Subjetividad Neoliberal

8/21/2019 Subjetividad Neoliberal

1/16

This article was downloaded by: [New York University]On: 12 June 2015, At: 20:25Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Click for updates

Globalizations

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rglo20

Making Sense of Neoliberal Subjectivity: A

Discourse Analysis of Media Language on SelfdevelopmentSalman Türken

a, Hilde Eileen Nafstad

a, Rolv Mikkel Blakar

a & Katrina Roen

a University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

Published online: 16 Apr 2015.

To cite this article: Salman Türken, Hilde Eileen Nafstad, Rolv Mikkel Blakar & Katrina Roen (2015):Making Sense of Neoliberal Subjectivity: A Discourse Analysis of Media Language on Self-development,

Globalizations, DOI: 10.1080/14747731.2015.1033247

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2015.1033247

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, osuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently

verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to oarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rglo20http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2015.1033247http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/14747731.2015.1033247http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rglo20http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/14747731.2015.1033247&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2015-04-16


2/16

Making Sense of Neoliberal Subjectivity: A Discourse Analysisof Media Language on Self-development

SALMAN TÜRKEN, HILDE EILEEN NAFSTAD,ROLV MIKKEL BLAKAR & KATRINA ROEN

University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

ABSTRACT The influence of neoliberalism on culture and subjectivity is well documented. This

paper contributes to understanding of how neoliberal ideology enters into the production of

subjectivity. While subject formation takes place in multiple and contradictory ways and

across multiple social sites, we focus on the increasingly popular media discourse of self-

development, and examine it as a technology of neoliberal subjectification. Drawing on

Foucauldian understandings, we analyze data from two different newspapers from two

different national contexts, both of which are heavily influenced by neoliberalism. Based on

our analysis, we detail four interrelated discourses—rationality, autonomy and responsibility,

entrepreneurship, and positivity and self-confidence—demonstrating how these discourses

constitute the neoliberal subject in ways consonant with neoliberal governmentality. There is

no observable resistance to subject positions offered within these discourses. Self-

development discourse instills stronger individualism in society, while constraining collective

identity, and thus provides social control and contributes to preserving status quo of

neoliberal societies.

Keywords: neoliberalism, self-development, neoliberal subject, discourse analysis, media

Introduction

There have been extensive investigations into the relationship among globalized neoliberalism,

culture, and subjectivity (e.g. Rose, 1999; Walkerdine, 2003). Harvey (2005, p. 3) suggests that,

as a hegemonic discourse, neoliberalism is increasingly taken for granted as common sense and

‘has pervasive effects on ways of thought’. Research shows that neoliberalism has become

Correspondence Address: Salman Türken, Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, Postboks 1094, Oslo 0317,

Norway. Email: [email protected]; Hilde Eileen Nafstad, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. Email:

[email protected]; Rolv Mikkel Blakar, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. Email: r.m.blakar@psykologi.

uio.no; Katrina Roen, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. Email: [email protected]

# 2015 Taylor & Francis

Globalizations, 2015

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2015.1033247

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


3/16

increasingly influential in such diverse spheres of life as subjectivity development and branding

of the self (Gill, 2008; Hochschild & Garrett, 2011; O’Flynn & Petersen, 2007; Petersen &

O’Flynn, 2007; Rose, 1999; Walkerdine, 2003, 2006), construction of career identities

(Archer, 2008; Yurchak, 2003), job training programs (Ayers & Carlone, 2007), people’s under-

standings of unemployment (Kelan, 2008), becoming users of welfare benefits (Morgan & Gon-

zales, 2008), empowerment projects (Bragg, 2007), exclusion of queer citizens (Peterson, 2011),

and crime control (Monahan, 2009).

Neoliberalism is defined and analyzed in multiple ways: as ideology, economic-political

force, discourse, historical rationality, and/or governance. According to Harvey (2005, p. 2),

neoliberalism is an ideology or a theory of political economy that has become a hegemonic dis-

course that ‘proposes that human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual entre-

preneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private

property rights, free markets, and free trade’. For Foucault (2008) and others (e.g. Dean, 2010;

Lemke, 2001; Rose, 1999; Weidner, 2009), neoliberalism is a form of governance, not to be con-

strued as an ideology but rather as a ‘way of doing things’, as a principle and method for the

rationalization of the exercise of government. The divergent understandings of the concept

may overlap with and/or complement each other. This paper draws on Foucault’s (2008) under-standing of neoliberal governmentality. Neoliberal governmentality as ‘conduct of conduct’

refers to the ways in which neoliberalism works by installing in society a concept of human

subject as autonomous, individualized, self-directing decision-making agent who becomes an

entrepreneur of one self; a human capital. The individual self in contemporary societies is con-

tinually produced through the discourses and practices of neoliberalism (Rose, 1999). It is there-

fore important to explore discourses in society around self-development—a central characteristic

of subjectivity offered by neoliberalism. The present study explicates subject positions made

available within self-development discourse and discusses them in relation to neoliberalism.

The main tendency of the research field has been to approach neoliberalism as overarching

hegemonic global discourse or ideology (e.g. Bourdieu, 1998; Harvey, 2005). Scholars are

now wary of this hegemonic conceptualization and are looking for counter-hegemonic dis-courses (Morgan & Gonzales, 2008; Sullivan, Spicer, & Böhm, 2011), but also for local vari-

ations of this discourse in diverse parts of the globe (e.g. Freeman, 2007; Gershon, 2011).

Looking for local variations of neoliberal ideology, we examine discourse on self-development

in print-media in Scandinavian Norway and in Middle-Eastern Turkey and discuss what pur-

poses the subjectivity offered within such neoliberal discourse may serve.

From Solidarity and Welfare Ideology to Neoliberalism and Neoliberal Subjectivity

Following World War II, many European countries initiated strong welfare programs (Rose,

1999), reflecting a historical rationality for the state which, by providing basic services such

as food, education, and health care, would foster well-being (Foucault, 2008). Such welfareideology was based on endorsement of collective responsibility for social reproduction and

applied social solidarity to address inequalities (Ferge, 1997). While both Norway and Turkey

aspired to become welfare states, they have had different developmental patterns. Norway

has, during this period, become one of the strongest welfare states worldwide (Esping-Andersen,

1990). Turkey, on the other hand, has struggled to provide basic services to people, experiencing

social unrest, and several military coups in the second half of last century. ‘Statism’ reflecting

welfare understanding and the manifestation of the collective will has survived as a core prin-

ciple of the Turkish state, though (Spencer, 1958).

