THE WELL-TEMPERED SELF (The Johns Hopkins UP, 1993)

D. A. Morris, Review. Choice 31, no. 10 (1994) refers to the book as 'a timely addition to democratic theory' with 'a wealth of original data on the deep schism between selfless citizen and self-serving consumer. ... These imaginative discussions denaturalize such classic concepts as national identity, state sovereignty, individual autonomy, self-discovery, and civic virtue ... [a] contribution to studies in the production of civil subjects undertaken by Foucault, William Connolly, Iris Marion Young, and others.'

Peter Craven, "Writers Lose in Cultural Sweepstakes." The Australian 26 October 1994 describes it as 'cogently theorised.' He commends it to the Australian Prime Minister and his advisors on questions of cultural policy.

Albert Paolini, Review. Australian Journal of Political Science 29, no. 3 (1994): 629-31 refers to the book's 'veritable kaleidoscope of perspectives ... there is much to commend in Miller/Foucault and to the list of the clinic, the prison, madness and sexuality we can now add citizenship as a further instance of discursive power and normalisation.'

Adrian Mellor, Review. Media, Culture & Society 17, no. 2 (1995): 333-35 states that 'w]hat Miller is addressing in this work is clearly of the first importance.' He describes the 'scene-setting theoretical chapters' as covering 'a vast range of issues, some of which— a Foucauldian rereading of Althusser, for instance—ought to be of intense interest to anyone working in the humanities or the social sciences.' The 'concrete case-studies' are termed 'original' and 'stimulating,' with one chapter referred to as 'an engaging account' and another as 'a clever study ... cautiously circumscribed ethnography ... illuminated by tight textual and discursive analysis ... particularly compelling.... These three chapters will certainly be the most accessible to undergraduate readers, offering both the clearest application of Miller's method, as well as his best jokes.'

Elizabeth Jacka, Review. Media Information Australia 76 (1995): 102-04 describes it as a 'vigorous and provocative application of the Foucauldian framework to the field of cultural policy,' referring to the early chapters as 'two long and dense essays which exhibit a quite dazzling erudition and which set up the terms of debate for the rest of the book.' The first of these she calls 'nothing less than a comprehensive survey of liberal political thought,' the second 'a sustained critique of most traditions of textual analysis from new criticism to 'screen theory' for being part of an unrecognised liberal-humanist project.' The review states that 'Miller goes further than other well-known Foucauldians ... in taking on ... familiar criticisms of Foucault and dealing with them.' Jacka continues: 'this is a very important book and needs to be read and discussed. ... Its achievement is to demonstrate again the great insight that what appears to be completely outside of administration (literary criticism, national theatre) is instead intricately caught up in and indeed the product of a certain mode of governmentality.' The review concludes that the book 'deserves to become the standard text for courses in the burgeoning field of 'cultural policy studies'. But more broadly, it makes a serious contribution to current debates about citizenship and thus about what constitutes politics and political action in these post-marxist, post-modernist days.'

Lee Quinby, Review. Modern Fiction Studies 40, no. 4 (1994): 928-29 calls the volume 'a dazzling analysis of how citizenship is produced through the diverse cultural relations of the modern capitalist state.' She regards the 'particular strength of the book' as 'chapters in which Miller documents how civility serves technologies of public and private commerce and governance,' describing the last section as 'exciting and innovative.' The review argues that the 'work will be of great interest to students of cultural studies and philosophy. It also has implications for literary theory, and draws deftly from it.' She concludes that the book makes a 'well-written and important contribution to cultural theory.'

Ian Burkitt, Review. British Journal of Sociology 46, no. 3 (1995): 551-52 terms it 'an interesting book with something new to add to debates in cultural studies about identity and political action ... Miller is showing how there are possibilities within systems of government and cultural policies for agents to construct alternative identities and engage in politics of resistance and change.'

Thomas Docherty, Review. Textual Practice 9, no. 3 (1995): 503-09 says 'Miller's study ... offers, in its opening pages, a concise survey of about eight hundred years of civic subject formation' (503). 'For Miller, there is a kind of intermediary between the de Manic 'linguistic realm' and history, a 'pineal gland' of cultural policy which mediates between theory and practice or between philosophy and the historical realization of the civil (or occasionally incivil) subject. While arguments rage about the meaning of 'citizenship', Miller wants to see how 'elements of the state work to make it a cohesive technology, one that binds its subjects in fealty, and how it may be problematized by other groups.' ... This he does admirably, in a heavily Foucauldian fashion, armed with an extraordinary range of information about the history of cultural policy in Britain, Australia and the United States. The diversity of materials here is well handled, giving a book which is positively bristling with ideas and suggestive thinking. The real strength of the book lies in the fact that it extends what has become the too-often weak work of semiotic analysis into arguments of real power and conviction. ... It is good to see that it is still possible to be an incivil subject, that there is still some power in the drive to épater les bourgeois. ... Miller is good in showing the different stakes involved at different 'levels' of citizenship, and at different occasions, even from one medieval moment' (507).

Afterimage 24, no. 4 (1997) says that the book's 'deft cultural analysis connects cultural theory with political practice in an accessible and useful manner' (23).

Nick Ellison, "Civic-Subjects or Civic-Agents? The Structure-Agency Debate in Late Modern Perspective." Theory, Culture & Society 17, no. 2 (2000): 148-56 describes it as 'stimulating' at pp. 149 and 154 and displaying 'internal coherence' and 'sophistication' at p. 152.

James Castonguay, Review. Hitchcock Annual 2000-01: 174-82 says 'Miller ...is one of the most exciting scholars working in media studies today' (p. 180).
John Hartley, "Speaking to Each Other at Last? The Ghost of TV Past, Present and to Come..." Flow: A Critical Forum on Television and Media Culture 3, no. 9 (2006) says 'the [Tony] Bennett & Miller gang, the tough guys of Cultural Policy Studies, rode into town, shot the place up with their Foucault 45s and declared the unattached universal intellectual dead.'