Hubbry Logo
Nikolas RoseNikolas RoseMain
Open search
Nikolas Rose
Community hub
Nikolas Rose
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Nikolas Rose
Nikolas Rose
Nikolas Rose
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Nikolas Rose is a British sociologist and social theorist. He is Distinguished Honorary Professor at the Research School of Social Sciences,[1] in the College of Arts and Social Sciences at the Australian National University and Honorary Professor at the Institute of Advanced Studies at University College London.[2] From January 2012 to until his retirement in April 2021 he was Professor of Sociology in the Department of Global Health and Social Medicine (previously Social Science, Health & Medicine) at King's College London, having joined King's to found this new department. He was the co-founder and co-director of King's ESRC Centre for Society and Mental Health. Before moving to King's College London, he was the James Martin White Professor of Sociology at the London School of Economics, director and founder of LSE's BIOS Centre for the Study of Bioscience, Biomedicine, Biotechnology and Society from 2002 to 2011, and Head of the LSE Department of Sociology (2002–2006). He was previously Professor of Sociology at Goldsmiths, University of London, where he was Head of the Department of Sociology, Pro-Warden for Research and Head of the Goldsmiths Centre for Urban and Community Research and Director of a major evaluation of urban regeneration in South East London. He is a Fellow of the British Academy, the Royal Society of Arts and the Academy of Social Sciences, and a Fellow of the Royal Danish Academy of Science and Letters. He holds honorary doctorates from the University of Sussex, England, and Aarhus University, Denmark.

Key Information

Biography

[edit]

Originally trained as a biologist, Nikolas Rose has done extensive research on the history and sociology of psychiatry, on mental health policy and risk, and on the social implications of recent developments in psychopharmacology. He has also published widely on the genealogy of subjectivity, on the history of empirical thought in sociology, and on changing rationalities of political power. He is particularly known for his development of the work of the French historian and philosopher Michel Foucault for the analysis of the politics of our present, and stimulating the revival of studies of governmentality in the Anglo-American world. His own approach to these issues was set out in his 1999 book Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought.[3]

His first book, The Psychological Complex,[4] published in 1985, pioneered a new way of understanding the social history and implications of the discipline of psychology. This was followed in 1996 by Inventing Our Selves: Psychology, Power and Personhood and in 1989 by Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self. These three books are widely recognised as founding texts in a new way of understanding and analysing the links between expertise, subjectivity and political power. Rose argues that the proliferation of the 'psy' disciplines has been intrinsically linked with transformations in governmentality, in the rationalities and technologies of political power in 'advanced and liberal democracies'. (See also governmentality for a description of Rose's development of Foucault's concepts).

In 1989, he founded the History of the Present Research Network, an international network of researchers whose work was influenced by the writings of Michel Foucault. Together with Paul Rabinow, he edited the Fourth Volume of Michel Foucault's Essential Works.

In November 2001, he was listed by The Guardian newspaper as one of the top five UK based social scientists[5] on the basis of a twenty-year analysis of citations to research papers, and the most cited UK based sociologist.[citation needed]

For six years he was managing editor of the journal Economy & Society, one of the UK's leading interdisciplinary journal of social science, and he is a founder and co-editor of BioSocieties: An interdisciplinary journal for social studies of life sciences.

In 2007 he was awarded an ESRC Professorial Research Fellowship – a three-year project entitled 'Brain, Self and Society in the 21st Century'.[6] In 2013, writing with Joelle Abi-Rached, he published Neuro: the new brain sciences and the management of the mind. He has long advocated for 'revitalizing' the social and human sciences through a 'critical friendship' with the life sciences, setting out the nature and implications of his 'cartography of the present' in a number of widely cited papers and in The Politics of Life Itself, published in 2007.

Throughout his academic career he has been a critical analyst of psychiatry. His first book on this topic, The Power of Psychiatry, a collection edited together with Peter Miller was published in 1986. His most recent book Our Psychiatric Future: The Politics of Mental Health was published by Polity Press in October 2018. His recent work has been on the social shaping of mental distress and its biopolitical implications. His book The Urban Brain: Mental Health in the Vital City, written with Des Fitzgerald, was published by Princeton University Press in 2022. His most recent book, Questioning Humanity, Being Human in a Posthuman Age, written with Thomas Osborne, was published in 2024.

Nikolas Rose has led many international collaborative research projects, including BIONET, a major collaboration of European and Chinese researchers on the ethical governance of biomedical research in China. He is the Chair of the Neuroscience and Society Network, an international network to encourage critical collaboration between social scientists and neuroscientists, which was funded for several years by the European Science Foundation.[7]

He was previously a member of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics where he was a member of the council's Working Party on Medical profiling and online medicine: the ethics of 'personalised healthcare' in a consumer age (2008–2010) and on Novel Neurotechnologies: intervening in the human brain.[8] He also served for several years as a member of the Royal Society's Science Policy Committee. He was co-director of the first publicly funded UK centre dedicated to synthetic biology based at Imperial College.[9] where he led a team examining the social, ethical, legal and political dimensions of this emerging field.[9][10] At King's he led a team of researchers exploring the social implications of new developments in biotechnology, and committed to the democratisation of scientific research and technological development, with a particular focus on synthetic biology and neurobiology. For many years he was a member of the Social and Ethical Division of the Human Brain Project,[11] where he led the Foresight Lab[12] based at King's College London which aimed to identify and evaluate the potential impact of the new knowledge and technologies produced by the Human Brain Project in neuroscience, neurology, computing and robotics, and also examined such issues as artificial intelligence and the political, security, intelligence and military uses of novel brain technologies.[13]

His work has been translated into many languages including Swedish, Danish, Finnish, German, Italian, French, Hungarian, Korean, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Romanian, Portuguese and Spanish.

