Introduction  导言

There can be very few scholars in organization studies today who would profess to have no interest in politics. Most political theorists hold the view that civil war ensues in the absence or breakdown of ‘politics’ (Runciman, 2014). To have no interest in politics might be a confession that violence and war is a preferable mode of conduct allowing life to return to a ‘war of all against all’ (Bellum omnium contra omnes) in a life ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short’, as Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) famously argued in his Leviathan. The Leviathan is for many the first statement of modern political theory and shows that politics is both an art of diplomacy – building consensus and the reaching of agreement by way of reason and debate – and also a practice that must subordinate itself to state and national interest. For Hobbes, this is not strictly a subordination but something he calls a ‘covenant’ of representation that both affirms and is secured by the somewhat fantastical existence (‘artificial’ or ‘fictitious’ personhood) of the Leviathan (Runciman, 2000; Skinner, 1999). In more recent definitions, politics is often thought to be about ‘who gets what, when, how’, as articulated in the pithy statement of political scientist Harold Lasswell (1936). Faced with these perennial questions, it is difficult to see how anything resembling ‘society’ is possible without a commitment to politics and a political participation in shaping the social and collective affairs of the community and wider society in which one lives.
当今组织研究领域很少有学者声称对政治不感兴趣。大多数政治理论家都认为，"政治 "的缺失或崩溃会导致内战（Runciman，2014 年）。正如托马斯-霍布斯（Thomas Hobbes，1588-1679 年）在他的《利维坦》（Leviathan）中提出的著名论点："对政治不感兴趣可能是承认暴力和战争是一种更可取的行为模式，让生活回归到'所有人对所有人的战争'（Bellum omnium contra omnes），过着'孤独、贫穷、下流、野蛮和短暂'的生活"。对许多人来说，《利维坦》是现代政治理论的第一部著作，它表明政治既是一门外交艺术--通过理性和辩论建立共识并达成一致--也是一种必须服从国家和民族利益的实践。在霍布斯看来，这并不是严格意义上的从属关系，而是一种他称之为 "盟约 "的代表关系，这种盟约既肯定了利维坦的存在（"人造 "或 "虚构 "的人格），又通过利维坦的存在得到了保障（Runciman, 2000; Skinner, 1999）。正如政治学家哈罗德-拉斯韦尔（Harold Lasswell，1936 年）的精辟论述所阐明的那样，在较新的定义中，政治通常被认为是关于 "谁在何时、如何获得什么 "的问题。面对这些长期存在的问题，我们很难理解，如果没有对政治的承诺，没有对塑造自己所生活的社区和更广泛社会的社会和集体事务的政治参与，怎么可能有任何类似于 "社会 "的东西。

It follows that abstention from politics is unlikely to be a successful strategy. The same might be said of specialists in organization studies who try to claim an avoidance of politics in their theoretical and methodological practices. However, the idea that management or organization science can be free from politics or value judgements has less and less adherents in the scholarly community today. For those who do recognize and seek to deal with politics from within the various schools of management, organization studies, or organizational behaviour, politics is typically conceived to exist in both a micro and macro realm (Alvesson & Willmott, 1996; Buchanan & Badham, 2020; Clegg, Boreham, & Dow, 1986; Vigoda-Gadot & Drory, 2016). ‘Micro’ politics takes place among managers competing for resources, between ‘management and worker’ and allied employment relations, and within relations between worker and worker. What is called ‘macro’ politics are those politics, for example, waged at the societal level and within the formal institutions of state and government. We might also conceive this macro as including the state-backed system of formal education and allied institutionalized knowledge systems that discipline the way we think (and understand politics) and into which we have all been recruited and enrolled (Contu, Grey, & Örtenblad, 2003). Indeed, one’s very own conditions of life, experiences, and life chances, are going to be determined by a wide array of forces shaped and enacted through politics – and if these can be said to shape and inform the kind of organization studies you pursue, then our discipline is always-already inescapably entangled in politics. In this respect we do well to remember Thucydides’ reflection (often quoted by Lenin): ‘Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you’ – as recited in Pericles’ famous funeral oration (Thucydides, Book 2, pp. 34–46: see Mynott, 2013).
由此可见，回避政治不可能是一项成功的战略。组织研究领域的专家也是如此，他们试图在其理论和方法实践中避免政治。然而，认为管理或组织科学可以不受政治或价值判断影响的观点在当今学术界的支持者越来越少。对于那些在管理学、组织研究或组织行为学的各个流派中承认并寻求处理政治问题的人来说，政治通常被认为存在于微观和宏观领域（Alvesson & Willmott, 1996; Buchanan & Badham, 2020; Clegg, Boreham, & Dow, 1986; Vigoda-Gadot & Drory, 2016）。微观 "政治发生在争夺资源的管理人员之间、"管理层与工人 "之间以及相关的雇佣关系中，也发生在工人与工人之间的关系中。所谓 "宏观 "政治，是指在社会层面以及国家和政府的正式机构内开展的政治活动。我们还可以将这种宏观政治视为包括国家支持的正规教育体系和相关的制度化知识体系，这些体系约束着我们的思维方式（和对政治的理解），我们都是被招募和注册进来的（Contu, Grey, & Örtenblad, 2003）。事实上，一个人自身的生活条件、经历和人生机会，都将由通过政治形成和实施的各种力量所决定--如果可以说这些力量塑造并影响了您所从事的组织研究，那么我们的学科就始终与政治纠缠在一起，不可避免。在这方面，我们最好记住修昔底德的反思（列宁经常引用）：你对政治不感兴趣，并不意味着政治不会对你感兴趣"--正如佩里克利斯在著名的葬礼演说中所吟诵的那样（修昔底德，第 2 卷，第 34-46 页：见 Mynott，2013 年）。

