sections of this
methodology, Death’s (2010; 2011) ‘analytics of protest’ will be deployed as the main
component of a governmentality conceptual theory by which to analyse anti-austerity
resistance. Essentially, this method consists of gathering data on the speeches, declarations,
and directives produced by actors within the resistance movement, then highlighting
themes into which mentalities can be grouped. Furthermore, the themes will be explored in
relation to government conduct, attempting to identify specific knowledges that are either
utilised or resisted. Such information is typically obtained via secondary data, being
collected from union and organisation policy documents, alongside various media pieces
and academic literature. This method of assembling material for analysis is advantageous
for this particular project. Whilst policy documents are undoubtedly written based on the
judgements of that particular entity, this actually works as an advantage concerning this
particular study. Essentially, it allows direct access to anti-austerity resistance’s objectives
and techniques, providing rich narrative from which to develop conclusions. One possible
limitation could emerge if only a limited number of actors’ policy documents were utilised in
this study, as his creates a homogenous data set. However, this will be avoided by collating
documentation from various actors, with conclusions to be drawn only once data has been

32
Word Count: 14,097
cross-referenced. Popular protest often garners widespread media coverage, meaning there
is often a vast amount of data included within articles. Furthermore, when there are
expressions of resistance occurring simultaneously in various locales, media offers a way for
the researcher to garner rich data concerning each context, which would be near impossible
if an ethnographic study was being conducted. Whilst this limits analysis to include only
published mentalities, it is a minor limitation, as there exists sufficient data on the central
guiding mentalities of anti-austerity resistance through such sources, providing sufficient
nuances of actors’ mentalities. Further studies attempting to conduct an in-depth study on
actors on the periphery of anti-austerity resistance would be advised to undertake
ethnographic research, embedding themselves in expressions of resistance. Within the
results and analysis section, direct quotations from sources will be included within the text
surrounded analysis. This is done in order to represent the information in its original form,
so that it is easy to identify certain points elucidated within the discussion. Furthermore, it is
logical to organise and present the sources in this way, as it enables cross-referencing and
corroboration of evidence within the text. By directly lifting quotes and presenting them in
their original form within the text, there is greater room for discussion and analysis rather
than a messy and tedious explanation of ‘who said what’ followed by ‘this person said that’.
Organised in this format, the project can proceed in forming informative conclusions on the
topic of anti-austerity resistance, in relation to the overall aim and research questions
guiding this investigation.

33
Word Count: 14,097
4 Results & Analysis
4.1 Mentalities of Resistance
Mentalities, here, signifies the knowledges formed of collective thinking, rationale and
understandings of context drawn on by those engaging in protest and resistance (Death,
2010; 2011). Despite protest and resistance conjuring images of loosely organised chaos,
there actually exists meticulous planning, organisation and reasoning behind certain forms
and practices of resistance in a similar way to the functioning of government (Dean, 1999).
The People’s Assembly Against Austerity is the most prominent collective of civil society
actors undertaking this organisational role, also providing a space for the sharing of
collective though, thus assisting the formulation of rationalities. It is a comprehensive
collection of the various actors within anti-austerity resistance. A selection of excerpts from
The Proposed Declaration and Action Plan of The People’s Assembly (People’s Assembly,
2014) highlight the guiding principles of this organisation:
We are clear in our minds that our stand will require us to defend the people’s right
to protest, and so we support the right of unions and campaigns to organise and take
such action as their members democratically decide is necessary (Ibid.,).
(We) believe that a single united national movement is required to challenge more
effectively a nationally led government austerity programme (Ibid.,).
We support every, and all effective forms action and aim to build a united national
movement of resistance (Ibid.,).
The narrative emanating from this leading anti-austerity actor is one of solidarity,
cooperation and unity. As such, the resistance movement appears initially here to be one
that shares common goals and mentalities, whilst also allowing space for the formulation of
new, carefully considered rationales. Rather than being spontaneous, anarchic events,
expressions of anti-austerity resistance exhibit a largely considered manifestation of
grievances and dissent. As such, resistance requires an interaction with object(s) it seeks to
problematise (Dean, 1999; Death, 2011; Meade, 2012). In the case of anti-austerity