Selected publications

[edit]

Books

[edit]
  • Questioning Humanity: Being human in a posthuman age, with Thomas Osborne (Edward Elgar, 2024)
  • The Urban Brain: Mental Health in the Vital City, with Des Fitzgerald (Princeton University Press, 2022)
  • Our Psychiatric Future: the politics of mental health, (Polity, 2018)
  • Neuro: The New Brain Sciences and the Management of the Mind, with Joelle M. Abi-Rached (Princeton University Press, 2013)
  • Governing the Present: Administering Economic, Social and Personal Life, with Peter Miller (Polity, 2008)
  • The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century, (PUP, 2007)
  • Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought (Cambridge University Press, 1999)
  • Inventing Our Selves: Psychology, Power and Personhood (Cambridge University Press, 1996)
  • Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self (Routledge, 1989, Second edition, Free Associations, 1999)
  • The Psychological Complex: Psychology, Politics and Society in England, 1869–1939 (Routledge, 1985)

Chapters in edited collections (selected)

[edit]
  • 'Writing the History of the Present', in Jonathan Joseph, ed., Social Theory: A Reader. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2005 (with Andrew Barry and Thomas Osborne) (Reprint of selections from Introduction to Foucault and Political Reason, 1996.)
  • 'Biological Citizenship', in Aihwa Ong and Stephen Collier, eds., Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics and Ethics as Anthropological Problems, pp. 439–463. Oxford: Blackwell, 2005 (with Carlos Novas)
  • Introduction to The Essential Foucault: Selections from Essential Works of Foucault, 1954–1984, New York: New Press, 2004 (with Paul Rabinow)
  • 'Becoming Neurochemical Selves', in Nico Stehr, ed., Biotechnology, Commerce and Civil Society, Transaction Press, 2004
  • 'The neurochemical self and its anomalies', in R. Ericson, ed., Risk and Morality, pp. 407–437. University of Toronto Press, 2003.
  • 'Power and psychological techniques', in Y. Bates and R. House, eds., Ethically Challenged Professions, pp. 27–46. Ross-on-Wye: PCCS Books, 2003.
  • 'Society, madness, and control', in A. Buchanan, ed., The Care of the Mentally Disordered Offender in the Community, pp. 3–25, Oxford: Oxford University Press (2001)
  • 'At Risk of Madness', in T. Baker and J. Simon, eds., Embracing Risk: The Changing Culture of Insurance and Responsibility, pp. 209–237, Chicago: University of Chicago Press (2001)

Papers in refereed journals (selected)

[edit]
  • 'Towards neuroecosociality: mental health in adversity', Theory, Culture and Society, 2021: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0263276420981614
  • 'Revitalizing sociology: urban life and mental illness between history and the present', British Journal of Sociology, 67, 1, 138-160 (With Des Fitzgerald and Ilina Singh)
  • 'Still like 'birds on the wire'', Economy and Society, 2017, 46, 3–4, 303–323
  • Reading the Human Brain How the Mind Became Legible', Body and Society, 2016, 22, 2, 140-177: doi:10.1177/1357034X15623363
  • 'Spatial Phenomenotechnics: Making space with Charles Booth and Patrick Geddes', Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 2004, 22: 209–228 (with Thomas Osborne).
  • 'Neurochemical selves', Society, November/December 2003, 41, 1, 46–59.
  • 'Kontroll', Fronesis, 2003, Nr. 14–15, 82–101.
  • 'The politics of life itself', Theory, Culture and Society (2001), 18(6): 1–30.
  • 'Genetic risk and the birth of the somatic individual', Economy and Society, Special Issue on configurations of risk (2000), 29 (4): 484–513. (with Carlos Novas).
  • 'The biology of culpability: pathological identities in a biological culture', Theoretical Criminology (2000), 4, 1, 5–34.

Notes

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Nikolas Rose

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Nikolas Rose (born 1947) is a British sociologist renowned for his empirical analyses of how psychological, psychiatric, and biomedical expertise have historically influenced governance, subjectivity, and social order. Initially trained as a biologist, he transitioned to psychology and sociology, developing a body of work that traces the contingent emergence of these disciplines and their integration into political rationalities, drawing on archival research and conceptual frameworks from thinkers like Michel Foucault while prioritizing historical specificity over dogmatic critique. Rose advanced through academic roles including professorships at Goldsmiths College (1985–2002), the London School of Economics—where he directed the BIOS Centre for the study of biosciences, biomedicine, biotechnology, and society (2002–2012)—and King's College London, where he founded and headed the Department of Social Science, Health & Medicine (2012–2015) before retiring as Professor of Sociology in 2021. His seminal publications, such as Governing the Soul (1989, revised 1999), which details the psychologization of everyday life in 20th-century Britain, and The Politics of Life Itself (2007), which examines how molecular biology and genomics redefine vital politics, have shaped interdisciplinary fields including science studies, neuroethics, and the sociology of mental health. A Fellow of the British Academy since 2007, Rose's contributions underscore the causal interplay between scientific innovations and institutional power without presuming inherent ideological distortions in knowledge production.

Early Life and Education

Training in Biology and Psychology

Nikolas Rose began his higher education at the in the 1960s, where he studied and conducted work on fruit flies under the supervision of geneticist . This empirical training emphasized hands-on experimentation in and development, grounding his early understanding of living systems in observable biological processes rather than abstract theorizing. Following his biological studies, Rose transitioned into , acquiring formal qualifications in the field while engaging in behavioral . He performed experiments with animals such as pigeons and rats, testing responses in controlled settings like key-pecking tasks and maze navigation, where outcomes often deviated from predicted patterns, highlighting the limits of deterministic models in . These investigations extended to applications, including examinations of historical psychological measures like Alfred Binet's early intelligence testing in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which relied on quantifiable assessments of cognitive function. This foundational phase in and instilled a commitment to empirical verification and causal mechanisms in the study of organisms and , prioritizing direct and experimental over interpretive frameworks. Rose's exposure to discrepancies between theoretical expectations and actual biological and behavioral realities during the 1960s and 1970s fostered an analytical approach rooted in material evidence, which later intersected with broader inquiries into the human sciences.

Transition to Sociology

In the 1970s, Nikolas Rose, initially trained in and , engaged with the era's intellectual radicalism by collaborating with critical psychologists to interrogate established disciplinary boundaries. This socio-political milieu, characterized by Marxist, , and critiques, prompted a shift toward sociological inquiry, as Rose co-founded the independent journal Ideology and Consciousness in 1976 alongside like-minded scholars. The journal, described by Rose as a "Marxist journal of ideology, and ," served as a platform for developing radical approaches to that rejected isolated disciplinary silos in favor of interconnected analyses of subjectivity and power. This transition reflected a broader dissatisfaction with psychology's tendency toward individualistic explanations, incorporating sociological perspectives to highlight how ideological and social forces mediate psychological processes. Rose's early involvement emphasized hybrid models that integrated empirical observations of power dynamics—such as institutional influences on —with psychological phenomena, moving beyond biological to account for contextual contingencies in human conduct. Verifiable markers include the journal's inaugural issues from onward, which featured interdisciplinary essays probing these intersections without relying on deterministic causal chains. Empirical evidence of this pivot appears in Rose's contemporaneous writings and editorial role, which prioritized sociological deconstructions of power in everyday psychological practices over purely experimental or hereditarian frameworks. For instance, contributions aligned with the journal's examined how socio-political events of the decade, including labor movements and cultural upheavals, necessitated models acknowledging contingency and relationality in mental life, laying groundwork for later empirical genealogies of disciplinary power techniques.