We offer here a curated collection of six papers from Organization Studies that are made available in the journal’s accompanying virtual special issue and where we think the rudiments of a distinctive approach to addressing politics can be found. We selected these articles because they exemplify crucial vectors in the development of politics in organization studies. They all have a strong interdisciplinary bent and foreshadow key concerns and preoccupations in our present historical moment. The papers range across different ‘levels’ of analysis, from what some might see as the small ‘p’ politics that exist in written texts (Calás & Smircich, 1991), including those texts we as academics in organization studies produce in relation to historical conditions of possibility (March, 2007), to the micro-interactions of role-holders occupying positions of political responsibility in local government (Czarniawska-Joerges & Jacobsson, 1995), up to the capital ‘P’ politics pursued at state level through the institutions of political lobbying (Barley, 2010) and the construction of public policy by trade unions, political parties and other representative bodies (Anders & Anders, 1986; Clegg & Higgins, 1987). These papers move us towards what we call a series of interstices that cut across epistemological and ontological differences and commitments that divide our discipline and out of which we believe our thinking about politics might be revitalized and extended.
我们在此收集整理了《组织研究》（Organization Studies）杂志中的六篇论文，这些论文发表在该杂志的虚拟特刊上，我们认为在这些论文中可以找到处理政治问题的独特方法的雏形。我们之所以选择这些文章，是因为它们体现了组织研究中政治学发展的关键脉络。它们都具有强烈的跨学科倾向，并预示了我们当前历史时刻的主要关注点和当务之急。这些文章跨越了不同的分析 "层次"，从某些人可能认为存在于书面文本中的小 "p "政治（Calás & Smircich, 1991），包括我们作为组织研究学者根据历史可能性条件制作的文本（March, 2007）、从地方政府中担任政治责任职务的角色持有者的微观互动（Czarniawska-Joerges & Jacobsson, 1995），到国家层面通过政治游说机构（Barley, 2010）以及工会、政党和其他代表机构对公共政策的构建所推行的资本 "P "政治（Anders & Anders, 1986；克莱格与希金斯，1987 年）。这些论文将我们推向了我们所说的一系列间隙，这些间隙跨越了划分我们学科的认识论和本体论差异与承诺，我们相信我们对政治的思考可以从这些间隙中得到振兴和扩展。

We have ordered the papers chronologically – with one exception – and the reader must be aware of course that the further we travel back in time, the more we must allow for inflections from what was a slightly different historical context. Anders and Anders’ (1986) paper points to a first vector outlining a clash of western with non-modern forms of indigenous knowledge whilst addressing the capacity of organization to support different forms of community value. The concerns they address, located in the interstices between modern and pre-modern forms of knowledge, have if anything increased in magnitude as we seek to find ways of coming to terms with the contemporary climate and ecological crisis. The second vector concerns the emergence of critical management studies and a political economy of organization through the critical sociology of Clegg and Higgins (1987) in which radical new forms of governance and political economy are imagined. They work an interstice between utopian and pragmatic thinking, between idealism and the compromises necessary in democratic politics. A third important vector concerns gender and moves us towards more embodied and affective forms of studying politics and engaging in political struggle in organization. This approach is exemplified in Calás and Smircich’s (1991) paper where they develop a feminist and ‘queer theory’ deconstruction of the practices that normalize and reproduce male hegemonic order. Early feminist literature, of which this paper is emblematic, teaches us that ‘the personal is political’, and so we should expect that politics seeps into our unconscious in ways that require careful deciphering. Their paper draws subtly on elements of psychoanalysis and in ways that are suggestive of the possibility that our very thinking and sense of subject-hood is imbued with gender and its political struggles.
我们按时间顺序排列了这些论文--只有一篇例外--当然，读者必须意识到，我们越是追溯过去，就越要考虑到当时略有不同的历史背景所带来的影响。安德斯和安德斯（Anders and Anders，1986 年）的论文指出了第一个矢量，概述了西方与非现代形式的本土知识的冲突，同时探讨了组织支持不同形式的社区价值的能力。他们所关注的问题位于现代与前现代知识形式之间的夹缝中，随着我们试图找到应对当代气候和生态危机的方法，这些问题的严重性可能会有所增加。第二个矢量涉及通过克莱格和希金斯（Clegg and Higgins，1987 年）的批判社会学（Critical Sociology）出现的批判管理研究和组织的政治经济学，其中想象了激进的新治理和政治经济形式。他们在乌托邦和实用主义思想之间，在理想主义和民主政治所需的妥协之间，进行了探索。第三个重要方面与性别有关，它使我们在研究政治和参与组织中的政治斗争时，更多采用体现性和情感性的形式。Calás 和 Smircich（1991 年）的论文就是这种方法的例证，他们在论文中提出了一种女性主义和 "同性恋理论"，对男性霸权秩序正常化和再生产的实践进行了解构。早期的女性主义文献（这篇论文就是其中的代表）告诉我们，"个人就是政治"，因此我们应该期待政治以需要仔细解读的方式渗入我们的无意识。她们的论文巧妙地借鉴了精神分析的元素，以暗示我们的思维和主体意识本身就充满了性别及其政治斗争的可能性。