34
Word Count: 14,097
resistance this means engaging with government. In the context of UK austerity it is the
governmentalities of neoliberal disposition and conducts through legislation and policy
decisions. A process of engagement with and consideration of government is inevitable in
order for resistance to form their own mentalities that not only revolt against those of
government, but that seek to reform the aspects that are considered to be problematic.
Whilst there are various examples of resistance to austerity, the overwhelming means by
which the mentalities of dissenting voices are broadcast is through protest. The most
prominent objective is to overtly disrupt the harmonious façade of everyday life under
austerity in the UK, to unsettle conceptions of a government acting with a legitimising
mandate.
The government’s austerity programme does not work; it is unjust, immoral and
undemocratic (The People’s Assembly, 2014)
Austerity is a comprehensive attack on the rights of men, women and Children
(Jeane Freeman, of Women for Independence, addressing protesters in London on
the 20th of June, 2015; Walsh, 2015).
Within this wider objective are a number of more detailed grievances, attributed to specific
government policies thus drawing a response to governmentality and conduct, in the form
of counter-conduct. These expressions are very much tied to the Foucauldian notion on
resistance as response to the problem of ‘how not to be governed like that… not for that,
not by them’ Foucault, 2007b: 44). Anti-austerity mentalities formed in response to
government conduct can be broadly identified as two interrelated themes: austerity as
unfair, and as ideological. Within these broad groupings, numerous examples of knowledges
and mentalities are apparent. The unfairness expressed is a result of the sense that austerity
is a disproportionate response to the financial crisis, targeting innocent individuals whom
had no part in causing the crisis but are now being made to pay.
We’re here to say austerity isn’t working. We’re here to say that it wasn’t people on
jobseekers’ allowance that brought down the banks. It wasn’t nurses and teachers
and firefighters who were recklessly gambling on international markets. And so we
should stop the policies that are making them pay for a crisis that wasn’t of their

35
Word Count: 14,097
making (Caroline Lucas, Green Party MP, addressing protesters in London on the 20th
of June, 2015: Ibid.,).
This particular knowledge that has formed the mentality of unfairness problematises a
number of government policies, undertaken by both the Coalition and (2015) Conservative
governments. The accumulation of high-levels of public debt through bailout packages are
not so much the issue here. Of course these are significant in influencing austerity, however
it is more so the inadequacies of government conduct that resistance has been mobilised
against. The lack of government action to somehow reprimand the banks or to impart
tighter regulation on their activities has been viewed by many in the anti-austerity
movement as lacklustre and outrageous. Within this example, government is considered by
those aggrieved to have had a role to fulfil as adjudicators, to evaluate the financial crisis
whilst producing policies for economic recovery and the wellbeing of society. In reality,
however, the conduct of government has been to continue a light-touch approach to
financial regulation. At the same time, vast public spending and welfare cuts have been
undertaken, scheduled to continue until 2019 (Tetlow, 2015). The public sector is being
replaced by David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’, advocating volunteerism, placing responsibility
on communities and shrinking state involvement. Successive governments have continued
to reduce taxation for the wealthiest and for many corporations, alongside introducing
regressive taxation of the poor (Farnsworth, 2008; Gough, 2008). Anti-austerity resistance
considers perpetrators of financial malpractice and unnecessarily risky, greed-driven actions
to have escaped sanction or responsibility. Simultaneously, innocent members of the public,
have been made to bear the cost. Subsequently, this conduct is identified as being heavily
subscribed to neoliberal ideology.
Ordinary people are joining together in their thousands to send a clear message to
the new government: no more brutal austerity, senseless cuts and ideological
privatisations. That’s why trade unions will continue to fight for a real alternative
based on investment, public ownership and strong rights for working people.
Together we can build a fairer, more equal, more hopeful country (Frances O’Grady,
TUC General Secretary, addressing protesters in London on the 20th of June, 2015;
Walsh, 2015).

