Modern liberal governance rules through strategic self-discipline, not force or consent.

Evidence

Is this account persuasive? Some doubts arise at this point. Surely, the payment of taxes and induction into the army depend not on selfenforcement but on enforcement by the state? “Some degree” of participation in governance (by which Taylor means taking part in elections once every four or five years) explicitly refers to a statistical measure of the entire population and not to a measure of how strong individual motivation is. It depends, therefore, on the political skill with which large numbers are managed—including the organization and financing of electoral campaigns—rather than on the ethics of individual self-discipline. The distinctive feature of modern liberal governance, I would submit, is neither compulsion (force) nor negotiation (consent) but the statecraft that uses “self-discipline” and “participation,” “law” and “economy” as elements of political strategy. — Talal Asad, Formations of the Secular, 24 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Respectable behavior was deliberate political strategy, not unconscious Bourdieu-style concession. — Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham, Righteous Discontent: The Women’s…, 883; Liberal governance works through managed self-discipline, not force or consent. — Talal Asad, Formations of the Secular:…, 24; Modern liberal governance works through managed statecraft, not individual self-discipline. — Talal Asad, Formations of the Secular:…, 24 (+7 more)

Broader Connections

• Liberal governance works through managed self-discipline, not force or consent. #expands (0.98) — Talal Asad, Formations of the Secular, 24