A B S T R A C T"The self" has seen a surprising resurgence in recent anthropological theorizing, revitalizing interest in whether and how it can be studied ethnographically. These issues are brought to the fore by a newly popular psychotherapy technique, Internal Family Systems therapy (IFS), as practiced in a US eating-disorders clinic. There, clinicians and clients negotiate tensions between this model's understanding of a multiple, refracted self and managed-care companies' insistence on personal responsibility. In considering the moral and pragmatic work of IFS in the clinic, a new critical anthropology of selfhood illuminates the vectors through which economic and political commitments become imbricated in the self. They do so in ways that resist both psychologism and subjectivism while holding them in productive-albeit sometimes troubling-tension. [eating disorders, managed care, anorexia, self, neoliberalism, psychotherapy, United States] I nternal Family Systems therapy (IFS), a psychotherapy technique developed in the 1980s by psychologist Richard Schwartz, is increasingly popular in the United States for treating personality disorders, mood disorders, and eating disorders. The theory behind IFS is unusual among US therapies in that it envisions "the self" as a dynamic, evolving, adapting, and open system of subpersonalities or "parts" that operate in ever-changing relationships with one another and the outside world. The self in IFS is not a singular or bounded thing but, rather, a process that emerges from a complex of internal relationships among constantly changing "parts." Agency, accordingly, is not localized within a fixed, singular core but is distributed and mutable, shifting among different subpersonalities depending on the setting, circumstances, and interactions at hand. This figuring of the self and agency has profound implications for how IFS practitioners understand and treat psychopathology.Three aspects of IFS merit anthropological attention. First, the model's recent surge in popularity in the United States might tell us something about the clinicians and clients to whom it appeals, especially in the context of health-care policy reform. Second, the process of becoming an IFS therapist (which is both lengthy and expensive) speaks to the convergence of structures of care and structures of finance, as therapists are obliged to become "therapreneurs"-continually pursuing additional trainings, new certifications, and new specializations so that they can offer more marketable niche treatments. Third, the everyday practice of IFS foregrounds questions about how selves are locally enacted and understood within competing models of moral responsibility.Engaging with IFS, I ask two sets of questions: ethnographic and theoretical. The ethnographic questions are, how do tensions between the IFS model of distributed agency and the managed-care emphasis on personal responsibility unfurl in everyday practice? What might these tensions tell us about how economic processes shape understandings of p...