36
Word Count: 14,097
The Con-Dem coalition has delivered us into the grip of the Tories’ whose political
project is the destruction of a universal welfare state (The People’s Assembly, 2014).
Austerity, therefore, appears as an ideological, political project, targeting the public sector
for retrenchment whilst strengthening private sector interests. As such, this mentality of
unfairness represents austerity as a disproportionate punishment of poorer members of
society supported by the state, whilst insulating socio-economic elites from comparable
consequences. Resistance here is calling for a progressive reform in government conduct. In
this way, resistance is reacting to austerity as part of an overtly neoliberal governmentality
generating disproportionately unfair consequences. The political response of austerity as a
defined set of policies, directed towards regulating the conduct of the public, marks the
point at which mentalities are mobilised as a revolt of conduct. The costs of austerity
become unacceptable to these actors. It is what leads members of the anti-austerity
movement to choose ‘not to be governed like that’, by austerity, in the name of such
extreme neoliberal principles, at the price of the poor (Foucault, 2007b: 44).
“We have a plain and simple goal: to make government abandon its austerity
programme. If it will not it must be replaced with one that will.” (People’s
Assembly, 2014)
Consequently, anti-austerity resistance can be seen to be constituted in response to
government conduct, seeking to pressure policymakers through existing political apparatus.
Anti-austerity resistance is working through existing structures of governance, which include
the right to protest, in order to alter governmentalities, forming knowledges through
resistance towards new forms of ‘truth’ by which to govern.

37
Word Count: 14,097
4.2 Practices of Resistance
Resistance in the form of protest is not simply concerned with mentalities. The act of
protesting itself encompasses ‘concrete practices, techniques and technologies’ (Death,
2010; 2011: 430). Within protest exists numerous practices that are apparent: converging
on in public spaces en masse, holding placards conveying mentalities, lectures and podium
speakers, the V for Vendetta or Anonymous mask that has dominated anti-austerity
resistance, occupy and beyond, and the like. In this way, anti-austerity resistance attempts
to amplify its mentalities, a struggle for the knowledges that have informed this collective
thinking to become ‘truth’, along with all the powerful implications this entails (Dean, 1999).
For example, anti-austerity protests are commonly populated with numerous placards
reading:
‘End Austerity Now’. ‘Austerity is self-defeating’. ‘There is a better and fairer way
forwards’. ‘We will organise and fight for our future’ (TUC, 2015).
‘No More Austerity’ (Mortimer, 2015)
‘No Cuts’ (Walsh, 2015)
A practice such as displaying placards is evidently a highly visible and accessible way in
which individuals, as well as groups, within the movement may transmit the mentalities
they are protesting under. Such a technique has worked to highlight the plurality of
complementing mentalities that constitute anti-austerity resistance. It is apparent that such
practices, their methods and rationale, emulate and work within the spectrum of liberal
methods of governing through freedoms (Cadman, 2010; Rose, 1999). Alongside
disobedience and dissent, there exists a strong will to enact their objectives through
political engagement. This is to say that such methods of protest utilise the current

