disease came to own me. I reacted in seeking to know everything about it and to understand its nature and char- acter. I read extensively through the relevant and not so relevant available information via the Internet and univer- sity journal resources, communicated with fellow victims and most importantly talked extensively with the urolo- gists. It was an endeavour to take control away from the disease and to ‘own’ it and this activity invaded my every thought and action. There were many unanswered ques- tions and even more concerns. Among other factors, including family and friends, my relationship with the various GPs and specialist urologists was central to the understanding and handling of the disease. Following a number of discussions with the urologists, the considered best course of action was a radical prostatectomy subse- quently undertaken in January of 2005. My mind particu- larly from the time that I was ﬁrst informed of the real possibility of having prostate cancer to the time that it was conﬁrmed and then the time up to, involving and surrounding the radical prostatectomy was fully devoted to dealing with the cancer and its associated physical and psychological effects. Fortunately, a pathology test of the prostate gland following the radical prostatectomy indi- cated that the cancer was conﬁned to the prostate. I was relieved although subsequent PSA tests monitoring my progress over the next 12 months and the associated test result was met with trepidation. Nonetheless, this was a journey of discovery. In particular, there was the epiph- anic moment of diagnosis as a signiﬁcant life event that led down the path of determining psychological owner- ship as an important part of recovery and identity recon- struction. The journey also involved an assessment and interpretation of the important characteristics and nature of the reality of the patient–practitioner relationship. Psychological ownership has not been studied exten- sively in contemporary health and cultural psychology. Instead it has been investigated mainly in relation to con- sumerism and principally in reference to ownership of possessions (Pierce et al. 2003). However, the notions of ownership are relevant to the extent that disease state or chronic illness may also be considered a reference ‘target’ (Pierce et al. 2003). For example, Pierce et al. (2003) argued ownership manifests itself in the emotion and meaning frequently associated with ‘my’ or ‘mine’ and further sug- gested that ownership is a reﬂection of the relationship between the individual and the target object. This is a complex state comprising self-awareness, thoughts and beliefs. Pierce et al. (2003) maintained that individuals are motivated to deﬁne and express their self-identity. Self- identity is also the boundary between the individual and © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Identity and ownership society as the individual develops a sense of self-identity through viewing themselves through the eyes of society (Clarke & James 2003; Pierce et al. 2003). Therefore, own- ership becomes a symbol of the self as it satisﬁes the basic needs of self-identity (Pierce et al. 2003). The idea of own- ership as a symbol of the self is a fundamental sociological concept (Clarke & James 2003). It is a dynamic and ﬂuid process of identiﬁcation and its meaning is grounded in an individual’s self-identity. Within this framework, identi- ﬁcation with a chronic illness or disease state is dynamic and emergent. It changes as the individual reﬂexively interprets the identiﬁcation that ‘self’ and others bestow upon him or her (Clarke & James 2003). The experience of identifying with and owning an illness or disease is ﬁxed in the idea of control. Ownership therefore considers the fusing of the target with the self (Pierce et al. 2003). The greater the level of control, the more likely control is experienced psychologically as part of self. Along with control, responsibility is also grounded in identiﬁcation and ownership. Improving, maintaining or protecting one’s identity may result in an enhanced sense of responsibility (Pierce et al. 2003) towards the illness or disease state. While Pierce et al. (2003) argued for two schools of thought in relation to the origin of the experience of own- ership including the biological perspective and a social constructionist perspective, psychological ownership in this instance is considered a social construct. The social constructionist perspective of ownership focuses on the inﬂuences of cultural practices and symbols enacted within social interactions and in social settings. Included within this construction is the reality constructed through the relationships between the practitioner and the person with the disease state. The approach contends that social interactions within a social setting form cul- tural systems (Bock 1988). It is psychosocial-cultural as culture is central to not only the experience of ownership but also in that lived cultural reality within the practitioner–client interaction. The term psychosocial recognises that there is always a close and ongoing inter- action between an individual’s psychological state and his or her social environment (Shaw 1999). M E T H O D Psychological ownership and identity was investigated through autoethnography. Autoethnography is a form of narrative and research connecting the personal to the cul- tural and places the self within a social context (Reed- Danahay 1997). It is a method not limited to a subjective account of experience but also portrays multiple aspects of 277