Schlagwort-Archiv: Kritik

New Publication: Postmoderne und Poststrukturalismus in der Organisationsforschung

Mein Beitrag für das Handbuch Organisationssoziologie (hrsg. von Maja Apelt, Ingo Bode, Raimund Hasse, Uli Meyer, Victoria V. Groddeck, Maximiliane Wilkesmann und Arnold Windeler) zu Postmoderne und Poststrukturalismus in der Organisationsforschung ist nun Online:

https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-658-15953-5_12-1

Abstract

Der Beitrag diskutiert den Einfluss von Postmoderne und Poststrukturalismus auf
die Organisationsforschung. Beide Denkrichtungen sind als ein Plädoyer für
Differenz zu verstehen und zugleich durch eine Skepsis gegenüber den modernen
Erzählungen des Fortschritts, der Rationalität und der Wahrheit geprägt. Der
Beitrag geht zunächst auf die Entstehungsgeschichte ein und diskutiert anschlie-
ßend mit Sprache und Diskurs, Macht, Subjektivierung und Prozesshaftigkeit von
Organisationen zentrale Themen der Debatte in der Organisationsforschung. Mit
Exkursen zu Lyotard, Baudrillard, Derrida und Foucault werden vier wichtige
Autoren der Debatte näher vorgestellt. Abschließend werden zentrale Kritik-
punkte an einer an Postmoderne und Poststrukturalismus anknüpfenden Organi-
sationsforschung benannt.

Keywords

Postmoderne · Poststrukturalismus · Foucault · Derrida · Lyotard · Baudrillard

„Ökonomie und Ideologie“ – Call for Abstracts | Employment Relations

Hier der Hinweis auf einen spannenden Call for Abstracts zum Thema „Ökonomie und Ideologie“ für das Jahrbuch „Ökonomie und Gesellschaft“, Band 2020: „Ökonomie und Ideologie“ – herausgegeben von Wenzel Matiaske (Helmut-Schmidt-Universität / Universität der Bundeswehr Hamburg) und Werner Nienhüser (Universität Duisburg-Essen). Abstracts sind bis zum 31.5.2019 einzureichen:

Quelle: „Ökonomie und Ideologie“ – Call for Abstracts | Employment Relations

CfP – ‘Theoretical Perspectives on Organizations and Organizing in a Post-Growth Era’

CALL FOR PAPERS FOR A SPECIAL ISSUE OF ORGANIZATION

‘Theoretical Perspectives on Organizations and Organizing in a Post-Growth Era’

Guest Editors

Bobby Banerjee, Cass Business School, City University of London, UK

John Jermier, University of South Florida, USA

Ana Maria Peredo, University of Victoria, Canada

Robert Perey, University of Technology Sydney, Australia

André Reichel, International School of Management, Germany

 

The purpose of this special issue is to broaden and intensify the discussion of ways humanity might disengage from the putative imperative of unbridled economic growth. In the course of the last century, this imperative has come to dominate the priorities of scholars, policy-makers and ordinary citizens. The assumption that economic growth is an absolute requirement of the global political economic system is so entrenched that it is rarely questioned by mainstream economists (Daly, 2013) and is perhaps even more taken for granted in the field of organizational and management studies. Growth forecasts are de rigueur both at the macroeconomic level and at the industry or corporate levels. However, as Jackson (2009: 123) points out, mainstream economics is ‘ecologically illiterate’ because its preferred indicators of success, like Gross Domestic Product (GDP), that purportedly reflect a ‘strong’ economy, do not account for ecological destruction and the undermining of the quality of life on earth that inevitably accompanies unbridled economic growth. Even alternative measures of success, like the Genuine Progress Indicator, that attempt to quantify so called externalities and weigh in positive social and environmental contributions (e.g., housework and child care) and the Sustainable Development Goals developed by the United Nations do not systematically question the primacy of growth (Banerjee, 2003; Jermier, 1998; Reichel et al., 2016). To illustrate, the UN Sustainable Development Goals have ‘sustainable growth’ targets assessed with GDP. Similarly, the influential Stern report (The Economics of Climate Change) claims that ‘the world does not need to choose between averting climate change and promoting growth and development.’ Even more audaciously, Stern claims that ‘with strong, deliberate policy choices, it is possible to decarbonize both developed and developing economies on the scale required for climate stabilization, while maintaining economic growth in both’ (Stern, 2006: xi). As Fournier (2008: 529) puts it, perhaps it is the ideology of growth – ‘a system of representation that translates everything into a reified and autonomous economic reality inhabited by self-interested consumers’ – that is the problem.

