Self-Help in the 1990s: The Management of the Self in the Clinton Era

<p>In the 1990s, there was a presumption that the election of Bill Clinton marked a new kind of politics, one marked in part by the heightened visibility of therapeutic language and concepts in political discourse. This thesis questions that presumption by placing trends in the mainstream of self-help (as articulated directly in books and television talk-shows and indirectly in Hollywood cinema) alongside the policy agenda of successive administrations. A comparison of the Clinton era and the preceding Reagan-Bush era does indeed reveal parallels between the dominant strains of therapeutic culture and the dominant politics of each era. Some have sought to explain these parallels by arguing that therapeutic culture displaces traditional forms of legitimisation in the political system. Such an argument suggests that the therapeutic ethos succeeds where “traditional” institutions of all kinds (mainstream religion, the family, the law) are in a post-1960s state of decline. Others find that the influence works in the other direction: that the ethos of personal responsibility within contemporary self-help reflects the growing strength of neoliberalism as practiced by the state since the late 1970s. Neoliberalism here appears not just as an economic agenda but as a wholesale displacement of the social as an organising principle within people's lives - explaining away structural inequalities as the result of individual success and failure. In this argument, neoliberal policies under Clinton may differ in inflection but are essentially continuous with those under Reagan and Bush Snr. By contrast, this thesis argues that the prominence of therapeutic culture in the 1990s represents neither the decline of the social nor the rise of individualism. Following Nikolas Rose and the Foucauldian model of governmentality he uses, I argue that, on the contrary, there was, in the Clinton era, a deep concern both for the therapeutic healing of the self and for the reparation of the social fabric in the midst of a supposed “culture war.” However, the subject and object of that reconciliation differ in kind from that of the Reagan era. While Reagan-era neoliberalism associates freedom with the creation of markets in which rational, choice-making individuals can succeed on their own terms, the centrist politics of the Third Way under Clinton presupposes a world in which partnership not competition is the basis for a new ethical citizen-subject. A close reading of both eighties’ Recovery literature and nineties’ New Age literature shows that while the opposing themes of freedom and responsibility are foregrounded in both eras, the context, rationale and ultimately the meaning of these themes is distinct because they address two different kinds of subjectivity. Similarly, while the actual policies of the Clinton era may resemble those of the Reagan era, the rhetorical terrain of government had shifted: from the market unleashed to the community empowered. I argue that an analysis which seeks not to separate but align the personal and political provides the basis for more nuanced cultural history of both therapeutic culture and contemporary American politics.</p>

Self-Help in the 1990s: The Management of the Self in the Clinton Era

<p>In the 1990s, there was a presumption that the election of Bill Clinton marked a new kind of politics, one marked in part by the heightened visibility of therapeutic language and concepts in political discourse. This thesis questions that presumption by placing trends in the mainstream of self-help (as articulated directly in books and television talk-shows and indirectly in Hollywood cinema) alongside the policy agenda of successive administrations. A comparison of the Clinton era and the preceding Reagan-Bush era does indeed reveal parallels between the dominant strains of therapeutic culture and the dominant politics of each era. Some have sought to explain these parallels by arguing that therapeutic culture displaces traditional forms of legitimisation in the political system. Such an argument suggests that the therapeutic ethos succeeds where “traditional” institutions of all kinds (mainstream religion, the family, the law) are in a post-1960s state of decline. Others find that the influence works in the other direction: that the ethos of personal responsibility within contemporary self-help reflects the growing strength of neoliberalism as practiced by the state since the late 1970s. Neoliberalism here appears not just as an economic agenda but as a wholesale displacement of the social as an organising principle within people's lives - explaining away structural inequalities as the result of individual success and failure. In this argument, neoliberal policies under Clinton may differ in inflection but are essentially continuous with those under Reagan and Bush Snr. By contrast, this thesis argues that the prominence of therapeutic culture in the 1990s represents neither the decline of the social nor the rise of individualism. Following Nikolas Rose and the Foucauldian model of governmentality he uses, I argue that, on the contrary, there was, in the Clinton era, a deep concern both for the therapeutic healing of the self and for the reparation of the social fabric in the midst of a supposed “culture war.” However, the subject and object of that reconciliation differ in kind from that of the Reagan era. While Reagan-era neoliberalism associates freedom with the creation of markets in which rational, choice-making individuals can succeed on their own terms, the centrist politics of the Third Way under Clinton presupposes a world in which partnership not competition is the basis for a new ethical citizen-subject. A close reading of both eighties’ Recovery literature and nineties’ New Age literature shows that while the opposing themes of freedom and responsibility are foregrounded in both eras, the context, rationale and ultimately the meaning of these themes is distinct because they address two different kinds of subjectivity. Similarly, while the actual policies of the Clinton era may resemble those of the Reagan era, the rhetorical terrain of government had shifted: from the market unleashed to the community empowered. I argue that an analysis which seeks not to separate but align the personal and political provides the basis for more nuanced cultural history of both therapeutic culture and contemporary American politics.</p>

Przymus przemiany. Serial „Hannibal” jako krytyka kultury terapeutycznej

The article is an analysis of the Hannibal series (2013–2015) made by Bryan Fuller with reference to therapeutic culture. Hannibal is presented as a manifestation of the critique of contemporary culture, which focuses on the relationship of subject and power in therapeutic culture in Western liberal societies. The main thread that has been analysed is the relationship between the main characters: Will Graham and Hannibal Lecter. The article presents the origin of therapeutic culture and the category of “psychological man” (P. Rieff). The relationship between Will and Hannibal is not a meta-image of contemporary therapeutic culture in general, but its dark face. The series shows the culture of therapy brought to its limits, where norms are not so much exceeded, but subverting. Hannibal Lecter is presented as the “ideal self” of liberal societies, an entity free from cultural norms in an absolute way. Will is opposed to him. His personality does not allow classification, just as a modern subject does not want to be classified, because it would mean pinning him to one place and making it impossible for him to develop. An important problem in the article is “coercion of change”. The “right to change” legitimised by the liberal system changes into “coercion of change” in the series. The requirement of “full life” means that standing in a place is something undesirable, live in a real way is to experience of something new, to change — even if it means a transformation into a murderer. In the end it is argued that “being yourself” is an effect of power in therapeutic culture.

On Bibliotherapy: Literature as Therapy and the Problem of Autonomy, with Régine Detambel’s Les Livres prennent soin de nous

This article offers a reading of the “care turn” through Régine Detambel, author and bibliotherapist. In Les Livres prennent soin de nous, she argues not only that literature can serve as therapy for its reader but also that the practice of bibliotherapy might help foster the autonomy both of patients and of literature. Drawing on work in the social sciences on matters of autonomy as it relates to both literature and contemporary therapeutic culture, this reading discusses how the various forms of autonomy that Detambel sets out to uphold, far from harmoniously coinciding, contradict and conflict with one another. Finally, in its conclusion, this essay challenges the notion that the value of literature is best defended through the bibliotherapeutic wedding of literature and therapy.