Numerous feminist scholars have argued that women, especially young women, have been constructed as ideal neoliberal subjects. Informed by Foucauldian approaches that extend neoliberalism beyond a set of free market principles to a dynamic that creates new forms of subjectivity, these scholars have demonstrated the elisions between “postfeminism” and neoliberalism in the positioning of young women as consumers, self-helpers, and “empowered” agents par excellence. The psy-disciplines have actively participated in the gendering of neoliberal subjectivity and I selectively review feminist critiques of this complicity. These critiques problematize discourses of empowerment, agency, and choice, even as they have seeped into feminist psychology itself. I then consider the theoretical resources that are available within and beyond feminist psychology to disrupt and even displace neoliberal forms of subjectivity. Building on insights from psychosocial studies, intersectional and decolonial approaches, and critical history and conjunctural thinking, I brainstorm some alternatives that feminist psychologists could offer.
AshM. (2007). Psychological thought and practice: Historical and interdisciplinary perspectives. In AshM.SturmT. (Eds.), Psychology’s territories: Historical and contemporary perspectives from different disciplines (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2.
BakerJ. (2008). The ideology of choice. Overstating progress and hiding injustice in the lives of young women: Findings from a study in North Queensland, Australia. Women’s Studies International Forum, 31, 53–64.
3.
BakerJ. (2010). Claiming volition and evading victimhood: Post-feminist obligations for young women. Feminism & Psychology, 20, 186–204.
4.
Bay-ChengL. Y. (2012). Recovering empowerment: De-personalizing and re-politicizing adolescent female sexuality. Sex Roles, 66, 713–717.
5.
Bay-ChengL. Y. (2015). The agency line: A neoliberal metric for appraising young women’s sexuality. Sex Roles, 73, 279–291.
6.
BeckerD. (2005). The myth of empowerment: Women and the therapeutic culture in America. New York, NY: New York University Press.
7.
BeckerD.MarecekJ. (2008). Dreaming the American dream: Individualism and positive psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 1767–1780.
BhatiaS. (2017). Decolonizing psychology: Globalization, social justice, and Indian youth identities. New York, NY: Oxford.
10.
BowlegL. (2008). When Black + lesbian + woman ≠ Black lesbian woman: The methodological challenges of qualitative and quantitative intersectionality research. Sex Roles, 59, 312–329.
11.
BraunV. (2009). “The women are doing it for themselves”: The rhetoric of choice and agency around female genital “cosmetic surgery.”Australian Feminist Studies, 24, 233–249.
12.
BudgeonS. (2011). The contradictions of successful femininity: Third wave feminism, postfeminism, and “new” femininities. In GillR.ScharffC. (Eds.), New femininities: Postfeminism, neoliberalism, and subjectivity (pp. 279–292). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
13.
CabanasE. (2018). Positive psychology and the legitimation of individualism. Theory & Psychology, 28, 3–19.
14.
ClarkeJ. (2008). Living with/in and without neoliberalism. Focaal: European Journal of Anthropology, 51, 135–147.
15.
ColeE. (2008). Coalitions as a model for intersectionality: From practice to theory. Sex Roles, 59, 443–453.
16.
ColeE. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64, 170–180.
17.
CollinsP. H. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York, NY: Routledge.
18.
CooperB. (2016). Intersectionality. In DischL.HawkesworthM. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of feminist theory (pp. 385–406). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
19.
CrenshawK. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989, 139–167.
20.
CrenshawK. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–1299.
21.
DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S.Tuhiwai SmithL. (2014). Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
EhrenreichB.EnglishD. (1979). For her own good: 150 years of experts’ advice to women. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday.
23.
Else-QuestN.HydeJ. S. (2016). Intersectionality in quantitative psychological research II: Methods and techniques. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40, 319–336.
24.
FahsB.McClellandS. (2016). When sex and power collide: An argument for critical sexuality studies. Journal of Sex Research, 53, 392–416.
