“This Is Not Your Practice Life”: lululemon and the Neoliberal Governance of Self
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article s'intéresse à l’énorme réussite de lululemon athletica, et en particulier à la façon dont ses stratégies de marque s'approprient la pratique du yoga pour les intégrer à un modèle consumériste de discipline et de soin de soi. On arguera que la stratégie de marque de lululemon est liée à l'hyperindividualisme néolibéral ainsi qu'aux discours plus généraux de développement personnel qui définissent le bien‐être comme un accomplissement personnel et moral. Nous approfondissons la façon dont la stratégie de marque lululemon se reporte constamment à des concepts vagues, homogénéisateurs et extrême‐orientaux des spiritualités du Levant, qui instrumentalisent les pratiques yogiques et renforcent les idéologies occidentales en matière de santéisme , parallèlement à la performance personnelle, corporelle et commerciale. Nous arguons que lululemon intègre au consumérisme des discours de prise de pouvoir, illustrant la façon dont les discours de choix et de soin de soi renforcent le soi responsabilisé qui est au cœur même des sociétés néolibérales contemporaines. This paper examines the enormous success of lululemon athletica and specifically how its branding practices appropriate yogic practice into a consumerist model of discipline and self‐care. lululemon branding is linked with neoliberal hyperindividualism and broader self‐help discourses that define health and wellness as a personal and moral achievement. We explore how lululemon branding consistently refers to vague, homogenizing, and orientalist concepts of Eastern spiritualities that instrumentalize yogic practices, and reinforce Western ideologies of healthism along with personal, bodily, and market performance. We argue that lululemon folds empowerment into consumerism: discourses of choice and self‐care reinforce the responsibilized self that is the core of contemporary neoliberal societies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".