Schlagwort-Archive: Soziale Bewegungen

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

Call for papers Sub-Theme 05: Organizing Resilience: In, Against, Despite and Beyond Capital, LAEMOS 2018, Buenos Aires, March 22-24

Call for papers Sub-Theme 05: Organizing Resilience: In, Against, Despite and Beyond Capital, LAEMOS 2018, Buenos Aires, March 22-24

Convenors:

Ana C. Dinerstein A.C.Dinerstein@bath.ac.uk

Luciana Ghiotto luciana.ghiotto@gmail.com

F. Harry Pitts fh.pitts@bristol.ac.uk

Patrizia Zanoni patrizia.zanoni@uhasselt.be

*Deadline abstract submission (up to 1000 words): September 30, 2017.*

Extract from the CfP:

„This stream welcomes submissions that recode the concept of resilience away from survival within the present organisation of work and economic life, towards the development of alternatives ‘in, against and beyond’ capitalism. In critical management studies, resilience is associated with resistance within organizations and how working place resistance relates to other spheres in civil society (Spicer and Böhm 2007). Social movement organizations’ role is regarded as the ‘sites’ for the creation of novel organizational subjectivities and ethical practices’ (Munro, 2014: 1127). This approach demands to ‘reposition organization theory’ towards an anti-hegemonic approach (Böhm 2006: 104) that links critical organization studies with developments in anti-capitalist movements towards the renewal of organization studies (Reedy, 2014: 652) in the direction of utopia (on this see Parker –ed. 2002).“

You can find the full CfP as well as the other streams of the conference at the conference website: https://www.laemos2018.com/

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

DISSENSUS! RADICAL DEMOCRACY AND BUSINESS ETHICS

Submission Deadline: 4 June 2018

GUEST EDITORS:

Carl Rhodes, University of Technology Sydney, Australia. carl.rhodes@uts.edu.au

Iain Munro, Newcastle University, UK. iain.munro@ncl.ac.uk

Torkild Thanem, Stockholm University, Sweden. tt@sbs.su.se

Alison Pullen, Macquarie University, Australia. alison.pullen@mq.edu.au

INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIAL ISSUE

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.

POSSIBLE THEMES AND TOPICS

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.

SUBMISSION PROCESS AND DEADLINE

Authors should refer to the Journal of Business Ethics website for instructions on submitting a paper and for more information about the journal: http://www.springer.com/social+sciences/applied+ethics/journal/10551. Submission to the special issue by 4 June 2018 is required through Editorial Manager at: http://www.editorialmanager.com/busi/. 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.

REFERENCES

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.

Die Genossenschaft – Bürgerschaftliches Engagement soll leichter werden. Feature im Deutschlandfunk

Ein instruktives Feature über Genossenschaften als mögliche Form (nicht nur) bürgerschaftlichen Engagements und über geplante Veränderungen im Sinne von Vereinfachungen der Genossenschaftsprüfung. Angesichts der nicht zuletzt durch die Prüfung bedingten niedrigen Insolvenzrate von Genossenschaften ein nicht unproblematisches Unterfangen …

Hier geht es zur Sendung und zum Podcast:

http://www.deutschlandfunk.de/die-genossenschaft-buergerschaftliches-engagement-soll.724.de.html?dram:article_id=386114

Selbstverwaltende Betriebe: die Glashütte Süßmuth – ein Essay von Christiane Mende

„Im März 1970 übernahm zum ersten Mal in der Geschichte der Bundesrepublik eine Belegschaft ihren Betrieb in eigene Verantwortung. Angesichts des drohenden Verlusts ihrer Arbeitsplätze fanden die Beschäftigten damit eine kollektive Antwort, wie sie im letzten Drittel des 20. Jahrhunderts auch in anderen Industriegesellschaften Westeuropas, allen voran in Italien, Spanien und Frankreich, zu beobachten war. Die nun beginnende Selbstverwaltung der Glashütte Süßmuth in der nordhessischen Kleinstadt Immenhausen wurde zum Politikum.“

Quelle: Christiane Mende: Arbeiterinnenselbstverwaltung? Normalität und Aufbruch im Arbeitsalltag der Belegschaftseigenen Glashütte Süßmuth, in: Themenportal Europäische Geschichte, 2017, <www.europa.clio-online.de/essay/id/artikel-4127>.)

Christiane Mendes Essay beleuchtet den Fall dieser Betriebsübernahme insbesondere aus der Perspektive der weiblichen Beschäftigten, deren Arbeitsbedingungen und Mitbestimmung während der Zeit der Betriebsübernahme.

