Inventing our Selves: Psychology, Power, and Personhood

Cambridge Studies in the History of Psychology

by Nikolas Rose

Inventing Our Selves proposes a radical new approach to the analysis of our current regime of the self, and the values of autonomy, identity, individuality, liberty and choice that animate it. It argues that psychology, psychiatry, psychotherapy and other "psy" disciplines have played a key role in "inventing our selves," changing the ways in which human beings understand and act upon themselves, and how they are acted upon by politicians, managers, doctors, therapists and a multitude of other authorities. These mutations are intrinsically linked to recent changes in ways of understanding and exercising political power, which have stressed the values of autonomy, personal responsibility and choice. The aim of this critical history is to diagnose and destabilize our contemporary "condition" of the self, to help us think differently about the kind of persons we are, or might become.

Genres: Psychology, Sociology, Philosophy, History, Nonfiction

236 pages, Hardcover

First published July 13, 1996

About the author

Nikolas S. Rose

Reviews

[Mira Cedersøe · Rating 4 out of 5]

Critical psychology, my beloved 💕

[Elari · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book sat on my desk and on my virtual shelf for four months, and I finally read it in two days. For work.

I think it's a shame that I never heard of Nikolas Rose during my psychology undergrad a long, long time ago - although it makes sense. This book is about how psychology enabled liberal democracies to govern populations without coercion, by dividing up human life into calculable, manageable parts, and by creating the imperative to live the 'good life' through the ethos of docile self-governance and submission to scientific (psychological, and later, although outside the context of this book, neuroscientific) authority. When it comes to the brain sciences, authority is of course closer to rhetoric than to actual scientific truth. The book was unfortunately a little too abstract (minus one star), but that's exactly what to expect from a neo-Foucauldian scholar.

I wrote this in a minute and it probably sucks, but now I have to move on to other books.

[Jonathan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Over-rated. The provocative claims are too abstract to be persuasive, the persuasive claims too banal to be provocative.

[Jess · Rating 4 out of 5]

Difficult as hell to get through, not even sure if I understand it, but fascinating stuff.