Academic Career

Early Positions and Editorial Roles

Rose co-founded and served as an editor of Ideology and Consciousness, a radical journal launched in 1977 that ran until 1979 and examined intersections of ideology, psychology, and social power. As part of the editorial collective, he contributed to issues such as No. 4 (Autumn 1978), alongside collaborators including Diana Adlam and Julian Henriques, fostering debates on mental measurement and social administration within Marxist and post-structuralist frameworks. His 1979 article "The Psychological Complex: Mental Measurement and Social Administration" in the journal's fifth issue analyzed how psychological expertise shaped governance, drawing on historical case studies from early 20th-century Britain to argue for its role in administering populations beyond overt coercion. These efforts established early networks among sociologists critiquing institutional power, emphasizing empirical analyses of discourse and practice over abstract theory. In parallel, Rose co-founded Politics and Power during the late 1970s and early 1980s, collaborating with scholars like Paul Hirst to explore non-state forms of political authority and subjectivity. The journal advanced radical sociology by prioritizing problematics of government and expertise, influencing subsequent work on and control through collective editorial processes that integrated interdisciplinary contributions from , , and . This editorial activity, rooted in the post-1968 intellectual milieu, built empirical connections across academic circles, evidenced by its role in disseminating Foucault-inspired critiques amid declining Marxist orthodoxy. Rose's initial academic foothold came as a lecturer at Goldsmiths College, University of London, where he began developing interdisciplinary approaches bridging , , and in the late 1970s. This position enabled practical engagement with radical networks, supporting his editorial initiatives and early publications that grounded theoretical claims in archival and observational data on institutional practices. By facilitating collaborations outside traditional departments, these roles underscored a commitment to as a tool for dissecting power relations empirically, rather than ideological advocacy.

Major Professorships and Directorships

Rose served as the Martin White Professor of Sociology at the London School of Economics (LSE) from 2002 until 2012. In this role, he directed the newly established BIOS Centre for the Study of Bioscience, Biomedicine, Biotechnology and Society, which he founded with support from LSE Director Anthony Giddens to foster interdisciplinary research on the social implications of life sciences. Under his leadership, the centre secured grants for initiatives including the BIONET project on ethical governance in Asian biosciences, the CSynBI programme on synthetic biology, the European Neuroscience and Society Network (funded by the European Science Foundation from 2008, which Rose chaired and which supported exchange grants and neuroschools), the VOICEs project examining psychostimulant use in young children, and the ScoPE initiative on public deliberation over biotechnologies. These efforts built a network of fellows, PhD students, and international visitors, culminating in the launch of the BioSocieties journal in 2006 with Cambridge University Press. In 2012, Rose joined as Professor of and founding Head of the Department of , Health and Medicine (renamed Department of and ), a position he held until 2018. He also co-founded and co-directed the ESRC Centre for and , advancing research on the societal dimensions of mental health through empirical studies on inequality, , and . His departmental leadership emphasized integrating social sciences with health and medicine, establishing interdisciplinary programmes that attracted funding for projects addressing inequities and biosocial research.

Retirement and Current Affiliations

Rose retired as Professor of Sociology at in April 2021, concluding his tenure as founding head of the Department of & and co-director of the Centre for . Following this, he assumed the role of Distinguished Honorary Professor in the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University, where he continues to contribute to sociological inquiries into health, science, and society. He also maintains an Honorary Professorship at London's of Advanced Studies. Post-retirement, Rose has sustained active involvement in academic events, delivering seminars on evolving psychiatric frameworks. In November 2023, he presented at a Division of seminar, advocating an expanded biopsychosocial approach to that integrates biological, psychological, and social dimensions for more effective alleviation strategies. That same month, he shared a draft paper on "5E ," outlining an emerging paradigm in psychiatric thought emphasizing experiential, embodied, embedded, enactive, and extended elements of discourse. Rose's publications through 2025 reflect ongoing engagement with neuroscience's societal implications. Notably, in October 2025, he co-authored "Experiments in Anticipation: Learning from in the " in the journal Futures, analyzing anticipatory practices in large-scale neuroscience initiatives to inform ethical governance amid advancements intersecting research. This work builds on his prior explorations of neuroscientific evidence in contexts, such as and .

Intellectual Framework

Influences from Foucault and Governmentality

Nikolas Rose incorporated Michel Foucault's concept of governmentality, first articulated in Foucault's 1978–1979 lectures at the Collège de France, into his analyses of political power starting in the late 1980s. Governmentality, in this framework, refers to the historical problematizations of how to conduct the conduct of individuals and populations through rationalized techniques rather than mere sovereign command, emphasizing the dispersion of power across non-state actors and expertise. Rose adapted this to examine advanced liberal regimes, where governance operates via the empowerment of autonomous subjects who internalize norms of self-regulation, shifting focus from centralized state authority to decentralized assemblages of knowledge and calculation. In collaboration with Peter Miller, Rose applied to dissect liberal modes of rule, particularly in economic and social domains, arguing that intellectual practices such as , , and psychological expertise function as "technologies of government" to align individual freedoms with collective objectives. This approach proved verifiable in analyses of policy landscapes, where governmental rationalities were traced through the proliferation of advisory bodies, performance metrics, and community-based interventions that ostensibly devolved power while maintaining oversight via calculative practices. For instance, Rose highlighted how Thatcher-era reforms in the reframed public services through market-like mechanisms, illustrating 's utility in decoding the apparent paradox of enhanced individual agency under intensified regulation. Despite its analytical strengths, Rose's Foucauldian debt to a power-as-discourse model reveals empirical limitations when privileging causal realism, as the framework underdetermines innate biological imperatives that shape independently of governmental techniques. Behavioral genetics research, including large-scale twin and adoption studies, demonstrates substantial for traits like , , and cognitive capacities—often exceeding 50% variance explained—indicating evolutionary and physiological constraints that alone cannot fully override or construct. This causal underemphasis risks overattributing behavioral malleability to social practices, as evidenced by interventions failing to eradicate genetically influenced disparities despite intensive governmental efforts, underscoring the need to integrate biological realism into analyses of rule beyond relational power dynamics.