Die Selbstverwaltung bestand bis Ende der 1989, dann erfolgte eine Reprivatisierung. 1996 wurde die Hütte geschlossen. Weitere Informationen zur Glashütte findet sich in einem Artikel aus der ZEIT von 1973 sowie in einem Text von Gisela Notz:

http://www.zeit.de/1973/01/die-huette-der-arbeiter/komplettansicht

https://www.linksnet.de/artikel/27841

New ephemera Special Issue on ‚Organizing for the post-growth economy‘

From the announcement:

The ephemera special issue on Organizing for the post-growth economy (vol. 17, no. 1) is now available at ephemerajournal.org and in print.

Special issue editors: Christian Garmann Johnsen, Mette Nelund, Lena Olaison and Bent Meier Sørensen

Perpetual economic growth is an underlying assumption of the contemporary organization of capitalist society. The idea of growth is embedded not only in the corpus of economic thought but also in economic institutions. Against this backdrop, this special issue opens up for critical and creative thinking around organizational issues related to growth, economy, sustainability, and ecology. The contributions found in this special issue revolve around themes that are central to the problem of organizing for a post-growth economy, including such phenomena as the circular economy, carbon markets, food production, not-for-profit enterprises, and degrowth. Using a variety of theoretical resources as well as empirical material, these contributions rethink the relationship between growth and organization. The issue includes four papers, two notes, two roundtable discussions, and four book reviews.

Democratic Renewal in Civil Society Organizations – ‘Democracy at Work: Organizing democratically’, Wednesday 29th March, Nottingham Trent University

Democratic Renewal in Civil Society Organizations

ESRC Seminar Four – Nottingham Trent University

‘Democracy at Work: Organizing democratically’

Wednesday 29th March, 2017, 10:30-5, Newton Building, Nottingham Trent University.

The event is free – please book here

Civil society organisations are often considered a good thing in and of themselves, contributing to making a more healthy and democratic society. Yet whilst attention is often focused on their external role, how they contribute to changing society, less attention is placed on their internal ways of organising. Indeed many civil society organisations are shaped by increase forms of business-like practices as they have to become more professional and managerial which can often result in them replicated many of the hierarchical practices that can leave them, at times, indistinguishable from their for-profit counter-parts.

This seminar will explore the possibilities of internal processes and practices through which civil society organisations arrange themselves in order to become more democratic. In particular it will look at different models and processes, which draw inspiration from anarchism and the alter-globalization movement through to political theory to examine not only why civil society organizations should consider working more democratically but also how to go about it.

 

Our confirmed speakers are:

Janet Dalziell, International People and Culture Director at Greenpeace International

Greenpeace International are one of the most innovative Civil Society Organizations combining activism with its public campaigning role. Over the last few years they have been through a fascinating restructuring programme designed to give more autonomy to local national and regional offices to be more responsive to their particular circumstances. Janet is a key architect of a major re-design of Greenpeace’s global operating model, focusing on the development of human capacity within the organization and aimed at making Greenpeace more effective in achieving just and sustainable global change to protect the environment.

Professor Ruth Kinna, and Dr Thomas Swann Loughborough University, will be discussing anarchism as a constitutional principle

Dr Ruth Yeoman, Research Fellow at the Saïd Business School and Kellogg College, University of Oxford, is an expert on mutuality and meaningfulness of work. Her book Meaningful Work and Workplace Democracy: a philosophy of work and a politics of meaningfulness, is published by Palgrave Macmillan

Dr Matt Wilson, Activist and anarchist and the author of Rules without rulers: The possibilities and limits of anarchism

 

Schedule

10.30 Arrival and coffee

11.00 Welcome, and context for the seminar – Daniel King, NTU

11.15 – Janet Dalziell

12.00 – Response and Q&A

12.30 – Lunch

13.30 – 15.00 – Main Panel:

13.30 – Ruth Kinna and Thomas Swann

14.00 – Ruth Yeoman

14:25 – Matt Wilson,

14.45 – Tea break

15.30 – Breakout group discussions – ‘How can Civil Society organizations work in more democratic forms?’

16.00 – Report back from groups

16.30 – Summaries and close

 

The Venue and Organisers

Newton Building, Nottingham Trent University, NG1 4FQ http://www4.ntu.ac.uk/about_ntu/document_uploads/189251.pdf

The seminar is organised by Daniel King from Nottingham Trent University. Please email daniel.king@ntu.ac.uk if you have any questions

„Das ist unser Haus“ – Dokumentarfilm über das Mietshäuser Syndikat

Hier einige Informationen zum Film (Quelle: https://vimeo.com/193034732):

Räume aneignen mit dem Mietshäuser Syndikat.
Der Film „Das ist unser Haus!“ erläutert das solidarische Modell des Mietshäuser Syndikats (syndikat.org), mit dem sich auch finanzschwache Gruppen bezahlbare Räume in Gemeineigentum nachhaltig sichern können.
„Das ist unser Haus!“ ist ein Film der Autoren und Produzenten Burkhard Grießenauer, Daniel Kunle und Holger Lauinger. Die Produktion wurde mit Hilfe des SEELAND Medienkooperative e.V. realisiert.

