icap3 - _ _______ 1 Deconstruction analysis D econstruction...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: _ _______ 1 Deconstruction analysis D econstruction is antenarrative in action. Every story excludes. Every story legitimates a centred point of view, a worldview, or a n i deology among alternatives. N o s tory is ideologically neutral; story floats i n t he chaotic s oup o f bits a nd pieces of story fragments. Story is never alone; i t lives a nd b reathes its m eaning i n a w eb of o ther stories. A nd, e very story since i t is e mbedded i n c hanging m eaning contexts of multiple stories a nd col­ lective story making, 'self-deconstructs' w ith e ach telling. Deconstruction is b oth p henomenon a nd analysis. I t i s p henomenon b ecause ' story d econstruction' is all the constructing a nd r econstructing processes h ap­ pening all a round us. I t is analysis, as I h ave c ome to r ead it. I will s peak of t wo levels: the level of action a nd t he analytic level. I will follow Derrida i n a sserting t hat t he stories are self-deconstructing o n t heir own. But I diller because I d o p osit several analytical steps. These are steps I will describe as 'story deconstruction' analysis. O f course, m y d econstruction is already unravelling a nd c an b e d econstructed, h aving t he traces of its o wn self-deconstruction. H ere I w ill briefly define decon­ struction, specify several analytic steps a nd d evelop examples. What is deconstruction? Deconstructionists point o ut the instability, complex movements, processes of change, a nd the p lay of differences a nd h eterogeneity that make stability, unity, structure, function a nd coherence one-sided readings. Structure, form a nd coherence are stability metaphors readers impose u pon n arrative to render them as object-like. Deconstructionists argue that each reading is a n active disturbance a nd a metaphor-projection b y a r eader that constructs the narrative-object. We d o n ot n eed to deconstruct m anagement a nd organi­ zation stories since, however authoritatively they are told a nd h owever logically they are narrated, they are already deconstructing a nd reconstruc­ ting w ithout the help of a n analyst. Indeed, just o ur r eading a nd retelling of a m anagement s tory i s a deconstructive action. There are excellent s tudies a nd r eviews of the relation of deconstruction to critical t heory a nd p ostmodern o rganization s tudies. F or e xample, critical theorists s uch as A lvesson a nd W illmott (1996) s eek t o m arry d econstruction to the critical theory revival of Marxist critiques of ideology. Without searches for id 1 deconstruction became jus: c onservative, a nd like the -~­ project. Alvesson a nd DeetL ~: ­ a t critical theory a nd pO~::!'. ­ t ogether t han a part. See K ik' a nd S imon's classic text Or·> o f a n e xecutive's narrati\'e ::-.=. Should we define decol1sfntci> I ­ 'Deconstruction,' a rgues! r' :. ' can b e u sed as a n u mbrell : t ant c hanges in narratology -- .. d epart from the very scientin.:: : -­ structuralist critiques impact: -' ject is to merge structuralist a - - :- ~ coins the term 'socio-narratD~ ­ Stories are n ot ideology-ne'; -: t hat s tress realism, verifiabih.~· , ­ cal values i ntrude u pon n an- •. ­ ~ in the Wall Street Journal are .ti:: i ng of leaders, nations a nd i ll w orld w ide w eb, however, t} e tell other stories. Since dec tracks b ehind a s tatus quo <: r-:- ~ Definitions of d econstru:' :-'­ Martin. She defines d econs'L as an analytic strategy that e:'::' can be interpreted. Deconstrn- ­ in a way that is particularly sers of disempowered, marginaliz For me, deconstmction is a - _ m ethod w ith s teps a nd p roc trary to the s pirit o f D errid :: i nvolve w ays o f reading tha: ­ that p osit a uthoritative centres . is b ased o n the idea of a cente. - ­ Point, a n h nmovable MO\'er d.", : : - • ally capitalized, a nd guaran~ .~ tion is i n order. I f w e j ust rer: - -_ centre, w e h ave fallen into l :: one centre w ith another, b u ' 0:0.. of change a nd d isintegratio centre, e ven o ne w ith a gr of control. DECONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS 19 W ithout searches for ideolog)'i critical theorists w ere c oncerned that deconstruction became j ust a nother f ormalism, anti-historical, politically conservative, a nd like the o ther n arratologies, lacking a social c hange project. Alvesson a nd Deetz (1996) called for o rganization s tudies to look at critical t heory a nd p ostmodern t heory as complementary, stronger together t han a part. See Kilduff's (1993) deconstruction analysis of March a nd S imon's classic text Organizations a nd M artin's (1990) deconstruction of a n e xecutive's narrative of a m anager's pregnancy. Should we define deconstruction? ' Deconstruction,' argues M ark C urrie i n his book o n Posfrnodern Narrative, ' can be u sed a s a n u mbrella t erm u nder w hich m any o f t he m ost i mpor­ tant c hanges i n n arratology c an b e d escribed, especially those w hich d epart f rom the v ery scientific analysis b y w hich i t o perated before post­ structuralist critiques impacted o n l iterary s tudies' (1998: 3). C urrie's p ro­ ject is t o m erge s tructuralist a nd p oststructuralist narratology, a nd t hus h e coins the t erm ' socio-narratology'. Stories are not ideology-neutral, n ot e ven those formal science narratives that stress realism, verifiability a nd replication. Social, economic a nd politi­ cal values i nhude u pon n arratives. Narratives i n o rganization studies a nd i n the Wall Street Joumal are ideological, a nd l egitimate t he e mpire build­ ing of leaders, nations a nd o rganizations. I n t he alternative presses a nd t he w orld w ide w eb, however, the boycotts of critical a nd p ostmodern activists :ell other stories. Since deconstruction can a nd d oes expose ideological !racks b ehind a s tatus q uo s tory line, there is ample resistance. Definitions of deconstructions are avoided. O ne I like is b y J oanne \1arOO. She defines deconstruction: a s a n a nalytic strategy that exposes in a systematic w ay m ultiple w ays a text can be interpreted. Deconstruction is able to reveal ideological assumptions i n a w ay t hat is particularl.y sensitive to the s uppressed i nterests of m embers of disempowered, marginalized groups. (1990: 340) For me, deconstruction is a postructuralist epistemology, n ot a f ormula­ method w ith s teps a nd p rocedures. Defining deconstruction m ay be con­ trary to the spirit of D errida's w riting. Yet, d econstruction often does involve w ays o f r eading t hat decentre or otherwise u nmask n arratives that pOSit a uthoritative c entres' According to D errida, all Western t hought is based o n t he idea of a center - an o rigin, a Truth, a nd I deal Form, a fixed Point, a n I mmovable Mover, a n Essence, a God, a Presence, w hich is u su­ ally capitalized, a nd g uarantees all m eaning' (Powell, 1997: 21). But, cau­ hon is i n order. I f w e j ust replace one centre w ith o ur o wn a uthoritative centre, w e h ave fallen into o ur o wn t rap. The p oint t hen is n ot to replace o ne c entre w ith a nother, b ut to s how h ow e ach centre is in a constant state of c hange a nd disi.ntegration. The m ore a n arrative w orks to control a .::entre, e ven o ne w ith a g rain of truth, t he m ore t he n arrative s pirals o ut o f control. 20 NARRATIVE METHODS Misinterpretations of deconstruction J acques Derrida (1999: 65-83) g ave a n i nterview p ublished b y K earney a nd D ooley (1999) t hat I think resolves four basic m isunderstandings: Table 1.1 Story deconstrllc/:i',; Dennehy, 1993) 1. D uality search. M ake a Lbt 1. Is d econstruction a m ethod? D errida c ontends t hat d econstruction is n ot a p hilosophy o r a m ethod, n or is it a p eriodizing p hase o r a m oment (1999: 65). Rather, deconstruction h appens. I t is like the e ntropy t hat is all a round us. Within organization studies, to p ara­ phrase D errida (1999: 72), there is a h istory o f concepts that are b eing t ransformed, deconstructed, criticized a nd i mproved. The s ame is t rue o f o rganizations: the concepts, theories, p aradigms a nd n arra­ tives are b eing d econstructed. Transformations, deconstruction a nd r eformation are p art of the ongoing organizing process. Nevertheless, I think there are w ays t o trace the influence of deconstruction as Table 1.1 p resents. This has to d o w ith p aying a ttention to t he h eterogeneous, multiplicity of textual a nd i ntertextual processes from d uality to resi­ tuation. But, I freely a dmit these are m y o wn r econstructions of Derrida. Yet, a s D errida r emarks ' the s trategy o f deconstruction is: I i nterpret a w ay to u nderstand m icro-power a nd ' what p owers m ay b e i n s uch a nd s uch a c ontext' (1999: 74). D econstruction as a strategy, n ot a m ethod, t races the micro-power of textual process, exposing cen­ tralizing a nd u nravelling aspects, m aking less visible aspects more apparent. 