Schlagwort-Archiv: Kritik

Teaching alternative forms of work and organization – Audebrand/Camus/Michaux (2017): A Mosquito in the Classroom

To learn and to teach something about alternative forms of work and organization is one of the urgent tasks of critical management and organization studies. However, one of the most striking problems in teaching alternatives is the lack of imagination, that is the idea that these are real and possible alternatives. As Gibson-Graham (2006: XV) write about their own experiences: „In the face of a new discourse of the diverse economy, participants in our projects can easily recognize the activities and enterprises it names, but they cannot readily identify with the alternative subject positions it avails. Most of them get up in the morning wanting a job – and if not wanting one, feeling they need one – rather than an alternative economy”.

One idea to cope with this problem seems to reframe it or to tackle it in a roundabout way. Luc Audebrand and colleagues introduce cooperatives into the classroom via the topic and reflection of paradoxes in organizations. They argue that “despite the absence of the cooperative business model in mainstream management textbooks and curricula, this model can offer a high pedagogical value for management education in that it can foster paradoxical thinking” (Audebrand et al. 2017: 216).

Said this, we can think about several other topics which makes it possible to introduce alternatives. Just think about power, participation, democracy or sustainability and maybe then alternatives are just around the corner or at least are worth to talk about it in the classroom.


Audebrand, Luc K., Annie Camus, und Valérie Michaud. 2017. A Mosquito in the Classroom: Using the Cooperative Business Model to Foster Paradoxical Thinking in Management Education. Journal of Management Education 41 (2): 216–248. doi: 10.1177/1052562916682552. []

Gibson-Graham, J. K. 2006. The end of capitalism (as we knew it). A feminist critique of political economy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

New Publications: Rhodes/Wright/Pullen on „Impact“ and Bousalham/Vidaillet on „how competition undermines alternatives“

There are two new and interesting publications, both published in Organization, I want to inform you about:

Contradiction, circumvention and instrumentalization of noble values: How competition undermines the potential of alternatives | First Published December 3, 2017


Recent studies have shown that alternative organizations are particularly exposed to the risk of losing ‘their soul’ or their capacity to put into practice their original ends when they compete with capitalist companies. But what happens when an alternative organization competes exclusively with another alternative organization? This article addresses this question using a unique and ‘revealing’ case, in which two mutual insurance organizations compete structurally and directly with each other and propose the same products to the same target population, at the same time and same place. The case shows in concrete terms how competition can undermine the integrity of alternative organizations and expose them to a dissociation between ends and means by leading them to: (1) adopt ‘dirty’ practices that are incoherent with their founding purpose, (2) circumvent the coherent practices that have been specifically designed to reach their alternative ends, and (3) instrumentalize their alternative ends and turn them into means of coping with competition. Furthermore, the case shows how the dynamic of structural and direct competition, because of its ‘captivating’ nature, may prevent local actors from ‘denaturalizing’ or questioning these incoherent practices. This study suggests that any action aimed at promoting alternative organizations requires taking due account of the competitive environment in which local actors of alternatives are placed and which can seriously undermine their emancipatory potential.


Changing the world? The politics of activism and impact in the neoliberal university | First Published December 15, 2017


This article explores the political differences between academic activism and the recently emerged research impact agenda. While both claim that academic work can and should engage with and influence the world beyond the academic ‘ivory tower’, their political meaning and practice are radically different. Following the distinction made by Jacques Rancière, we argue that research impact performs a policing function which, despite its own rhetoric, is arranged as an attempt to ensure that academic work maintains a neoliberal status quo by actually having no real political impact. Academic activism, in contrast, serves to politicize scholarly work by democratically disrupting political consensus in the name of equality. Being an academic activist in an era of research impact rests in a twofold movement: that of both acting in the name of equality in an effort (using Marx’s terms) to ‘change the world’ and resisting and contesting an academic administration whose police actions have attempted to eliminate such forms of democratic practice from the political consensus. The argument is illustrated with examples from the Australia Research Council’s statements on research impact and the practice of climate change activism.

Imperfection, incompleteness and impermanence in organizational life – CfP for the Standing Conference on Organizational Symbolism 2018

The Standing Conference on Organizational Symbolism 2018 takes place at Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan. The theme for 2018 is Wabi-sabi (侘寂): Imperfection, incompleteness and impermanence in organizational life.