Shift to Life Sciences and Biopolitics

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, amid the biotechnology expansion following milestones like the 2000 announcement of the draft sequence, Rose redirected his sociological inquiries toward the life sciences, emphasizing their reconfiguration of governance and ethics. This pivot built on his prior analyses but incorporated empirical shifts in , where molecular technologies enabled proactive interventions in biological processes, such as genetic screening for risk prediction. In 2002, Rose founded the BIOS Centre for the Study of Bioscience, , and at the London School of Economics, directing interdisciplinary research into how these advancements altered societal relations with vitality and disease. Central to this turn was Rose's formulation of the "politics of life itself," articulated in his 2001 article of the same name, which posited that advanced liberal democracies increasingly politicize biological existence at the molecular scale through and biotech innovations. This framework highlighted causal mechanisms in , such as the integration of into treatment protocols, which by the mid-2000s influenced regulatory frameworks for and personalized therapies, reshaping ethical debates over and equity in genetic data use. Rose argued that these technologies fostered "biological citizenship," where individuals engage state and market actors via shared genomic vulnerabilities, evident in policies addressing hereditary conditions post-Human Genome Project. By the publication of his 2007 book The Politics of Life Itself, Rose had systematized this analysis, tracing how biotech-driven molecularization—exemplified by the 1990s surge in applications and early 2000s research—transformed from reactive healing to anticipatory life management. This involved verifiable evolutions, including the European Union's 2000 strategy on life sciences and , which prioritized ethical harmonization amid commercial growth, thereby linking technological causality to broader shifts in and individual self-optimization practices.

Engagement with Neuroscience and Psychiatry

In the early 2000s, Rose turned his attention to the integration of and , particularly the rise of what he termed the "neurochemical self," wherein individuals increasingly understand and manage their emotional states through interventions targeting chemistry. This concept emerged amid the widespread adoption of selective serotonin inhibitors (SSRIs) for conditions like depression, with U.S. prescriptions rising from approximately 2.5 million in 1988 to over 20 million by 2002, reflecting a shift from explanations to biochemical models of distress. Rose argued that this transformation blurred traditional distinctions between organic and functional mental disorders, as psychiatric diagnostics increasingly invoked neurochemical imbalances amenable to pharmaceutical correction, supported by studies linking serotonin dysregulation to mood disorders. However, he emphasized that such models do not fully reduce subjectivity to biology, noting from twin studies and genetic research showing rates for disorders like at 80%, yet modulated by environmental factors. Rose's analysis balanced neuroscience's empirical achievements—such as functional MRI (fMRI) demonstrations of neural plasticity in response to , with meta-analyses confirming effect sizes comparable to in treating anxiety—with critiques of over-reductionism. He contended that sciences succeed where they identify verifiable causal pathways, like dysregulation in validated through (PET) scans correlating receptor binding with craving intensity, but falter when extrapolating to complex social behaviors without accounting for embedding contexts. This engagement highlighted tensions between biomedical determinism, which posits states as primary drivers of action, and social embedding, where practices like risk governance in incorporate neuroscientific tools to preemptively modulate behaviors, as seen in the U.S. growth of use in children from 1.2% in 2000 to 1.8% by 2007 for off-label conditions. In works co-authored with Joelle M. Abi-Rached, Rose examined how post-2000 promised enhanced management through , such as genome-wide association studies identifying variants linked to with odds ratios up to 1.5, yet warned against hype that ignores social determinants empirically tied to outcomes, like socioeconomic gradients in depression prevalence doubling risk across income quintiles. He advocated a non-reductive approach, acknowledging causal realism in neurobiological mechanisms—evidenced by randomized controlled trials showing antipsychotics reducing rates by 60% in —while critiquing academic tendencies to over-socialize explanations at the expense of biological verifiability, a evident in selective citation of constructivist over mechanistic studies. This framework positioned not as a totalizing paradigm but as intertwined with societal practices, fostering debates on whether interventions like for , effective in 40-60% of cases per clinical data, truly address root causes or merely recalibrate neural circuits within socially shaped vulnerabilities.

Major Theoretical Contributions

The Psychological Complex and Subjectivity

Rose's seminal 1985 work, The Psychological Complex: Psychology, Politics and Society in , 1869-1939, delineates the historical formation of not as a neutral but as a dispersed "complex" of , institutional, and practical elements that intertwined with political and social administration. This complex encompassed techniques such as mental measurement—exemplified by the adoption of testing from the 1890s onward, with Burt's work at schools by 1913—and diagnostic practices in sites including clinics, factories, and welfare agencies. Drawing on archival evidence from English institutions, Rose documented how these elements proliferated between 1869, marked by early child study initiatives, and 1939, amid interwar social reforms, enabling to address problems of conduct ranging from to industrial efficiency. Central to Rose's analysis is the causal role of this complex in reconfiguring subjectivity: individuals were increasingly construed as psychological entities—possessing inner mental states amenable to interpretation and modification—rather than mere subjects of sovereign authority. This shift, Rose contended, arose from practical necessities in liberal governance, where direct state coercion proved inefficient for managing populations; instead, psychological techniques fostered by equipping individuals with interpretive frameworks for their own desires, emotions, and behaviors, as seen in the dissemination of advice and counseling from the . Empirical instances include the integration of into selection post-1900 and the Mental Deficiency Act of 1913, which institutionalized psychological assessments to classify and normalize deviant conduct without overt repression. By privileging relational and interpretive modes over deterministic models, the psychological complex, per , generated a form of subjectivity oriented toward continual self-improvement and adaptation, aligning personal fulfillment with societal norms. This was not a top-down imposition but emerged through alliances among psychologists, educators, and administrators, as evidenced by the British Psychological Society's founding in and its expansion to over 1,000 members by , which amplified psy-expertise in policy domains. Rose's account underscores the contingency of this development, rooted in England's specific socio-political context rather than universal scientific progress, thereby challenging teleological narratives of psychology's rise.