2. D oes d econstruction e qual d estruction? D errida (1999) c ontends t hat d econstruction is n ot ' negative' it is s omething t hat is h appening, a nd i t does n ot i mply t hat c onstruction is n ot also h appening. ' I h ave a lways insisted deconstruction i s n ot d estruction, is n ot a nnihilation, is n ot n egative' ( Derrida, 1999: 77). A nd h e c ontinues, ' as s oon as y ou r ealize t hat d econstruction is n ot s omething n egative, y ou c annot s im­ ply o ppose i t t o r econstruction. H ow c ould y ou r econstruct a nything w ithout d econstruction?' (1999: 77). 3. Is d econstruction e xtreme r elativism? There are s ome critics w ho c ontend t hat t here m ust b e o nly o ne t ruth a nd t hat a dmitting t hat there is n ot m eans all truths are e qual o r relative. W hat s uch a n a rgu­ ment i gnores are the g rounded a nd s ituated aspects of discursive net­ works a mong s takeholders. As Derrida responds: What is relativism? Are you a relativist simply because you say, for instance, that the other is the other, and that every other is other than the other? 1£ I want to pay attention to the singularity of the other, the singu­ larity of the situation, the singularity of language, is that relativism? ... No, relativism is a doctrine which has its own history in which there are only points of view with no absolute necessity, or no references to absolutes. That is the opposite to what I have to say .... I have never said such a thing. Neither have I ever used the word relativism. (1999: 78) 2. 3. 4. 5. 0: :'­ the story. Include the teml E ';C " m ale-centred a nd l or m ale-d ::::-._-­ and w omen a re marginal at: . 0 R einterpret the hierarchy. A ; ;.c­ onc p oint o f view. I t u Sllalh': ; :-­ and r einterpret the hierarch:; ~ ~ y ou c an u nderstand its grip. Rebel voices. D eny the a uthor:. exclude. To m aintain a centre . exprcssed i n this story? WlUcil . (e.g. W ho s peaks for the tree;; ­ O ther side o f the story. StoriE'; ~ o f the s tory ( usually marginaIr.::: _ story, by p utting the b ottom , 1;-.. _ front. For exampLe, reverse t he'­ until it becomes a female centre o ne c entre w ith a nother, bllt :[1 ~:­ and d isintegration. D eny the plot. Stories h ave p kr= ­ around ( move from romanti~ _ 6. Find the exception. Stories co.. :~ e xception i n a w ay that mak.'5 :: - ­ break the rules to see the Logtc t 7. Trace w hat i s between the lilii':5. ­ on the wall. Fill in the blanks... : . story.' Trace w hat y on a re f ilIir;; (e.g. trace to the context, the iJ.a· 8. R esituate. T he p oint o f doing ­ the story beyond its dllalislD;'. " r eauthor the story so t hat the . - - ­ attained. Restory to r emove i..he ­ no more centres. Restor)' t o.- .:::: .. I t is n ot that 'one can _ - ­ socially s ituated limits ai-' a nd political limit o n t he question: can there turalism? B auman (199. D errida p uts i t ' I t ake i.n~· (1999: 79). 4. Is t here a n o utside to teo _ . js n othing o utside of t he:" - • birds, trees a nd t he H I - _. h ors-texte' is Derrida's ," --::­ DECONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS 21 Table 1.1 Story deconstruction guidelines ( adapted from Boje a nd Dennehy, 1993) Story deconstruction 1. D uality search. Make a list of a ny b ipolar terms, a ny d ichotomies t hat a re used i n 2. 3. .1,. 3. 6. 7. S. the story. Include the term even if only one side is mentioned. For example, in male-centred a nd/or m ale-dominated organization stories, m en are central a nd w omen are marginal others. One term mentioned implies its partner. Reinterpret the hierarchy. A s tory is one interpretation or hierarchy of a n e vent from one p oint of view. lt usually has some form of hierarchical thinking i n place. Explore a nd r einterpret the hierarchy (e.g. in duality teons h ow one dominates the other) so you can understand its grip. Rebel voices. D eny the authority of the one voice. Narrative centres marginalize or exclude. To m aintain a centre takes enormous energy. W hat voices are n ot b eing expressed in this story? Which voices are subordinate o r hierarchical to o ther voices (e.g. Who speaks for the trees?)? Other side o f the story. Stories always have two o r m ore sides. W hat is the other side of the story (usually marginalized, under-represented, o r e ven silent)? Reverse the story, b y p utting the b ottom o n top, the marginal i n control, o r the back stage u p front. For example, reverse the male-centre, b y h olding a spotlight o n its excesses until it becomes a female centre i n telling the other side; the poin t is n ot to replace one centre with another, b ut to s how h ow e ach centre is i n a c onstant state o f c hange a nd disintegration. Deny the plot. Stories have plots, scripts, scenarios, recipes a nd morals. Turn these around (move from romantic to tragic or comedic to ironic). Find the exception. Stories contain rules, scripts, recipes a nd prescriptions. State each exception in a w ay that makes i t extreme o r a bsurd. Sometimes you have to b reak the rules to see the logic being scripted i n the story. Trace w hat i s between the lines. Trace w hat is n ot s aid. Trace w hat is the writing o n the wall. Fill in the blanks. Storytellers frequently use ' you k now t hat p art of the story.' Trace w hat y ou are filling in. With w hat a lternate w ay c ould y ou fill it in (e.g. trace to the context, tfie back stage, the between, the inter text)? Resitltate. The p oint o f d oing 1 to 7 is to find a n ew perspective, one that resituates the story beyond its dualisms, excluded voices o r s ingular viewpoint. The idea is to r eauthor the story so that the hierarchy is resituated a nd a n ew balance of views is attained. Restory to remove the dualities a nd margins. In a resituated story there are no more centres. Restory to script n ew actions. It is n ot t hat ' one can say anything' t hat m atters; it is t hat t here are socially situated limits a nd ' what o ne can assert'. There is a juridical a nd political limit on extreme relativity. The charge of relativism begs the question: can there be an ethic in p ostmodemism a nd p oststruc­ turalism? Bauman (1993) asserts there is a p ostmodern ethics. As Derrida p uts i t ' I take into account differences, b ut I a m n o relativist' (1999: 79). 4. Is there a n o utside to text? Derrida is often critiqued for saying there is nothing outside of the text, a m ove w hich w ould d eny t hat there are birds, trees a nd t he Holocaust. But, w hat d id he say? 'Il n 'y a p as de­ hors-texte' is Derrida's most misinterpreted slogan, a nd a ccording to 22 NARRATIVE METHODS C urrie ' does n ot m ean t here is n othing o utside the text as m ost c ommentators h ave t aken it. It is closer to "There is no outside-text''' (1998: 45). T he confusion is t hat D errida indicates t hat o utside the text are o ther texts, b ut also material conditions of textual production, a nd t ext traced into material conditions (i.e. factories, schools, bombs, genocide a nd war). D errida clarifies t hat ' what 1 call the "text" is n ot d istinct from action or o pposed to action' (1999: 65). A text is n ot t he p ages of a book, it is a m uch b roader c oncept t hat i ncludes the politics a nd ethics of action. 'The distinction b etween t ruth a nd reality is absolutely elementary, as is the distinction between t ruth a nd veracity; t hat is, to say something is true d oes n ot m ean t hat y ou say something is real' (1999: 77). With apologies to Derrida, I will outline eight analytic moves to decentre a nd d econstruct stories (see Table 1.1). T he e ighth m ove Critics of deconstruction call m y first seven tactics in Table 1.1 m ere destruction, b ut I t hink t hat i s because they d o n ot s ee or m aybe refuse to see the e nd g ame, the eighth move, as deconstruction is controversial. Structuralists h ave r aised counter-charges a bout the political r ight politics of deconstructionist, P aul d e M an, in a w itchhunt for his w artime j ournal­ ism w ith the N azi p ropaganda machine. 