Conference Website:

Call for Abstracts for SCOS/ACSCOS Conference (Standing Conference on Organisational Symbolism (SCOS) and Australasian Caucus of Standing Conference on Organisational Symbolism (ACSCOS))

August 17-20 2018 Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan

Don’t imitate me It’s as boring As the two halves of a melon Matsuo Basho

Ring the bells that still can ring, Forget your perfect offering. There is a crack, a crack in everything, That’s how the light gets in. Leonard Cohen

Wabi-sabi is an approach to life based on accepting the transience and imperfection of the world. As a Japanese aesthetic derived from Buddhism, wabi-sabi embraces the wisdom that comes from perceiving beauty in impermanence and incompleteness. What might such advocacy of the harmony to found in the flawed, faulty, and weathered have to do with formal organisations, obsessed as they seemingly are with continually striving for perfection? The very ideal of perfection, as an antithesis of wabi-sabi, is embedded in managerial efforts as diverse as striving for continuous improvement, setting ‘stretch’ targets, managing the performance of ideal employees, promoting organizational cultures of excellence, and even the romanticized perfect bodies of employees. Is it then the case that the managerial aesthetic of organizations is the antinomy of wabi-sabi?

The idea for this conference is to explore how the wabi-sabi aesthetic can offer a counterpoint to the forms of idealization that dominate so much of managerial and organisational thinking. This is an exploration of how ideas from an ancient Eastern tradition might fruitfully be brought to bear on organisational issues, challenges and problems, especially as they are dominated by Western intellectual habits and foibles. Wabi-sabi as a theme explores the imperfect idea of a dividing crack between ‘the East’ and ‘the West’ that we hope conference participants will illuminate with the sort of effervescent creativity and fluid thinking that have characterised SCOS and ACSCOS conferences in the past.

We invite submissions that consider any of the possibilities through which principles of transience and imperfection are present in, or can be made relevant to, organisational life. Central to this is how organisations have long been exemplars of containment that wilfully defy any recognition of the importance of transience, flux, and fluidity. The edifice of knowledge and its insistence on the reduction of difference and undecideability can, however, have disastrous political and social effects. Undoing the desire of such rock solid certainty might just prove to be essential for developing ethical openness to others. Is it then possible that wabi-sabi’s emphasis on transience and imperfection offers a path appreciating ethical relations and challenging oppressive organizational regimes that violate humanity?

The 2018 SCOS/ACSCOS Conference is a joint conference. For the first time the annual SCOS conference will be combined with the ACSCOS conference which was last held in Sydney in 2015. There is also another first, that SCOS has never before been held in an Asian/Pacific country. Pursuing these new dimensions to SCOS will ensure that it is a memorable experience. As part of this the local hosts at Meiji University have arranged numerous activities that we can participate in which will help all delegates directly experience wabi-sabi during the conference.

Contributions may find inspiration from the following list of potential themes:

• The desire for perfection in organisations, careers, and lives

• Mindfulness, organising, managing, leadership, and followership

• Western philosophy’s engagement with Eastern philosophy though, for example, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Irigaray, as well as Eastern philosophy’s engagement with Western philosophy, for example Nishida, Watsuji, and Yuasa, and its implications for organisations

• The idealization of Japanese management practice in Western management theory, in for example kanban (lean just-in-time process), jidoka (stop everything!), babyoke (automated mistake proofing), poka yoke (mistake proofing)

• Imperfection as a new organizational ideal

• Undecidability and the ethics of not-knowing

• Living imperfect lives at work

• Imperfection as lack, critiques of patriarchal organisation

• Western preoccupations with completeness and totality

• An organisational aesthetics of im/perfection and transience

• Eastern and Western ideals of beauty and cultural perfection

• Symbols of imperfection, imperfect bodies, the monstrous

• The politics and ethics of failure

• Impermanence and organising

• Global transitions and transience

• Simplicity and/or quietness in organizations

• Enlightenment (satori)

• Desolation and solitude or liberation from the material world

• Inspiration for wabi-sabi expressed in the arts (music, flower arrangement, gardens, poetry, food ceremonies)


The conference is hosted by Meiji University in Tokyo, Japan. The conference organizers are Masayasu Takahashi (Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan), Masato Yotsumoto (University of Nagasaki, Sasebo, Japan), Toshio Takagi (Showa Women’s University, Tokyo, Japan), Alison Pullen (Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia), Carl Rhodes (University of Technology Sydney, Australia), and Janet Sayers (Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand).