Powers of Freedom and Advanced Liberalism

In Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought (1999), Nikolas Rose examines how political authority in advanced liberal democracies operates not through overt but via the orchestration of individual freedoms, recasting citizens as autonomous, responsible agents who internalize . He posits "advanced liberalism" as an evolution beyond , characterized by a decentered web of non-state actors—such as experts, NGOs, and communities—that shape conduct through "ethopolitics," or the strategic invention of ethical practices for and mutual obligations. This framework, Rose argues, reframes political thought by analyzing power as immanent in the freedoms it enables, drawing on empirical shifts in from the welfare state's collectivism toward individualized . Central to Rose's analysis is the 1980s–1990s transformation in the UK and US, where policies under (Prime Minister 1979–1990) and (President 1981–1989) promoted an "enterprise culture" emphasizing personal initiative over state dependency. Freedom becomes an "ethopolitical technique," enlisting individuals in their own regulation through discourses of choice and responsibility, as seen in the UK's Community Care Act 1990, which devolved and elder care from institutions to family and local networks, reducing state expenditure from £2.5 billion in institutional care in 1980 to community-based allocations by 1993 while amplifying risks borne by informal caregivers. Similarly, US welfare reforms under the 1988 Family Support Act shifted aid toward work incentives, framing dependency as a moral failing amenable to self-improvement programs. Rose links these to a "risk society" paradigm, where governance devolves probabilistic dangers—such as unemployment or health vulnerabilities—from centralized bureaucracies to prudent, self-managing subjects equipped with actuarial tools and expertise. In the UK, this manifested in the 1986 Mental Health Act's emphasis on supervision over confinement, correlating with a 40% rise in outpatient treatments from 1980 to 1995 amid deinstitutionalization. US parallels include the expansion of in the 1990s, where individuals navigated insurance risks via personal health choices, aligning with neoliberal metrics like the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Ethopolitics here functions as a , with psychological and civic education programs fostering "responsible autonomy" to mitigate social costs. While Rose's ethopolitical lens highlights discursive mechanisms in neoliberal subjectivity—such as the moralization of self-reliance—empirical policy data indicate stronger causal drivers in fiscal imperatives and market deregulation, with UK public spending on welfare falling from 25% of GDP in 1979 to 22% by 1990, prioritizing economic incentives over cultural narratives alone. This suggests advanced liberalism's "powers of freedom" operationalize pre-existing material constraints, where freedom's invocation served to legitimize cuts exceeding £10 billion in US social programs under Reagan by 1988, rather than originating as a primary technique of subjectivation.

The Politics of Life Itself

In The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century, published in 2007, Nikolas Rose analyzes how molecular has reconstituted around the direct of biological processes, marking a departure from disciplinary mechanisms toward strategies optimizing individual . This framework posits —encompassing cellular repair, genetic potential, and physiological resilience—as a novel biopolitical arena emerging prominently after 2000, driven by technological capacities to intervene at the molecular level rather than merely managing populations or symptoms. Rose draws on empirical observations of biomedical practices to argue that such interventions foster new forms of subjectification, where individuals actively participate in enhancing their own biological capacities through preventive and regenerative techniques. Central to Rose's analysis are case studies from , where post-genome sequencing advancements, such as those following the Project's completion in 2003, enable risk stratification and pre-symptomatic interventions via genetic profiling and . These developments, Rose contends, transform political rationality by prioritizing biological optimization over traditional welfare-state health metrics, embedding market-driven diagnostics and therapies into everyday life management. In , exemplified by early 2000s stem cell research and trials, promises not just disease mitigation but active reconstruction of vital functions, raising empirical questions about the demarcation between therapeutic repair and elective enhancement. Rose documents these through historical tracing of clinical innovations, highlighting how they engender "somatic expertise" among patients and experts alike. Rose maintains a realist orientation by grounding his critique in verifiable biomedical trajectories, eschewing hyperbolic forecasts of dystopian control or unbridled . He acknowledges the empirical of these technologies—such as reduced morbidity through genomic early detection—while cautioning against ethical perils amplified by commercial hype, including unequal access and the normalization of probabilistic risk as a basis for intervention. This balanced assessment underscores causal linkages between technological affordances and sociopolitical shifts, evidenced by Rose's examination of regulatory frameworks and in biotech commercialization post-2000. Unlike ideologically driven narratives, Rose's approach privileges observable practices over speculative , revealing how materializes through incremental, evidence-based biomedical adoption rather than top-down imposition.

Publications

Key Books

  • The Psychological Complex: Psychology, Politics and Society in , 1869-1939 (London: & Kegan Paul, 1985), Rose's first major monograph examining the historical emergence of as a social force.
  • Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self (: , 1990; second edition, : Free Association Books, 1999), exploring the governmental role of psychological expertise in modern self-formation.
  • Inventing Our Selves: Psychology, Power and Personhood (: , 1996), analyzing the construction of individuality through psychological discourses.
  • Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought (: , 1999), reframing political power in terms of liberal governance and .
  • The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century (Princeton, NJ: , 2007), addressing biopolitical shifts in contemporary .

Selected Articles and Chapters

Rose's article "'Screen and intervene': governing risky brains" (2010), published in History of the Human Sciences, examines how neuroscientific techniques, such as brain imaging for risk prediction, are being integrated into systems to govern individuals preemptively rather than punitively, drawing on empirical examples from and . This work highlights the shift toward biological rationales for intervention, where neural correlates of antisocial behavior inform sentencing and rehabilitation strategies. In the co-authored review "" (2006), appearing in the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Rose, alongside Pat O'Malley and Mariana Valverde, traces the development of Foucault's analytics from its origins in liberal governance to its extension in analyzing non-sovereign forms of power, such as expertise and self-regulation in advanced liberal societies. The article emphasizes empirical applications, including the role of actuarial techniques in welfare and , while critiquing overly state-centric views of power. More recently, the chapter ": a conversation with , Partha and Nikolas Rose" (2023) in the Handbook on Governmentality features Rose engaging with interlocutors on the concept's relevance to contemporary challenges like and biopolitical crises, advocating for its use in dissecting how neoliberal rationalities persist amid democratic . On , Rose's "Is ‘another’ possible?" (2023), in Psychological Medicine, assesses whether psychiatric practices can move beyond biomedical dominance toward models incorporating social determinants, based on reviews of clinical trials and policy shifts in the UK and post-COVID. Similarly, "5E ? Notes on an emerging style of thought" (2025), forthcoming in , delineates a nascent paradigm emphasizing experiential, ecological, embodied, embedded, and enacted dimensions of distress, grounded in qualitative studies of urban adversity and research.