'The w artime j ournalism - mostly inoffensive reviews for a collaborationist n ewspaper i n B elgium - was Widely viewed as confirmation of the latent fascism i n d econstructive narratology' (Currie, 1998: 7). T here h as b een a b acklash from this contro­ versy a bout d econstruction a nd i deology i n Organization Science (Boje, 2000a; Weiss, 2000). O thers h ave s aid I err because I m ake d econstruction too easy a nd too accessible. A few s tudents h ave t old m e t hat d econstruc­ tion is negative thinking a nd d oes n ot l ead to solutions o r to change of any kind. I do n ot a pologize for m aking it accessible a nd I c ontend decon­ struction can result i n c hange a nd s olutions. M any critics, I believe, d o n ot m ake the eighth move. The eighth move, as presented in Table 1.1, is to resituate t he dualities, voices a nd traces, a nd its hierarchy into a n ew ren­ dering of a s tory In this restorying, there is the possibility of n ew action, of a w ay o ut of hierarchy a nd d omination. Of course a t the action level, resituation is h appening a nyway, to a nalyse it is to note its unfolding. Narrative constructs centres that marginalize or exclude. For example, in a bureaucracy, m en are often given the central roles a nd b ecome the s pokesmen fOF t he organization, while w omen's voices are silent, n ot a uthorized to speak for the corporation (Clair, 1998). I f w e reverse the male-centre, b y h olding a s potlight on its excesses until it becomes a female centre, this m ay b e fair, just a nd reasonable, b ut it w ould faU s hort of w hat w e seek in deconstruction. That is, a resituation of the narrative so t hat t here are n o m ore centres, m ale o r female. We c an m ake the s ame case a bout race, ethnic and r.:'~.:­ on one element at the excluS~L._ m ous energy. A nd since ( I ­ _ text o f a p lurality of other na~ w ithout a ny p ushing, shO\'u"_ ' deconstruction is one of d T c-:_ self-deconstruction. . Eight d e constructive moves Duality search 1 aSSume stories are told iT" .. ' b inary oppOSites: m ale/fel .,:­ heterosexual/homoseXllal, 1 ~.:.:' ­ p ermanentltemporary, o ld -:. dualizing terms is to see thE : 2 r epresent m any d ifferent te ,.. ~, ­ a nd ' female' are cover tern'."" -=. macho males a nd gentle l1Ui:.:-:: ~ v ariations of femininity. De ....:..=. story) sel£-deconstructs, h o ''­ own ( dualized) hierarch\' 0 . the dominant. For example, ~"';_~""""''''''' or a particular masculinifl; a nd f ormalism, deconstrLlct=.. ..:. n arrating, b ut looks for the . lizing structural footprints .. the hierarchy in the oppositi or s ubordinated b inary te problematic dualities w her . _ ' other' is marginal, repress honed, record the silence of i"so of the text, a n i mplied t er" : Dennehy, 1993). Look a t the .' Look for the propaganda. \ . ',z:"":­ utopian dream, progress-my!: ~ , c , _ ~iple? Like now, I a m s ellin" '. , _ ­ they h ide p eripheries. Mills :~. " ror assumptions, silences, e>~.::: ...:. ~ : hat c ontain hierarchies, I f \' ,. s educed into assuming t hat ". •i . . . ,: : hauvinists a re feminists. f j ? ropaganda to let the 'constr .::: : aymg tracks for a n a lternatin:' T --:: DECONSTRUCT[ON ANALYSIS 23 case about race, ethnic a nd m anagerial control narratives that are centred on one element a t the exclusion of others. To m aintain a centre takes enor­ mous energy. A nd since n o n arrative is an island, b ut i n a d ynamic con­ :ext of a plurality of other narratives, the centred position self-deconstructs without a ny p ushing, shoving or editing o n o ur part. The epistemology of deconstruction is one of dynamic intertextuality, of constant change a nd self-decons tru ction. Eight deconstructive m oves uality search I a ssume stories are told in ways t hat seek centres a nd proliferate m any b inary oppOSites: m ale/female, o rganization/environment, w hite/black, h eterosexual/homosexual, quantita tive/ qualitative, m anagement/ worker, p ermanent/temporary, o ld/young, etc. The point of reading a story for its dualizing terms is to see the p lay of differences, h ow each t erm seeks to ~epresent m any d ifferent terms. I n m ale/female, for example, both ' male' ilnd 'female' are cover terrns representing m any variations. There are ::nacho males a nd gentle males, gay a nd s traight males, just as there are "ariations of femininity. Derrida writes of reading to see h ow t he text (or ~:-ory) s elf-deconstructs, h ow t he a uthor of a story h as r eversed h is/her '. w n ( dualized) hierarchy of b inary terms, privileging the marginal over J e d ominant. For example, privileging a male story over a female story, ,:Ir a p articular masculinity o r femininity over others. Like structuralism , , d formalism, deconstruction is sensitive to binary oppositions in -:1i'lrrating, b ut looks for the unstable qualities of binaries, n ot their stabi­ :.izing structura~ footprints. A deconstructive reading of narrative traces e hierarchy i n the opposition between a dominating a nd a m arginalized .:lr s ubordinated b inary term. Review the narrative to isolate the m ost r w blematic dualities where one term is central or privileged while the o ther' is marginal, repressed or excluded. "When j ust one term is men­ ioned, record the silence of its opposite. I t is reading ' between the lines' ::Ii the text, a n i mplied t erm c onspicuous b y its absence (Boje a nd Dennehy, 1993). Look at the fictions. Look a t t he haves a nd have-nots. :... o k for the propaganda. "Where is the text selling y ou a central vision, ,'fopian dream, progress-myth, essentialist concept o r t ranscendent prin­ :ip}e? Like now, I a m selling y ou t hat narratives have centres, a nd t hat ::.ey hide peripheries. Mills a nd S immons (1994) refer to this as a search ,'or a ssumptions, silences, exclusions, deletions, asides a nd i llustrations :.lat contain hierarchies. I f y ou o nly read the p ropaganda, y ou can be ~cduced i nto assuming that white is black, a dictator is a democrat, a nd ~nauvinists are feminists. Finding the dualities means lifting the veil of : ropaganda to let the 'constructions' deconstruct, a nd d oing so without :.lying tracks for a n a lternative propaganda. 24 NARRATIVE METHODS Reinterpret the hierarchy T he h ierarchy l ives i n t he v alue s ystems y ou a re t rying to analyse. i t c an b e a m ost v iolent h ierarchy i n w hich t he c entred t erm b ecomes t he R eal a nd t he G ood w hile t he o ppressed o r e xcluded b ecomes t he U nreal a nd t he Bad, s omething to b e b urned a t t he s take. O r it can b e m ore h idden a nd t aken-for-granted, a s ubtle h egemony t hat g oes u nnoticed, m oving b ehind t he s cenes t o t ilt o ther b inaries this w ay o r t hat. In m uch o f o rganization t heory (OT) t he b inaries are ' managerialist' i n t heir i deo­ logy: ' male-centred', w ith ' white' a nd ' Anglo' a ssumptions a bout t he m anager's p erspectives b eing m ore r ight o r h aving m ore ' real' a gency o r b eing m ore t he w ay of free m arket e conomies. O ne w ay to r einterpret t he h ierarchy is reversal. 