2 S. Tü rken et al.


4/16

Since the 1970s, however, neoliberalism has not only changed the economics and politics of

society with free market fundamentalism as a consequence, it has also influenced society’s

value systems (Harvey, 2005), resulting in a convergence of economic and social policies

(Schmidt & Hersh, 2006). Bourdieu (1998) argued that the neoliberal project was ‘a programme

of the methodical destruction of collectives’ (emphasis in original, pp. 95–96). Neoliberal pol-

icies around the globe have replaced the ethics of social solidarity with a tendency to limit

concern only to the self and one’s significant others, leading to a more strong individualism

(Layton, 2010; Nafstad, 2002). What neoliberalism in particular encourages is thus individualiza-

tion of the social (Ferge, 1997).

Neoliberalism attempts to redefine being human, offering a new subjecthood. Neoliberalism

not only reproduces the individualistic subject of Early Modernism and the Enlightenment but

also refashions the individual subject: The neoliberal subject is increasingly construed as a free,

autonomous, individualized, self-regulating actor understood as a source of capital; as human

capital (Bondi, 2005; Foucault, 2008; Gershon, 2011; Kiersey, 2009; Lemke, 2001; Rose,

1999; Walkerdine, 2003; Weidner, 2009). Furthermore, this neoliberal subject is not merely pur-

suing self-interest but becomes an entrepreneur of herself. Rationally, within this conceptualiz-

ation, the neoliberal subject is expected to act to increase her value. As Weidner (2009, p. 406)puts it, ‘perhaps the most important way in which neoliberalism shapes subjectivity is in

suggesting that each individual is the bearer of a human capital, who must seek to maximise

her own self-value . . . ’. Accordingly, neoliberalism demands a constant reworking of the self

(Walkerdine, 2006) through ‘lifelong learning’; a continual self-improvement to fit the

demands of the advanced liberal society, often in terms of a flexible and unstable market

(Olssen, 2006). Replacing traditional coercive disciplinary mechanisms, neoliberalism thus con-

stitutes the neoliberal subject as autonomous yet governable via continual self-monitoring and

self-disciplining (Dean, 2010; Foucault, 2008; Rose, 1999).

Reducing state services and social security systems, neoliberalism calls for more personal

responsibility and self-care (Binkley, 2011; Lemke, 2001). Strengthening individualization of

society (Bauman, 2001; Beck, 1992), neoliberalism works through establishing conditionsunder which individuals understand themselves as free, self-interested, and autonomous; as

self-entrepreneurs (Binkley, 2011; Foucault, 2008; Weidner, 2009). Accordingly, autonomiza-

tion and responsibilization become the disciplinary strategies of neoliberalism (Rose, 1999),

providing social control, and reproducing status quo: While neoliberal developments have

been a destructive force to the status quo of the welfare regimes based on social solidarity,

many current discourses and ‘conduct of conduct’ under neoliberalism reproduce the status

quo to fit the demands of the present stage of capitalism. Thus, imbalance of power and

wealth in favor of capital over labor, as well as material and symbolic inequalities, remain

largely unquestioned within neoliberal discourses.

Largely responsible for her own successes and failures, the individual’s well-being and devel-

opment becomes the sole responsibility of the neoliberal entrepreneurial subject. Discursivelydetached from the structural constraints of society and isolated from contextual and historical

conditions, the neoliberal subject then has no one else to blame but herself if she fails to

achieve goals or make ends meet (Layton, 2010). This makes self-development a cornerstone

of the individual’s life and well-being. The individual is morally obliged to engage in the

self-realization project and develop a better version of herself to manage life (Rose, 1999). Neo-

liberalism therefore strongly promotes self-development as a route to a successful life. This

burden on the self is most notably reflected in the increasing dominance of the discourse on

self-development in neoliberal societies.

Making Sense of Neoliberal Subjectivity 3


5/16

To better understand how the neoliberal subject is constituted within particular discourses in

different societies, the current paper presents a qualitative analysis of the concept of self-devel-

opment as reflected in media discourse in Norway and Turkey, as neoliberalism has become

increasingly influential both in Norway and Turkey during the last three decades.

Research Context: Norway and Turkey

Norway, still a strong welfare state with an extensive public system rooted in strong social demo-

cratic values, started, albeit slowly, implementing neoliberal policies in the 1980s and cut back on

high public expenditure. Neoliberalization in Norway led not only to economic restructuring via

deregulation and privatization, but also to a value shift in society, from the collective to the indi-

vidual, observable in the Norwegian media (Nafstad, Blakar, Carlquist, Phelps, & Rand-Hendrik-

sen, 2007). Neoliberalization in Turkey starting in the late 1970s with economic restructuring and

incorporation into the global economy was accelerated, some argue even completed, in the last

decade (Emrence, 2008). The neoliberal shift brought forth a dynamic struggle between collectivist

values of solidarity and belongingness on one hand, and individualist values of freedom, indepen-

dence, personal achievements, goals, and entitlements on the other (Aygün & Imamoglu, 2002).While globalizing neoliberalism is being increasingly visible in both societies, given historical

and cultural differences, we assume that we may observe different ways in which the discourse

of self-development is shaped and related to neoliberalism in the two societies.

Method

This study presents an analysis of how the concept of self-development is constructed in print-

media in Norway and Turkey as media discourse may reveal ways in which neoliberal thinking

is disseminated in society. The search word self-development was chosen as we (Türken, Blakar,

Bruer, & Nafstad, under preparation) have elsewhere discovered that this term has been increas-

ingly used in both Norwegian and Turkish media over time. The analysis is based on materialfrom the Norwegian daily Aftenposten (published in 2011 and 2012) and the Turkish daily Hü r-

riyet (published in 2011). Although newspapers have editorial and ideological preferences, these

two broadsheet newspapers are typical ‘mainstream’ papers within each of their national con-

texts. Both have been part of mass media in their respective national contexts for a long time

( Aftenposten since 1860 in Norway, Hü rriyet since 1948 in Turkey). In Norway with a popu-

lation of 5 million, Aftenposten has a circulation rate of about 250,000 per day, whereas Hü rriyet

has a circulation rate of 500,000 in Turkey with a population of 75 million.