Czarniawska-Joerges and Jacobsson (1995) tackle politics as theatre in our fourth paper and introduce a highly productive sensitivity to the contribution that ‘dramaturgy’ can make to our understanding of the organization and practice of political machinations in government. Their paper develops an important literary vector useful to the understanding of the way politics operates in an interstice between fact and fiction. In so doing they reveal how organization is inevitably entangled in a series of theatrical dynamics, which might have become even more pertinent in our digital age of media ‘spectacle’. Barley’s ethnographic study of political lobbying (Barley, 2010) reveals a fifth vector that draws out the interstices of macro and micro, and formal and informal organization, delineating a space where political activity is stitched together by multiple actors engaged in complex and often difficult-to-decipher strategies and intentions. Building on the traditions of institutional theory he identifies this as an ‘institutional field’ that also works in the interstices of structure and action and the public and private. We conclude our overview with a piece by March (2007) which examines the social and political conditions that shaped the emergence of organization studies as a discipline. His paper helps us see how our thinking and theorizing is informed by extant historical conditions of possibility and thereby compels us to think of ways that allow us to work on the interstices between history and our ‘objects of concern’ (Latour, 2005).
Czarniawska-Joerges 和 Jacobsson（1995 年）在我们的第四篇论文中论述了作为戏剧的政治，并介绍了 "戏剧学 "对我们理解政府中政治阴谋的组织和实践所能做出的贡献的高度富有成效的敏感性。他们的论文开发了一个重要的文学载体，有助于我们理解政治在事实与虚构之间的运作方式。在此过程中，他们揭示了组织是如何不可避免地与一系列戏剧动态纠缠在一起的，而在我们这个媒体 "奇观 "的数字时代，这些动态可能变得更加相关。Barley 对政治游说的人种学研究（Barley，2010 年）揭示了第五个矢量，它引出了宏观与微观、正式组织与非正式组织之间的夹缝，勾勒出一个政治活动由参与复杂且往往难以解读的战略和意图的多方参与者拼接而成的空间。在制度理论传统的基础上，他认为这是一个 "制度领域"，也是在结构与行动、公共与私人的夹缝中发挥作用。最后，我们以 March（2007 年）的一篇文章来结束我们的综述，这篇文章探讨了形成组织研究这一学科的社会和政治条件。他的文章帮助我们了解了我们的思维和理论是如何受到现存历史条件的影响，从而迫使我们思考如何在历史与我们的 "关注对象"（Latour, 2005）之间的夹缝中开展工作。

From these six papers we draw out a range of what we call ‘interstitial positions’ for thinking politics in organization. This extends the work of those who have proposed the ‘interstitial’ as a useful empirical description of the space in which organization happens (Furnari, 2014; Kornberger & Clegg, 2003), and those who have sought to deploy the interstitial as an analytical device in which to think or practise organization studies (O’Doherty, De Cock, Rehn, & Ashcraft, 2013). In his study of ‘the politics of the everyday’, Courpasson (2017) captures some of the promise of this interstitial, exploring what he calls the ‘anarchic composition of secret and interstitial activities of daily invention’ (p. 846) which impart a degree of chance and contingency to politics that might otherwise be treated in over-determined and schematic ways. We add to these contributions by showing how the interstitial is a more potent resource for thinking politics and organization because it helps us find ways of holding in tension more fundamental ontological and epistemological differences in our discipline. Thinking begins anew when it returns to and confronts the undecidability of realities composed by and giving rise to different value interests. From these six papers we draw a constellation of positions located in the tension between indigenous and modern forms of knowledge (Anders and Anders), pragmatic and utopian ambitions for political activity (Clegg and Higgins), reason and affect (Calás and Smircich), fact and fiction (Czarniawska and Jacobsson), the dualism of micro and macro (Barley) and the historical conditions of possibility and the production of knowledge (March). We argue that this constellation adumbrates a possible new resource for thinking politics that helps make organization studies distinctive in its contribution, inviting new combinations, associations and differences across otherwise divided paradigms of expertise (cf. Willmott, 1993). Drawing from this constellation we make our own political contribution by posing the following question: What are the politics at stake in organization studies and how can we help politicize the objects of our concern and the conditions of possibility for that politicization in ways that can extend the sense of possibility and choice about the worlds we inhabit?
从这六篇论文中，我们总结出了一系列我们称之为 "间隙立场 "的组织政治思想。这是对那些将 "间隙 "作为对组织发生的空间的一种有用的实证描述（Furnari, 2014; Kornberger & Clegg, 2003），以及那些试图将间隙作为思考或实践组织研究的一种分析工具（O'Doherty, De Cock, Rehn, & Ashcraft, 2013）的工作的延伸。库尔帕松（Courpasson，2017 年）在其 "日常政治 "研究中捕捉到了这种间隙的一些前景，探索了他所谓的 "日常发明的秘密和间隙活动的无政府构成"（第 846 页），这些活动为政治带来了一定程度的偶然性和偶然性，否则政治可能会被过度确定和模式化地处理。我们将对这些贡献进行补充，说明间隙如何成为思考政治和组织问题的更有力的资源，因为它帮助我们找到方法，使我们学科中更根本的本体论和认识论差异处于紧张状态。当我们回到并面对由不同的价值利益构成和产生的现实的不确定性时，思考就会重新开始。从这六篇论文中，我们得出了一个立场星座，即本土知识与现代知识（安德斯与安德斯）、政治活动的实用主义与乌托邦抱负（克莱格与希金斯）、理性与情感（卡拉斯与斯密尔西奇）、事实与虚构（查尔尼亚夫斯基与雅各布松）、微观与宏观的二元论（巴利）以及可能性与知识生产的历史条件（马奇）之间的紧张关系。我们认为，这种组合为政治思考提供了一种可能的新资源，有助于使组织研究做出与众不同的贡献，在原本分裂的专业知识范式中引入新的组合、关联和差异（参见 Willmott，1993 年）。从这一组合中，我们提出了以下问题，从而做出我们自己的政治贡献：组织研究中的政治问题是什么？我们如何才能帮助将我们关注的对象和政治化的可能性条件政治化，从而扩大我们所居住世界的可能性和选择感？