'For e xample, a r eversal of b inary o pposition m ight b e o verthrowing p atriarchy for m atriarchy' (Clair, 1998: 110). A s Clair observes, this j ust r eplaces one h ierarchy w ith i ts reversal. Yet, t he r eversal c an o pen u p t he analysis a nd let u s t hink differently. W hat if w e r everse m anager /work h ierarchy a nd l et w orkers c ontrol or exercise democratic g overnance? I n t he reversal, the w orkers c annot s o easily b e f ramed a s b ad, lazy, i n n eed o f m otivation a nd t oo u neducated t o m anage t hemselves. You see h ow I a m s neaking i n m y o wn i deology o f w orkers' d emocracy i n m y r eversal. I n M arxist n arratives, w hich I d o s eem to prefer, the reversal h appens, t he w orkers' v iewpoint h as p rivilege o ver t he capitalists a nd t heir m anager-agents. I n t he r eversal, capitalists are b lood-sucking v ampires s queezing t he l ast o unce o f b lood o ut o f labour. D errida s ays Western t hought f orms these b inary o pposites, p utting t hem i nto hierarchies. I t is n ot a lways easy to find h ierarchy b ecause a n arrative m ay p retend to narrate the only ' true' reality. A democratic or ecologist narrative (obviously b etter t han a m anagerialist, I a m b eing ironic, or a m I?), m ay p resent w ays of b eing d emocratic t hat a re hierarchic a nd elitist. O ne t erm m ay b e v ocal while t he o ther is absent, silent or a s upplement to the p rimary t erm. L abour c an b e i n t he discourse used, a ' supplement' to m anagement, a nd vice versa. I n F rench, supplement h as a d ouble m eaning: to a dd o n to a t hing a lready c omplete in itself, o r to complete t he t hing b y a dding o n to it. In m anagerialism, l abour is corrupting, perverse, lazy a nd u ndependable, a n e xpensive item t hat n eeds to b e c ontrolled a nd a bandoned. S ometimes the marginal term is n ot i n t he t ext a t all, it is i n t he implied, b ut m issing half of duality. T here is h ierarchy i n t his s tring o f i mplied b inaries. ' Organizations w ould be great places if it w ere n ot for employees,' says the managerialist. 'Organizations w ould be g reat p laces i f n ot for m an­ agers,' says the Marxist. The deconstructive proof is t o s how h ow a n arrative ( including this one) is able to accomplish the little p ropaganda s teps t hat g et y ou t o b uy i nto w hat i t is selling y ou, its perspective above all others. Where d o y ou b egin h ierarchy analysis? Trace w here t he rhetoric does n ot live u p to its o wn e xpectations or is e ven t he o pposite of w hat i t says it does. S how h ow t he narrative constructs a hierarchy b y p rivileging one t erm o n'r m any b usiness contexts: Rebel '[Joices T here are voices that d o n ot ",."." ­ friend Robert G ephart Jr., f o'. ­ hear a story a bout b usiness i l ­ speaks for the trees?'. Perha FS : . , ­ about c ommissioners decidEr. - ­ site; or, an organization d .w£:", ~ c hanged is n ot a p art of th ~:. n ity to write u p a counter-" -~­ voice'. P utting t his rebel S ( IT"' ­ story p uts b oth i n a n ew con ' (1990) article deconstructs a~l": n ational corporate presiden~ ~ w hat t he s tory says, w hat i ' is the s tory t old b y t he C EO: : We h ave a y otmg w oman \,:' Q : , o f a m ajor n ew ( product). \ .' w orld w ide i ntroduction, S he '~:- ­ in o rder to b e p repared f or' h ome a nd t his is g oing to - ':, : haVing this d one b y T V for i1c:- ~~~ ­ are f inding w ays o f filling i i mportant t hing f or h er to t ilL ~ The s tory b egins 'We have ­ woman w orks for u s' (1990: ~ ,., the c ompany h as access to t e h omelife - as well as h er ' .·"L':: gives e mployers c ontrol 0 \' _ • m edical t reatment a nd t heir -::.-.. ­ implies t hat t he t iming q a rranged' h ad to d o w ith !:he " ~ l aunching of a major ne,\' 'We h ave i nsisted t hat s he sta-.- !""" DECONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS 25 p rivileging one t erm o ver t he other. The left t erm d ominates t he right in m any b usiness cont~xts: C entral: I: M arginal O rganization: I: E nvironment M anagernent:/: L abour C apital : /: L abour M ale : I: F emale Faculty : /: S tudent U S:!: T hird World N arrative : /: S tory Rebel voices There are voices t hat d o n ot g et i ncluded i n a given telling of a s tory M y friend Robert G ephart Jr., for example, is concerned w ith ecology. H e w ill h ear a s tory a bout b usiness a nd t he n atural e nvironmentt a nd a sk ' who s peaks for the trees?'. Perhaps it is t he c ommunity t hat is left out of a s tory a bout commissioners deciding w here to locate a n ew toxic waste disposal site; o r a n o rganization change storyt w here t he v oice of the p eople b eing c hanged is n ot a p art of the story. I n t hese stories there is g ood o pportu­ nity t o w rite u p a c ounter-narrative t hat tells the story w ith t he 'rebel \'oice'. P utting this rebel story side b y s ide w ith t he ' dominant' o riginal story p uts b oth i n a n ew context of meaning. For example t Joanne Martin's :1990) article deconstructs a nd r econstructs a s tory told b y a l arge multi­ national corporate p resident f rom a feminist perspective. She examines w hat t he story says, w hat i t d oes n ot sa)" a nd w hat m ight h ave s aid. This is t he s tory told b y t he C EO to a university conference audience: t We h ave a y oung w oman w ho is extraordinarily i mportant to the l aunching of a major n ew ( product). We w ill b e t alking a bout i t n ext Tuesday i n i ts first w orld w ide i ntroduction. She h as a rranged to h ave h er Caesarean y esterday i n o rder to b e p repared for this event, s o y ou - We h ave i nsisted t hat s he stay h ome a nd t his is going to b e televised i n a closed circuit television, s o w e're h aving this d one b y TV for her, a nd s he is s taying h ome t hree m onths a nd w e are finding w ays o f filling in to create this v oid for u s b ecause w e think i t's a n i mportant t hing for h er to do. (1990: 339) The s tory b egins 'We h ave a y oung w oman . ..' r ather t han ' A y oung ',\'oman w orks for u s' (1990: 344). ' Having,' a rgues M artin ' suggests t hat ~he c ompany h as access to the w hole of the w oman - her h ealth a nd h er :'tomelife - as w ell as h er w ork' (1990: 345). The e mployment c ontract gives employers control over w ork b ehaviour, b ut l eaves homelife, a nd : nedical t reatment a nd t heir timing choices to the employee. The story :mplies t hat t he timing a nd choice of the Caesarean o peration ' she H anged' h ad t o d o w ith t he c orporation ' being p repared f or' a nd ' the b unching o f a major n ew ( product)' a nd 'its w orld w ide i ntroduction'. 'We h ave i nsisted t hat s he s tay h ome' i ndicates that the c orporation ( 'we') 26 NARRATIVE METHODS ' took r esponsibility for m aking d ecisions t hat a re u sually t he responsibility of a d octor a nd a p atient - not a n e mployer' (1990: 345). T he c ompany ' we're h aving t his d one b y TV for h er' i nitiated t he c losed circuit TV i nstalled i n t he e mployee's b edroom. M artin c ontends t hat t he e mployee h as l ost c ontrol o ver t he p rivate d ecisions a bout w hat g oes o n i n h er b edroom. T he c orporation, s he a rgues, m ay b e i nvading h er p rivacy o r s he m ay h ave w elcomed t he T V's installation. T he g aps i n t he s tory s peak p owerfully o f hierarchy. T he voice of c orporate c ontrol d ominates t his s tory a nd t he w ord c hoices m ay i ndicate l evels of d iscomfort a nd t ension a t t he i nterpenetration o f w ork a nd h ome c ontexts. T he d iscursive u tterances o f t he C EO s toryteller a nnounce t he p roblematic j uxtaposition o f w ork a nd h omelife. T here is i nstability i n t he s tory l ines i n w hich p erhaps t he t eller's s ubconscious b egins t o s peak i n F reudian slips. M artin r ewrites t he s tory w ith a r ebel voice, c hanging t he f emale c haracter to a m an. S ince m en d o n ot h ave C esarean s urgery, s he r econstructs t he s tory l ine w ith a m ale s urgery. We h ave a y oung m an w ho is extraordinarily i mportant to the l aunching o f a major n ew ( product). We will b e t alking a bout i t n ext T uesday in its first w orld w ide i ntroduction. H e h as a rranged [sic) t o h ave h is c oronary bypass o peration y esterday i n o rder to b e p repared for this event, so y ou - We h ave i nsisted t hat h e s tay h ome a nd t his is going to be televised i n a closed circuit television, so w e're haVing this d one b y TV for h im, a nd h e is staying h ome three m onths a nd w e a re f inding w ays of filling i n to create this void for u s b ecause w e t hink i t's a n i mportant t hing for h im to do. (1990: 346) A nother r ebel voice is r evealed - the u nborn child. I n t he b ypass, o nly t he m an's life is i n j eopardy b y c hanging t he t iming o f t he o peration. ' The C esarean s tory s uggests t hat t he m other m ay h ave j eopardized h er c hild, o r a t l east a ltered t he t iming of its b irth t o fit t he s chedule of a p roduct i ntroduction' ( Martin, 1990: 347). Other side of the story R eversing t he h ierarchy r eplaces o ne c entre w ith a nother. Yet, i t is a u sehll w ay t o t race differences. O nce y ou c an s tate t he h ierarchic r elationshir b etween t he t wo t erms, y ou c an d escribe t he p lay of differences of v ariants w ithin e ach t erm. This a ssumes t here a re s ubtle a nd c omplex v