To be culturally sensitive, we have chosen as concrete search terms the expression that is most

commonly used in each culture to refer to the concept of self-development: selvutvikling (self-

development) in the Norwegian Aftenposten and kişisel gelişim (personal development) in the

Turkish Hü rriyet . In the year 2011, kişisel gelişim appeared in 78 articles in Hü rriyet . For sel-vutvikling, there were 64 entries in Aftenposten in 2011, but only 14 of these were newspaper

articles, 50 were advertisements for different self-development courses. To increase the

number of articles from Aftenposten, we therefore included articles from 2012 as well. For

2012, there were in total 59 entries in Aftenposten: 7 were newspaper articles and 52 were adver-

tisements. In total, 21 articles were analyzed from Aftenposten. The number of advertisements

for self-development courses is in itself interesting and may be seen as an indicator of the

process through which self-development is constructed as a commodity. Articles analyzed

here appear non-systematically in different sections of both newspapers, from news sections



6/16

to culture and debate pages, and they vary considerably in length from one short news paragraph

to several pages of in-depth analysis. Articles in both newspapers were written by journalists and

different columnists and gave voice to many different individuals such as life coaches, experts

(e.g. psychologists), and course participants, with no systematic variation.

We draw on social constructionist epistemology and Foucauldian understandings suggesting

that the self is produced by, and constituted in relation to, discourse (Willig, 2008). Discourse

analysis can thus be utilized to provide knowledge of how particular understandings of the

self and the world are disseminated in society. Discourse analysis also offers the possibility

of questioning and critically challenging those understandings. Acknowledging that subject for-

mation takes place in multiple and contradictory ways across multiple social sites, we make use

of Foucauldian discourse analysis, as informed by Willig (2008; also Hook, 2001), to investigate

how ‘self-development’ is constructed in media discourse and explicate subject positions offered

by this discourse.

Mass media is often conceived as a vehicle for culture, providing for the readers ways of

seeing and understanding the world and therefore, arguably, shaping the way they participate

in society (e.g. Fairclough, 2001; Spitulnik, 1996). However, what is made available in media

discourse cannot be directly translated to everyday talk and experience (Fairclough, 2001;Gill, 2008; Spitulnik, 1996). Yet, Spitulnik (1996, p. 162) argues that media discourse can func-

tion as ‘both reservoirs and reference points for the circulation of words, phrases, and discourse

styles in popular culture’, thus contributing to meaning construction in society. In this social cir-

culation of media discourse, readers play an active part in the interpretation and appropriation of

messages, the negotiation of meanings and the re-use of words and phrases in new contexts.

However, it is beyond the scope of the present paper to track empirically the dissemination of

subject positions offered in media discourse to the general public and their everyday talk and

experience. Having said that, both newspapers provide us with many different voices: colum-

nists, authors of self-development books, life coaches, psychologists, politicians, and lay

people who have participated in various self-development courses. We investigate the discourses

that are drawn upon and subject positions that are made available in these articles, and discusswhether or not these discourses work in ways consonant with neoliberal governmentality.

Analysis

The term self-development is deployed in the two newspapers in contexts in which the individual

is faced with mundane problems of life in modern societies: from finding a partner to tackling

divorce, from avoiding unemployment to raising one’s own consciousness and achieving ‘a

happy life’. Different voices in the newspapers construct self-development primarily as a way

of tackling problems of life. Two constructions of self-development appear in the data: self-

development as ‘a prerequisite for success’ and self-development as ‘becoming a better

version of oneself’. These two constructions, moreover, produced four interrelated frameworksof how the individual in liberal societies may be constituted. These four frameworks are dis-

courses of (1) rationality, (2) autonomy and responsibility, (3) entrepreneurship, and (4) positiv-

ity and self-confidence.

Rationality

In the newspaper articles, much discursive work is done to depict the individual as essentially a

rational being. Rationality is highly valued: ‘knowing what one wants’ and thus rationally ‘doing



7/16

the right things’ would lead the individual to a ‘positive future’. The individual is thus con-

structed as an agent with an ‘inborn potential’ for rationality:

. . . highly complex organisms such as us experience the consequences of their choices. Thanks toour choices, we can reach indefinite number of future scenarios. One of the possibilities we meetwill take us to the best scenario. What is required is only to make right decisions, work and dothe right thing. (Life coach, Hü rriyet , 7 January 2011)

Drawing upon a biological discourse, ‘humans as highly complex organisms’ naturalizes human

rationality. The discourse of rationality deployed in the data thus constitutes the individual as an

inherently rational, calculating subject. This subject ‘evaluates thoroughly her past’, ‘learns from

the past’, increases ‘awareness’, and makes ‘good choices’. For her, ‘what it is going to take to

succeed . . . is how much of your time goes to thinking, reflection, self-examination and self-

development . . . ’ (Psychologist, Aftenposten, 19 September 2011). This resonates with Fou-

cault’s understanding of how neoliberalism instills a particular kind of subject in modern

society (see also Kiersey, 2009). However, as various life coaches state, ‘not everyone’

makes enough use of their potential. Attending various self-development courses will help

anyone increase their ‘awareness’ and ‘consciousness’ so that the individual can make thebest choice possible for herself.

Through the discursive work done, especially by life coaches and authors of self-development

books cited in the two newspapers, a range of rather inadequate subjectivities are posited. These

include subjects who are ‘sleeping’, subjects who are ‘unaware’ or ‘lacking consciousness’, and

subjects who are ‘illiterate’, among others. The rationality discourse employed is a normative

one as individuals are encouraged to attend self-development courses to form themselves as con-

scious, rational subjects, to realize their ‘inborn potential’. For instance, Hü rriyet reports that a

large ‘social responsibility project’ in Turkey with the aim to lift the poor and disadvantaged

youth out of poverty, offers personal development courses to youth, 65,000 participants so

far, to ‘increase their consciousness’ and to ‘increase financial literacy’. Young people inter-

viewed in this article reportedly experience the course as successful and thus accept the subjec-

tivity offered to them. One participant (woman, 19 years) testifies: ‘Thanks to the project, I have

learnt how to achieve a better and more comfortable life’. Another participant (man, 25 years),

says ‘No matter what income group you belong to, with a healthy budget it is not impossible to

reach all the needs you dream of’. Thus, rational, calculating subjecthood seems to be taken up

by youth who, in making sense of their future possibilities, are encouraged to think that it is all

about ‘making the right choices’. For such a subject, any life-problem from ‘finding a partner’

(mentioned in the Norwegian Aftenposten) to ‘getting out of poverty’ (mentioned in the Turkish

Hü rriyet ) is constructed as manageable within this discourse.

Overall, what is being performed by different voices in the two newspapers is enabling the

position of the rational calculating subject who is autonomous in her choices and thus lives

the ‘consequences of her choices’. Implicit in this understanding is a presumption of neoliberal

subjectivity which encourages the belief that individuals are solely responsible for their own

well-being (Rose, 1999).