Abstracts of no more than 500 words, in pdf format, should be submitted as e­mail attachments by February 28th 2018 to You may also direct any queries to this address. If you need a refereed conference paper in order to satisfy funding requirements for your travel please make this clear on your submission. There are a limited number of bursaries available to assist students to participate in the conference. Please indicate on your abstract proposal if you are a student and if you wish to apply for a bursary.

Open stream

SCOS/ACSCOS 2018 will also have an open stream, allowing for the presentation of general papers that do not fit this year’s conference theme but are of interest to the SCOS/ACSCOS communities. Please identify “open stream” on your abstract, as appropriate.


We also welcome proposals for longer sessions run in a workshop format. Outlines of workshops should be the same length as a paper abstract and should give an indication of the resources needed, the number of participants, the time required, the approach to be taken and the session’s objectives. Please identify “workshop” on your abstract, as appropriate.

New Book: The Spectacle 2.0 – Reading Debord in the Context of Digital Capitalism

The „Society of the Spectacle“ reloaded. Free access to the e-book:


Spectacle 2.0 recasts Debord’s theory of spectacle within the frame of 21st century digital capitalism. It offers a reassessment of Debord’s original notion of Spectacle from the late 1960s, of its posterior revisitation in the 1990s, and it presents a reinterpretation of the concept within the scenario of contemporary informational capitalism and more specifically of digital and media labour. It is argued that the Spectacle 2.0 form operates as the interactive network that links through one singular (but contradictory) language and various imaginaries, uniting diverse productive contexts such as logistics, finance, new media and urbanism. Spectacle 2.0 thus colonizes most spheres of social life by processes of commodification, exploitation and reification. Diverse contributors consider the topic within the book’s two main sections: Part I conceptualizes and historicizes the Spectacle in the context of informational capitalism; contributions in Part II offer empirical cases that historicise the Spectacle in relation to the present (and recent past) showing how a Spectacle 2.0 approach can illuminate and deconstruct specific aspects of contemporary social reality. All contributions included in this book rework the category of the Spectacle to present a stimulating compendium of theoretical critical literature in the fields of media and labour studies. In the era of the gig-economy, highly mediated content and President Trump, Debord’s concept is arguably more relevant than ever.

Tagung „Arbeit – Lebensführung – Nachhaltigkeit“, 25.01.-26.01.2018, Universität Hamburg

Hier der Hinweis auf eine interessante Tagung an der Universität Hamburg.

Aus der Ankündigung:

Die Zukunft der Arbeit muss nachhaltig sein, oder sie wird gar nicht sein!
  • Wel­che Be­griffe nach­haltiger Ar­beit gibt es?
  • Wird die so­zi­alwissenschaftliche Tren­nung von Ar­beit und Leben in einer nach­haltigen Ar­beitsgesellschaft ob­so­let?
  • Wie könn­te ihr Ver­hältnis unter der Be­rücksichtigung so­zi­al-ökologischer As­pekte neu be­stimmt wer­den?
  • Wel­che Kon­sequenzen hat eine ana­lytische Ver­bindung von Ar­beit und Le­ben(-sfüh­rung) für die For­schung?
  • An wel­che em­pi­risch fes­t­stellbaren so­zio-ökonomischen Dy­na­mi­ken ließe sich an­knüpfen?
  • Wel­che Ak­teure und Prak­tiken ­der Le­bensführung sind für die so­zi­al-ökologische Transf­ormation hin zu einer nachhaltigen Ar­beitsgesellschaft eher för­derlich oder blo­ckierend?

Vor dem Hin­ter­grund die­ser­ Fra­gen­ sol­le­n in ei­ner zweitä­gi­gen Kon­fe­renz re­levante Kon­zepte und Ana­lysen zum The­ma nachhaltige Ar­beit/sge­sellschaft vor­gestellt, dis­kutiert und mit­einander in Be­zi­ehung ge­set­zt sowie mög­li­che Ent­wick­lungs­pfa­de­ hin ­zu ­ei­ner­ so­zi­al-ökologisch nach­hal­ti­gen­Tä­tig­keits­ge­sell­schaft ­vor­ge­stell­t wer­den.