ariations i n e ach t erm o f t he d uality, e.g. m anagers a re also e mployees, p rofessors a re a lso m anagers, a nd s tudents a re also t he e yes of t he a dministration. Similarly, a b ureaucracy c an t ake m any forrns: c orrupt, r ed t ape, protector of t he w eak, p redictable processes, d ue p rocess, r estraint of a busive p ower. Reversing m eans to look a t t he w ays i n w hich t he o ther t erm is s ometimes a nd i n s ome w ays t he m ore d ominant t erm. For e xample, r e-engineering m ay s ay i t ' bashes' a nd ' smashes' A dam S mith's d ivision of l abour o r M ax W eber's b ureaucracy, b ut r e-engineering also creates bureaucracy, ('ivision of labour, cyber-mechanical processes, a nd h ere a nd t here, d estroys t he flexibility t hat i s its claim to fame. S ubvert t he o riginal hi .:.. t he d uality b y l isting t he \ "-:" .. t ions o f e ach t erm. For ex", ':"" . .:. c ase of t he m arginal t er < u'_ ' rebel v oices'; g iving v oice ' see reversals in t he domina;: : ­ author's c entrist n arrati\'e .: c lues a nd t races of t he h ierar" trace o f a p lane i n t he d Oll ~":'_ y ou l ook a t p hallologoc lr.: ~ m any of t he p referred '. o riented, n urturing, a nd 5-. " -.:_ g enerally a ssociated w ith t~"f :_ p hase o f t he a nalysis. I n tht' :.- - :­ the i mplied s upplement A r' 0 - ' n ant r elationship w ith i ts <h-..~~~"~ e thnic, n on-White, n on-£ ~ _ = ­ for the h ierarchies i n t he te).." ' ­ Deny the plot S tories h ave p lots, s cripts,' -,,~ ­ tive t he p lots a re n ot agree," : ­ precedence (see C hapter ), :'~:­ what c aused a n e vent, a nd " .t Plots k nown s ince Plato a re. o f t he n arratives I r ead i n m r = :.,c a r omantic p lot t hat d oes n . :.:! . -_ F ortune 500 c ompany is al"a'~ j obs a nd c lean u p t he e m·irw.; '. ~ s tories a bout t hese s ame CEo 5 ;;,- . I n fact, y ou c an f ind q uite tra~~ ~ :" l abour a nd e nvironmental tr' " , ,­ stories y ou s ometimes f ind c o:: a s cript f or h ow to bel1a\'e, a i :' s tory e nds w ith a s elf-e\'iden: ­ na1"ios, r ecipes a nd m orals , ...... ' ..:.. ­ Ciln b e a ccompIished b y trace : ::-:_ ries. Tracing a s tory i nto i t- iL ~ p renarrated s tories a nd ant"t."!_la:::ri~ the text in i ntertextual relati i l c ontext of o ther a ntenarra \-'.:: _ n etwork o f s tories of o ther mE'.a~ ­ 0" ­ Find the exception W hat is t he e xception t hat _ !":-. ::.:..: recipe o r m oral a nd somehO\.\, e=-:.~_ h ing a bout a r ule is t hat ther::- ; DECONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS 27 S ubvert t he original hierarchy b etween t he central a nd m arginal t erm of the d uality b y l isting t he v ariations a nd s ubtle differences a nd m anifesta­ tions of each term. For example, s how h ow t he d ominant t erm is a special case of the m arginal t erm, a nd vice versa. Boje a nd D ennehy (1993) call it 'rebel voices': giving voice to the marginal perspectives. This l eads y ou to see reversals i n t he d ominant hierarchy. You c an u sually s how h ow t he a uthor's c entrist n arrative d econstructs itself. The a uthor m ay p rovide clues a nd traces of t he h ierarchy a nd i ts o wn reversals. I t i s like seeing t he trace of a p lane i n the cloud-prints, b ut n ot s eeing a plane. For example, if y ou l ook a t p hallologocentric (male organ + logic) m anagement texts, m any of the preferred qualities of a leader s uch a s b eing social, t eam­ oriented, n urturing, a nd s ensitive as a communicator are ideal qualities generally associated w ith t he female. Isolating ideals is t he p oint of this p hase of the analysis. I n t he reversal, female begins to d ominate m ale, as the i mplied s upplement. A t this stage, w e h ave o nly replaced one d omi­ nant r elationship w ith i ts opposite. This can m ean s ubstituting a feminist, ethnic, non-White, n on-European o r non-managerialist a ssumption s et for t he h ierarchies i n t he text. There is m ore to do. e ny the plot Stories h ave p lots, scripts, scenarios, recipes a nd m orals. Yet, i n a ntenarra­ tive the p lots are n ot a greed u pon, t here is d issensus o ver w hose p lot g ets precedence (see C hapter 7). P lots also convey a t heory of causality, w ho o r .vhat caused a n event, a nd w hat e vents are inter-connected (see C hapter 6). Plots k nown since Plato are romantic, tragic, comedic a nd ironic. M any of the narratives I read i n m anagement a nd o rganization textbooks h ave oil r omantic p lot t hat d oes n ot g et denied. The CEO is always the hero, the Fortune 500 c ompany is always e ngaged i n ' progress' to p rovide s ecure jobs a nd c lean u p t he e nvironment. Yet, i n t he a lternative press, there are stories a bout t hese same CEOs a nd c orporations t hat are n ot s o romantic. i ll fact, y ou c an find quite tragiC stories a bout m any ( not all) t hat a re a bout t b our a nd e nvironmental tragedy. A nd i n D oonsebury a nd o ther cartoon­ ories y ou s ometimes find c omedy a nd irony. The p lot o f t he s tory is also .:l s cript for h ow to behave, a scenario of w hat f ollows what, a nd o ften, the ~tory e nds w ith a s elf-evident moral claim. Turn these plots, scripts, seearias, recipes a nd m orals a round to highlight the centring devices. This ~i\n b e accomplished b y t racing the story p lot to different plots i n o ther sto­ ~ies. Tracing a story into its inter-story context (into the Tamara of m any p renarrated stories a nd a ntenarratives) also invites a political r eading of . e text i n i ntertextual relation to other texts. H ow d oes the story reference a context of o ther a ntenarratives, self-destructing one m eaning i n a w eb o r network of stories of other meanings (see C hapter 4)? ::illd the exception , vhat is t he e xception t hat b reaks t he r ule t hat d oes n ot fit the storied cipe or moral a nd s omehow escapes the strictures of the principle? The fun - ling a bout a r ule is that there are always exceptions. These exceptions f 28 N ARRATNE M ETHODS c an be located in the context of the s toried s ituation, t hat is, i n t he intertextual arena of o ther s tories (see C hapter 5). T here are o ther s tories a bout t he rule being centred a nd s howcased, a nd these can be stories w here t he rule does n ot h old. Since rules a nd w hat t hey p urport to 'fix' are always in flux a nd c hange, the exceptions are e merging all t he time. State t he rule i n a w ay t hat m akes i t s eem e xtreme or a bsurd, o r j ust p oint o ut s ome of the w ays it is self-deconstructing w ith c hanges in context. A rule s uch as ' you c an't c hange t hat', o r ' there's n othing y ou c an d o a bout it, [or] [M]en are just t hat w ay' can be challenged (Clair, 1998: 81) b ecause rules are political constructions t hat h elp to reify hierarchy (Mumby, 1987). C lair (1998) a rgues that s uch r ules help to silence sexual h arassment stories, keeping t hem p art of t he p rivate d omain ' we d on't t alk a bout t hat' o r u sed to d eny p ersonal e xperience i n f avour of narratives t hat follow the bureaucratic rules. For example i n t he ' bureaucratization of sexual h arassment' t he rules are i t is n ot ' harassment' u nless y ou ' say n o', ' keep a r ecord', of e ach o ccurrence, a nd ' report i t' to the p roper c hannels. A nd w hat h appens w hen y ou f ollow t he rules, s ay i n u niversities? ' Oddly e nough, " report i t" seems to b e t he e nd of t he s tory for m ost u niversities. The exchange has been c ompleted' (Clair, 1998: 117). T he irony is all three rules act to 'bureaucratize, commodify, a nd p rivatize sexual harassment'. I f we d eny t he rules, w e e xpose some interesting stereotypes. For example, 'the requirement of documentation p erpetuates t he stereotype that w omen lack credibility; t hat s exual h arassment w ithout w itnesses, times, dates, a nd s o on also lacks credibility; a nd t hat w ritten c odes (i.e., documenta­ tion) create a false reality that action is b eing t aken' (Clair, 1998: 119). most familiar thing in the w0"~~~ : , out the gramme, Without diH\?=---~ ence of the other inscribed v :;:. relation to death as the c C "",-" presence-absence of the tl'ac. .