The official discourse on cervical screening, disseminated to women through the information material they receive when called to attend, is important for the ways in which it presents screening to women and encourages them to think about it. However, because this material is nationally produced it is designed to address a large number of women and, as a result, is necessarily general and uniform in nature. This article uses qualitative interview data to explore how individual women interpret, negotiate and make sense of this discourse in the context of their personal circumstances, experiences and characteristics; therefore producing alternative conceptualizations of, and discourses upon, cervical screening. Foucault's work on ‘technologies of the self’ is employed in order to suggest that these practices of individualization can be seen as the means through which a space is opened up between discourse and the individual. Within such a space the working out of individual subject positions is possible.
Abel, E.K. and Browner, C.H. (1998). Selective compliance with biomedical authority and the uses of experiential knowledge. In M. Lock and P.A. Kaufert (Eds.), Pragmatic women and body politics, pp.310–326. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
2.
Bentham, G. , Hinton, J. , Haynes, R. , Lovett, A. , and Bestwick, C. (1995). Factors affecting non-response to cervical cytology screening in Norfolk, England . Social Science and Medicine, 40(1), 131–135 .
3.
Burchell, G. (1996). Liberal government and techniques of the self. In A. Barry , T. Osborne , and N. Rose (Eds.), Foucault and political reason, pp.19–36. London: UCL Press .
4.
Bush, J. (2000). ‘It's just part of being a woman’: Cervical screening, the body and femininity . Social Science & Medicine, 50(3), 429–444 .
5.
Curtis, S. and Lawson, K. (2000). Gender, ethnicity and self-reported health: The case of African-Caribbean populations in London . Social Science and Medicine, 50(3), 365–385 .
6.
Davis, K. and Fisher, S. (1993). Power and the female subject. In S. Fisher and K. Davis (Eds.), Negotiating at the margins, pp.3–20. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press .
7.
Davison, C. , Davey Smith, G. , and Frankel, S. (1991). Lay epidemiology and the prevention paradox: The implications of coronary candidacy for health education . Sociology of Health and Illness, 13(1), 1–19 .
8.
Dean, M. (1990). Governmentality. London: Sage .
9.
Dean, M. (1996). Foucault, government and the enfolding of authority. In A. Barry , T. Osborne , and N. Rose (Eds.), Foucault and political reason, pp.209–229. London: UCL Press .
10.
Department of Health (2000). The NHS cancer plan. London: Department of Health .
11.
Department of Health (in association with NHS Cancer Screening Programmes with advice and support from the Cancer Research UK Primary Research Education Group) (2002). Cervical screening: THE FACTS. London: Department of Health .
12.
Dews, P. (1989). The return of the subject in late Foucault . Radical Philosopy, 51(1), 37–41 .
13.
Eaker, S. , Adami, H. , and Sparen, P. (2001). Reasons women do not attend screening for cervical cancer: A population-based study in Sweden . Preventive Medicine, 32(6), 482–491 .
14.
Eardley, A. , Elkind, A.K. , Spencer, B. , Hobbs, P. , Pendleton, L.L. , and Haran, D. (1985). Attendance for cervical screening – whose problem?Social Science and Medicine, 20(9), 955–962 .
15.
Elkind, A.K. , Haran, D. , Eardley, A. , and Spencer, B. (1988). Reasons for non-attendance for computer-managed cervical screening: Pilot interviews . Social Science and Medicine, 27(6), 651–660 .
16.
Forss, A. , Tishelman, C. , Widmark, C. , Lundgren, E. , Sachs, L. , and Tornberg, S. (2001). ‘I got a letter...’ A qualitative study of women's reasoning about attendance in a cervical cancer screening programme in urban Sweden . Psycho-Oncology, 10(1), 76–87 .
17.
Foucault, M. (1981). The history of sexuality volume 1: An introduction. Harmondsworth: Penguin .
18.
Foucault, M. (1984a). The history of sexuality volume 3: The care of the self. Harmondsworth: Penguin .
19.