38
Word Count: 14,097
government terrain in order to imitate and subvert government conduct and technologies.
However, it is important to note that ‘particular forms of protest also have their own
histories, traditions, and tactics which discipline their conduct’ (Death, 2011: 430).
Subsequently, the practices that are apparent in protest represent a process of selection
and justification, drawing on previous experiences and mentalities of resistance, as well as
more contemporary objectives and requirements. As such, protesters within the anti-
austerity movement identifying as liberal dissenters look to achieve their objectives by
utilising techniques that are associated with structures of government, whilst working
through freedoms ensured by government structures. The People’s Assembly are prominent
actors in this regard. As has been demonstrated previously, their overall aim is to act as
facilitators and organisers for the anti-austerity movement, providing a space for mentalities
and practices to be discussed, ready to lobby policymakers and mobilise dissent in protest.
“We will work together with leading experts and campaigners both here (in the UK)
and abroad, and friendly think tanks, to develop rapidly key policies and an alternative
programme for a new anti-austerity government” (People’s Assembly, 2014)
Within anti-austerity resistance, liberal dissenters are arguably better placed to have their
objectives realised. Firstly, within the movement exists strong affiliations to, and figures
from political parties. Labour MP for Islington North and leadership candidate Jeremy
Corbyn is a prominent figure within anti-austerity resistance founding the Stop the War
Coalition, as well as Caroline Lucas, Green Party MP for Brighton and Hove. Both individuals
have participated in protest against austerity, addressing crowds on a number of occasions.
“I want us to stand up as brave people did in the 1920s and 1930s, and said we want
a state that takes responsibility for everybody to ensure nobody is destitute. We each care
for all. Everyone caring for everybody else. I think it’s called socialism.” (Jeremy Corbyn
addressing protesters in London on the 20th of June, 2015; Walsh, 2015)

39
Word Count: 14,097
A consequence of their positions as members of parliament places them as working within
government structures. Arguably, this is advantageous to anti-austerity resistance, as they
possess direct access and are in close proximity to the apparatuses of government. As such,
there is the opportunity to act as a conduit for the mentalities, to carry the revolt of conduct
from the streets into the House of Commons. Although Corbyn and Lucas are only two
individuals within the movement, it is clear from their involvement that anti-austerity
resistance exhibits techniques that work within the structure of government, rather than
vehemently opposing it. Furthermore, numerous trade unions play an active role in
organising and mobilising protesters. Most notably, the National Union of Teachers (NUT),
University and College Union (UCU), UNISON, Unite, and the Trade Union Congress (TUC).
Not only do these organisations mirror the structures of government, they also engage in
collective bargaining, lobbying government on behalf of their members. This is a prominent
example of how practices are embedded in histories and traditions, thus disciplining them,
as unions have relied on such practices since their inception as a feature of the political
terrain. Furthermore, a number of the aforementioned unions are traditionally active
supporters and collaborators of the Labour party, lending further weight to the argument
that anti-austerity resistance utilises practices that work within the structures of
government (TUC, 2015). However, the response of these liberal actors when there is no
change, no favourable alteration to government conduct, or announcements of government
conduct continuing their practices as usual, is to return to the streets to protest.
Nevertheless, these practices of liberal resistance have simultaneously reinforced the
legitimacy of existing political structures and government, by making them the focus of such
resistance efforts (Death, 2011; Kulynych, 1997).
In effect, such action works against the objectives of radical elements within the same
movement. It is plainly apparent that anti-austerity resistance demonstrates overtly liberal
practices and engagement in traditional structures of government. Yet, it is important to
recognise that there are varying degrees to which certain individuals or collectives of
dissenters engage in these practices. Within anti-austerity resistance there exists a more
radical set of dissenters, suggesting more extreme practices be utilised. Anarchist groups are
as much a part of the movement as politicians or trade unions. Whilst their numbers may be

40
Word Count: 14,097
pale in comparison, this does not mean they do not contribute to the form and function of
resistance in this context. For example, returning to the practice of displaying placards
during protests, the anarchist group, Class War, carried a banner on the 20th of July, 2015,
amplifying their own mentalities and opinions on the objectives and techniques of
resistance.
‘We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live’ (Walsh, 2015)
Furthermore, various other radically-leaning slogans have been visible during anti-austerity
protests:
‘Cull the Tories. You Won’t last 5 years!’ (Walsh, 2015)
‘Defy Tory Rule: Strike, March, Occupy’ (Ibid.,)
‘Class War!’ (Ibid.,)
Radical dissidents are actors are traditionally considered to exemplify the idea that
resistance and government are polarised in their relationship, holding objectives and
practices that look beyond government and seek to destabilise their power (Gill, 2008; Keith
& Pile, 2013: 25). However, despite the existence of actors within austerity resistance that
hold anarchist and other radical ideals over how resistance should be practiced, they also
engage in protest alongside the more liberal actors of the movement. Furthermore, such
actors necessarily engage in power relationships that they look to challenge and subvert. In
fact, the anarchist group Class War, is a registered political party, that stood for office in the
2015 UK general election. Consequently, they themselves can be understood as functioning
through existing government assemblages and liberal freedoms in order to modify
governmentalities, whilst becoming involved with government in struggles over power
(Cadman, 2010; Rose, 1999). However, this should not diminish the fact that within anti-
austerity resistance, there exists two broad groups of dissenters. As a result of their differing
mentalities and practices, there must exist subjectivities of protest.