Autonomy and Responsibility

The construction of the subject as rational necessitates a responsible subject who needs ‘self-

control’ in order to ‘take charge of’ and ‘to be able to live life’. Different voices in our data



8/16

discursively construct the individual as an autonomous subject who is encouraged to ‘take

action’, ‘take personal responsibility’, and ‘work hard’ to achieve ‘a happy life’.

There is a heavy moral tone in much of the data; different voices prescribe a certain kind of

subjectivity by drawing upon a personal responsibility discourse. This individualist discourse

holds that no matter how difficult life is or has been, no matter where one has to start (e.g. as

a poor person, as a heroin addict), the individual is encouraged to step up, ‘take charge of

own life’ and ‘never give up’ in order to succeed. As one life coach, who herself has been a

heroin addict and experienced a personal transformation toward a successful life, puts it:

The fucking childhood is over. Yes it really is over. Now you can take responsibility yourself. ( Aften- posten, 20 April 2011)

Another life coach puts it this way:

Everyone lives the life he/she chooses . . . Never accept that you are beaten . . . blaming others doesnot change a thing. Never accept the role of the victim, no one can beat you so long as you do notaccept you are beaten. ( Hü rriyet , 7 January 2011)

Both quotations, normatively, fabricate a certain kind of subject, a personally responsiblesubject. Rhetorical work in the first excerpt aforementioned, as the speaker draws upon

notions of childhood as deficient, prescribes growing-up for individuals to become indepen-

dent, self-reliant agents who can take responsibility and take care of themselves. An unfa-

vored position is posited for those who are dependent on others. Such dependence would

apparently make the individual less than a moral being. The second quotation even more

strongly depicts the individual as living the life of her choice and thus as being the sole

person responsible for how she lives. According to this construction of the subject, if one

fails, there is no one to blame but oneself. The discourse employed here bears parallels to

Bauman’s (2001) understanding of the individualized society in which the individual is

‘the one to blame for one’s own misery, seeking causes of one’s own defeats nowhere

except in one’s own indolence and sloth, and looking for no remedies others than trying

harder and harder still’ (p. 106). Thus, the personal responsibility discourse exposed in our

data resonates well with the widespread discourse of individualism promoted by neoliberal-

ism (Rose, 1999; Walkerdine, 2003).

Our analysis demonstrates how media discourse operates discursively in the construction of

the autonomous responsible subject who is encouraged to ‘save herself’. While the welfare

state is systematically reduced in neoliberal societies, leading to less social solidarity, there is

at the same time a growing discourse of personal responsibility (Gershon, 2011; Harvey,

2005; Layton, 2010), which is increasingly deployed in various settings. For instance, Kelan

(2008) reports that employees in information technology, understanding themselves as self-

directing agents, felt guilty and found themselves responsible for getting laid off: ‘Many

seemed to justify and rationalize the changes brought by neoliberal capitalism by seeing them

as an inevitable part of their working world’ (p. 1192).

Specifically for the Turkish context, Yücesan-Özdemir (2012) discusses how the current neo-

liberal influence has affected social policy, downgrading a welfare state model which allegedly

creates a dependency culture and replacing it with the superior morality of individual responsi-

bility and self-reliance. At the same time, the gap between ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ has been

increasing in Turkey (Emrence, 2008). The neoliberal development has also led to precarious

work conditions for many, creating constant anxiety (Yücesan-Özdemir, 2012). The discourse

of personal responsibility may thus be used to justify growing inequalities.



9/16

Placing the responsibility for well-being on the shoulders of individuals, neoliberalism instills

a rational calculating self-reliant subject who needs to ‘work on herself’ to achieve success and

well-being. ‘Work on the self’ implies an entrepreneurial subject who must continually develop

herself to accommodate the demands of neoliberal society (Foucault, 2008; Rose, 1999).

Entrepreneurship

Self-development is to continually widen and better our behavior- and value-repertoire. It comeswith the fact that we train and practise alternative ways of dealing with the tasks of life. Self-devel-opment demands a lot of practice . . . (Psychologist, Aftenposten, 29 April 2011)

As the aforementioned quotation illustrates, the self-developing subject has to be inventive and

continually work on herself to increase her ability to meet the demands of contemporary society.

Both newspapers make available to their readers a personal transformation narrative, illustrated

by success stories of individuals who have changed from being inadequate in one way or another

(disadvantaged, poor, fat, etc.) to being accomplished and successful. Self-development is con-

structed as providing the individual with the possibility to ‘work on oneself’ and ‘save oneself’

through ‘personal transformation’. Success in all spheres of life is posited as possible once the

individual starts working on herself and is willing to change. The message for the individual, no

matter how accomplished she might be to begin with, is clear: ‘become a better version of

yourself’.

Through the discursive work of various voices in the two newspapers, particularly by so-

called self-development ‘experts’, a range of failing subjectivities are posited. Individuals are

constructed, for example, as ‘struggling’, ‘underprivileged’, ‘unaware’, ‘sleeping’, ‘childish’

and thus not capable of realizing their potentials. These constructions close down the possibility

that those individuals may feel satisfied with life. Individuals are continually encouraged to

‘wake up’, ‘work hard’, and ‘fight’ to change themselves in order to achieve a ‘better’ and

‘happy life’. Framing self-development as a solution for these subjects opens up all kind of pos-sibilities to work on the self. What is performed here by different voices is illustrative of the neo-

liberal discourse that enables the entrepreneurial subject. A participant of such a self-

development course tells the newspaper Hü rriyet (18 May 2011):

. . . I have realized many things we thought were right were wrong, and I started the change withmyself . . . (emphasis added)

The emphasized part of the quotation is indicative of the subjectivity offered by neoliberalism.

The individual is constituted and constitutes herself as someone to be worked on (Gershon, 2011;

Rose, 1999). Constructions of ‘work on the self’ in the data demand two types of change from the

individual: a more abstract change at a psychological level and a more concrete change at the

level of skills. First, in both newspapers, individuals are encouraged by life coaches to‘change the way one thinks’, create one’s ‘own truths and belief systems’, and thus change

the way one makes sense of the world. As one life coach formulates it: ‘I used to think when

people insulted me, I had to feel humiliated. But I don’t have to. I can choose how the words

will affect me. Isn’t it great!’ ( Aftenposten, 20 April 2011). Thus, the entrepreneurial subject

is expected to individualize anything to render it manageable. What is here prescribed for the

individual is to develop herself to a more robust subject with ‘mental strength’ and ‘increased

self-confidence’. The individual’s psyche is framed as a trainable and transformable product pro-

viding the individual with the necessary tools to manage life. This understanding reflects a



10/16

reductionist thinking in which the social influence mechanisms are ignored and the individual is

made solely responsible for managing the problems of life.