Foucault, M. (1984b). The ethics of the concern for self as a practice of freedom. In S. Lotringer (Ed.), Foucault live: Collected interviews 1961–1984, pp. 432–449. New York: Semiotext(e) .
20.
Foucault, M. (1988). Technologies of the self. In L.H. Martin , H. Gutman , and P.H. Hutton (Eds.), Technologies of the self: A seminar with Michel Foucault, pp.16–49. London: Tavistock .
21.
Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell , C. Gordon , and P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect, pp.87–104. London: Harvester .
22.
Grimshaw, J. (1993). Practices of freedom. In C. Ramazanoglu (Ed.), Up against Foucault, pp.51–72. London: Routledge .
23.
Higginbottom, G. (2000). Heart health-associated health beliefs and behaviours of adolescents of African and African Caribbean descent in two cities in the United Kingdom . Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(5), 1234–1242 .
24.
Howson, A. (1998a). Surveillance, knowledge and risk: The embodied experience of cervical screening . health:, 2(2), 195–215 .
25.
Howson, A. (1998b). Embodied obligation: The female body and health surveillance. In S. Nettleton and J. Watson (Eds.), The body in everyday life, pp.218–240. London: Routledge .
26.
Howson, A. (1999). Cervical screening, compliance and moral obligation . Sociology of Health and Illness, 21(4), 401–425 .
27.
Kielman, K. (1998). Barren ground: Contesting identities of infertile women in Pemba, Tanzania. In M. Lock and P.A. Kaufert (Eds.), Pragmatic women and body politics, pp.127–163. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
28.
Lupton, D. (1995). The imperative of health. London: Sage .
29.
McNay, L. (1994). Foucault: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press .
30.
Morgan, M. and Watkins, C.J. (1988). Managing hypertension: Beliefs and responses to medication among cultural groups . Sociology of Health and Illness, 10, 561–577 .
31.
Naeem, A.G. (2003). The role of culture and religion in the management of diabetes: A study of Kashmiri men in Leeds . The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health, 132(2), pp. 110–116 .
32.
Neilson, A. and Jones, R.K. (1998). Women's lay knowledge of cervical cancer/cervical screening: Accounting for non-attendance at cervical screening clinics . Journal of Advanced Nursing,28(3), 571–715 .
33.
Petersen, A. and Lupton, D. (1996). The new public health. London: Sage .
34.
Ramazanoglu, C. (1993). Introduction. In C. Ramazanoglu (Ed.), Up against Foucault, pp.1–25. London: Routledge .
35.
Ransom, J. (1993). Feminism, difference and discourse. In C. Ramazanoglu (Ed.), Up Against Foucault, pp.123–146. London: Routledge .
36.
Rose, N. (1996). Governing ‘advanced’ liberal democracies. In A. Barry , T. Osborne , and N. Rose (Eds.), Foucault and political reason, pp.37–64. London: UCL Press .
37.
Savage, S.A. and Clarke, V.A. (1998). Older women's illness representations of cancer: A qualitative study . Health Education Research, 13(4), 529–544 .
38.
Sawicki, J. (1991). Disciplining Foucault. New York: Routledge .
39.
Sutton, G.C. , Storer, A. , and Rowe, K. (2001). Cancer screening coverage of south Asian women in Wakefield . Journal of Medical Screening, 8(4), 183–186 .
40.
Underwood, S.M , Shaikha, L. , and Bakr, D. (1999). Veiled yet vulnerable: Breast cancer screening and the Muslim way of life . Cancer Practice, 7(6), 285–290 .
41.
Weedon, C. (1987). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. Oxford: Blackwell .
42.
White, G.E. (1995). Older women's attitudes to cervical screening and cervical cancer: A New Zealand experience . Journal of Advanced Nursing, 21, 659–666 .
43.
Williams, G. and Popay, J. (1994). Lay knowledge and the privilege of experience. In J. Gabe , D. Kelleher , and G. Williams (Eds.), Challenging medicine. London: Routledge .