41
Word Count: 14,097
4.3 Subjectivities of Resistance
Considering that counter-conducts as a dynamic space in which various objectives and
strategies are demonstrated and reproduced, subjectivities of resistance relates to the
nuanced interrelations within the movement (Death, 2010; 2011; Kulynych, 1997). The
attempts of some academic literature to identify a simple opposition between factions
within resistance mirrors that of the polarisation of the resistance-government nexus. Once
more, such an approach fails to capture the complex and variegated foundations of political
identity and expressions of mentalities (Death, 2010; 2011). As has been demonstrated,
some actors within the anti-austerity movement are affiliated to more radically-thinking or
anarchic organisations. For example, Class War, demand the dismantling of existing
government structures of governance. Others are more inclined to liberal means of practice,
such as Jeremy Corbyn, founder of the Stop the War Coalition. These two actors here,
although not overtly exhibiting conflict, demonstrate certain disparities despite being
members of the same movement. For example, Class War’s views on politicians were made
clear when carrying a banner directing profanities towards the leaders of the Conservatives,
Labour, Liberal Democrats and UKIP, whilst being vocal in their dislike and distrust of MPs
(Class War, 2015). Understandably then, Corbyn being an MP himself does not endear
actors such as Class War, rather he is viewed as part of the existing problem of government
apparatus. Nevertheless, their relationship within expressions of anti-austerity resistance
appear to convey solidarity rather than the sharp divide that a polarised concept seeks to
reveal. Clearly, within the movement the solidarity portrayed by the People’s Assembly
appears to hold true. Anti-austerity resistance considers all participating actors as legitimate
associates in counter-conducts (The People’s Assembly, 2014). However, this solidarity
should not be mistaken for homogeneity. A more accurate conclusion of the movement in
this form would be united through diversity, numerate actors striving for common goals.
In, the same way that expressions of revolts of conduct in the form of protests allow for
resistance to amplify its mentalities and practice disobedience, governments similarly
reassert their powers of coercion and sovereignty in order to discipline dissent (Death,
2011; Gibson, 2008). Expressions of resistance through protest exhibit a tense balance

42
Word Count: 14,097
between being understood as functional civil society with being condemned for uncivil,
disruptive and violent conduct. The anti-austerity movement is experienced in both these
subjectivities. The government and media are consistently attempting to define what is
considered legitimate, acceptable forms of protest, and illegitimate, senseless expressions
of protest. The Student tuition fees protests of 2010 highlighted the latter subjectivity of the
anti-austerity movement from both internal and external commentators. Media articles
detailing the protest ran headlines of how it had turned violent, after the front windows of
the Conservative Party headquarters in Millbank Tower were shattered by protesters,
succeeded by an occupation of the main lobby (Lewis et al., 2010; The Telegraph, 2010a).
There were also instances of fires being lit and missiles thrown at police by a small group of
protesters who had broken away from the main group. The Prime Minister, David Cameron,
described the scenes as ‘completely unacceptable’ and ‘extremely serious’ (BBC, 2010),
going on to say:
“Of course there is a right to protest peacefully, there always should
be, but there is not a right to want to go on the streets of London wanting to pursue
violence and smashing up property” (The Telegraph, 2010b)
“It’s no good to say that this was just a very small minority, it wasn’t,
there were clearly quite a number of people who clearly were there wanting to pursue
violence and destroy property” (The Telegraph, 2010b)
"I could see a line, a thin blue line of extremely brave police officers,
trying to hold back a bunch of people who were intent on violence and destruction” (BBC,
2010)
“I want to make sure they feel the full force of the law” (The
Telegraph, 2010b)