Reception and Impact

Academic Influence

Nikolas Rose's scholarship has exerted substantial influence across social sciences, particularly in sociology, science and technology studies, and political theory, as demonstrated by his publications accumulating over 138,000 citations on Google Scholar. His extensions of Michel Foucault's frameworks on governmentality—analyzing how liberal democracies govern through shaping subjects' freedoms and responsibilities—have become foundational in Foucault studies, informing analyses of neoliberal governance and self-regulation in advanced societies. In , Rose's work has reshaped understandings of how "life itself" is politicized in contemporary settings, notably through collaborations with that emphasize the shift toward molecular and vitalist forms of governance over populations' biological capacities. Key texts like Powers of Freedom (1999) and "The Politics of Life Itself" (2001) are frequently cited in examinations of , , and , bridging Foucault's biopolitical insights with empirical studies of expertise and . This uptake is evident in interdisciplinary fields, where Rose's concepts underpin research on the entanglement of , , and power in everyday practices. Rose's institutional roles have amplified his global academic reach, including as founding editor of BioSocieties, which has promoted empirical investigations into the social dimensions of the life sciences since 2007. His appointment as Distinguished Honorary Professor in the Research School of Social Sciences at the in 2021 has facilitated the dissemination of his ideas in Australasian scholarship, fostering networks in sociology of health and beyond . Scholars in these domains routinely engage his frameworks to dissect how expertise in , , and configures social relations and subjectivities.

Applications in Policy and Society

Rose's analyses of psychiatric practices have informed shifts in policy toward community-based care and self-management strategies, particularly in the UK following the deinstitutionalization of asylums in the late , where the closure of large state hospitals in the reflected a broader transition from centralized institutional control to individualized governance of distress. This approach emphasized personal responsibility for , aligning with advanced liberal rationalities that Rose described, influencing frameworks like the UK's Care Programme Approach introduced in 1990, which prioritized and community integration over long-term hospitalization. In risk governance, Rose's work on the psychiatrization of has shaped preventive interventions in and public safety policies, advocating for "screen and intervene" strategies that integrate neuroscientific insights to identify and manage potentially dangerous individuals before offenses occur, as seen in post-2000 UK policies on antisocial behavior orders and tribunals that incorporate actuarial tools. For instance, his critiques of biological management have contributed to ethical guidelines in , highlighting how enable preemptive governance, though empirical adoption remains limited to advisory roles in bodies like the UK's assessments. During the , Rose co-authored policy recommendations urging integration of social determinants into responses, proposing legally binding audits for all economic and social policies to address rising distress from inequality and isolation, which influenced discussions in strategies such as the NHS Long Term Plan updates emphasizing holistic social factors over purely biomedical interventions. These applications underscore strengths in fostering ethical debates on biotechnological , such as in genomics policy where his biopolitical framework has informed regulatory bodies like the 's Human Genetics Commission (1999–2012) on balancing innovation with societal control of "life itself." However, critics note that Rose's abstract conceptualizations often prove challenging for direct implementation by policymakers and practitioners, prioritizing interpretive depth over actionable metrics in fast-paced reform environments.

Empirical and Methodological Critiques

Critics of Nikolas Rose's work have highlighted its heavy reliance on qualitative methods, such as genealogical analysis of discourses, archives, and historical texts, which prioritize interpretive narratives over quantitative empirical validation. This approach, evident in examinations of the "psychological complex" and governmental rationalities, generates detailed accounts of how expertise shapes subjectivity but often lacks statistical data or large-scale surveys to measure the prevalence or impact of these influences on populations. For example, claims about the permeation of psychological technologies into everyday governance are supported through textual evidence rather than metrics tracking behavioral changes or correlations with policy outcomes. Methodologically, Rose's adaptation of Foucauldian has been faulted for constructing abstract ideal types of power—such as "advanced " governing through freedom—that resist falsification. These frameworks interpret varied practices under broad rationalities, allowing contradictory evidence to be reframed as incomplete implementations or hybrid forms, without predefined hypotheses testable via controlled comparisons or rejection. Andrew Kipnis, in a 2008 analysis of audit cultures, critiques Rose's emphasis on ideational "" for sidelining the actual organizational operations and local social relations of ruling systems, arguing that it dismisses empirical sociologies of rule in favor of detached discursive mappings insufficient for . While Rose's methods prove valuable for hypothesis generation, identifying overlooked mechanisms of power in domains like and , they are deemed weaker in rigorous causal testing. Epistemological analyses note a "latent " in such studies, where discursive rationalities overshadow material contradictions or implementation failures, limiting integration with quantitative tools like or experimental designs to verify whether posited subjectivations causally drive social behaviors rather than co-occurring with them. This gap underscores broader challenges in translating interpretive insights into verifiable propositions amenable to data-driven scrutiny.

Criticisms and Debates

Opacity and Accessibility Issues

Critics have noted that Rose's prose often employs complex terminology drawn from Foucauldian and post-structuralist frameworks, rendering it dense and jargon-heavy, which can obscure meaning for readers outside specialized academic circles. For instance, assessments of his work highlight the use of "complex and sometimes opaque language" that challenges accessibility, particularly for those unfamiliar with critical theory, thereby restricting comprehension to initiated scholars. This stylistic approach has drawn feedback from reviewers pointing to difficulties in parsing arguments without prior immersion in similar discourses, as seen in evaluations of texts like The Politics of Life Itself, where expansions from prior "dense" articles still demand high interpretive effort. Such opacity has tangible impacts on reception, confining Rose's ideas predominantly to elite academic networks and limiting dissemination to policymakers, practitioners, or the general public who might benefit from his analyses of and subjectivity. Reader responses in academic commentary underscore how this favors insular scholarly debate over broader interdisciplinary or societal engagement, potentially hindering the practical application of his concepts beyond and related fields. Defenders of Rose's style argue that the intricacy is essential for capturing the subtleties of power relations and historical contingencies, where simplification risks diluting causal mechanisms at play in liberal and biopolitical regimes. This precision, they contend, avoids reductive narratives that could misrepresent the non-totalizing, dispersed nature of contemporary , as evidenced in appreciative reviews that value the depth despite initial hurdles.