Secondly, self-development discourse demands, through the construction of ‘work on the

self’, that the subject has to continually reinvent herself and develop skills which increase her

value and make her a more competent member of society. The data show that a variety of

skills are demanded. To illustrate, a self-development course offered by a research institution

in Turkey aims to:

. . . educate managers and leaders who are initiative-taking . . . who make fewer mistakes andproduce more efficiency, who are persuasive, and cogent, who perform successful presentationsand sales, who can manage the stress in today’s demanding work life, who have good relations tomedia . . . Our goal is to grow people with leadership characteristics who have the armour to fit inan ‘all time competitive’ work life with a ‘dazzling’ speed of our time . . . ( Hü rriyet , 12 November2011)

As shown here, modern working life is characterized as rather demanding for the individual.

What is offered as a solution is that the individual develop herself as a particular kind of

subject who is equipped with what it takes to meet all these demands. The social, political, his-

torical, and economic conditions of society are taken for granted. The construction of self-devel-

opment as contributing to individual competence may appear empowering, but it puts all the

attention onto the entrepreneurial subject who must endlessly develop herself to accommodate

the changing demands and tasks of working life. Self-development discourse posits this particu-

lar subjecthood as possible and available to all: ‘We all have in fact the potential to do and

achieve whatever we want’ (Life coach, Hü rriyet , 3 April 2011). The discourse of self-develop-

ment in the two newspapers thus functions as strongly individualizing and psychologizing,

closing down any possibility of system-level critique.

Foucault’s (2008) understanding of neoliberal influence on the self remains important in

making sense of how self-development discourse constitutes modern subjectivities. As also

observable in our data, neoliberalism demands a constant remaking of the self (Gershon,

2011; Walkerdine, 2003). To illustrate, Ayers and Carlone (2007, p. 474) showed when studyingneoliberal influence in a local job training program in the USA that the entrepreneurial subject

has to be a lifelong learner to ‘accommodate ever-changing employer demands by continuously

pursuing educational credentials’. Furthermore, as our data indicate, the entrepreneurial subject

is promised a ‘happy future’ full of possibilities if she is willing to ‘better herself’. There is a

discourse of boundaryless careers in the two newspapers analyzed. As Roper, Ganesh, and

Inkson (2010, p. 663) argue, the entrepreneurial subject of neoliberalism is led to ‘perceiving

a boundaryless future regardless of structural constraints’, which strengthens the idea that ‘indi-

viduals must take greater responsibility’ for reinventing themselves to be successful in contem-

porary society. O’Flynn and Petersen (2007, p. 469) argue that this discourse is currently so

strong that, when internalized, it might lead the individual to self-manage and engage in

useful activities all the time ‘mak[ing] her into a more desirable/marketable product’. The entre-preneurial subject thus sees herself as ‘the portfolio self’ (Walkerdine, 2006) who continually

has to increase her value and make herself marketable and employable according to the con-

stantly changing demands of society. Accepting neoliberal conditions as inevitable, ‘the portfo-

lio self’ will blame no one else but herself if she fails to stay employed (Kelan, 2008).

Self-development as ‘education’, ‘a supplement to the formal education system’ is indeed a

strong construction in our Turkish data. Hü rriyet reported in several articles in 2011 that

there were civil society organizations offering self-development courses to the ‘disadvantaged’



11/16

in society (poor, uneducated, orphans, youth, etc.). In these articles, self-development is con-

structed as the solution to lift them out of their ‘disadvantaged’ position, thus producing entre-

preneurial subjects who are promised ‘a better future’ if they ‘take responsibility’ for developing

themselves into portfolio workers. Walkerdine (2003, 2006) argues that neoliberalism constitu-

tes its subject in the image of the middle class. Our analysis of self-development discourse simi-

larly illustrates how the individual, as Foucault (2008) points out, is constituted as ‘human

capital’ whose value can seemingly be increased through work on the self, allowing social mobi-

lity upwards in a marketized society. Consistent with our analysis is the work of Celik (2008)

who studied how young people cope with unemployment in Turkey. In the last few years, the

rate of unemployment among youth (aged 15–24) has been under 20% in Turkey (Statistics

Turkey, 2012), while 39% of college graduates (aged 20–24) are seeking work (Celik, 2008).

Such statistics conflict with self-development discourse that makes entrepreneurial subjecthood

available for youth, as we observe in the Turkish Hü rriyet , who are promised a better future

thorough becoming entrepreneurial subjects. The unemployed youth who have a college edu-

cation in Turkey are left to seek further education to render themselves more marketable/

employable.

As argued, workings of neoliberalism ‘produce a constantly failing subject who has to under-stand their position in essentially personal and psychological terms’ (Walkerdine, 2003, p. 241).

As the entrepreneurial subject constantly needs to improve, a satisfied subjecthood is con-

strained. Any failure in life has to be explained in terms of one’s own shortcomings. For

instance, Petersen and O’Flynn (2007) showed how neoliberal entrepreneurial subjecthood,

when taken up by students to assess their life, led to a strong sense of guilt and self-dissatisfac-

tion. One participant in their study, who prioritized time to relax rather than spending all her time

to develop herself, came to see herself ‘as someone who desires and lives inappropriately and

unproductively, as less than a moral being’ (p. 209). Similarly, Aftenposten (4 March 2012)

reports that number of retired people (over the age 60) enrolled at Norwegian universities has

been steadily increasing (733 retirees in 2011). Seeking further higher education beyond

working life is seen as ‘pursuit of personal development’, which may be taken to illustratethat satisfaction is constrained for the neoliberal subject who feels the need to continually

develop oneself. Hence, within neoliberal discourse, continual self-development is expected

not only to help individuals become marketable (Walkerdine, 2003) but also to contribute posi-

tively to the psychological make-up of the individual, to their self-realization (Rose, 1999).