FoucaultM. (1988). Technologies of the self. In MartinL. H.GutmanH.HuttonP. H. (Eds.), Technologies of the self: A seminar with Michel Foucault (pp. 16–49). London, UK: Tavistock.
27.
FredricksonB. L.RobertsT.-A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experience and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206.
28.
GaveyN. (2012). Beyond “empowerment”? Sexuality in a sexist world. Sex Roles, 66, 718–724.
29.
GenzS.BrabonB. A. (2009). Postfeminism: Cultural texts and theories. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
30.
GergenK. (1978). Toward generative theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1344–1360.
31.
GillR. (2003). From sexual objectification to sexual subjectification: The resexualisation of women’s bodies in the media. Feminist Media Studies, 3, 100–106.
32.
GillR. (2007a). Gender and the media. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
33.
GillR. (2007b). Postfeminist media culture: Elements of a sensibility. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 10, 147–166.
34.
GillR. (2008). Culture and subjectivity in neoliberal and postfeminist times. Subjectivity, 25, 432–445.
35.
GillR. (2011). Sexism reloaded, or, it’s time to get angry again!Feminist Media Studies, 11, 61–71.
36.
GillR.ScharffC. (Eds.). (2011). New femininities: Postfeminism, neoliberalism, and subjectivity. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
37.
GillespieR. (1996). Women, the body, and brand extension in medicine: Cosmetic surgery and the paradox of choice. Women and Health, 24, 69–85.
38.
GirouxH. A.GirouxS. S. (2006). Challenging neoliberalism’s new world order: The promise of critical pedagogy. Cultural Studies <=> Critical Methodologies, 6, 21–32.
39.
GonickM. (2006). Between “Girl Power” and “Reviving Ophelia”: Constituting the neoliberal girl subject. NWSA Journal, 18, 1–22.
40.
GrabeS.Else-QuestN. S. (2012). The role of transnational feminism in psychology: Complementary visions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, 158–161.
41.
GreenwoodR. M. (2017). Intersectionality foundations and disciplinary adaptations: Highways and byways. In CaseK. (Ed.), Intersectional pedagogy: Complicating identity and social justice (pp. 27–45). New York, NY: Routledge.
42.
GurevichM.LeedhamU.Brown-BowersA.CormierN.MercerZ. (2017). Propping up pharma’s (natural) neoliberal phallic man: Pharmaceutical representations of the ideal sexuopharmaceutical user. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 19, 422–437.
43.
HallS. (1988). The toad in the garden: Thatcherism among the theorists. In NelsonC.GrossbergL. (Eds.), Marxism and the interpretation of culture (pp. 35–57). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
44.
HarjunenH. (2016). Neoliberal bodies and the gendered fat body. New York, NY: Routledge.
45.
HollwayW.JeffersonT. (2012). Doing qualitative research differently: A psychosocial approach (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage.
46.
hooksb. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York, NY: Routledge.
47.
IllouzE. (2008). Saving the modern soul: Therapy, emotions, and the culture of self-help. Berkeley: University of California Press.
48.
KahnA. S.YoderJ. D. (1989). The psychology of women and conservatism: Rediscovering social change. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13, 417–432.
KoffmanO.GillR. (2013). “The revolution will be led by a 12-year-old girl”: Girl power and global biopolitics. Feminist Review, 105, 83–102.
51.
KurtişT.AdamsG. (2015). Decolonizing liberation: Toward a transnational feminist psychology. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 3, 388–413.
52.
KurtişT.AdamsG. (2017). Decolonial intersectionality: Implications for theory, research, and pedagogy. In CaseK. (Ed.), Intersectional pedagogy: Complicating identity and social justice (pp. 46–59). New York, NY: Routledge.
53.
LambS. (2010). Feminist ideals for a healthy female adolescent sexuality: A critique. Sex Roles, 62, 294–306.
54.