Mehr Informationen gibt es hier:

„Zehn Jahre nach der Finanzkrise – Wirtschaftswissenschaften reagieren träge“ – Beitrag im Deutschlandfunk zur „Pluralen Ökonomik“

Bereits heute lief dieser „Hintergrund“ im Deutschlandfunk. Aus der Ankündigung:

„Vor zehn Jahren hat die Finanzkrise die reale Wirtschaft erschüttert. Doch welche Spuren hat sie an den Universitäten, in der Wirtschaftswissenschaft hinterlassen? Haben sich die Inhalte für die derzeit rund 24.000 Studierenden der Volkswirtschaftslehre verändert?“

Im Beitrag des Deutschlandfunk geht es prominent um die „Plurale Ökonomik“. Insofern sind die Dinge vielleicht nicht ganz so träge, wie der Titel suggeriert. Dass die Wirtschaftswissenschaften mit der VWL ein wenig kurzgeschlossen werden, ist aus meiner Sicht nach allerdings ein Problem der ganzen Debatte. Kritische Management- oder Organisationsforschung bleiben hier außen vor (was allerdings auch an der kritischen Management- und Organisationsforschung selbst liegen mag …).

Hier der Link zum Beitrag:

Neue Veröffentlichung in Managementforschung 27(1): „Von anderen Organisationen – Ein Essay über Perspektiven kritischer Organisationsforschung“

Eine kleine Eigenwerbung: Mein Artikel „Von anderen Organisationen – Ein Essay über Perspektiven kritischer Organisationsforschung“ ist nun in der Managementforschung 27(1) erschienen.

Link zum Beitrag:

Eine Vorabversion findet sich auf Academia und Researchgate:


Der Essay geht von der Beobachtung aus, dass trotz der Allgegenwart von Kritik die kritische
Praxis sich auf einem notorisch schwankenden Grund befindet sowie angesichts propagierter
gesellschaftlicher  Alternativlosigkeiten  und  eines  herrschenden  zynischen  Bewusstseins  als
ein eher naives und trübsinniges Geschäft erscheint. Mit Blick auf die Organisationsforschung
werden deshalb mit der immanenten Kritik, der an Foucault anschließenden Genealogie sowie
der welterschließenden Kritik drei Perspektiven kritischer Organisationsforschung diskutiert,
welche der kritischen Praxis schärfere Konturen verleihen. Mit der welterschließenden Kritik,
welche sich der Sichtbarmachung von Heterotopien, von anderen und alternativen Formen des
Organisierens widmet, wird eine kritische Praxis vorgeschlagen, welche den Gegensatz von
Affirmation  und  permanenter  Kritik  unterläuft  und  so  zu  einer  Revitalisierung  von  Kritik
beitragen kann.

Critical  Management  Studies  ·  Foucault  ·  Genealogie  ·  Heterotopie  ·  Immanente  Kritik  ·
Kritische Organisationsforschung · Welterschließung


The  essay  starts  with  the  observation  that,  despite  the  omnipresence  of  criticism,  critical
practice  is  on  a  notoriously  fluctuating  ground.  Even  more  the  propagated  lack  of  social
alternatives  and  a  dominant  cynical  consciousness  turns  critique  to  a  rather  naive  and  dull business.  Regarding  organizational  research,  the  perspectives  of  immanent  criticism,
Foucault’s  genealogy,  and  critique  as  world-disclosure  are  discussed  to  give  the  critical
practice sharper outlines. With world-disclosure devoted to the visualization of heterotopies,
that is of alternative forms of organization, a critical practice is suggested which undermines
the  opposition  between  affirmation  and  permanent  criticism,  and  thus  contributes  to  a
revitalization of critique.

Critical  Management  Studies  ·  Critical  organization  studies  ·  Foucault  ·  Genealogy  ·
Heterotopia · Immanent critique · World-disclosure

Erinnerung – Anmeldung zu unserem Workshop „Ästhetik und Organisation – Inszenierung und Ästhetisierung von Organisation, Arbeit und Management“

Eine Anmeldung zum 5. Workshop des Forums „Kritische Organisationsforschung“ zum Thema „Ästhetik und Organisation – Inszenierung und Ästhetisierung von Organisation, Arbeit und Management“ ist noch bis zum 15. September möglich!