Non-Western Forms of Knowledge and Being in the World
非西方的知识形式和世界存在方式

Our first paper by Anders and Anders (1986) focuses on the subjugation of the ‘first nation’ indigenous peoples of Alaska by the imposition of the modern ‘corporate form’. The authors explore the events that unfolded following the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). With this Act the US government sought both to reimburse indigenous Indian communities for the loss of native lands and to bring into existence an alternative form of semi-autonomous political and economic control of land and its resources, replacing the existing governance regime managed by the US Bureau of Indian Affairs. Under this agreement each member of the community born before 1971 was entitled to 100 shares in the stock capital of these newly formed corporations. Former reservations were incorporated into 12 regional corporations into which some of the larger and more important local villages secured representation rights, electing members to executive decision-making boards. What is remarkable is the apparent simplicity with which Anders and Anders describe and study the complex events and affairs of political and legal machinations surrounding the implementation of this scheme. It is almost a-theoretical, but this simplicity is achieved by cutting across conventional academic expertise and its specializations, avoiding theory-dense discourse and any obvious prejudicial theoretical commitments.
安德斯和安德斯（Anders and Anders，1986 年）撰写的第一篇论文重点探讨了现代 "公司形式 "的强加对阿拉斯加 "第一民族 "原住民的征服。作者探讨了 1971 年《阿拉斯加原住民权益解决法案》（ANCSA）之后发生的事件。美国政府试图通过该法案补偿印第安原住民社区失去的原住民土地，并以另一种半自治的形式对土地及其资源进行政治和经济控制，取代由美国印第安事务局管理的现有治理制度。根据该协议，1971 年前出生的社区成员每人有权获得这些新成立公司的 100 股股份。以前的保留地被并入 12 个地区公司，其中一些较大和较重要的当地村庄获得了代表权，选举成员进入行政决策委员会。难能可贵的是，Anders 和 Anders 对围绕这一计划的实施所发生的复杂事件以及政治和法律阴谋进行的描述和研究明显简单明了。这本书几乎是理论性的，但这种简单性是通过跨越传统学术专长及其专业领域实现的，避免了理论密集的论述和任何明显的偏见性理论承诺。

Anders and Anders show how indigenous ways of knowing the world and ways of being-in-the-world helped cultivate biodiversity and respect for the planet in ways that, we might say, gave a ‘political’ voice to more-than-human forms of life. In these ways the paper seems highly prescient and may well be a lost classic for scholars who are increasingly turning to non-western forms of knowledge as possible solutions and insights into mitigation of, and adaptation to, the climate emergency (Bastien, Coraiola, & Foster, 2023). In part, the politics of Anders and Anders can be found in the analytical commitment to test the capacity of organization to support radically different forms of community, values and interest group ambition. We do not have to assume that organization should be a universalizable blueprint that can help secure the most rational and efficient form of administration and coordination of work to serve shareholder value in capitalist forms of economy. This may prove to bring about as much disorganization as it does organization. Anders and Anders find that formal organization, at least in its form as a private corporation, could not deliver for indigenous communities nor support their very different ways of being in the world. The implications follow that we might realize greater sustainability with organizations that restrict economic ‘rationalization’ and encourage or accommodate multiple and diverging value systems.
安德斯和安德斯展示了土著人认识世界的方式和存在于世界的方式是如何帮助培养生物多样性和对地球的尊重的，我们可以说，这些方式为非人类生命形式发出了 "政治 "的声音。在这些方面，这篇论文似乎极具先见之明，对于越来越多地将非西方形式的知识作为缓解和适应气候紧急情况的可能解决方案和见解的学者来说，这篇论文很可能是一部失传的经典（Bastien, Coraiola, & Foster, 2023）。在一定程度上，安德斯和安德斯的政治学可以在分析承诺中找到，即测试组织支持完全不同形式的社区、价值观和利益集团雄心的能力。我们不必假定，组织应该是一个可通用的蓝图，可以帮助确保最合理、最有效的行政管理和工作协调形式，以服务于资本主义经济形式中的股东价值。事实证明，这可能会像组织一样带来混乱。安德斯和安德斯发现，正规组织，至少是私营公司形式的正规组织，无法为土著社区提供服务，也无法支持他们与众不同的生存方式。这意味着，如果组织能够限制经济 "合理化"，鼓励或容纳多种不同的价值体系，我们就可能实现更大的可持续性。

In these ways Anders and Anders avoid a simple story that could be told of US corporate greed, expropriation and environmental degradation. There is no bombastic grandstanding of political condemnation or righteousness. Nor is there any ‘cosmetic indigenization’ for which our field has been criticized (Bastien et al., 2023). Instead, what is elicited through their analysis is the appreciation of a very complicated and finely balanced set of social, political and economic relations. In between the lines of this complexity, we can make out the manoeuvring of mining interests, logging and fishing industries, whose ownership and control is contested between abstract international and multinational capital and more local and indigenous land claims. Hence, the paper is broad in scope and rich in description. Avoiding the appeal of ready-made explanations that draw on heavily abstracted and theorized forms of knowledge, the analysis is subtle and nuanced, showing how politics happens in and around, or in the interstices we might say, of formal organization.
在这些方面，安德斯和安德斯避免了简单地讲述美国企业的贪婪、征用和环境恶化。书中没有政治谴责或大义凛然的夸夸其谈。也没有任何 "表面的本土化"，而这正是我们的研究领域所受到的批评（Bastien et al.）相反，通过他们的分析，我们看到的是一套非常复杂且微妙平衡的社会、政治和经济关系。在这种复杂关系的字里行间，我们可以看到矿业利益集团、伐木业和渔业的操纵，其所有权和控制权在抽象的国际和跨国资本与更多的地方和土著土地诉求之间争夺。因此，本文范围广泛，描述丰富。本文的分析避免了现成解释的吸引力，借鉴了大量抽象化和理论化的知识形式，分析细致入微，展示了政治是如何在正式组织内部和周围发生的，或者我们可以说是在正式组织的夹缝中发生的。

