This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Hook, D. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Analogues of Power

Reading Psychotherapy through the Sovereignty –Discipline–Government Complex

London School of Economics and Political Sciencederekhook69{at}hotmail.com

This paper draws on Foucault’s multifaceted understanding of modern power, the sovereignty–discipline–government complex, as a means of re-conceptualizing, and finding critical analogues for, what is perhaps psychology’s most characteristic formof applied practice: psychotherapy. One of the chief assets of this model is that it enables one to think the dynamic interchange between capillary and modern state forms of power. An explication of this particular interchange is one of the primary focuses of this paper. A brief characterization of technologized disciplinarity is offered as a first tentative model for psychotherapeutic practice. Whereas the idea of a disciplinary technology provides a means of thinking the instrumentation of psychotherapeutic power, Foucault’s notion of the pastorate is seen as a means of thinking its rationality. The notion of technologies of subjectivity enables a way of conceiving of psychotherapy’s functionality as an interchange between a structural apparatus of influence and a micro-politics of self. The confluence of these notions allows one to speak meaningfully of a ‘governmental psychotherapy’, a complex mode of power that operates perhaps both more widely and more privately than one may at first have suspected.

Key Words: bio-power • disciplinary technology • governmentality • microsovereignty • pastoral apparatus • sovereignty • sovereignty–discipline– government complex • technologies of subjectivity

Theory & Psychology, Vol. 13, No. 5, 605-628 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/09593543030135006


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				T. Brennan Review: Power as Object of Critique: Foucault's Legacy to Psychology: DEREK HOOK, Foucault, Psychology and the Analytics of Power. Basingstoke, UK and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007, 301 pp. ISBN 0230008194 (hbk) Theory Psychology, August 1, 2009; 19(4): 567 - 570. [PDF]

				O. Dreier Persons in Structures of Social Practice Theory Psychology, April 1, 2009; 19(2): 193 - 212. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. R. Malone The Subject as Drop-Out: Cultural Accountability and the Ethics of Psychoanalysis and Humanistic Psychology Theory Psychology, June 1, 2007; 17(3): 449 - 471. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Brinkmann Human Kinds and Looping Effects in Psychology: Foucauldian and Hermeneutic Perspectives Theory Psychology, December 1, 2005; 15(6): 769 - 791. [Abstract] [PDF]

				W. Drewery Why We Should Watch What We Say: Position Calls, Everyday Speech and the Production of Relational Subjectivity Theory Psychology, June 1, 2005; 15(3): 305 - 324. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Guilfoyle From Therapeutic Power to Resistance?: Therapy and Cultural Hegemony Theory Psychology, February 1, 2005; 15(1): 101 - 124. [Abstract] [PDF]