Der Workshop findet am 5.-6. Oktober 2017 an der Universität Duisburg-Essen statt.

Alle Informationen zum Workshop und zur Anmeldung finden sich hier:

Anmeldung und Programm „Ästhetik und Organisation“

Workshop: Unternehmen zwischen Zukunftsfähigkeit und Wachstumszwang – Call for Papers

Vom 17. bis 19. November 2017 findet in Hannover ein Workshop zum Thema „Unternehmen zwischen Zukunftsfähigkeit und Wachstumszwang“ statt. Beiträge können noch bis zum 30. September eingereicht werden. Aus dem Call:

„Trotz den Erfolgen der Umweltpolitik werden „planetare Grenzen“ wegen wirtschaftlicher Expansion immer weiter überschritten. Gleichzeitig werden auch die sozialen Versprechen der Wachstumspolitik zunehmend gebrochen und die Polarisierungen nehmen regional, wie sozial immer weiter zu. Sowohl Staaten als auch einige Unternehmen stellen Wachstumspolitik jedoch als nahezu alternativlos dar. Liegt dies an einem kulturellen Phänomen, einem „Wachstumsparadigma in den Köpfen“? Oder spielen vielmehr systemische Zwänge eine Rolle, denen Unternehmen und Staaten unterliegen, weil ohne Wachstum die Existenz bedroht oder ökonomische und soziale Stabilität gefährdet sind? Wie lässt sich dies mit der Empirie verbinden, dass viele kleine und mittelständische Unternehmen gar nicht wachsen?

Wir suchen deshalb innerhalb und außerhalb der Marktwirtschaft Entwicklungspfade, die Abhängigkeit von Wachstum zu überwinden. Sowohl unternehmerische System-Innovationen und Neugründungen als auch Transformationspfade innerhalb bestehender Unternehmungen bieten hier Potentiale.

Inhaltliches Ziel dieses Workshops ist es, durch die Beiträge der Teilnehmenden die Möglichkeiten und Grenzen unternehmerischen Handelns für eine zukunftsfähige Ökonomie jenseits des Wachstums auszuloten. Dafür nehmen wir insbesondere Wachstumszwänge auf unternehmerischer Ebene in den Blick und analysieren ihre Einbettung in makroökonomische Strukturen. Auf dieser Basis werden wir untersuchen, welche Maßnahmen nötig sind, um die Abhängigkeit vom Wachstum zu lösen. Darüber hinaus wollen wir auf dem Workshop gemeinsame Prozesse oder Projekte entwickeln, um noch offene Forschungsfragen zu bearbeiten und zu evaluieren, ob unsere Erkenntnisse für die unternehmerische Praxis relevant sind.

Wir freuen uns auf Beiträge, welche Sie bis zum 30. September 2017 an Jonathan Barth einreichen können. Sie können uns bereits publizierte Artikel oder eigens angefertigte Papiere (mindestens 10.000 Zeichen, inkl. Leerzeichen) zusenden. Diese Beiträge dienen als Bewerbung zum Workshop, der in einer kollaborativen und diskursiven Atmosphäre mit 15-20 Teilnehmer*innen stattfinden wird. Der Workshop ist eine Kooperation von Zoe – Institut für zukunftsfähige Ökonomien, Arbeitsgruppe Wachstumszwang der Vereinigung für ökologische Ökonomie und der Wissenschaftlicher Arbeitsgruppe nachhaltiges Geld und knüpft an den Workshop im Februar 2017 an.“

Weitere Informationen gibt es hier:


CfP – DISSENSUS! RADICAL DEMOCRACY AND BUSINESS ETHICS. Special Issue of the Journal of Business Ethics

Call for Papers

Special Issue of the Journal of Business Ethics


Submission Deadline: 4 June 2018


Carl Rhodes, University of Technology Sydney, Australia.

Iain Munro, Newcastle University, UK.

Torkild Thanem, Stockholm University, Sweden.

Alison Pullen, Macquarie University, Australia.