43
Word Count: 14,097
Whilst there is no doubt that there was violent conduct by protesters on that day, the
response of the Prime Minister is revealing in the way that it seeks to draw a broad
distinction of how protesters should and should not conduct themselves. In reaffirming the
‘right to protest peacefully’ at the same time as denouncing the mentalities of certain
protesters – as implicitly premeditated, wantonly destructive, and violent – he is indicating
that legitimate forms of protest are limited to engagement in peaceful practices, whereas
protests that turn violent are merely criminal actions. This represents a disciplining of
protest, limiting what is possible through such practices (Gaventa & Cornwall, 2006; Gibson,
2008). A further consequence of this distinction is that the protests are de-legitimised in a
way that their mentalities are construed as disruptive and destructive, negating any valid
objectives they may have held. Furthermore, by asserting that these individuals will ‘feel the
full force of the law’, Cameron is reinforcing a scale of repression based upon these
distinctions. As such, illegitimate, violent forms of resistance will be subjected to ever
harsher forms of discipline (Gibson, 2008). Whereas this is an external subjectivity imparted
upon counter-conducts, there also exists a discontinuity internally, within anti-austerity
resistance, as to the ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ way to protest. Indeed, NUS president Aaron Porter
pointed toward the fact that the public narrative had shifted away from the objectives and
mentalities of the protest towards discussions on the violence of protesters and vandalism:
“But if we're now having to spend time talking about the rights and wrongs of
violence and criminal damage, actually in many respects I think it undermines our
argument rather than allowing us to concentrate on the devastation to our
universities and colleges” (BBC, 2010)
In this statement, the regret of others’ actions is apparent. Porter, here, is concurrently
subscribing to the notion that there are legitimate and illegitimate forms of protest. He
attributes illegitimate, violent expressions as being wholly detrimental to the objectives of
anti-austerity resistance. However, president of the University of London Student Union,
Clare Solomon considers such action as a legitimate form of protest, stating:
“(she saw) no problem with direct actions or occupation” (Ibid.,)

44
Word Count: 14,097
“These were a few windows of the Tory Party headquarters –
what they're doing to our education is absolutely millions” (Ibid.,)
Such a discrepancy in opinions from these two actors within the anti-austerity movement
clearly demonstrates the subjectivities between legitimate forms of protest and what is
considered illegitimate practice. Consequently, these various manifestations of legitimate
and illegitimate protest that are reproductive of their own identities. Liberal dissenters will
tend to advocate and practice protest it considers legitimate in order to garner public
support, gain credibility, and position themselves for political involvement. Whereas, more
radical entities within the anti-austerity movement will attempt to fulfil their own
expectations by subverting regimes of government, whilst actually mirroring the coercive
practices and techniques of dominance they attempt to resist (Bleiker, 2000). Subjectivities
such as these are numerate within anti-austerity resistance. This variation in attitudes
towards mentalities and practices demonstrates that a polarised consideration of resistance
itself, and resistance as it relates to government is incoherent and inaccurate. Rather, anti-
austerity resistance can be considered a vibrant and diverse collection of actors, with their
various mentalities, practices and subjectivities undertaking counter-conducts in response
to austerity as a governmentality.