­ H egemony (passive, taken- 'or cion (force) are w ays to org control others: 'silencino­o 6·~ ' l-''­' : err, ' forms ... silence m ay b e achie-- - ­ (Clair, 1998: 67). A n oisv CEO r ~ w ith n o t ime for questions i ::' , way, m aybe t he only wa\', t t '__ b etween the lines is a w ay'to .:i'O"': . . :., Resituate The first seven steps allm-\' 1I:'= : .: _ , is to remove the domination is time to renarrate the narra.1\' sometimes is a free p lay of very least, t wo r eadings of the ill\decidability of d oubl I _-: the text is n on· hierarchical; j ' : - - _­ do this w ithout r eplacing n e c .__ a nother). I t d oes little g ood t r" _' o r o ne r acist hierarchy for al"lO:<'­ praxis, a n ew p attern of beha\': _' (1993) call this w riting a n ew;:- . hierarchies. The resituation orr :~~" ­ refer to as 're-Writing the Text t - ., m enting a nd t esting o ut ne~''- :>­ look like? The n ew n arratin' H l',J d econstruction, a nother e x i "~ .. ­ resituation. Barbara C zamiawska (1'(}q C amelis Escher ( 1898-197_) o rganization t heory is focu.s- ~ __ . s wans, w hile w e deconstrucu<'" -~. ;'ish, T he i dea of deconstruc C":­ ...:. \'isioning. Figure 1.1 capture:o ',', ~ _. i ng b eneath t he surface of the~: . State what is between the lines Trace w hat is n ot said. Read b etween t he s tory lines. Trace w hat is the w riting o n t he wall a nd w here p eople resist b y b eing silent. Fill in the b lanks as y ou trace. Storytellers frequently use ' you k now t hat p art of the story.' W hat a re y ou filling i n as y ou r ead ' you k now' t he story? With w hat a lternate ways could y ou fill it i n (e.g. get a t t he context, the back stage, the between)? I t is a question of systematically tracing h ow t he s tory e ncourages y ou to b orrow f rom a heritage of o ther stories. Some of the stories are y our o wn life experiences. O thers a re stories the s tory y ou r ead refers back to. Each story inscribes a nother story. Each story is related intertextually to a nother s tory (see C hapter 5). A v ery b rief story, told to those in the know, can key the s tory co-creators (tellers a nd co-tellers, a nd co-listeners) to recall a more extensive s tory line. W hen w e tell a s tory to people w ho k now t he longer version, w e s ometimes skip the details a nd s peak a few c oded lines. But these abbreviated lines refer to lines that are not said; ones w e a re expected to imagine. They are traces of lines b etween t he lines of t he story. Derrida p uts it this w ay in Grarnmatology: Example: d econstructing t he ca ~::.: This trace is the opening of the first exteriority in general, the enigma tic rela­ tionship of the living to its other and of an inside to a n outside: spacing. The outside, 'spatial' and 'objective' exteriority which we believe we know as the r acques Derrida has looked a :' ­ ~\'[arx', D errida (1994) p lays .<.. rn.troducing t he t erm ' hauntol DECONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS 29 m ost familiar thing i n the w orld, as familiarity itself, w ould n ot a ppear w ith o ut t he g ramme, w ithout diHerance as temporalization, w ithout the n onpres­ ence of t he o ther i nscribed w ithin t he m eaning o f t he p resent, w ithout t he r elation to d eath as t he concrete s tructure o f the living p resent . ... T he presence-absence o f the trace . ... (1976: 41~3) H egemony ( passive, taken-far-granted a nd s pontaneous assent) a nd coer­ .::ion (force) are w ays t o organize silence, w ays for d ominant g roups to ,~ontrol o thers: 'silencing g roups of p eople m ay t ake o n a m ultitude of i orms . .. silence m ay b e a chieved t hrough coercion or t hrough h egemony' rClail~ 1998: 67). A noisy CEO can silence everyone else; a m eeting s et u p ,\'ith no t ime for questions is a w ay to silence. But b eing s ilent is also a ','ay, m aybe the only way, to express resistance. R eading t he silence '- etween t he lines is a w ay to deconstruct the forces t hat o ppress. Resituate The first seven s teps a llow u s to g et to this point. The t ask of resituation ~s t o remove t he d omination of t he h ierarchy of the d uality i n t he story. I t -.s t ime to renarrate t he n arrative. S how h ow t he narrative can become or ::ometimes is a free p lay o f the b inary o pposites b eyond hierarchy. A t t he " ery least, t wo r eadings o f the b inary (one reversed) can b e s uspended i n :he undecidability of double logic. W hen t here is n o c entral configuration :he text is non-hierarchical; it is d ouble m.eaning. The p roblem is h ow to . 0 t his w ithout r eplacing o ne c entre for a nother c entre (one hierarchy for :mother). I t d oes little g ood t o replace a male hierarchy w ith a female one : r one racist hierarchy for a nother one. W hat is it like to b ehave i n a n ew :>raxis, a n ew p attern of b ehaviours w ithout h ierarchy? Boje a nd D ennehy 1 .93) call this w riting a n ew p lot or restorying b eyond t he d ominant ierarchies. The resituation of the text is w hat Mills a nd S immons (1994) :'1:'fer to a s ' re-Writing the Text to create n ew ' praxis'. Praxis m eans e xperi­ :.. e nting a nd t esting o ut n ew actions a nd r elationships. W hat c ould i t o k like? T he n ew n arrative y ou create c an b ecome t he subject of a nother J€constructiol1, a nother e xploration of binary, hierarchy, reversal a nd . ~5ituation. B arbara C zarniawska (1999) c ommenting a bout t he a rt of M aurits :::ornelis Escher (1898-1972) p ointed o ut t hat m uch o f m anagement a nd r ganization theory is focused above t he w ater line seeing only the black -"':ans, while w e d econstructionists focus b elow t he w ater line seeing the h . T he idea of deconstruction is to s ee b oth i mages, to d o a d ouble Ibioning. Figure 1.1 c aptures w hat I m ean b y d econstruction. I t is look­ :tg b eneath t he s urface of t he story. ::xample: d econstructing t he c apitalllabour d uality c ques D errida h as l ooked a t M arxism. I n h is a ddress, t he ' Specters of Derrida (1994) p lays w ith t he philosophical term, 'ontology', b y . .oducing t he t erm ' hauntology'. O ntology l ooks a t 'Being in the w orld', r rx', 30 NARRATIVE METHODS 'subjugation a nd o ppression 418), o ccupy positions of C<l ---:;- ~­ managers are hired to pUffir _ trol the labour process to n,c rather t han i ncreasing the self- :0 workers, The duality here i5 ' :-O?": A rticulate the hierarchy C apital dominates l abom ~":- -. (1974: ), This m eans t hat la' , ­ value) t hat b ecomes profit. ~ ­ labour (knowledge of labo . . t "-_ g reedy accumulation of more - ,­ poverty a nd d ependency L L is d isplaced b y a utomation, "'-0­ fagriculturallabom a nd female.,: __­ ':he l abour p rocess theory l .::oncisely: I Source: M .C. Escher works, Cordon A rt, Baarn, t he N etherlands. Figure 1.1 Escher's black swans and fish Find the dualities B raverman s ays t hat c apital a nd l abour constitute a g iant d uality (1974: 377), B raverman views m anagers as agents who while sharing in ........ _. • Capital dominates labour b-,­ number of workers i n a gj;.. c.~ m echanization o f jobs prG! .. : c: _ u nder-employed o r p artia _' ~ l abour d own (1974: 3 82-3 . • Capital, says Marx 'thru.s:.~ p roduction .. , transfol'ma!(l" u nemployed o r h alf-emplo\' ­ 1974: 383), 'The purpose 0 '" '1:­ number o f workers attach w hile h auntology looks at the space between being a nd n on-being, the place of ghosts a nd spectres. I n a pproaching M arx, Derrida is able to m ove b eyond t he d uality of c apital/labour to look in-between a t t he h auntology of Marxism. I n M arx's Communist Manifesto (1848), M arx uses the w ord ' specter', ' A s pecter is h aunting E urope, the specter of C ommunism.' The p owers o f Europe seek to conjure a way o r exorcise this spectre. After the Berlin Wall fell, m any a ssumed t hat i ndeed M arxism was d ead a nd t hat m onopoly c apitalism was triumphant. But, w ith l abour process theory a nd N eo­ Marxism, the ghost of Marxism keeps h aunting capitalism. Braverman (1974) a cknowledges a c ommon d uality t hat w e u nravel w ith s everal of the approaches in Table 1.1. 11 1! _ ­ • Race comes into p layas t i"x :' p opulations become r esen ~ • G ender c omes into p lay 3 5 -, - ­ ing jobs to s upplement thE- _: - - ~ • T he i ndustrial r eserve arrrn1. t he f loating e mplO\'tt5' _ 2. the b tent worl<e;s fo.: recruitment in Chir'l.a \ 3, the s tagnant s urpI 5 a nd g et to live as p a t he 'concealed pro 0- < i n t he u nemploym :tI. 5 :4 " t he US h ave been c:. .