Positivity: Self-esteem and Self-confidence

The newspaper articles analyzed here construct the individual as a self-directing subject, imply-

ing that she will need to find within herself the strength to render life manageable, rather than

expecting support and help from others. She needs ‘better self-insight’, ‘better self-esteem’,

‘higher self-confidence’, ‘inner peace’, ‘more balls!’, ‘mental strength’, and ‘positivity’. Themessage in both newspapers is clear: ‘Everything begins with you’. The individual is thus

encouraged, on one hand, to have a positive attitude toward life in general and ‘think positively’,

‘see the glass half full rather than half empty’, and on the other hand, to have a positive attitude

to oneself and to indulge in ‘self-love’, ‘praise oneself’, and ‘treasure oneself’. Increasing ‘self-

confidence’ and ‘self-esteem’ emerged in our data as a strong aspect of the discourse of

self-development. The talk about self-confidence is saturated with the idea that increased self-

confidence and self-esteem will not only help the individual ‘accept oneself’ but will also

help her ‘manage negative thoughts and cope with stress’ of life. A life coach explains:



12/16

Sometimes, life sucks! . . . I can help you train your self-esteem so that you stand better equippedwhen the bad days come. Self-esteem functions as protection against the silly [bad stuff] . . .What I can do is to cheer people . . . to save themselves. ( Aftenposten, 20 April 2011)

Self-esteem is here framed as a protective tool—a common understanding throughout the data in

both Hü rriyet and Aftenposten. Within this discourse, ‘higher self-esteem’, ‘increased self-con-

fidence’ is achieved through ‘self-love’ and ‘accepting oneself’: how the neoliberal subject feels

becomes more important than what she does (Rose, 1999). What self-development discourse in

our analysis offers is a happy, satisfied subjecthood. Seeing things in a positive light and feeling

good about oneself are posited as the solution to problems of life. ‘Be positive!’, a self-develop-

ment expert demands, ‘it is such an important thing that can change your life’ ( Hü rriyet , 9

August 2011). A psychologist summarizes the message of self-development discourse: ‘positive

thoughts can get you where you want’ ( Aftenposten, 20 April 2011). The positivity discourse we

observe in the data seems to be permeated by the Psy-complex infiltrating the common sense of

society and contributing to fabrication of the neoliberal subject (Binkley, 2011). Psychological

or psychotherapeutic language as used in self-development discourse proposes a self-help

culture in which ‘the therapeutic imperative appears as much a matter of healing ourselves as

it is of being cured’ (Rose, 1999, p. 218). Paradoxically, in Turkey, this understanding alsoseems to permeate solidarity and social responsibility projects initiated by civil society organiz-

ations and political parties that offer personal development courses to empower disadvantaged

groups in society. In particular, unemployed youth constitute a special target group. For instance,

the project manager of GenceArti, a personal development project for poor and unemployed

youth, run by a political party, explains the aim of the project:

We want to inject self-confidence into the youth who have not been able to find jobs. We know a lotof them have been feeling helpless after searching for jobs for years and have given up. ( Hü rriyet , 3March 2011)

Again we see that social and economic problems, unemployment and poverty, are individua-

lized. What is offered to the unemployed youth, constructed as ‘helpless’, is a highly individua-lized solution. Injecting ‘self-confidence’ and teaching them ‘personal development’ skills puts

all the attention on the psychological make-up of the individual, constraining alternative ways of

addressing these societal problems. This reminds us of the process to which Beck (1992) draws

our attention: seeking individual solutions to systemic problems becomes the expected conduct

in individualized societies. Accordingly, the responsibility for social and societal problems such

as getting out of poverty and finding a job is exclusively left to the neoliberal subject.

Concluding remarks

Neoliberalism posits that social problems are best alleviated through free market processes and

through the activity of responsible individuals, rendering collective solutions unnecessary(Bourdieu, 1998, Harvey, 2005). Rose (1999) argues that autonomisation and responsibilisation

may function as disciplinary strategies of neoliberalism which encourages action on the self by

the self as a means of providing individual well-being. The rhetoric of self-development, as

revealed in our data, underpins such neoliberal discourse, indicating the degree to which indivi-

dualization of the social is promoted in parts of Norwegian and Turkish media. Our analysis

indicates that the discourse of self-development may thus work as a technology of neoliberalism.

The four frameworks that emerged in our analysis resonate well with Foucault’s ( 2008) theory of

governmentality which posits that citizens in neoliberal societies are constituted as autonomous,



13/16

rational, calculating, self-directing agents who understand themselves as entrepreneurs continu-

ally acting to increase their value; their human capital.

Although media is a powerful tool to disseminate meaning and thereby influence subjectivity

in society, people do negotiate their own understandings and may even oppose media’s position-

ing of subjecthood (Fairclough, 2001; Gill, 2008). The present study does not investigate how

media discourse on self-development is negotiated by the readers. This could be a fruitful

approach for future studies. The aim of our study has been to explicate the subject positions

that are made available within the media discourse of self-development and discuss how this dis-

course relates to neoliberalism. As we see it, it can be fruitful to place the media discourse on

self-development, revealed in this study, within a global self-help discourse that has become

increasingly influential in the last few decades (Binkley, 2011; Rose, 1999). Indeed, promotion

of self-help has been intended as a device to save public expenditure and encourage individuals

to take greater responsibility for their own well-being in neoliberal societies (Cheshire, 2006).

Self-help discourse has been increasingly infiltrating everyday thinking and contributing to

instilling the idea of the entrepreneurial subject in both the Norwegian (Madsen, 2014) and

Turkish (Can, 2013) societies. Regarding the Norwegian context, for instance, a study by

Türken, Carlquist, and Allen (in press) revealed similar discourses to the ones we found in Aften- posten in a Norwegian debt TV show: individual debtors are positioned as sinners who can save

themselves only through self-development. Türken and colleagues argue that neoliberal dis-

courses in such TV shows contribute to the individualization of the social, and discipline partici-

pant debtors as well as the public/viewers. Stretching the argument of self-help to modernity,

self-development and self-mastery become characteristics of the modern self (McGee, 2005),

a thought in line with Giddens’ (1991, p. 75) claim that ‘we are, not what we are, but what

we make of ourselves’.

Constructions of self-development as becoming a better version of oneself and a prerequisite

for success, as exposed in our analysis, imply a transformable or malleable subject. This is also

the idea on which the global self-help discourse is based (Binkley, 2011). Both constructions

normatively state what society prescribes for its members: to become a self-directing successfulsubject who needs to continually improve herself. Individuals are cast into a binary opposition

between ‘inadequate’ subjecthood and ‘successful’ subjecthood. The moral aspects of the

current discourse of self-development make it clear to the individual what is expected of her.

The failing subject is constituted in such a way that she feels the need to improve herself

toward becoming a successful subject. If the rational autonomous individual takes responsibility

to refashion herself with enough self-confidence, there would be no hindrance on her way to

success. The individual is constituted as ‘the master of her life’ (Bauman, 2001) who is thus

obliged to ‘work on the self’ to accomplish life (Rose, 1999).