To escape the tyranny of narrow conceptions of growth, we believe it is necessary to critically re-examine economic and social relations in organizations and relations between organizations and the natural environment. Hence, for this special issue, we invite scholars to reflect on how economic growth is conceptualized (implicitly or explicitly) in existing theoretical frameworks and in the paradigmatic underpinnings (often functionalist) of these frameworks. Relatedly, we think it is essential to reimagine organizations and their impacts under macro-economic conditions characterized by decoupling of resources, steady-state system dynamics, or even conscious degrowth1—which requires a radical paradigm shift and other fundamental changes that can elevate human happiness, well-being, quality of life and other non-economic criteria from the periphery to the center of organizational analysis.

Critiques of unbridled economic growth are not new. The radical notion of degrowth, (décroissance–meaning economic contraction or downscaling—Latouche, 2004), however, presents organizational and management scholars with a paradigmatic challenge and with opportunities to reframe the field and its core set of assumptions. Degrowth is not a particular theory as such but can be described as mot obus, a ‘word grenade’ or ‘missile word’ that aims to create new visions of social, ecological and economic transformations; it is ‘a political slogan with theoretical implications’ (Latouche, 2009: 7). Degrowth authors challenge institutions that frame the economic, political and cultural dimensions of capitalism and neoliberalism, arguing that our current institutions have created the social-ecological crises we now face. Degrowth thinkers question the ongoing relevance of these institutions and their effects in their current (and incrementally reformed) configurations. For example, advocates of degrowth challenge the assumptions of green growth and sustainable development and argue that it is not possible to decouple economic growth from material and energy flows.

In ecological economics, degrowth is described as an ‘equitable downscaling of production and consumption that increases human wellbeing and enhances ecological conditions at the local and global level, in the short and long term’ (Schneider et al., 2010: 513). However, degrowth is not just about producing or consuming less but also involves a repoliticalization of the economy and a radical break from conventional economic thinking because growth economies and societies do not know how to degrow (Fournier, 2008; Latouche 2004). Degrowth distinguishes well-being and prosperity from economic growth and aims to promote economic democracy and social justice and a ‘concern for a fair distribution (intergenerational and intragenerational) of economic, social and environmental goods and bads at all time-lines’ (Demaria et al., 2013: 202). Degrowth is not the same as austerity, which is a neoliberal project. In fact, as Chertkovskaya et al. (2017: 200) point out ‘arguments for austerity are always made in the name of growth’. More radical concepts related to degrowth include sharing, simplicity, conviviality, care, the commons, new forms of cooperatives, production for use, voluntary rather than wage labor, gifts/barter rather than profit (D’Alisa et al., 2015; Fournier, 2009). The emphasis is not on ‘less’ but ‘different’: ‘different activities, different forms and uses of energy, different relations, different gender roles, different allocations of time between paid and non-paid work and different relations with the non-human world’ (D’Alisa et al., 2015: 4).