Crucially, in this paper, organization is shown to constitute and change the terms within which political activities and their allied discourses are conducted. Anders and Anders (1986) reveal how the corporate form acts as a kind of poisoned chalice that promises much to indigenous communities. However, lacking the requisite training, education and expertise, members are unable to run these corporations in ways that can generate jobs and income for their shareholders and communities while also upholding traditional native values. Values and community forged out of ‘harsh Arctic survival’ that foster and depend upon close personal relationships, co-operation and sharing, they write, are seen to be incompatible with ‘the implicit values of a nonpersonal bureaucratic organizational structure based upon market economy ideology’ (p. 226). Anders and Anders trace the corruptibility of the corporate form but in ways that retain an ambiguity as to whether the founding ideals upon which the scheme was designed and sold were either naive or cynical. And it is this suspension of a priori judgement that stimulates political thinking. Anders and Anders (1986) provoke in the reader a sense of uncertainty about how to proceed politically and allow us to see that ‘the indigenous community’ is also split and factional with multiple and complicated ‘interests’. Not having an easy answer avoids an over-reified understanding of politics that reduces politics to the observance of procedures and the practices of existing political institutions.
最重要的是，本文表明，组织构成并改变了开展政治活动及其相关论述的条件。安德斯和安德斯（Anders and Anders，1986 年）揭示了公司形式是如何充当一种有毒的圣杯，对土著社区许下许多承诺。然而，由于缺乏必要的培训、教育和专业知识，公司成员无法以既能为股东和社区创造就业机会和收入，又能维护传统土著价值观的方式经营这些公司。他们写道，在 "严酷的北极生存环境 "中形成的价值观和社区促进并依赖于密切的人际关系、合作和分享，这些价值观和社区与 "基于市场经济意识形态的非个人官僚组织结构的隐含价值观"（第 226 页）格格不入。安德斯和安德斯追溯了公司形式的腐朽性，但对于设计和销售该计划时所依据的创始理想是天真还是玩世不恭，他们的追溯方式仍然模棱两可。正是这种先验判断的中止激发了政治思考。安德斯和安德斯（Anders and Anders，1986 年）激发了读者对如何开展政治活动的不确定感，让我们看到 "土著社区 "也是分裂的、派别林立的，有着多重复杂的 "利益"。没有简单的答案可以避免对政治的过度简化理解，将政治简化为对现有政治体制的程序和实践的遵守。

Dating back to 1986, their paper anticipates much more recent preoccupation in organization studies with post-colonialism, indigeneity and identity politics, environmental spoliation and the legacies of the ‘Anthropocene’ (Banerjee, 2000; Whiteman, 2009; Whiteman & Cooper, 2000). Anders and Anders stimulate us to think about what forms of organization might support and help realize plural forms of existence. This question can be amplified to embrace Latour’s concern as to how radically different value systems might share the same planet (Latour, 2013), especially one limited by resource and carbon constraints in a time of runaway global warming. What forms of organization might help realize this pluralism or help ensure human survival in the aftermath of the era of the Anthropocene? We are still asking whether the corporate entity can observe the checks and balances of accountability that are embedded in the ideal of formal bureaucracy (see also Meyer, Leixnering, & Veldman, 2022) and which might help realize these objectives. Is the corporation not better seen as an entity designed precisely to escape formal regulation and oversight?
他们的论文可追溯到 1986 年，预示了近期组织研究对后殖民主义、土著性和身份政治、环境破坏以及 "人类世 "遗留问题的关注（Banerjee, 2000 年；Whiteman, 2009 年；Whiteman & Cooper, 2000 年）。安德斯和安德斯激励我们思考什么样的组织形式可以支持和帮助实现多元化的存在形式。拉图尔关注的是，截然不同的价值体系如何共享同一个星球（拉图尔，2013 年），尤其是在全球变暖失控的情况下，资源和碳限制所带来的限制。什么样的组织形式可能有助于实现这种多元化，或有助于确保人类在 "人类世 "时代之后的生存？我们仍在追问，公司实体是否能够遵守正式官僚机构理想中的问责制衡机制（另见 Meyer, Leixnering, & Veldman, 2022），而这些制衡机制可能有助于实现这些目标。公司是否更适合被视为一个旨在逃避正式监管和监督的实体？

Anders and Anders (1986) help organization studies pose these questions, yet their analysis provides no easy answers. As our field slowly pivots towards the pressing problem of the climate crisis, the politics at stake are complex, and working out the organizational conditions for new social imaginaries is more pressing than ever (Wright, Nyberg, De Cock, & Whiteman, 2013). They show an acute sensitivity to how the tensions and incompatibilities between modern, western forms of being and non-modern or ‘indigenous’ worlds of being, and show how these differences are organized and made possible by different institutions and practices. They are able to hold these differences together and in tension because they speak from an interstice – suspended between the virtues of modern, rational organization, and those enjoyed by non-modern, indigenous forms of organization. In the energies stimulated by this suspension we might find the creativity and political imagination required to conceive new forms of organization able to support or encourage difference, multiplicity and diversity.
安德斯和安德斯（1986 年）帮助组织研究提出了这些问题，但他们的分析并没有提供简单的答案。随着我们的研究领域慢慢转向气候危机这一紧迫问题，其中涉及的政治问题错综复杂，为新的社会想象力创造组织条件比以往任何时候都更为紧迫（Wright, Nyberg, De Cock, & Whiteman, 2013）。他们对现代西方存在形式与非现代或 "本土 "存在世界之间的紧张关系和不相容表现出了敏锐的洞察力，并展示了这些差异是如何通过不同的机构和实践来组织和实现的。它们之所以能够将这些差异融合在一起并保持紧张关系，是因为它们是从一个中间地带--悬浮于现代、理性组织的优点与非现代、本土组织形式所享有的优点之间--发出声音的。在这种悬置所激发的能量中，我们可能会发现构想能够支持或鼓励差异、多重性和多样性的新组织形式所需的创造力和政治想象力。