Underlying both the negatively and positively weighted subject positions is the fundamental

assumption of strong individualism: none of the positions offered allows for collectivity, citizen-

ship, or group identity. Everything is focused on the individual’s personal (ir)responsibility,(un)awareness, and (un)willingness to change. These are powerful ways to frame the future

selves of, for instance, young people, setting up a constraining binary (positive self/negative

self), and impressing upon the reader her personal responsibility to make her dreams come

true or be consigned to endless struggle and disadvantage. Strengthening individualism, neoli-

beralism provides social control, as Foucault (2008) argued and preserves parts of status quo,

legitimating and reproducing social structural inequalities in a neoliberal system. In this

sense, discourses of self-development may reinforce neoliberal values and frames of understand-

ing. Morgan and Gonzales (2008) argue, for instance, that even the daily workings of the welfare



14/16

state in the USA paradoxically subject the beneficiaries of welfare services to neoliberal disci-

pline, promoting individual success narratives and individual behavioral modifications.

Our analysis reveals a certain contradiction within media discourse on self-development in

each of the national contexts: While the social and structural nature of life conditions (e.g. unem-

ployment) is acknowledged, the burden of tackling these problems is placed on the shoulders of

the individual. Equally important, we found no resistance to the subject positions offered within

the discourses explored in our empirical data. In the Turkish case, moreover, the collectivist

values of solidarity and social responsibility seem to be reproduced, within the discourse of

self-development, to make way for projects that aim to empower and equip the individual

with more resources rather than seeking collective solutions to the systemic problems that

produce disadvantaged subjectivities. Such empowerment privileges individual autonomy and

thus works in ways consonant with neoliberal subjectivity as Bondi (2005) concludes.

Harvey (2005) suggests that today neoliberalism has become the modus vivendi. Many scho-

lars (e.g. Bourdieu, 1998; Foucault, 2008; Rose, 1999) agree with him. Neoliberal hegemony is

persistent despite its many visible failures and limitations (Scholl & Freyberg-Inan, 2013). Much

research from different fields of study provides insights into the ways in which subjectivity is

constructed by discourses which may work to reinforce neoliberalism (e.g. Archer, 2008;Ayers & Carlone, 2007; Bragg, 2007; Kelan, 2008; Nafstad et al., 2007; O’Flynn & Petersen,

2007; Walkerdine, 2003, 2006): the dominant individualistic subject of contemporary society

is reproduced and refashioned as an entrepreneur of herself. The specific discourses of self-

development in the two distinct media contexts, as our analysis reveals, offer an individualistic

subjectivity which fits well with neoliberal governmentality and mostly limits communality and

collective identity.

As argued by Bourdieu (1998) and Harvey (2005), neoliberalism has been successful in con-

straining system critique. The discourses of self-development revealed in our analysis, to con-

clude, may be argued to contribute to reproduction of status quo to fit the demands of the

current neoliberal stage of capitalism. Yet, hegemony does not require unanimity, and neoliber-

alism needs to be produced and reproduced continually. Although there might not be a coherentor consistent alternative political vision available for the majority of poor and working-class

people (Bourdieu, 1998), there are today examples of counter-hegemonic struggle in global

‘uncivil’ society (Sullivan et al., 2011). Thus, we need to pay more attention to counter-hegemo-

nic perspectives which ‘reveal ideological and political possibilities that are closed down when

neoliberal ideology is theorized as seamless and complete’ (Morgan & Gonzales, 2008, p. 233).

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References

Archer, L. (2008). The new neoliberal subjects? Young/er academics’ constructions of professional identity. Journal of

Education Policy, 23(3), 265–285.

Ayers, F. D., & Carlone, D. (2007). Manifestations of neoliberal discourses within a local job-training program. Inter-

national Journal of Lifelong Education, 26 (4), 461–479.

Aygün, Z. K., & Imamoglu, E. O. (2002). Value domains of Turkish adults and university students. Journal of Social

Psychology, 142(2), 333–351.

Bauman, Z. (2001). The individualized society. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.



15/16

Binkley, S. (2011). Happiness, positive psychology and the program of neoliberal governmentality. Subjectivity, 4,

371–394.

Bondi, L. (2005). Working the spaces of neoliberal subjectivity: Psychotherapeutic technologies, professionalization and

counseling. Antipode, 37 (3), 497–513.

Bourdieu, P. (1998). Acts of resistance. Against the new myths of our time. Oxford: Blackwell.

Bragg, S. (2007). “Student voice” and governmentality: The production of enterprising subjects? Discourse: Studies in

the Cultural Politics of Education, 28(3), 343–358.

Can, Y. I. (2013). Securing “security” amid neoliberal restructuring: Civil society and volunteerism in post-1990 Turkey.

In Z. Gambetti & M. Godoy-Anativia (Eds.), Rhetorisc of insecurity: Belonging and violence in the neoliberal era

(pp. 93–124). New York: NYU Press.

Celik, K. (2008). ‘My state is my father’: Youth unemployment experiences under the weak state welfare provisions of

Turkey. Journal of Youth Studies, 11(4), 429–444.

Cheshire, L. (2006). Governing rural development: Discourse and practices of Australian rural policy. Hampshire:

Ashgate.

Dean, M. (2010). Governmentality. Power and rule in modern society (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Emrence, C. (2008). After neo-liberal globalization: The great transformation of Turkey. Comparative Sociology, 7 ,

51–67.

Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power . Essex: Pearson.

Ferge, Z. (1997). The changed welfare paradigm: The individualization of the social. Social Policy & Administration,31(1), 20–44.

Foucault, M. (2008). The birth of biopolitics. Lectures at the Collège de France 1978–1979. New York: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Freeman, C. (2007). The ‘reputation’ of neo-liberalism. American Ethnologist , 34, 252–267.

Gershon, I. (2011). Neoliberal agency. Current Anthropology, 52(4), 537–555.

Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in late modern age. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Gill, R. (2008). Culture and subjectivity in neoliberal and postfeminist times. Subjectivity, 25, 432–445.

Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hochschild, A., & Garrett, S. B. (2011). Beyond Tocqueville’s telescope: The personalized brand and the branded self.

The Hedgehog Review: Critical Reflections on Contemporary Culture, 13(3), 82 –95.

Hook, D. (2001). Discourse, knowledge, materiality, history: Foucault and discourse analysis. Theory & Psychology,

11(4), 521–547.

Kelan, E. (2008). Gender, risk and employment insecurity: The masculine breadwinner subtext. Human Relations, 61(9),

1171–1202.

