CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 46Foucault, Power, and EthicsAnthropological Studies and InsightsGlobalization and political ideologies

Mindful in Westminster: The politics of meditation and the limits of neoliberal critique

Cook, Joanna·2016·HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory
DOI 10.14318/hau6.1.011
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Analytically, the concept of neoliberalism helps to account for the relationship between forms of governance, self-governance, and capitalist market forces. But how do we decipher its limits? Taking political interest in mindfulness as my ethnographic focus, I explore theoretical categories of neoliberalism and “responsibilization” that cross-cut emerging forms of governance in contemporary British society. I chose this particular ethnographic focus in order to examine the multiple meanings and values invested in subjectification practices, and the ways in which diversity is maintained through the structure of political inquiry. I argue that practices of subjectification are never totalizing, that politico-economic concerns remain central to professional interest in self-governance, that subjectification practices may hold multiple and/or diverse meanings, and that the maintenance of this multiplicity is a motor of political process.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.14318/hau6.1.011

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The students the authors worked with are aware of the problems of biomedical terms and have appropriated medical knowledge in such a way that labels no longer seem to have the capacity to be oppressive or hegemonic.

    “the students we worked with are aware of the problems of biomedical terms and have appropriated medical knowledge in such a way that labels no longer seem to have the capacity to be oppressive or hegemonic”

    From Is it Still Ok to be Ok? Mental Health Labels as a Campus Technology (2023) · cites this paper as Cook 2016

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Cook, J.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Cook, Joanna
Venue
HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory
Publisher
University of Chicago Press
Published
2016-06
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
141-161
ISSN
  • 2049-1115 (ISSN-L)
  • 2575-1433
DOI
10.14318/hau6.1.011
OpenAlex
W2466756691
Cited by
46
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2
FWCI
13.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Hau Journal of Ethnographic Theory (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Hau Network of Ethnographic Theory (University of Rochester) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Foucault, Power, and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Anthropological Studies and Insights
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Globalization and political ideologies
Keywords
neoliberalism, mindfulness, responsibilization, self-government, subjectification, political inquiry, multiplicity, Westminster, British politics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review