Advertisement

Lifelogging pp 249-266 | Cite as

Measuring the Entrepreneur of Himself

Gendered Quantification in the Self-Tracking Discourse
  • Simon SchauppEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

On the basis of different examples the article shows that the practices of self-tracking are essentially a rationalisation of self-optimization. As such they can be analysed adequately with the Foucauldian theorem of the entrepreneur of himself. Consequentially the techniques of quantification that are central to self-tracking can be understood as a form of management accounting that allows for rational self-optimization. This rationality is in turn embedded in processes of gendering and degendering which are analysed here by an extrapolation of the construction of masculinity in the self-tracking discourse. Because of its emphasis on self-realization and economic rationality this construction can be identified as an enterprising masculinity.

Keywords

Human Capital Accounting Rationality Weight Watcher Entrepreneurial Spirit Male Breadwinner 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aho, J. A. (2005). Confession and bookkeeping. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  2. Blair, T., & Schroeder, G. (1998). Europe: The Third Way/Die Neue Mitte. Johannesburg: Friedrich Ebert Foundation. http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/suedafrika/02828.pdf. Accessed 03 Jul 2014.
  3. Bourdieu, P. (2001). Masculine Domination. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bröckling, U. (2005). Gendering the Enterprising Self. Subjectification Programs and Gender Differences in Guides to Success. Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal for Social Theory, 11(2), 7-25. doi: 10.1080/1600910X.2005.9672910.
  5. Bröckling, U. (2011). Human Economy, Human Capital: A Critique of Biopolitical Economy. In U. Bröckling, S. Krasmann, & T. Lemke (Eds.), Governmentality. Current Issues and Future Challenges (pp. 247-268). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Bröckling, U. (2013). Das unternehmerische Selbst. Soziologie einer Subjektivierungsform. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  7. Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter. On the discursive limits of “sex”. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Connell, R. (1995). Masculinities. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  10. Connell, R. W., & Wood, J. (2005). Globalization and Business Masculinities. Men and Masculinities, 7(4), 347-364. doi: 10.1177/1097184X03260969.
  11. Cornell, M. (2010). Is there a Self-Experimentation Gender Gap? http://quantifiedself.com/2010/12/is-there-a-self-experimentation-gender-gap/. Accessed 08 June 2014.
  12. Foucault, M. (1978). Dispositive der Macht. Über Sexualität, Wissen und Wahrheit. Berlin: Merve.Google Scholar
  13. Foucault, M. (1982). The Subject and Power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), 777-795.Google Scholar
  14. Foucault, M. (1990). The Use of Pleasure. Volume 2 of the History of Sexuality. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  15. Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and Punish. The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  16. Foucault, M. (2008). The Birth of Biopolitics. Lectures at the Collége de France 1978-79. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  17. Foucault, M. (2011). Omnes et singulatim. Towards a Criticism of ‘Political Reason’. In S. M. McMurrin (Ed.), The Tanner Lectures on Human Values 1981, Vol. II (pp. 223-252). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Franklin, B. (1916). The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
  19. Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. W. (2002). Dialectic of Enlightenment. Philosophical Fragments. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Janssen, J.-K. (2012). Das vermessene Ich. c´t, 18, 74-77.Google Scholar
  21. Lengersdorf, D., & Meuser, M. (2010). Wandel von Arbeit – Wandel von Männlichkeiten. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 35(2), 89-103. doi: 10.1007/s11614-010-0056-x.
  22. Ludes, P. (2001). Schlüsselbild-Gewohnheiten. Visuelle Habitualisierungen und visuelle Koordination. In T. Knieper, & M. Müller (Eds.), Kommunikation visuell. Das Bild als Forschungsgegenstand – Grundlagen und Perspektiven. (pp. 64-78) Köln: Halem.Google Scholar
  23. Meuser, M. (2010). Geschlecht, Macht, Männlichkeit – Strukturwandel von Erwerbsarbeit und hegemonialer Männlichkeit. Erwägen Wissen Ethik, 21(3), 325-336.Google Scholar
  24. Miller, P., & Rose, N. (1995). Production, identity, and democracy. Theory & Society, 24(3), 427-467.Google Scholar
  25. Morini, C. (2007). The Feminization of Labour in Cognitive Capitalism. Feminist Review, 87, 40-59. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.fr.9400367.
  26. Reckwitz, A. (2010). Umkämpfte Männlichkeit. Zur Historischen Kultursoziologie männlicher Subjektformen und ihrer Affektivitäten vom Zeitalter der Empfindsamkeit bis zur Postmoderne. In M. Borutta, & N. Verheyen (Eds.), Die Präsenz der Gefühle. Männlichkeit und Emotion in der Moderne (pp. 57-77). Bielefeld: Transcript.Google Scholar
  27. Rose, N. (1999). Powers of Freedom: Reframing political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Schmidt, D. (2007). Buchführung für Oikos und Etat. In A. Mennicken, & H. Vollmer (Eds.), Zahlenwerk (pp. 229-245). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  29. Spilker, N. (2010). Die Regierung der Prekarität. Zur neoliberalen Konzeption unsicherer Arbeitsverhältnisse. Münster: Unrast.Google Scholar
  30. Schultz, T. W. (1971). Investment in human capital. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  31. Vickery, A. (2006). His and Hers: Gender, Consumption and Household Accounting in Eighteenth-Century England. Past & Present, 1(suppl 1), 12-38. doi: 10.1093/pastj/gtj013.
  32. Voß, G. G., & Pongratz, H. J. (1998). Der Arbeitskraftunternehmer. Eine neue Grundform der Ware Arbeitskraft? Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 50(1), 131-158.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MünchenDeutschland

Personalised recommendations