This project analyzes contemporary U.S. mental health discourse as an assemblage that constantly renegotiates the normative subject through the production and regulation of intersectional mentally ill subjects. It uses feminist disability and biopolitical theoretical frameworks to explore how media discourses of mental illness reveal the regulation of mentally ill subjects in relationship to intersections of gender, sexuality, and race. These discourses constitute a biopolitical technology that genders, racializes, and regulates mental illness. This regulation not only reveals the cultural boundaries around who is designated as “mentally ill” (and how they are designated as such), but it also demonstrates how mental illness is normalized when attached to certain bodies in specific contexts, yet perceived as a threat to the social body when attached to other bodies in other contexts.

In order to explore this assemblage, this project is organized around four foundational questions: How is mental illness produced, surveilled, and differentially regulated as a social formation within medicine and policy? How does media reproduce and renegotiate these medical and political mental health discourses? How do these mental health discourses intersect with gender, race, and sexuality? How does our assemblage of cultural, medical, and political discourse produce, observe, and regulate intersectional mentally ill subjects in relationship to shifting ideals of normative subjecthood?

This project answers these questions over the course of several case studies, each of which explores a set of thematically linked texts as a window into understanding how mental illness operates intersectionally and biopolitically in cultural discourses and social institutions. The first section establishes a broad theoretical framework for articulating how discourses of gender and sexuality are central to the production of mental illness in the United States today. The second section explores how this intersection of gender, sexuality, and mental illness is observed and regulated through social institutions like the workplace, the nation-state, and the carceral system. The final section explores emergent discourses of mental illness that move us away from centering individual mentally healthy subjects as idealized entities and toward understanding mental and emotional well-being as a collective social enterprise.

This dissertation considers the potential of desire to protect humans, animals, and the environment in the biopolitical times of late capitalism. Through readings of recent South African Literature in English from a postcolonial ecocritical perspective, this project theorizes desire as a mode of resistance to the neocolonial and capitalist instrumentalization of communities of humans and nonhumans, where they are often seen as mere "resources" awaiting consumption and transformation into profit. Deleuze and Guattari posit this overconsumption as stemming in part from capitalism's deployment of the psychoanalytic definition of desire as lack, where all desires are defined according to the same tragedy and brought into a money economy. By defining desire, capitalism seeks to limit the productive unconscious and attempts to create manageable subjects who perform the work of the capitalist machine--subjects that facilitate the extraction of surplus value and pleasure for themselves and the dominant classes. Thinking desire differently as positive and as potentially revolutionary, after Deleuze and Guattari, offers possible resistances to this biopolitical management. This different, positive desire can also change views of others and the world as existing solely for human consumption: views which so often risk bodies towards death and render communities unsustainable. The representations of human and animal desires (and often their cross-species desires) in this literature imagine relationships to the world otherwise, outside of a colonial legacy, where ethical response obtains instead of the consumption of others and the environment by the dominant subjects of capitalism. This project also considers other attempts to protect communities such as animal rights, arguing that rethinking desire is a necessary corollary in the effort to protect communities and lives that are made available for a "non-criminal putting to death" since positive desire precedes the passing of any such laws and must exist for their proper administration. These texts often demonstrate the law's failures to protect communities through portraying corrupt officials who risk the communities they are charged with protecting when their protection competes with government officials' personal capitalist ambitions. Desire offers opportunities for imagining other creative options towards protecting communities, outside of legal discourse.

Kiran Nagarkar, who won the Sahitya Akedemi Award in India for his English language writing, is a man who attracts controversy. Despite the consistent strength of his literary works, his English novels have become a lightning rod - not because they are written in English, but because Nagarkar was a well-respected Marathi writer before he began writing in English. Although there are other writers who have become embroiled in the debate over the politics of discourse, the response to Nagarkar's move from Marathi and his subsequent reactions perfectly illustrate the repercussions that accompany such dialectical decisions. Nagarkar has been accused of myriad crimes against his heritage, from abandoning a dedicated readership to targeting more profitable Western markets. Careful analysis of his writing, however, reveals that his novels are clearly written for a diverse Indian audience and offer few points of accessibility for Western readers. Beyond his English language usage, which is actually intended to provide readability to the most possible Indian nationals, Nagarkar also courts a variegated Indian audience by developing upon traditional Indian literary conceits and allusions. By composing works for a broad Indian audience, which reference cultural elements from an array of Indian ethnic groups, Nagarkar's writing seems to push toward the development of the seemingly impossible: a novel that might unify India, and present such a cohesive cultural face to the world at large.