Gemeineigentum – Selbstorganisation – Solidarität – Seit vielen Jahren gibt es eine Netzwerkstruktur von mehr als 100 Hausprojekten in Stadt und Land, um die Wohnungsfrage nach anderen Werten zu organisieren: das Mietshäuser Syndikat. Finanzschwache Gruppen können sich mit der Solidarität anderer ermächtigen und so bezahlbare Räume sichern. Deshalb wächst in immer mehr Köpfen das Interesse an dieser wichtigen Initiative aus der Zivilgesellschaft.

Im 65 minütigen Film „Das ist unser Haus!“ erläutern Akteure des Mietshäuser Syndikats das Modell der kollektiven Raumaneignung und präsentieren vielseitige Projekte in unterschiedlichen räumlichen Kontexten. Die Zuschauer werden motiviert, eigene Projekte im stabilen solidarischen Verbund des Mietshäuser Syndikats zu starten.

Mit Impressionen aus den Projekten: Freie Hütte (Lübeck), LÜDIA (Hadmersleben), Handwerkerhof Ottensen (Hamburg), Jugendwohnprojekt Mittendrin (Neuruppin), Grether Gelände (Freiburg), 4-Häuser-Projekt (Tübingen)

 

„Das ist unser Haus!“ from SEELAND Medienkooperative on Vimeo.

Call for papers: Diverse organizing/organizational diversity – Methodological questions and activist practices

Excerpt from the call:

In collaboration with Diversity in Teams and AlterEcos: Exploring Alternatives to Currently Dominant Forms of Economic Organizing, Diversity&Difference @CBS invites contributions to: Diverse organizing/organizational diversity – Methodological questions and activist practices.

In continuation of previous years’ successful workshops on leadership, diversity and inclusion, we now turn to the question of how to study organizational diversity. How do we study different organizations/organizational differences and why do we do it? This issue is both one of methodology and activism. In terms of methodology, the study of organizational diversity and diverse organizing challenges academic orthodoxies of specialization, standardization and incrementalism (Alvesson & Gabriel, 2013). The search for different organizations/difference in organizations demands that we unsettle our ways and reconsider the ins and outs of what we have been, are and will be doing. In terms of activism, a commitment to diversity and difference challenges social and organizational norms of meritocracy, inclusion, recognition, etc. (Fraser, 2000; Castilla & Benard, 2010; Zanoni et al., 2010). Encounters with difference require that we not only consider new sites of investigation, but also new means of intervention; above all, it implores reconsideration of the very purpose of inquiry: How may studies of diverse organizing and diversity in organizations move beyond either passive description or mere critique and, instead, provide practicable redefinitions of organizational realities?

Find the full call at the website.

Submission details 

·         Abstracts are invited to be submitted by 15th February 2017.

·         Abstracts of approximately 1500 words

·         The abstracts will be peer reviewed and decisions on acceptance will be made by the workshop organizers within a month from submission date.

·         Contributors may choose to draw on material from a wide range of empirical spheres, theoretical perspectives and methodological orientations.

·         Papers should include methodological considerations

·         Papers can be theoretically or empirically driven.

·         We welcome papers from all national and cross-national contexts.

·         New and young scholars with ‚work in progress‘ are particularly welcome.

·         In terms of co-authored papers, one person should be identified as the corresponding author.

Abstracts should be emailed to: Sine N. Just  and Lotte Holck.

The document must include contact information (author names, institutional affiliation and e-mail address).

This workshop is exploratory in nature, but we acknowledge the importance of publication. We, therefore, encourage authors to submit a full(er) version of their paper by 15th April 2017. This is, however, not a prerequisite for taking part in the workshop.

In line with the theme of the workshop, we welcome alternatives to power point presentations. You will be able to indicate your preferred form of presentation at the time of submitting your developed manuscript and are welcome to contact the workshop organizers for any questions.

Information  on programme, keynote speakers, and registration will follow.   