LerumK.DworkinS. L. (2015). Sexual agency is not a problem of neoliberalism: Feminism, sexual justice, and the carceral turn. Sex Roles, 73, 319–331.
55.
LiebertR.LeveM.HuiA. (2011). The politics and possibilities of feminist activism in contemporary feminist psychologies. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 697–704.
56.
LoeM. (2004). The rise of Viagra: How the little blue pill changed sex in America. New York, NY: NYU Press.
57.
MarecekJ. (1995). Psychology and feminism: Can this relationship be saved? In StantonD. C.StewartA. J. (Eds.), Feminisms in the academy (pp. 101–132). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
58.
MartinE. (2010). Self-making and the brain. Subjectivity, 3, 366–381.
59.
McCallL. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs, 30, 1771–1800.
60.
McClellandS. (2017). Conceptual disruption: The self-anchored ladder in critical feminist research. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 41, 451–464.
61.
McGeeM. (2005). Self-help, inc.: Makeover culture in American life. New York, NY: Oxford.
62.
McRobbieA. (2004). Post-feminism and popular culture. Feminist Media Studies, 4, 255–264.
63.
MeenaghJ. (2017). Breaking up and hooking up: A young woman’s experience of “sexual empowerment”. Feminism & Psychology, 27, 447–464.
64.
MialetH. (2009). Reincarnating the knowing subject: Scientific rationality and the situated body. Qui Parle: Critical Humanities and Social Sciences, 18, 53–73.
65.
MialetH. (2012). Hawking incorporated: Stephen Hawking and the anthropology of the knowing subject. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
66.
MoradiB.HuangY. (2008). Objectification theory and psychology of women: A decade of advances and future directions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 377–398.
MurphyM. (2017). The economization of life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
69.
NashJ. C. (2008). Re-thinking intersectionality. Feminist Review, 89, 1–15.
70.
NavarroT. (2017). But some of us are broke: Race, gender, and the neoliberalization of the academy. American Anthropologist, 119, 506–517.
71.
NelsonJ. (2003). Women of color and the reproductive rights movement. New York, NY: NYU Press.
72.
PatilV. (2013). From patriarchy to intersectionality: A transnational feminist assessment of how far we’ve really come. Signs, 38, 847–867.
73.
PetersonR.GrippoK. P.Tantleff-DunnS. (2008). Empowerment and powerlessness: A closer look at the relationship between feminism, body image, and eating disturbance. Sex Roles, 58, 639–648.
74.
PetersonZ. (2010). What is sexual empowerment? A multidimensional and process-oriented approach to adolescent girls’ sexual empowerment. Sex Roles, 62, 307–313.
75.
PuarJ. K. (2007). Terrorist assemblages: Homonationalism in queer times. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
76.
RichE. (2005). Young women, feminist identities, and neo-liberalism. Women’s Studies International Forum, 28, 495–508.
77.
RichardsonF. C.BishopR. C.Garcia-JoslinJ. (2018). Overcoming neoliberalism. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 38, 15–28.
78.
RigerS. (1993). What’s wrong with empowerment?American Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 279–292.
79.
RimkeH. M. (2000). Governing citizens through self-help literature. Cultural Studies, 14, 61–78.
80.
RingroseJ. (2007). Successful girls? Complicating post-feminist, neo-liberal discourses of educational achievement and gender equality. Gender and Education, 19, 471–489.
81.
RiordanE. (2001). Commodified agents and empowered girls: Consuming and producing feminism. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 25, 279–297.
82.
RoseN. (1990). Governing the soul: The shaping of the private self. London, UK: Routledge.
83.
RoseN. (1996a). Inventing our selves: Psychology, power, and personhood. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
84.
RoseN. (1996b). Power and subjectivity: Critical history and psychology. In GraumannC.GergenK. (Eds.), Historical dimensions of psychological discourse (pp. 103–124). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
85.
RoseN.Abi-RachedJ. M. (2013). Neuro: The new brain sciences and the management of the mind. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
86.