The Political Economy of Organization

In our second paper, Clegg and Higgins (1987) explicitly address ‘the interpenetration of organizational analysis and political theory’ (p. 217) in an effort to find ways of balancing competing interests and values. They draw upon the model of the Swedish ‘wage earners fund’ to explore ways of improving economic efficiency while advancing an explicit political commitment to extend and realize demands for greater egalitarian participation and involvement. Clegg and Higgins argue that the benefits of market-disciplined competition can only be fully realized if there are greater levels of democratic inclusion in decision-making and the strategic planning of national economies. This aspiration could be understood as a response to those ‘societal grand challenges’ to which organization studies has recently turned (Gümüsay, Marti, Trittin-Ulbrich, & Wickert, 2022). Clegg and Higgins build on a stream of work in the sociology of work to insist on the centrality of political economy. We must navigate political economy if we are to understand important forces and agencies that management and workers mediate or reproduce in formal organization, but problematically so and often with surprising results and unintended consequences.
在我们的第二篇论文中，克莱格和希金斯（1987 年）明确论述了 "组织分析和政治理论的相互渗透"（第 217 页），以努力找到平衡相互竞争的利益和价值观的方法。他们借鉴瑞典 "工薪族基金 "的模式，探索提高经济效率的方法，同时推动明确的政治承诺，扩大和实现更多平等参与的要求。克莱格和希金斯认为，只有在决策和国家经济战略规划中实现更大程度的民主参与，才能充分实现市场有序竞争的益处。这一愿望可被理解为对组织研究最近转向的 "社会大挑战 "的回应（Gümüsay, Marti, Trittin-Ulbrich, & Wickert, 2022）。克莱格和希金斯以工作社会学的研究成果为基础，坚持政治经济学的核心地位。如果我们要理解管理层和工人在正式组织中调解或复制的重要力量和机构，我们就必须驾驭政治经济学，但这是有问题的，往往会产生令人惊讶的结果和意想不到的后果。

Clegg had previously written an important contribution to this agenda in his 1980 volume Organization, Class and Control (Clegg & Dunkerley, 1980) which offered a broad conception of the factors at work in formal organization, drawing on his long-standing interest in the way power relations mediate what was distinguished as the ‘macro’ and ‘micro’ realms of society. He showed how the concerns of management and workers in the employment relation were informed by wider society-wide struggles and contestation in work that was much cited by those developing labour process analysis in the late 1980s and 1990s (Thompson, 1989; Knights & Willmott, 1990). His formative work also bears fruit when considered in relation to strands of contemporary institutional theory where issues of power and struggle across different value spheres or logics is deemed to require some grasp of how the macro and micro interact (Friedland & Alford, 1991).
克莱格曾在 1980 年出版的《组织、阶级与控制》（Clegg & Dunkerley, 1980 年）一书中对这一议程做出了重要贡献，该书利用克莱格长期以来对权力关系如何调解社会 "宏观 "和 "微观 "领域的兴趣，对正式组织中的工作因素提出了广泛的概念。他展示了管理层和工人在雇佣关系中的关注点是如何从更广泛的全社会斗争和工作中的竞争中得到启发的，这一点在 20 世纪 80 年代末和 90 年代的劳动过程分析中被广泛引用（Thompson，1989 年；Knights & Willmott，1990 年）。在当代制度理论中，不同价值领域或逻辑之间的权力和斗争问题被认为需要对宏观和微观如何相互作用有一定的把握（Friedland & Alford, 1991）。

With meticulous attention to the particular organizational principles that can build enduring society-wide institutional systems of planning and governance, Clegg and Higgins trace links between local industrial democracy, regional political assemblies and central legislative assemblies. While exploring this agenda they note how it ‘is difficult to couple critical organization theory to a political project which generates a confrontation with capitalism based on criteria of socio-economic re-organization, in which mutually dependent criteria of democracy and efficiency are operative’ (p. 201). One is struck by the scale and ambition of this analytical framework, placing organization studies right at the centre of forces that must be studied to understand the formation and reproduction of political institutions and the existing competitive and capitalist political economy.
克莱格和希金斯对能够建立持久的全社会规划和治理制度体系的特殊组织原则给予了细致的关注，他们追溯了地方工业民主、地区政治会议和中央立法会议之间的联系。在探讨这一议程时，他们指出 "很难将批判性组织理论与一个政治项目结合起来，该政治项目基于社会经济重组的标准与资本主义对抗，其中民主和效率的标准相互依存"（第 201 页）。这一分析框架的规模和雄心令人震惊，它将组织研究置于各种力量的中心，而要理解政治体制的形成和再生产以及现有的竞争性资本主义政治经济，就必须对这些力量进行研究。