45
Word Count: 14,097
5. Conclusion
Since the election of the Coalition government to office in 2010, austerity has been the
dominant governmentality in the UK. The nation has been subjected to incredibly deep cuts
to public spending and welfare budgets. Austerity has been portrayed as being wholly
necessary, unavoidable and devoid of ideology. However, this has been clearly shown to not
be the case. It is a political project deeply entrenched in neoliberal narrative, concerned
with the retrenchment of the public sector. Resulting from this, the poorest in British society
have been made to bear the brunt of the cuts. Essentially, the public has been forced to pay
the debts of the banks and financial institutions that, through their own malpractice and
greed, caused a global economic collapse. Furthermore, the neoliberal, laissez-faire
approach to financial regulation has been discussed as inadequate in preventing such
practice. As a consequence of these unique conditions, popular resistance to austerity has
emerged. This is essentially a political response to a politically imposed agenda.
Since 2010, there have been numerous protests involving a myriad of actors. However,
within academia there has been a lack of research conducted towards this movement within
the UK. The majority of research addressing anti-austerity resistance has focussed on
Greece. When the UK is included in such analyses, it is often merely a passing mention, with
little in the way of an engaged discussion as to its forms, practices and subjectivities.
Furthermore, there exists a broad problem within academia on resistance insisting on
conceptualising its relationship with government as a polarised one. This, I have argued, has
produced serious misconceptions and inaccuracies contained in conclusions made by this
approach. By considering resistance to austerity in this way, nuances in mentalities and
practices of the movement are obscured, with its subjectivities, in turn, being missed. As
such, this research project was conducted with governmentality as a conceptual framework
to guide investigation. Since there exists no rigid criteria of how to undertake a
governmentality approach to examining resistance, it has been largely used as a heuristic
tool by which to unpick the intricacies of anti-austerity resistance, whilst rectifying the
problem of polarisation. Most notably, Foucault’s (197*) concept of ‘counter-conducts’ and

46
Word Count: 14,097
Death’s (2010; 2011) ‘analytics of government’ have been deployed to direct analysis
towards these ends.
In considering anti-austerity resistance as counter-conducts, a greater nuance is afforded to
this collection of dissenters than a reductionist, polarised approach might conclude.
Through the analytics of protest, resistance to austerity emerge as revolts of conduct that
exist as dependent on government action, constituting themselves as contesting established
power relations and methods of government. Rather than existing as a complete opposite
to government, this movement identifies itself as against the policies of an austere
governmentality. Such a conceptualisation of anti-austerity resistance represents the
complexities and nuances of political involvement that it is denied when considered in a
reductionist manner. However, this does not mean that critical conclusions cannot be
drawn. Death (2011: 435) asserts that the analytics of protest is intended to allow for
conclusions that are exploratory by nature, seeking to detail counter-conducts in regards to
its impact on progressive forms of politics. Additionally, due to the fact that the analytics of
protest does not prescribe a criteria by which to draw conclusions, they are inescapably
dependent and specifically contextual. This is in line with Foucault (1997) himself, whom
endeavoured to conceptualise power exchanges as both considered and flexible, in
response to pervasive theories that viewed power as demonstrating domination over
entities. In the same way, he avoided constricting his theories in a rigid structure of
operation. In many ways, this is reflective of anti-austerity resistance within the UK. Whilst it
is dogmatic in its revolt of conduct, it is certainly not static in its mentalities. A variety of
knowledges, emanating from similarly numerous actors, have contributed towards the
foundation of main themes exhibited by mentalities. These have been detailed firstly as an
overall determination to expose government conduct as unaccountable and operating
under a false mandate. Such a mentality appears to be the main binding narrative by which
the dissenters have mobilised, problematising government discourse and conduct. Whilst
this mentality proved significant in uniting numerous actors in solidarity action, challenging
the legitimacy of austerity, it also acted as reinforcing the position of government as leading
policy decisions. A consequence of upholding the Coalition and Conservative governments
as the focal point towards which mentalities were directed. Furthermore, the contestation

UK Anti-Austerity Resistance Through a Governmentality Lens

UK Anti-Austerity Resistance Through a Governmentality Lens

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to UK Anti-Austerity Resistance Through a Governmentality Lens

Similar to UK Anti-Austerity Resistance Through a Governmentality Lens (20)

UK Anti-Austerity Resistance Through a Governmentality Lens