­ sector, while Im-ver-I: (1974: 391-3). DECONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS 31 , .l b jugation a nd o ppression' t hat c haracterize t he l ives of w orkers (1974: .., 18), o ccupy positions of c omparative p rivilege. As agents of capital, agers are h ired to p ump s urplus v alue o ut of labour. Managers con­ _ I t he l abour process to maximize capitalist p rofit a nd a ccumulation _ ther t han i ncreasing the self-determination, skill a nd w age c ondition of ·orkers. The d uality h ere is c apital/labour. tjculate the hierarchy '::apital d ominates l abour, or as B raverman p uts it: ' Capital is l abour' _974: ). This m eans t hat l abour p roduces t he s urplus v alue (over w age ue) t hat b ecomes profit. Explore the hierarchy: capital a ppropriates u ur ( knowledge o f l abour b ecomes systemic knowledge) i n its acts of ,.- edy accumulation of m ore a nd m ore c apital as l abour is s queezed i nto -erty a nd d ependency. L abour b ecomes m ore a nd m ore m arginal as it ....=. d isplaced b y a utomation, d e-skilled a nd s ubstituted for cheaper l abour J. r iculturallabour a nd f emales e mployed a t l ower w ages). This is w here - e l abour process t heory (the q uestion I a sked of you) gets articulated ncisely: Capital dominates labour b y m echanization a nd a utomation to keep the n umber of w orkers i n a g iven i ndustry to a m inimum (1974: 381). T he mechanization of jobs p roduces s urplus p opulations (of u nemployed, t rnder-employed or partially e mployed a dults) w hich d rives the p ay of labour d own (1974: 382-3). C apital, says M arx ' thrusts itself frantically into o ld b ranches of p roduction . .. transformation of a p art of the laboring p opulation i nto . memployed o r half~employed h ands' ( Marx as cited in Braverman, 1974: 383). 'The purpose of machinery is not to increase but to decrease the number of workers attached to i t' (1974: 384). • Race comes into p layas t he Black, Spanish a nd A sian c ountries a nd p opulations become reservoirs of the lowest p aid l abour (1974: 384-5). G ender c omes into p layas w omen are funnelled into m uch l ower p ay­ ing jobs to s upplement t he r ace-reservoir of labour. T he i ndustrial r eserve a rmy h as three parts: 1. t he f loating e mployees w ho m ove f rom job to job; 2. t he l atent w orkers f ound i n agricultural areas (e.g. N ike's r ecruitment i n C hina, Vietnam a nd I ndonesia) a nd 3. t he s tagnant s urplus of w orkers w ho n o l onger c an f ind w ork a nd g et to live as p aupers (1974: 386-7). T he first a nd s econd are the 'concealed p roportion o f the p opulation w ho d o n ot s how u p i n t he u nemployment statistic. Males, particularly Black males in the US h ave b een m oved, m ore a nd m ore i nto t he s tagnant sector, while lower-paid w omen a nd e xported jobs increase' (1974: 391-3). 32 NARRATIVE M EffiODS • As w ealth i ncreases, t he i ndustrial r eserve a rmy also increases as does the t orment a nd m isery of l abour (1974: 396). This is the a bsolute g en­ eral l aw o f c apitalist a ccumulation (1974: 388-9). As capital accumu­ lates, so does misery. • With t he t echnical d ivision o f l abour a nd h ierarchical c ontrol, the l abour process c an b e ' rationalized' (1974: 408). • The service sector of lower a nd l ower p aid jobs e xpands i n p roportion t o the i ndustrial r eserve army. • Finally, t he c lerical a nd m iddle m anagement r anks are b eing s ubjected n ow to these s ame trends. • In s um, t his is t he l abour p rocess theory, the m ovement of m ass n um­ bers of higher p aid a nd h ighly skilled males into the i ndustrial r eserve army, w hile t he r ulers of i ndustry t ake o ut l arger a nd l arger p ay a nd s tock options for themselves. With m ore i nformation technology t he r anks a nd p ay of m iddle m anagement c ontinue to decline. Reverse the duality B raverman d e constructs his o wn d uality. H e n otes t hat ' Labour i s C apital' (1974: 377). C apital d epends u pon l abour to extract its capital s urplus. N ot o nly w orkers, b ut m anagers ( especially m iddle o nes) a re s ubjugated a nd o ppressed. A nother r eversal: t he i ndividual e ntrepre­ neur, s ays M ax Weber, is i ndeed a c apitalist. T he c apitalist i n b uilding a b usiness c hooses b etween a dopting a f eudal a nd a b ureaucratic s truc­ ture. Capital i n t he d ysfunctional s ide of b ureaucracy p ays l abour s ub­ sistence wages, s ubstitutes d e-skilled l abour for skilled l abour p uts p eople i n a h ierarchy o f s pecialized r anks a nd f unctions - and o vertime m oves w ages b elow t he p overty line. M arx w rote a bout t he n eed t o exorcise M arxism f rom capitalism. This c ould b e o ur W estern inability to l ook a t u nder-employment, h omelessness, c hild l abour, r acism, de-skilling, sexism, e nvironmental d eterioration a s a cost of b usiness t hat i s s hunted o nto tax p ayers. T he g host o f M arxism g oes b eyond t he totalitarian r epression t hat fell (we h ope) w ith t he Berlin Wall. D errida s ees d econstruction a s a m ore r adical f orm of Marxism. To r everse t he d uality w ould m ake l abour m ore i mportant t han c apital. There are sys­ tems of e nterprise, s uch a s c oops a nd w orker-owned f irms w here l abour is capital. There are also f irms s uch as Body Shop, Ben a nd J erry's, Toms of Maine, etc. t hat p ut s ocial a nd e nvironmental r esponsibility a head of CEO greed. Resituate the dualih; I n r esituation w e 1~ok a t t he larger context i n w hich capital a nd l abour a re i n i nterplay i n t he g lobal economy. There are examples of g reed a nd n on­ greed i n b usiness formation. L abour c an a nd d oes resist the greed form of capitalism. Capital is d ependent o n l abour a nd t herefore l abour can b e r adical a nd d emocratic i n i ts reversal of h uman a nd ecological destruction (Alvesion a nd Willmott, 1996). A r esihlation looks a t h ow m anagers a re m anipulated a nd e ncourag ,- ,r ­ while p ursuing s urplus \. M anagers, for example, a F, .::"'<::,................. profit s haring a nd s tock sche:-:-:~· labour. Both m anagers a nd'. . ~~ p linary a nd p anoptic mechan":-.. ': ­ vate t he p rofit maximizing g . ::­ the d etriment o f t he workfor'::'e: t ured b y capital? The manage:- ~ . ­ also engages in family a nd . -: s ubmits, rebels or is integrat . - -; w hich p uts t he s ystem a head 0 : ­ To m ove b eyond t he d ua . tv" :.5 ~ c orporate success a nd t hat m a ,~ s elfhoods, only one of w hich 15- .__ =­ This w as t he concern o f M an' p~ - '. • in the economics of the firm: L : :­ democracy c ould b e pOSSible. Still it is no accident that m " h ;:--:­ from workers. A nd i t is no ace:" governance a nd a way from a ­ stance. I t is a social division i :" ':- ""-' . dedicated agents of capital. Bl . . - '"_ w orker a nd m anager are n ot" tion has advocated. We can loc,:: ~ _ managers to b e its executioner:o _::.­ The v alue o f l ooking a t lah t e e ­ (i.e. s uch as the team concept. T . \'\'orking) j ust p resent t he old '.,-~ ... The n ew m anagement p racti .'",,-:­ but can be seen as a n ew disg' - : ­ surplus v alue. Teamwork, d ela\ to g et ' workers to identif" tho T:" _. (Lucio a nd S tewart, 1997). Tee loyalties o n i nternal corupetiFl w ork ( workers d o t he w ork fo a nd auto-surveillance (mcludi ,:: ; l­ D errida sees i n M arx a history _~: ~ spectres t hat e mbod y the s piri: : duces, in resituating Marxism.:~ ::­ of the w orking poor, in the his c ~ ~ ( other spectres). For Marx, t he, - ~ ontological, 'rock b ottom reali: becomes a commodity, a nd ~:;:' , c. e xchange value of the product. F , ­ DECONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS 33 m anipulated a nd e ncouraged to s uspend t heir p ersonal v alues a nd e thics w hile p ursuing s urplus v alue maximizing strategies. Managers, for example, are s educed a nd c ontrolled b y e laborate b onus, profiit s haring a nd s tock schemes to k eep e xtracting s urplus v alue f rom labour. Both m anagers a nd w orkers a re c aught u p i n a p anopoly of disci­ plinary a nd p anoptic mechanisms (Foucault, 1979). Senior m anagers ele­ vate t he p rofit m aximizing g oal above aU else (do the b idding o f capital to the d etriment of t he workforce). But, is m anagerial w ork w holly struc­ tured b y capital? The m anager s peaks a d iscourse a bout profit-only, b ut also engages in family a nd c ommunity d iscourse. L