Ideological Biases in Constructivism

Critics contend that constructivist frameworks, including those advanced by Nikolas Rose in analyzing subjectivity through psychological discourses, exhibit an ideological preference for social and interpretive explanations that marginalize . Rose's genealogical approach, influenced by Foucault, posits that categories of the self and mental life emerge from historical assemblages of knowledge and power rather than innate essences, as detailed in works like Inventing Our Selves (), where is depicted as fabricated via expertise and practices. However, this emphasis on has been accused of underemphasizing genetic and evolutionary constraints, aligning with a broader academic tendency to favor malleable social constructions over fixed . Empirical challenges from behavioral genetics underscore this purported bias, with twin and adoption studies consistently estimating heritability at 40-60% for core personality traits such as the Big Five dimensions, indicating substantial genetic influence independent of socialization. Evolutionary psychologists like and argue that the ""—a constructivist paradigm treating the mind as culturally inscribed without evolved modules—lacks evidential support and ignores adaptations shaped by over millennia. extends this to ideological grounds, asserting that constructivism's rejection of innate differences serves progressive agendas by evading politically inconvenient realities, such as heritable variations in or that could imply limits to environmental interventions alone. These critiques highlight how constructivist prioritizations may reflect systemic biases in left-leaning academic institutions, where faculty self-identify as liberal or far-left at ratios exceeding 10:1 in social sciences, fostering environments skeptical of biological realism. In political reception, progressives often valorize constructivism's for enabling critiques of entrenched power structures and norms, viewing it as a tool for unbound by presumed biological inevitabilities. Conservatives, conversely, decry it as fostering ethical and policy naivety, insisting on causal realism grounded in evolutionary to inform realistic governance and individual responsibility. This divide manifests in debates over traits like or , where constructivist dismissals of data—despite meta-analyses confirming genetic components—have been linked to ideological resistance rather than empirical refutation. While Rose's later engagements with , as in Neuro (2013), attempt by acknowledging brain plasticity within social contexts, detractors maintain that such integrations still subordinate biological priors to discursive contingencies, perpetuating the bias.

Challenges from Biological Realism

Critics from biological realism contend that Rose's emphasis on the social and historical contingencies shaping understandings of the self and undervalues the direct causal influence of genetic and neurobiological factors, as evidenced by robust empirical data from behavioral genetics. Twin studies, for instance, have estimated at approximately 80% for and 70-90% for , indicating substantial genetic contributions to these conditions that persist across diverse environments and challenge interpretations prioritizing cultural construction over innate predispositions. Similarly, traits exhibit moderate to high (around 40-50%), with meta-analyses of twin and data supporting stable genetic influences on behavioral tendencies that Rose's self framework—focused on pharmaceutical modulation and interpretive practices—appears to sideline in favor of malleable, socially enacted identities. These findings align with causal realist arguments that hardwired traits, rather than being artifacts of biomedical discourse, exert deterministic effects on behavior and , contrasting Rose's portrayal of as primarily enabling new forms of through and contingency. Behavioral geneticists argue that such constructivist approaches risk conflating the social interpretation of biological knowledge with the underlying mechanisms, thereby obscuring evidence of gene-environment interactions where often predominate. For example, studies of emotional problems in youth report estimates of 20-50%, with genetic factors explaining variance in stability over time, which complicates narratives of the as predominantly reshaped by therapeutic or diagnostic regimes. Recent genomic advancements intensify these tensions, as large-scale genome-wide association studies (GWAS) from 2023 onward have identified thousands of genetic variants contributing to psychiatric traits, enabling polygenic risk scores that predict outcomes like depression and with effect sizes rivaling traditional environmental predictors. These data prioritize biological realism by demonstrating polygenic architectures that underpin complex behaviors, urging a reevaluation of constructivist hesitance toward genetic explanations amid historical fears of —fears that empirical precision now mitigates through quantified, replicable insights rather than ideological caution. Such developments, drawn from peer-reviewed consortia, highlight how reframes psychiatric toward causal biological substrates, posing methodological challenges to Rose's interpretive by furnishing verifiable, heritable pathways independent of social embedding.

Later Work and Legacy

Post-Retirement Research

Following his retirement from King's College London in April 2021, Nikolas Rose joined the Australian National University (ANU) as Distinguished Honorary Professor in the Research School of Social Sciences, where he has continued investigations into the intersections of neurosciences, social theory, and human identity. His work emphasizes empirical analyses of how neuroscientific advancements reshape conceptions of personhood and mental processes, drawing on case studies from urban environments and psychiatric practices. In 2022, Rose co-authored The Urban Brain: Mental Health in the Vital City with Des Fitzgerald, which examines how neuroscience informs urban mental health interventions through data on city dwellers' affective responses to built environments, critiquing overly reductionist biological models in favor of situated empirical observations. Rose's post-retirement outputs have increasingly engaged with evolving psychiatric paradigms, incorporating from clinical and social data to challenge traditional diagnostics. In November 2023, he delivered a at London's Division of , advocating an expanded biopsychosocial framework for , supported by longitudinal studies on social determinants and neurobiological markers. This aligns with his 2023 paper "5E Mental Health? Notes on an Emerging Style of Thought," which analyzes empirical shifts toward embodied, embedded, enacted, extended, and enactive models in research, drawing on neuroimaging and ethnographic data to argue for integrated assessments over isolated brain-centric explanations; the piece was presented at workshops on new perspectives and published in 2025. In January 2024, Rose published "Against : Notes towards an Ethopolitics of " in Theory, Culture & Society, using empirical examples from and to defend humanistic notions of agency against transhumanist dilutions, grounded in analyses of brain imaging technologies' social uptake. These contributions reflect ongoing ANU-based efforts to bridge life sciences with sociological inquiry, prioritizing verifiable data from interdisciplinary studies over speculative theory.

Ongoing Debates in Mental Health and Neuroscience

Rose's recent formulations, such as the "5E " paradigm—encompassing embodied, extended, enactive, embedded, and experiential aspects of distress—have informed debates on shifting from brain-centric biomedical models to views emphasizing organism-environment interactions, particularly in response to crises like elevated post- burdens from social disruptions. This approach critiques psychiatry's promotion of self-management via psychopharmaceuticals and diagnostic expansion, arguing that such practices often exacerbate over-medicalization by framing everyday adversities as treatable pathologies rather than contextually embedded experiences. Empirical data supports aspects of this caution, with meta-analyses showing antidepressants yield only modest gains over (standardized mean difference of 0.30 for response rates in ), especially in milder cases where effects dominate.32802-7/fulltext) Yet, unresolved tensions persist between these socially attuned frameworks and accumulating genetic evidence, which underscores biological realism in psychiatric causation. Twin and genome-wide studies estimate at 70-80% for and , and 40-50% for , revealing polygenic risk scores that predict disorder liability independent of social constructs. Such findings challenge Rose-inspired emphases on and cultural shaping by highlighting causal pathways—e.g., gene-environment interactions amplifying —that necessitate targeted biological interventions, rather than solely reframing distress as socially produced. Proponents credit Rose's perspectives with demystifying hype, such as stalled progress in brain imaging for reliable diagnostics despite decades of , thereby advocating for ecologically grounded strategies amid stagnant therapeutic outcomes. Critics, however, contend that prioritizing societal over individual agency ignores personal responsibility and the proven utility of in severe, heritable conditions, where remission rates exceed 50% with combined biological and psychological approaches but falter without addressing underlying genetic factors. These debates underscore 's dual role: enabling empowered self-regulation while risking pathologization, with empirical adjudication favoring integrated models that neither dismiss biological substrates nor social contexts.

