Personal Responsibilization

  • Charles Masquelier
Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

In a context marked by a notable decline in welfare provisions and sharpening structural inequalities, the process of personal responsibilization came to perform as essential ideological function. Understanding this character requires one to locate the process within the political context of neoliberal societies, to explore its symbolically cultivated dimension and recognize its status as object of symbolic production. The task of this chapter, therefore, consists in defetishizing the process by exposing some of the decisions responsible for its emergence and symbolic cultivation.

Keywords

Personal Responsibilization Structural Inequality Welfare Provision Late Modernity Symbolic Production 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Bibliography

  1. Acker, J. (2004). Gender, capitalism and globalisation. Cultural Sociology, 30(1), 17–41.Google Scholar
  2. Atkinson, W. (2010). Class, individualization and late modernity: In search of the reflexive worker. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauman, Z. (1988). Freedom. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bauman, Z. (1997). Postmodernity and its discontents. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  5. Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  6. Bauman, Z. (2008). The art of life. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  7. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Individualization: Institutionalized individualism and its social and political consequences. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Beck, U., Bonss, W., & Lau, C. (2003). The theory of reflexive modernization: Problematic, hypotheses and research programme. Theory, Culture & Society, 20(2), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bourdieu, P. (1998). Acts of resistance: Against the new myths of our time. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  11. Branaman, A. (2007). Gender and sexualities in liquid modernity. In A. Elliott (Ed.), The contemporary Bauman. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Bröckling, U. (2016). The entrepreneurial self: Fabricating a new type of subject. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dawson, M. (2012). Reviewing the critique of individualization: The disembedded and embedded theses. Acta Sociologica, 55(4), 305–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Foucault, M. (1988). Technologies of the self. In L.H. Martin, et al. (Eds.), Technologies of the self: A seminar with Michel Foucault. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  15. Foucault, M. (2008). The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the College de France 1978–1979. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  16. Fraser, N. (1989). Unruly practices: Power, discourse and gender in contemporary social theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  17. Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  19. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity as self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  20. Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hayek, F. (1982). Law, legislation and liberty (Vol. 3). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Hayek, F. (2001). The road to Serfdom. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Heaphy, B., & Yip, A. (2003). Uneven possibilities: Understanding non-heterosexual ageing and the implications for social change. Sociological Research Online, 8(4). Available at: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/8/4/heaphy.html. Accessed 29 July 2016.
  24. Jessop, B. (2002). The future of the capitalist state. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  25. Jones, O. (2016). CHAVS: The demonization of the working class (2nd ed.). London: Verso.Google Scholar
  26. Larner, W. (2000). Neo-liberalism: Policy, ideology, governmentality. Studies in Political Economy, 63, 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lazzarato, M. (2009). Neoliberalism in action: Inequality, insecurity and the reconstitution of the social, theory. Culture & Society, 26(6), 109–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mythen, G. (2005). Employment, individualization and insecurity: Rethinking the risk society perspective. The Sociological Review, 53(1), 129–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles Masquelier
    • 1
  1. 1.University of ExeterExeterUK

Personalised recommendations