abour p rotests and submits, rebels or is integrated into this system (Braverman, 1974: 378) which p uts t he s ystem a head o f t he i ndividuals. To m ove b eyond t he d uality is to see t hat l abour c an h ave i nterest i n c orporate success a nd t hat m anagement c an e xperience a multiplicity of selfhoods, o nly o ne of w hich is being capital's s urplus m aximizing agent. This w as t he concern of M ary P arker F ollett (1941), to g et w orkers t rained in the economics of the firm, its m arket a nd i ndustry. I n t his w ay w orker d emocracy c ould b e possible. Still it is no accident that m anagers h ave a privileged a nd d istant position from workers. A nd it is no accident t hat w orkers are kept o ut of corporate governance a nd a way from a knowledge of business context a nd circwn­ stance. It is a social division of labour that allows m anagers to continue as dedicated agents of capital. But, in the resituation, I h ave a rgued that b oth w orker a nd m anager are n ot so wutary, as t he labour process characteriza­ tion has advocated. We c an look more carefully at h ow capital disciplines managers to be its executioners a nd h ow m anagers resist this role. The v alue of looking a t l abour p rocess theory is to see h ow n ew fads (i.e. s uch as the t eam concept, TQM, reengineering, a nd s ubcontractor net­ working) j ust p resent the o ld w olf i n n ewly f ashioned s heep's c lothing. The n ew m anagement practices a ppear to b e m ore a ffirming of workers, b ut c an be s een a s a n ew d isguise for l abour p rocess a nd t he e xtraction of s urplus v alue. Teamwork, delayering a nd q uality p rogrammes are w ays to get ' workers to identify their interests as identical to those of capital' (Lucio a nd S tewart, 1997). Teamwork t for example, constructs collective loyalties o n i nternal c ompetition w ithin t he t eam i n w ays t hat intensifies w ork ( workers d o t he w ork f ormerly d one b y s upervisors)t stress, injury a nd a uto-surveillance (including self-surveillance). D errida s ees in M arx a h istory of Europe as a succession or m useum o f spectres t hat e mbody t he s pirit of revolution. The p roblem D errida intro­ duces, in resituating Marxism t is to look a t M arx's o ntology of revolution of the w orking p oort in the historical context of o ther w orker r evolutions (other spectres). For M arxt t he u se value of a p roduct t is its real b eingt its ontological, ' rock b ottom r eality' (Powell, 1995). As a p roduct is soldt it becomes a commodityt a nd is h aunted b y a g host, a (no)thing - the exchange value of the product. For example, t he use value of t he ' Swoosh' 34 NARRATIVE METHODS i n M arxist t hought is a few p ennies w orth o f fabric! while the market value of the Swoosh o n s neakers is $80 to $180 a t NikeTown. D errida q uestions M arx's c oncept of use value. 'Is it really t here first! f undamentally, o nto­ logically' (Powell! 1995: 146). The c ommodity a nd e xchange values already h aunt t he Swoosh a nd t he sneaker. ' Hauntology a lways a lready w ill h ave h aunted o ntology' (146). D errida points o ut t hat y ou c annot tell the difference b etween u se v alue a nd e xchange value. Derrida, in his resituation, says t hat Marx c ould a llow capitalism to s peak a nd i nitiate dialogue w ith it. W hen w e see labour as capital a nd c apital as labour! w e see t hat e ach h aunts t he other. There are variations i n b oth a nd s hades of difference i n b etween. We can­ not tell the one from the other. There is w hat D errida calls 'undecidability'. Workers can s ubvert e stablished institutions of greed b y r e-accumulating their skill, f orming t heir o wn alliances, a nd s haring t heir o wn profits. W hat is r equired is to de-centre greed as the central e lement a nd t hereby go b eyond t he b inary o pposite of capital a nd labour. T he r esituation takes place w hen n either capital or l abour c an p urge t he ' other' f rom its o wn d omain. As Braverman indicates each contains the other w ithin itself. In a d uality of capital over labour, capital (and its surrogate, m anagement) a ppears as !expert'! while l abour is v iewed a s !brainless' a nd e ventually 'skill-less'. 'He! sits atop the hierarchy! while 'she! sits submissively below. "fo r esituate w ould b e to m ove b eyond h ierarchy in organizations The so-called intelligent n etwork, a dhocracy, flexibility, de-differentiated m odels o f organization aspire to this. There is a m ovement to democratize the workplace! make w orkers k nowledgeable, as well as multi-skilled. Labour w ould b ecome the expert. Those closest to the w ork w ould e xpertly k now h ow to decide w hat to do. I nstead of capitalist/labourer! each has multiple selves. Worker is b oth c apitalist a nd labourer. W hat m y de constructive r eading of M arx d oes is m ove b eyond t he one story of capitalism exploiting labour. We c an f ind marginal examples of enterprise w here t here are variations! even reversals to the d ominant story. T he g reed element can be acted u pon. T here are microstories inside the m acrostory of capitalism t hat d econstruct t he g rand n arrative. Appropriately, w e t um n ext to g rand n arrative analysis i n C hapter 2. Grand na In antenarrative analysis, it i.s i t hat Lyotard calls t he ' Grand 1 'little stories! resist. Defining e mploys ' meta narrative' derine u sed to legitimate knowledl;[' defined as ' the h ero of knO\ 'leur­ political e nd - universal pea E n arrative' d efined a s ' a pos,";it-' i nterchangeably ( 1979/1984: s imply as 'incredulity t owan: :-:-"': ­ (1979/J.984: xxiv). I shall n ot d',·;~: .~ _ the space. The g rand n arratl':e i;; _ . (1991: 192-3) a m etanarrative tha.. 0 _ _ courses. O ur t ask is to give vo :!>::. Table 2.1 a nd i llustrate se\" r~! L yotard's w ork is b oth a n insigh~' p olemic a pproach to g rand n g rand n arratives a re helpful). 1 w a sserting that there are g rand al:~ ways, a nd t hat from a n a ntenarr ':'-', . g rand n arratives emerge, self-d. _:-:---: d ominant stories. It is o nly m y t easing o ut , ,' more local (antenarrative) s m : :- ': _. b etween g rand a nd local n arr a . ::-' a nd p osit t he d ynamics of t he a IT m ean h ow o ne voice is pri\i.Il"~ . c t hat are taken-for-granted or too:::' interested i n h ow t he g rand n arr h egemonic power. As w e ''''ill ex~ w ork (see C hapters 4 a nd 5), a 5- .~ i ng o ther stories. 1 see ,the 10 . \'oices'! b ut a s e mbedded i n an:i ::' Further, in o ur a nalyses w e c an _ =. c onstitute a deconstruction of ;"".-=­ t :' - Narrative Methods for Organizational and Communication Research D avid M. Boje SAGE Publications L ondon. T housand O aks. N ew Delhi © D avid M. Boje 2001 First published 2001. R eprinted 2002. • Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes o f research o r p rivate study, o r criticism o r review, as permitted u nder the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, this publication m ay be reproduced, stored o r t ransmitted in any form, o r b y a ny means, only w ith the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case o f r eprographic reproduction, in accordance w ith the terms o f licences issued b y the Copyright Licensing Agency. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside those terms should be s ent to the publishers. ( I ntroduction 1 D econstruction analysis 2 G rand n arrative a nalysis 3 Microstoria analysis SAGE Publications Inc 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, California 91320 4 S tory n etwork a nalysis SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd 32, M-B1ock M arket Greater Kailash - I New Delhi 110048 6 C ausality a nalysis 7 P lot analysis SAGE Publications Ltd 6 BonhiU Street London EC2A 4PU British Library Cataloguing i n P ublication data 5 Intertextuality analysis 8 T heme a nalysis A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library References ISBN 0 7619 6586 6 h bk ISBN 0 7619 65874 pbk I ndex Library o f C ongress catalog card n umber a vailable Typeset by SIVA M ath Setters, Chennai, India Printed in Great Britain b y A thenaeum Press, Gateshead l~ p. ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 08/27/2011 for the course ACCT 310 taught by Professor Verduzco during the Spring '10 term at University of Texas.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online