References

  1. https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/educational-magazines/rose-nikolas-s-1947-nikolas-rose
  2. https://nikolasrose.com/about/
  3. https://nikolasrose.com/books/
  4. https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/fellows/profiles/nikolas-rose-fba/
  5. https://www.madinamerica.com/2020/08/psychiatry-selves-might-become-interview-sociologist-nikolas-rose/
  6. https://read.dukeupress.edu/public-culture/article/25/3%2520%2871%29/435/119930/Nikolas-Rose
  7. https://www.scielo.br/j/icse/a/bs7sSbbsDnrJNCwrdv7CpZt/?lang=en
  8. https://nikolasrose.com/networks/
  9. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/institute-of-advanced-studies/people/professor-nikolas-rose
  10. https://www.wonderbk.com/shop/collectors-corner/book/8772113
  11. https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/622/1/NikRose_I_C_5.pdf
  12. https://www.jmu.edu/news/cohencenter/2016/4-1-rose.shtml
  13. https://www.zimbardo.com/life-and-legacy-of-psychologist-nikolas-rose/
  14. https://nikolasrose.com/projects/bios-centre/
  15. https://www.kcl.ac.uk/ghsm-at-10
  16. https://researchportalplus.anu.edu.au/en/persons/nikolas-rose
  17. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/brain-sciences/events/2023/nov/dop-seminar-professor-nikolas-rose
  18. https://nikolasrose.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Rose-2023-5-E-Mental-Health-November-2023.pdf
  19. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328725001120
  20. https://nikolasrose.com/lectures/
  21. https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.2.081805.105900
  22. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1474131
  23. https://www.some.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Rose_Miller_1992.pdf
  24. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03085149300000019
  25. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43152844
  26. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/02/06/five-minutes-with-nikolas-rose/
  27. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/02632760122052020
  28. https://lchc.ucsd.edu/cogn_150/Readings/rose/biological_citizens/rose_biological_citizens.pdf
  29. https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691121918/the-politics-of-life-itself
  30. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/30528475_The_neurochemical_self_and_its_anomalies
  31. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781351323048-5/becoming-neurochemical-selves-nikolas-rose
  32. https://www.antoniocasella.eu/dnlaw/Rose_2014.pdf
  33. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0952695109352415
  34. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3835147/
  35. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/676807
  36. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10109345/1/Review_Psychiatric_Future.pdf
  37. https://nikolasrose.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Rose-1985-The-Psychological-Complex.pdf
  38. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-for-the-history-of-science/article/nikolas-rose-the-psychological-complex-psychology-politics-and-society-in-england-18691939-london-routledge-and-kegan-paul-1985-pp-viii-293-isbn-0710098091-995-paperback/44B04B06ACF0D3EEBF391FBF01F36CB7
  39. https://archive.org/details/psychologicalcom0000rose
  40. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/095269518800100202
  41. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231804533_Nikolas_Rose_The_Psychological_Complex_Psychology_Politics_and_Society_in_England_1869-1939_London_Routledge_and_Kegan_Paul_1985_Pp_viii_293_ISBN_0-7100-9809-1_995_paperback
  42. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/sub.2008.8
  43. https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/the-psychological-complex-psychology-politics-and-society-in-engl
  44. https://assets.cambridge.org/97805216/50755/sample/9780521650755wsc00.pdf
  45. https://philpapers.org/rec/ROSPOF
  46. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03085149600000018
  47. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/095269519600900201
  48. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23638480
  49. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247948450_The_Politics_of_Life_Itself
  50. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/abstract/document/obo-9780199766567/obo-9780199766567-0275.xml?rskey=n1e3FX&result=185&print
  51. https://profmex.org/mexicoandtheworld/volume19/5winter2014/Artikkel_rose.pdf
  52. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286312736_The_Politics_of_Life_Itself_Biomedicine_Power_and_Subjectivity_in_the_Twenty-First_Century
  53. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/597744
  54. https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/governing-the-soul-the-shaping-of-the-private-self
  55. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/inventing-our-selves/028EC27860F1D8027D36A5FFA25F7218
  56. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/powers-of-freedom/EFC621C8C4162825145A582072B635C8
  57. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20518155/
  58. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228159866_Governmentality
  59. https://www.elgaronline.com/edcollchap/book/9781839108662/book-part-9781839108662-14.xml
  60. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/abs/is-another-psychiatry-possible/CC69F60B8754218155F168E16FD4A04E
  61. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13634615251327862
  62. https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=S8KKJMMAAAAJ&hl=en
  63. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230358898_5
  64. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:615362/FULLTEXT03.pdf
  65. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41292-025-00359-0
  66. https://rsss.cass.anu.edu.au/news/professor-diana-rose-professor-nikolas-rose-join-anu-school-sociology
  67. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nikolas-Rose
  68. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953616300223
  69. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13218719809524933
  70. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254191618_In_search_of_Certainty_Risk_Management_in_a_Biological_Age
  71. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7411522/
  72. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1467-9566.13024
  73. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1153166/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  74. https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1548-1425.2008.00034.x
  75. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-39817-9_6
  76. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5068715/
  77. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7012279/
  78. https://www.independent.org/tir/2022-23-winter/the-hyperpoliticization-of-higher-ed/
  79. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4228480/
  80. https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691149615/neuro
  81. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/13264956_Heritability_Estimates_for_Psychotic_Disorders_The_Maudsley_Twin_Psychosis_Series
  82. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2593100/
  83. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6193004/
  84. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12079447/
  85. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0070-0
  86. https://nikolasrose.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/5E-Mental-Health.pdf
  87. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pcn5.6
  88. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6421104/
  89. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280695493_Neuroscience_and_the_future_for_mental_health
  90. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1415905/full
  91. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8211773/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.