under neoliberalism. Equally important, my argument that othering processes are constitutive of entrepreneurial subjectivity adds to existing debates on the exclusionary dynamics of neoliberalism. Crucially, my analysis has not foregrounded all the possible contours of entrepreneurial subjectivity. Some aspects may need further investigation. Talk about consumption, for example, was relatively absent from my research participants’ accounts. And yet, consumption may be another practice through which the entrepreneurial subject constitutes itself. In this vein, I hope that my analysis represents the beginning of a larger, and empirically informed, conversation about the psychic life of neoliberalism. References: Beradi, F. B. (2009) The soul at work. Cambridge: MIT Press. Binkley, S. (2011a) life as enterprise: social practice and the ‘Psychological government of neo-liberal interiority.’ History of the Human Sciences 24(3): Binkley, S. (2011b) positive psychology and the program of ‘Happiness, neoliberal governmentality.’ Subjectivity 4(4): 371-394. Bröckling, U. (2005) the enterprising self’, Distinktion: Scandinavian ‘Gendering Journal of Social Theory 6(2): 7-25. Brown, W. (2003) and the end of liberal democracy.’ URL ‘Neoliberalism (consulted June 2014): http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/tae/v007/7.1brown.html Bruni, A., S. Gherardi, et al. (2004) Gender, Doing Entrepreneurship: An ‘Doing Ethnographic Account of Intertwined Practices.’ Gender, Work and Organisation 11(4): 406 - 429. Burchell, G. (1993) government and techniques of the self’. Economy and ‘Liberal Society 22(3): 267-282. Butler, J. P. (1997) The psychic life of power. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Davies, B. (2005) (im)possibility of intellectual work in neoliberal regimes’ ‘The Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 26(1): 1-14.
under neoliberalism. Equally important, my argument that othering processes are constitutive of entrepreneurial subjectivity adds to existing debates on the exclusionary dynamics of neoliberalism. Crucially, my analysis has not foregrounded all the possible contours of entrepreneurial subjectivity. Some aspects may need further investigation. Talk about consumption, for example, was relatively absent from my research participants’ accounts. And yet, consumption may be another practice through which the entrepreneurial subject constitutes itself. In this vein, I hope that my analysis represents the beginning of a larger, and empirically informed, conversation about the psychic life of neoliberalism. References: Beradi, F. B. (2009) The soul at work. Cambridge: MIT Press. Binkley, S. (2011a) ‘Psychological life as enterprise: social practice and the government of neo-liberal interiority.’ History of the Human Sciences 24(3): Binkley, S. (2011b) ‘Happiness, positive psychology and the program of neoliberal governmentality.’ Subjectivity 4(4): 371-394. Bröckling, U. (2005) ‘Gendering the enterprising self’, Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory 6(2): 7-25. Brown, W. (2003) ‘Neoliberalism and the end of liberal democracy.’ URL (consulted June 2014): http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/tae/v007/7.1brown.html Bruni, A., S. Gherardi, et al. (2004) ‘Doing Gender, Doing Entrepreneurship: An Ethnographic Account of Intertwined Practices.’ Gender, Work and Organisation 11(4): 406 - 429. Burchell, G. (1993) ‘Liberal government and techniques of the self’. Economy and Society 22(3): 267-282. Butler, J. P. (1997) The psychic life of power. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Davies, B. (2005) ‘The (im)possibility of intellectual work in neoliberal regimes’ Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 26(1): 1-14.