RutherfordA. (2012). O feminism precisa da psicologia? Reconstruindo a história de umarelação [Does feminism need psychology? Reconstructing the history of a relationship]. In Teixeira PortugalF.Jacó-VilelaA. M. (Eds.), Clio-Psyché – Gênero, Psicologia, História [“Clio-Psyché: Gender, psychology, and history] (pp. 23–41). Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Nau Editora/Faperj.
87.
RutherfordA. (2014). Historiography. In TeoT. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of critical psychology (Vol. 2; pp. 866–872). New York, NY: Springer SBM.
88.
RutherfordA.PettitM. (2015). Feminism and/in/as psychology: The public sciences of sex and gender. History of Psychology, 18, 223–237.
89.
RutherfordA.SheeseK.RuckN. (2015). Feminism and theoretical psychology. In MartinJ.SlaneyK.SugarmanJ. (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of theoretical and philosophical psychology (pp. 374–391). New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
90.
RutherfordA.Vaughn-BlountK.BallL. C. (2010). Responsible opposition, disruptive voices: Science, activism, and the history of feminist psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34, 460–473.
91.
ScharffC. (2016). Gender and neoliberalism: Young women as ideal neoliberal subjects. In SpringerS.BirchK.MacLeavyJ. (Eds.), The handbook of neoliberalism (pp. 271–281). New York, NY: Routledge.
92.
SegalJ. Z. (2018). Sex, drugs, and rhetoric: The case of flibanserin for “female sexual dysfunction”. Social Studies of Science, 48(4), 459–482. doi: 10.1177/0306312718778802
93.
SeigelJ. (2005). The idea of the self: Thought and experience in western Europe since the seventeenth century. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
94.
ShieldsS. A. (2008). Gender: An intersectionality perspective. Sex Roles, 59, 301–311.
95.
ShoreC. (2008). Audit culture and illiberal governance: Universities and the politics of accountability. Anthropological Theory, 8, 278–298. doi: 10.1177/1463499608093815
96.
SiegelD. (2007). Sisterhood interrupted: From radical women to grrls gone wild. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
97.
SillimanJ.FriedM. G.RossL.GutierrezE. R. (Eds.). (2004). Undivided rights: Women of color organize for reproductive justice. Boston, MA: South End Press.
98.
SolingerR. (2001). Beggars and choosers: How the politics of choice shapes adoption, abortion, and welfare in the United States. New York, NY: Hill and Wang.
99.
SpenceJ. T. (1985). Achievement American style: The rewards and costs of individualism. American Psychologist, 40, 1285–1295.
100.
SugarmanJ. (2015). Neoliberalism and psychological ethics. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 35, 103–116.
101.
TaylorC. (1989). Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
102.
Tuhiwai SmithL. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. London, UK: Zed Books.
103.
VaresT.BraunV. (2006). Spreading the word, but what word is that? Viagra and male sexuality in popular culture. Sexualities, 9, 315–332.
104.
WalkerdineV. (2003). Reclassifying upward mobility: Femininity and the neo-liberal subject. Gender and Education, 15, 237–248.
105.
WilkinsonS. (1991). Why psychology (badly) needs feminism. In AaronJ.WalbyS. (Eds.), Out of the margins: Women’s studies in the nineties (pp. 191–203). London, UK: The Falmer Press.
106.
WilliamsR.WittigM. A. (1997). “I’m not a feminist, but…”: Factors contributing to the discrepancy between pro-feminist orientation and feminist social identity. Sex Roles, 37, 885–904.
107.
WinstonA. S. (2018). Neoliberalism and IQ: Naturalizing economic and racial inequality. Theory & Psychology, 28, 600–618.
108.
YoderJ. (2015). Looking backward and moving forward: Our feminist imperative to do work that matters. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39, 427–431.
109.
ZuckerA. N. (2004). Disavowing social identities: What it means when women say, “I’m not a feminist, but…”. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28(4), 423–435.