In an era of prolonged financial crisis, political instability and worldwide injustice, the economic and ethical legitimacy of corporate power requires continued challenge. Scandal after scandal has revealed corporations showing little regard for the institutions of liberal democracy. Whether it be tax evasion, law breaking, political lobbying or outright corruption, corporations are content to flout notions of justice, equality and freedom in an escalating pursuit of profit (see Barkan 2013; Brown 2015). Liberal democracy promises opportunity and inclusion, yet democratic states are complicit in strengthening the power of the corporations they glorify as wealth creators and job securers. In ‘post-democracy’ (Crouch, 2004) politics revolves around the conflated interests of corporations and politicians, reinforcing injustice and inequality on a global scale and resulting in poverty, torture, trafficking, imprisonment, and death. This special issue will investigate and challenge this state of affairs by exploring business ethics as it relates to ‘radical democracy’ (Mouffe, 1996; Robbins, 2011). This is democracy conceived as an ethical alternative to the potent marriage of the liberal democratic state and corporate power. As Rancière (2015) explains, the political dissensus required for democracy bears witness to marginalized voices excluded from the prevailing status quo. Such dissensus also enacts a particular ethics rested in the radical questioning and subversion of the totalizing tendencies of power. In response to what Ziarek (2001) has called ‘the ethics of dissensus’, the political task is to fight against the powers, injustices and inequalities that affect people not just politically, but also materially. This ethics goes beyond the questioning of corporate power, and projects us towards trajectories where people already live and work independently of the corporate-government complex. The ethics and politics of dissensus becomes the radically democratic alternative, directed towards sustainable futures at the level of life itself.


Papers are called for which explore the ethics and politics of radical democracy as it manifests in dissensus and the subversion of corporate power by alternative democratic practices and realities. This is no fantasy, it is witnessed by struggles in domains as diverse as environmentalism, agriculture, affective labour, domestic work, craftwork, art, and the hacker ethic of the open source community. Acknowledging that contemporary politics have created an inverse relationship between corporate power and democracy, we seek to consider the character of this inversion, how it has been resisted, and the alternatives to it. We do not just ask whether democratic alternatives to the liberalistic reign of corporations, markets and corporate governments are possible, but how they are and can be realized. Required is a profound ethico-political engagement; a struggle that moves from critique, to resistance, to alternative realities. This evokes, in Spivak’s (1993) words, an ‘impossible intimacy of the ethical’ that strives for a genuine respect of the value of difference. Such intimacy can also invoke a politically aware and democratic business ethics built on the potential of dissent, alterity and critique as a means of refusing hegemony of all types. Papers might consider, but are by no means limited to, the following topics:

• The effects of Free Trade Agreements and trade wars on democracy.

• Spaces, places and strategies for ethicso-political democratic dissent.

• The politics, ethics and aesthetics of dissensus, through feminism and critical race theory.

• The ethico-political struggle for alternative ways of life, work and organization in the context of global and nationalist capitalism.

• Alternative economies and the subversion of free market liberalism.

• The development of a heterodox management studies to better imagine alternatives within the field of management studies.

• The ‘depoliticization’ of theory and academic work more generally

• The praxis, organization and effectiveness of anti-corporate movements.

• Business ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility as anti-democratic forms of corporate consensus.

• Inequality, difference and class struggle.

• Critiques of corporate sovereignty, justice and dissent.

• Tensions between the materiality of democracy, neoliberal rationality and neoconservative ideology.


Authors should refer to the Journal of Business Ethics website for instructions on submitting a paper and for more information about the journal: Submission to the special issue by 4 June 2018 is required through Editorial Manager at: Upon submission, please indicate that your sub- mission is to this Special Issue. Questions about potential topics and papers should be directed to the guest editors.


Barkan, J. (2013) Corporate Sovereignty: Law and Government Under Capitalism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Brown, W. (2015) Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism’s Stealth Revolution, New York: Zone Books.

Crouch, C. (2004) Post-Democracy, Cambridge: Polity.

Mouffe, C. (1996) Dimensions of Radical Democracy: Pluralism, Citizenship, Community. London: Verso.

Rancière, J. (2015) Dissensus: On Politics and Aesthetics, London: Continuum

Robbins, J. W. (2011) Radical Democracy and Political Theology, New York: Columbia.

Spivak , G. (1993) Outside the Teaching Machine, London: Routeldge.

Ziarek, E. P. (2001) Postmodernity, Feminism and the Politics of Radical Democracy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.