Kiersey, N. J. (2009). Neoliberal political economy and the subjectivity of crisis: Why governmentality is not hollow.

Global Society, 23(4), 363– 386.

Layton, L. (2010). Irrational exuberance: Neoliberal subjectivity and the perversion of truth. Subjectivity, 3, 303–322.

Lemke, T. (2001). ‘The birth of bio-politics’: Michel Foucault’s lecture at the Collège de France on neo-liberal govern-

mentality. Economy & Society, 30(2), 190–207.

Madsen, O. J. (2014). Det er innover vi må gå [Toward the interior we must go]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

McGee, M. (2005). Self-help, Inc: Makeover culture in American life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Monahan, T. (2009). Identity theft vulnerability. Neoliberal governance through crime construction. Theoretical Crimi-

nology, 13(2), 155–176.

Morgan, S., & Gonzales, L. (2008). The neoliberal American dream as daydream. Counter-hegemonic perspectives on

welfare restructuring in the United States. Critique of Anthropology, 28(2), 219–236.

Nafstad, H. E. (2002). The neo-liberal ideology and the self-interest paradigm as resistance to change. Radical Psychol-

ogy, 3(1), 1–13.Nafstad, H. E., Blakar, R. M., Carlquist, E., Phelps, J. M., & Rand-Hendriksen, K. (2007). Ideology and power: The influ-

ence of current neo-liberalism in society. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 17 , 131–327.

O’Flynn, G., & Petersen, E. B. (2007). The ‘good life’ and the ‘rich portfolio’: Young women, schooling and neoliberal

subjectification. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28(4), 459–472.

Olssen, M. (2006). Understanding the mechanisms of neoliberal control: Lifelong learning, flexibility and knowledge

capitalism. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 25(3), 213–230.

Peterson, D. (2011). Neoliberal homophobic discourse: Heteronormative human capital and the exclusion of queer citi-

zens. Journal of Homosexuality, 58, 742–757.



16/16

Petersen, E. B., & O’Flynn, G. (2007). Neoliberal technologies of subject formation: A case study of the Duke of Edin-

burgh’s Award scheme. Critical Studies in Education, 48(2), 197–211.

Roper, J., Ganesh, S., & Inkson, K. (2010). Neoliberalism and knowledge interest in boundaryless careers discourse.

Work, Employment, & Society, 24(4), 661–679.

Rose, N. (1999). Governing the soul. The shaping of the private self (2nd ed.). London: Free Association Books.

Schmidt, J. D., & Hersh, J. (2006). Neoliberal globalization: Workfare without welfare. Globalizations, 3(1), 69–89.

Scholl, C., & Freyberg-Inan, A. (2013). Hegemony’s dirty tricks: Explaining counter-globalization’s weakness in times

of neoliberal crisis. Globalizations, 10(4), 619–634.

Spencer, R. F. (1958). Culture process and intellectual current: Durkheim and Atatürk. American Anthropologist , 60(4),

640–657.

Spitulnik, D. (1996). The social circulation of media discourse and the mediation of communities. Journal of Linguistic

Anthropology, 6 (2), 161–187.

Statistics Turkey. (2012). Turkiye-Issizlik orani [Turkey unemployment rates]. Retrieved July 13, 2012, from https://

www.tuik.gov.tr/Gosterge.do?id=3536&metod=IlgiliGosterge

Sullivan, S., Spicer, A., & Böhm, S. (2011). Becoming global (un)civil society: Counter-hegemonic struggle and the

Indymedia Network. Globalizations, 8(5), 703–717.

Türken, S., Blakar, R. M., Bruer, E., & Nafstad, H. (under preparation). Individualistic and collectivistic ideologies as

reflected in media language in Norway and Turkey in an era of globalized neoliberalism .

Türken, S., Carlquist, E., & Allen, H. (in press). Chasing happiness through personal debt: An example of neoliberal

influence in the Norwegian society. In C. Walker & S. Degirmencioglu (Eds.), The personal debt industry: Inter-national perspectives. Palgrave.

Walkerdine, V. (2003). Reclassifying upward mobility: Femininity and the neo-liberal subject. Gender & Education,

15(3), 237–248.

Walkerdine, V. (2006). Workers in the new economy: Transformation as border crossing. Ethos, 34(1), 10–41.

Weidner, J. R. (2009). Governmentality, capitalism, and subjectivity. Global Society, 23(4), 387–411.

Willig, C. (2008). Introducing qualitative research in psychology. Glasgow: Open University Press.

Yücesan-Özdemir, G. (2012). The social policy regime in AKP years: The emperor’s new clothes. In S. Cosar & G.

Yücesan-Özdemir (Eds.), Silent violence. Neoliberalism, Islamist politics and AKP years in Turkey (pp. 125–

152). Ottawa: Red Quill Books.

Yurchak, A. (2003). Russian neoliberal: The entrepreneurial ethic and the spirit of ‘true careerism’. Russian Review,

62(1), 72–90.

Salman Tu ¨ rken is currently a Ph.D. student at the Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, Norway. As a cultural, community, and critical psychologist, he is interested in investi-

gations of discourse and subjectivity, globalization, ideology, and especially neoliberalism.

Hilde Eileen Nafstad is Professor of Social and Developmental Psychology at the University of

Oslo, Norway. Together with Professor Blakar, she is leading the Oslo Ideology Project where

they investigate ideological changes as reflected in public language. In particular, they have been

analyzing the influence of neoliberalism across the past decades, undertaking cross-cultural

studies in several countries.

Rolv Mikkel Blakar is Professor of Social Psychology, University of Oslo, Norway. See Naf-

stad’s biography for a presentation of his projects.

Katrina Roen’s research spans critical psychology and gender studies, with a focus on youth,

discourse, identities, and embodiment. She has been working within Cultural and Community

Psychology at the University of Oslo for the past 7 years. Previous work by Katrina Roen has

been published in journals such as Psychology & Sexuality, Body & Society, and Social

Science & Medicine. She has coauthored a book, Troubled subjects, troubling norms, concerning

youth subjectivities and self-harm, due to be published in 2016 by Palgrave.

https://www.tuik.gov.tr/Gosterge.do?id=3536&metod=IlgiliGostergehttps://www.tuik.gov.tr/Gosterge.do?id=3536&metod=IlgiliGostergehttps://www.tuik.gov.tr/Gosterge.do?id=3536&metod=IlgiliGostergehttps://www.tuik.gov.tr/Gosterge.do?id=3536&metod=IlgiliGosterge

Subjetividad Neoliberal

Documents

Transcript of Subjetividad Neoliberal