In many ways the paper anticipates the work of critical management studies (CMS) which is often considered one of the most explicit ‘political’ genres of organization study (Prasad, Prasad, Mills, & Mills, 2016). However, published in 1987 the wider political circumstances could hardly have been propitious for a proposal that calls for collectivist or ‘corporatist’ forms of economic governance and political economy. The government of Margaret Thatcher was just about to be re-elected for a third time and Reagan was at the peak of his powers as the influence of monetarism and deregulated free-market neoliberal economics was becoming global and hegemonic. Europe was soon to follow suit as the liberalization of markets and the dismantling of corporatist political infrastructure gathered pace, undoing a series of post-war settlements reached between different economic class interests whether in the form of the ‘Scandinavian model’, the Austrian social partnership model, or the institutions of national economic governance and planning in France and Germany.
该论文在许多方面都预示了批判管理研究（CMS）的工作，而批判管理研究通常被认为是组织研究中最明确的 "政治 "流派之一（Prasad, Prasad, Mills, & Mills, 2016）。然而，1987 年出版的这本书所处的大政治环境对于呼吁集体主义或 "公司主义 "经济治理和政治经济形式的提案来说，几乎是不可能有利的。撒切尔夫人政府即将第三次连任，而里根正处于其权力的顶峰，货币主义和放松管制的自由市场新自由主义经济学的影响正逐渐成为全球霸权。随着市场自由化和公司制政治基础设施解体的步伐加快，欧洲很快也将效仿，不同经济阶级利益之间达成的一系列战后和解协议，无论是以 "斯堪的纳维亚模式"、奥地利社会伙伴关系模式的形式，还是以法国和德国的国家经济治理和规划机构的形式，都将化为乌有。

Their paper also resonates with the current turn to ‘performative’ or ‘critical performative’ management and organization studies, whose research is explicitly allied to activist and other forms of intervention designed to practically realize political ideals (King & Land, 2018; Spicer, Alvesson, & Kärreman, 2009). However, there is an attention to nuance and intricacy in Clegg and Higgins that challenges the promulgation of much idealist and radical-sounding utopias in critical organization studies that aspire to help bring about and realize egalitarian, co-operative or anarchic forms of organization. These lofty ideals typically ignore the hard work of practical organization and also tend to reduce capitalism to a ‘caricature’ of domination and control. The specific target of Clegg and Higgins was the contemporary work of Ramsay (1977, 1983a, 1983b) and Ramsay and Haworth (1984) who, it was argued, could only conceive of liberty and freedom once hierarchy and the specialization of labour have been erased from organization. In place of this idealistic and romantic anti-bureaucratic or anti-organization impulse, Clegg and Higgins explore how a ‘mixture of collective leadership and democratic management’ might compromise some of these ideals but help maintain those levels of economic well-being and comfort to which we have become accustomed, while also building democracy and political citizenship.
他们的论文还与当前转向 "表演性 "或 "批判表演性 "管理与组织研究的趋势产生了共鸣，后者的研究明确地与旨在切实实现政治理想的活动家和其他形式的干预行动联系在一起（King & Land, 2018; Spicer, Alvesson, & Kärreman, 2009）。然而，克莱格和希金斯对细微差别和复杂性的关注，挑战了批判性组织研究中许多理想主义和听起来激进的乌托邦，这些乌托邦渴望帮助实现平等主义、合作或无政府的组织形式。这些崇高理想通常忽视了实际组织的艰苦工作，而且往往将资本主义简化为统治和控制的 "漫画"。克莱格和希金斯的具体目标是拉姆塞（1977、1983a、1983b）以及拉姆塞和霍沃斯（1984）的当代著作，他们认为，只有在组织中消除了等级制度和劳动专业化之后，才能设想自由和自由。克莱格和希金斯探讨了 "集体领导与民主管理的混合 "如何能取代这种理想主义和浪漫主义的反官僚主义或反组织的冲动，它可能会损害其中的一些理想，但有助于维持我们已经习惯的经济福利和舒适水平，同时也能建立民主和政治公民意识。

With Clegg and Higgins (1987) we find the rudiments of another form of interstitial at work in their analysis which could be emphasized and further developed for the purposes of advancing politics in organization studies. This interstitial marks a gap between the diagnosis of a current state of affairs and a yet-to-be-realized imagined future; one might say there is an ideal or aspiration that has been imagined and against which a current state of affairs is found wanting. While the Swedish wage earners fund has been tried and tested in one context, adopting it in other economies with different traditions of political governance and regulation will demand keen attention to the intricacies and concatenation (the organization) of interlocking institutions that make up the distinctive textures of different nation states. To occupy this interstitial space between ideal and reality is widely recognized as the starting point for the Socratic tradition of philosophy and for critical thinking in the modern social sciences (Blum, 1974). However, with its accompanying demand and necessity to ‘slow down’ thinking, the work on this interstice is in danger of being lost in the neoliberal higher education system where scholars have become increasingly preoccupied with rapid journal publication at the expense of wider intellectual participation in the kind of grand societal challenges that Clegg and Higgins envision.
在克莱格和希金斯（1987 年）的分析中，我们发现了另一种形式的间隙的雏形，为了推进组织研究中的政治学，我们可以对其加以强调和进一步发展。这种 "间隙 "标志着对当前事态的诊断与尚未实现的未来想象之间的差距；可以说，有一种理想或愿望已经被想象出来，而与之相对的是当前事态的不足。瑞典的工薪族基金已经在一个环境中得到了尝试和检验，而在其他具有不同政治治理和监管传统的经济体中采用该基金，则需要密切关注构成不同民族国家独特肌理的错综复杂和相互关联的机构（组织）。占据理想与现实之间的这一夹缝空间，被公认为苏格拉底哲学传统和现代社会科学批判性思维的起点（Blum，1974 年）。然而，与 "放慢 "思维的要求和必要性相伴而生的是，在新自由主义高等教育体系中，学者们越来越专注于快速发表期刊论文，而忽略了更广泛地参与克莱格和希金斯所设想的那种宏大社会挑战，因此，在这一间隙中开展的工作有可能被遗忘。

