We draw on a field study of three drug treatment courts to show that responsibilization strategies create a paradox of bulimic exclusion and empowerment for individual subjects. By theorizing three different subjectivities emerging from our research sites (outcasts, performers and true believers), we show how subjects of intervention actively work to negotiate their own experiences of responsibilization.
ButlerJ (1997) Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. London: Routledge.
2.
CruikshankB (1996) Revolution within: Self-government and self-esteem. In: BarryAOsborneTRoseN (eds) Foucault and Political Reason: Liberalism, Neo-Liberalism and Rationalities of Government. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 231–251.
3.
FoucaultM (1991) Governmentality. In: BurchellGGordonCMillerP (eds) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 87–104.
4.
FoucaultM (1997) Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth (Essential Works of Foucault, 1954-1984, Vol. 1), RabinowP (ed). New York: The New Press.
5.
GarlandD (1996) The limits of the sovereign state. British Journal of Criminology36: 445–471.
6.
GoddardT (2012) Post-welfarist risk managers? Risk, crime prevention and the responsibilization of community-based organizations. Theoretical Criminology16(3): 347–363.
7.
GoffmanE (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.
8.
GoffmanE (1961) Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
9.
HackingI (1986) Self improvement. In: HoyDC (ed.) Foucault: A Critical Reader. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 235–241.
10.
HackingI (2001) Criminal Behavior, Degeneracy and Looping. In: WassermanDTWachbroitRT (eds) Genetics and Criminal Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 141–167.
11.
HackingI (2002) How “natural” are “kinds” of sexual orientation?Law and Philosophy21: 95–107.
12.
Hannah-MoffatK (1999) Moral agent or actuarial subject: Risk and women’s imprisonment. Theoretical Criminology3(1): 71–94.
13.
Hannah-MoffatK (2000) Prisons that empower: Neo-liberal governance in Canadian women’s prisons. British Journal of Criminology40: 510–531.
14.
Hannah-MoffatK (2004) Losing ground: Gendered knowledge, parole risk, and responsibility. Social Politics11(3): 363–385.
15.
HiraiH (2010a) Convergence toward criminal/sick role?Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences79: 1–27.
16.
HiraiH (2010b) Convergence due to liberation and difficulty due to convergence. Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences80: 57–86.
MooreDHannah-MoffatK (2005) The liberal veil: Revisiting Canadian penality. In: PrattJBrownDBrownMHallsworthS (eds) The New Punitiveness: Trends, Theories, Perspectives. Cullompton: Willan Publishing, pp. 85–100.
19.
MooreDLyonsT (2007) Sentenced to treatment/sentenced to harm: Women, risk and the drug treatment court. In: Hannah-MoffatKO’MalleyP (eds) Gendered Risk. New York: A GlassHouse Book, pp. 183–204.
20.
O’MalleyP (2008) Experiments in risk and criminal justice. Theoretical Criminology12(4): 451–469.
21.
RoseN (1996) Inventing Our Selves: Psychology, Power and Personhood. New York: Cambridge University Press.
22.
RoseN (2000) Government and control. British Journal of Criminology40: 321–339.
23.
RoseN (2004) Becoming Neurochemical Selves. In: StehrN (ed) Biotechnology, Commerce And Civil Society. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, pp. 89–128.
24.
WexlerDBWinickBJ (1996) Law in a Therapeutic Key: Developments in Therapeutic Jurisprudence. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.
25.
YoungJ (1999) The Exclusive Society. London: SAGE.
26.
YoungJ (2007) The Vertigo of Late Modernity. London: SAGE.