Dato 2nd – 3rd May, 2017
Location Copenhagen Business School  (room will follow)

Commons / Gemeingüter im Film

Von Silke Helfrich und der Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung sind inzwischen zwei umfangreiche Bände zur Thematik der Commons / Gemeingüter erschienen. Beide Bände stehen unter einer Creative Commons Lizenz:

Helfrich, Silke; Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung (Hg.) (2012): Commons. Für eine neue Politik jenseits von Markt und Staat. Bielefeld: transcript. http://www.transcript-verlag.de/978-3-8376-2835-7/commons)

Helfrich, Silke; Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung (Hg.) (2015): Die Welt der Commons. Muster gemeinsamen Handelns. Bielefeld: transcript. http://www.transcript-verlag.de/978-3-8376-3245-3/die-welt-der-commons

Im zweiten Band findet sich eine instruktive Aufzählung von Filmen über die Commons, welche auch in der Lehre eingesetzt werden können. Hier der entsprechende Auszug sowie Verlinkungen:

»Gemeingüter? Was ist das?«
Ein dreiminütiges Erklärstück, das 2010 im Auftrag der Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung für eine internationale Commons-Konferenz in Berlin erstellt wurde und bisher auch in Englisch, Französisch, Spanisch und Italienisch zur Verfügung steht; gut einsetzbar für Einführungen ins Thema:

»This Land is Our Land. The Fight to Reclaim the Commons«
Der englischsprachige Dokumentarfilm, ebenfalls aus dem Jahr 2010, wurde von Jeremy Earp und Sut Jhally produziert. Das Skript stammt von David Bollier (Mitherausgeber dieses Bandes) und Jeremy Earp; Länge: 46 Minuten. Schwerpunkte sind die Einhegungsprozesse der letzten Jahrzehnte. Die Commons-Bewegung wird hier in den Kontext traditionellen Community-Engagements gestellt und zugleich als beginnende internationale Bewegung skizziert:

www.mediaed.org/cgibin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=146

»Commons in Action«
Die Wissenschaftsvereinigung International Association for the Study of Commons
(IASC) produziert seit 2013 eine Serie von englischsprachigen Kurzfilmanimationen,
»Commons in Action«, unter dem Motto: »Commons sind heute Realität«. Hier zu sehen:

Sie führen kurz und knapp in einige zentrale Konzepte ein und stellen
internationale Projekte vor, meist Preisträger der IASC. Nützlich und gut drei
Minuten lang ist auch die Einführung in den Begriff:

»The Commons. Beyond the State, Capitalism and the Market«
Dieses 36-minütige, englischsprachige Video, in dem auch eine geistesgeschichtliche
Einordnung, beispielsweise über Eigentumskonzepte, vorgenommen wird, veröffentlichte das links-libertäre Anarchist Collective im Jahr 2013. Nicht nur zentrale Begriffe wie Einhegungen, Resilienz oder Fülle werden erläutert, sondern auch die Desig-Prinzipien für langlebige Commons-Institutionen von Elinor Ostrom et al. Hier zu sehen:

und hier nachzulesen:

https://theleftlibertarian.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/thecommons-beyond-the-state-capitalism-and-the-market/

»The Promise of the Commons«
»Das Versprechen der Commons« wurde im Jahr 2014 von John D. Liu sowie der indischen Nichtregierungsorganisation Foundation for Ecological Security (FES) produziert. Besondere Aufmerksamkeit kommt der Umweltsituation im globalen Süden zu. Auf Youtube finden sich verschiedene Ausschnitte aus diesem insgesamt 50-minütigen Beitrag in englischer Sprache:

»Better No More. Principles and Practices towards the next Economy«
Dieses 5-minütige Video in englischer Sprache ist eine Produktion von Kontent
Film, USA, sowie der Edge Funders Alliance, einem internationalen Zusammenschluss
kritischer Stiftungen und Geberorganisationen. Der Film entstand 2015
und konzentriert sich auf vier Aspekte der Commons: Natur entkommerzialisieren,
Arbeit neu denken, Wissen befreien, Wohlstand demokratisieren.

www.kontentfilms.com/work/genres/shorts/better-not-more

»The Commons«
Fünf Jahre hat der Filmemacher Kevin Hansen an diesem Dokumentarfilm gearbeitet.
Entstanden ist ein Film über Gemeinschaften aus aller Welt, die nach alten Commons-Prinzipien wirtschaften. 49 Gemeinschaften in Nord- und Südamerika, Asien und Europa wurden interviewt. Sie erklären, wie sie Commons über Jahrhunderte lebendig halten. »Commons«, so Hansen, »sind ein alt-neuer Open-Source-Code rund ums Teilen von Ressourcen«. Die Website zum Film:
http://commonsfilm.com/