Critiques of growth that emerged in mainly European contexts are also closely related to critiques of development in Latin America and Asia. Advocates of ‘post-development’ call for alternatives to development rather than development alternatives and the need to decenter development as a central discourse that represented reality for much of the global south (Escobar, 2011; 2015; Esteva et al., 2013; Sachs, 1992). Alternatives include movements like Buen Vivir (Gudynas, 2011; Kothari et al., 2015; Peredo, 2018), which emerged from indigenous struggles against development projects in Latin America and which reflect indigenous ontologies that require ‘the subordination of economic objectives to ecological criteria, human dignity, and social justice’ (Escobar, 2015: 455).

But there has been much less consideration of how organizations, as social institutions, serve the dominant growth assumption and give it momentum. Organizations that arise, survive and perhaps even flourish in an environment where the need for continual growth is taken for granted are shaped by that environment in ways that may not be transparent to their members. These considerations apply to organizational forms in general, but they arguably come to a head with business models. It is significant that in a special issue concerning ‘Business Models for Sustainability’ (Organization & Environment, 2016), some papers made no mention of growth or saw it only in terms of a standard requirement of business; one saw ‘de-coupling economic growth from physical resource consumption growth’ as something ‘that might need to be considered in future business models’ (Wells, 2016: 40); two papers devoted somewhat more attention to the possibility that growth might need to be limited (Gauthier & Gilomen, 2016; Upward & Jones, 2016); another suggested that organizational forms might be used to address concerns about growth (Abdelkafi & Täuscher, 2016). And after nearly 25 years since the establishment of Organizations and the Natural Environment (ONE) as a division of the Academy of Management, we have seen only occasional arguments that fundamentally challenge dominant views of organizations (and the growth imperative) or that provide alternative paradigmatic and critical theory perspectives: the primary focus of ONE research is on incremental change and ‘managing’ environmental issues (Banerjee, 2011, Jermier, 2014). It is hard not to see a gap here.

Key questions relevant to scholars of organizations and organizing emerge as we begin to take seriously alternatives to traditional, growth-driven societies. The questions center on revised notions of fiduciary responsibility, fundamentally different forms of organizing (e.g., B corporations, social enterprises, the resurgence of cooperatives), and firms engaged in developing the circular economy as first priority (cf. Peredo & Chrisman, 2006; Perey et al., 2018). Questions also center on the role played by organizational cultures, structures, technologies, human resource ideologies, environmental management practices, and processes of organizational change–first in sustaining the traditional growth paradigm, and second in framing and bringing alternative paradigms forward.

Imagining a society without growth poses an immense challenge. Conventional economic wisdom tells us that resisting growth leads to poverty and economic and social collapse. Yet, ecological wisdom posits that unbridled economic growth leads to economic collapse and social collapse. Alternative visions call for abandoning an economy based on accumulation and embracing an economy of restoration and distribution. If advocates of narrow concepts of growth claim that ‘growth is a substitute for redistribution’ (Hickel, 2017), then the task in a postgrowth era is to create a system where redistribution becomes a substitute for growth. How this is to be achieved remains a profound challenge for society and organizational scholars. Proponents of the degrowth initiative argue that it clearly calls into question the capitalist assumptions prevailing in the industrialized world (Boillat et al., 2012). Others maintain that the degrowth movement allies with calls for ecological justice, another fundamental challenge to prevailing economic arrangements at all levels (Martinez- Alier, 2012).

Our aim for this Special Issue is to invite scholars from different disciplines to address these challenges. Are there theoretical resources in the management and organizational studies field (and/or in source disciplines) that generate new and fruitful questions about degrowth? Can the degrowth and post-growth paradigm enrich theoretical thinking about organizations and organizing? Are there new empirical questions that flow from the juxtaposition of the growth critique literature and the mission and typical subject matter published in Organization? We are seeking theoretical and empirical papers that harness the growth critique literature and elaborate it in new and bold ways of relevance to organizational and management studies scholars and to scholars in related fields. We invite papers that explore a wide range of themes and questions including the following:

  • Which theories of organization and organizing are least compatible with the growth critique literature and in need of revision or sidelining? Which theories hold the most promise for a post-growth era? Are there new theories that must be authored for a post-growth world?
  • What are the silences and absences of theorization about growth and what alternatives to growth are being conceptualized in institutional and organizational analyses?
  • Are all forms of growth bad? What would good growth look like, theoretically and ethically? How will we know good growth?
  • What are the different units of analysis (macroeconomic, institutional, country specific, organizational) of degrowth and how should degrowth be theorized and assessed at different levels of analysis?
  • What macro and micro level transformations are needed to abandon growth and embrace alternatives to growth? How should these transformations be theorized?
  • What are the organizational implications of degrowth? What ideal types and other models of organization are needed in a postgrowth era?
  • What are the theoretical impacts on business models for organizations operating in a degrowth world?
  • What are the institutional foundations of growth ideology? What impacts do these foundations have on organizations and individual actors? What theories help answer these questions?
  • How does degrowth impact levels of inequality in societies and organizations? What radical theories need to be developed to link degrowth and inequality?
  • What do we measure as success or prosperity if we are not placing our faith solely in economic growth? How can we theorize organizational effectiveness without submitting to the traditional growth imperative?
  • What power and political structures maintain the primacy of growth in institutions and organizations? How are alternatives to growth delegitimized by these forces of power?
  • How would we theorize strategies of resistance to institutionalized growth?
  • How does degrowth thinking transform models of North-South relationships?
  • What forms of political and economic transformations in, between and among organizations will need to take place if degrowth is to be achieved?
  • In what unique ways can feminist theories of growth/degrowth address ecological, social and economic problems?
  • Can theorists learn lessons from indigenous cultures or practices concerning the structure of a zero growth economy?

Submission to the special issue

Papers may be submitted electronically from 30 April 2019 until the deadline date of 30 May 2019 (final deadline) to SAGETrack at: https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmc.manuscriptcentral.com%2Forganization&data=02%7C01%7Crh381%40leicester.ac.uk%7C8168013dc7a24408954d08d6952be6e2%7Caebecd6a31d44b0195ce8274afe853d9%7C0%7C0%7C636860413132760849&sdata=y2hIZe5iCzLVZp%2BBqDcDR5IQ%2BQdyHj6OlJKgeiPuqZY%3D&reserved=0

Papers should be no more than 10,000 words, excluding references, and will be blind reviewed following the journal’s standard review process. Manuscripts should be prepared according to the guidelines published in Organization and on the journal’s website: https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sagepub.com%2Fjournals%2FJournal200981%2FmanuscriptSubmission&data=02%7C01%7Crh381%40leicester.ac.uk%7C8168013dc7a24408954d08d6952be6e2%7Caebecd6a31d44b0195ce8274afe853d9%7C0%7C0%7C636860413132770858&sdata=xsLoguobVXCj%2BIeGjoJrj3VzKPu11i4Fp17FPsOae6A%3D&reserved=0

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.

References

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. [http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/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

https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508417741536 | First Published December 3, 2017

Abstract

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

https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508417726546 | First Published December 15, 2017

Abstract

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: http://scos2018.org

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)

Convenors

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

Abstracts of no more than 500 words, in pdf format, should be submitted as e­mail attachments by February 28th 2018 to scosacscos2018@gmail.com. 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.

Workshops

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:

https://www.uwestminsterpress.co.uk/site/books/10.16997/book11/

Abstract

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:

https://www.wiso.uni-hamburg.de/fachbereich-sowi/professuren/neckel/professur/aktuelles/25012018-tagung-littig.html

„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:

http://www.deutschlandfunk.de/zehn-jahre-nach-der-finanzkrise-wirtschaftswissenschaften.724.de.html?dram:article_id=400373

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: https://doi.org/10.1365/s41113-017-0018-3

Eine Vorabversion findet sich auf Academia und Researchgate:

https://tu-chemnitz.academia.edu/RonaldHartz

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ronald_Hartz

Zusammenfassung:

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.

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

Abstract

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.

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