Feminist Deconstructions of Organization Studies
女性主义对组织研究的解构

One grand societal challenge we continue to face in organization studies is the ongoing inequality between men and women and the continuing violence and persistent denigration of women perpetuated by men. Many remain blind to the norms and conventions of everyday life in which this inequality and violence is silently reproduced – through what are now popularly called ‘micro-aggressions’ and ‘unconscious bias’. The importation of strands of feminist theory in organization studies has helped illuminate and politicize these everyday experiences of women at work. Taken up in Calás and Smircich’s (1991) seminal paper we see how organizations are shot through with taken-for-granted masculine (and homosocial) assumptions and practices that help normalize and reproduce a male hegemonic order. Their paper digs deeper to show how the reproduction of gender inequalities reflects deep-seated frustrations and repressions that are reproduced in the very stylistic and grammatical norms of masculinized managerial discourse and writing.
在组织研究领域，我们仍然面临着一个巨大的社会挑战，那就是男女之间持续存在的不平等，以及男性对女性的持续暴力和长期诋毁。许多人仍然对日常生活中的规范和惯例视而不见，而这种不平等和暴力正是通过现在流行的 "微冒犯 "和 "无意识偏见 "悄无声息地复制出来的。在组织研究中引入女权主义理论，有助于阐明妇女在工作中的这些日常经历，并将其政治化。从 Calás 和 Smircich（1991 年）的开创性论文中，我们可以看到组织是如何充斥着理所当然的男性（和同性社会）假设和实践的，这些假设和实践有助于男性霸权秩序的正常化和再生产。他们的论文深入探讨了性别不平等的再现是如何反映出根深蒂固的挫折和压抑的，而这些挫折和压抑又是如何在男性化管理话语和写作的文体和语法规范中再现出来的。

The power of this paper and its contribution to the advance of political sophistication in organization studies lies in its deconstructive theorizing and methodologies – although to call it a theory or a method would be to make epistemological formalizations and distinctions that are made problematic by the research and writing strategies from which this paper draws (i.e. Derrida, Irigaray). It even makes our own commentary and précis a fraught exercise as the male authors of this piece become increasingly self-conscious and not a little paralysed by the hidden or taken-for-granted assumptions of masculinity that may be presumed and reproduced in our own reading and writing! In these ways the politics of this paper are subversive and subtle, playful even, but for us what is most radical and contemporary in this text are the discomforting transgressions it invites and stimulates in the reader, but which are recuperative or generative of energies that might otherwise be squandered in an all-too-masculinized managerialism.
本文的力量及其对提高组织研究中的政治精密性的贡献在于其解构理论化和方法论--尽管称其为理论或方法将是对认识论的形式化和区分，而本文所借鉴的研究和写作策略（如德里达、伊里格瑞）则使其成为问题。它甚至使我们自己的评论和简述成为一项充满危险的工作，因为本文的男性作者越来越有自知之明，而且对我们自己的阅读和写作中可能假定和再现的隐含的或理所当然的男性假设不无惶恐！从这些方面来看，本文的政治性是颠覆性的、微妙的，甚至是嬉戏性的，但对我们来说，本文最激进、最现代的地方是它在读者身上引发和刺激的令人不安的越轨行为，而这些越轨行为是能量的恢复或生成，否则这些能量可能会在过于男性化的管理主义中被浪费掉。

It is still not widely understood that we live in a homosocial world made up of a predatory masculinity that seduces its followers with narcissistic impulses and pathologies that are otherwise disguised (dressed up) in the exercise and strictures of Truth and Reason. To show how this state of affairs is produced and reproduced in organizations, Calás and Smircich explore the power-infused nature of our taken-for-granted linguistic practices and norms that privilege a series of masculinized values rooted in control, order and rationality. However, the masculine homosocial order this seeks to maintain and reproduce is undermined by the fact that there is always a semantic excess in language that carries meaning and motivation above and beyond the intentions of its authors and readers or listeners – or above and beyond those intentions that can be recognized and acknowledged. We just need to learn how to unpack this excess and its latent energies.
我们仍然没有普遍认识到，我们生活在一个由掠夺性的男性气质构成的同质社会世界中，这种男性气质以自恋的冲动和病态来引诱追随者，而这些冲动和病态则以真理和理性的锻炼和严格要求来伪装（打扮）。为了说明这种状态是如何在组织中产生和复制的，卡拉斯和斯米尔西奇探讨了我们理所当然的语言实践和规范中的权力注入性质，这些语言实践和规范将一系列植根于控制、秩序和理性的男性化价值观视为特权。然而，语言中总是存在语义多余的部分，它所承载的意义和动机超越了作者和读者或听众的意图，或者说超越了那些可以被认识和承认的意图，这就破坏了它所试图维护和复制的男性同社会秩序。我们只需要学会如何解读这种多余及其潜在的能量。

While on a very superficial reading Calás and Smircich might appear to be playing mere parlour games with texts, they are in fact seeking to stimulate profound social and political change. They do this by engaging with management and its texts in terms of the pleasures it can produce despite the best efforts of managerial discourse to deny those ‘reading effects’. Offering a politics of pleasure, then, drawing obviously on Barthes (1975), but also deconstructing the opposition between the intimate worlds deemed private and the public realm, their paper has effected considerable social change since its publication. By virtue of its circulation and readership alone, the paper has galvanized feminist studies of organization and changed the way we see our own institutions and practices of management. In this sense it is a political intervention, at one and the same time an academic article and a form of political writing. However, it is a politics that proceeds without those manifestos in which academics with their blueprints for designing social order assume to know ‘better’ than those to whom this politics is done. Instead, it is a politics that is productive and generative of imagination and even of (im)possible new social orders – impossible in the sense that there is no final order that will bring organization and politics into settlement, but instead a need for ongoing and continual struggles with power and its exclusions.
从表面上看，卡拉斯和斯米尔希似乎只是在玩文字游戏，但实际上，他们是在寻求刺激深刻的社会和政治变革。尽管管理学话语竭力否认这些 "阅读效果"，但他们还是从管理学及其文本所能产生的乐趣的角度来探讨管理学。因此，他们的论文显然借鉴了巴特（Barthes，1975 年）的观点，提供了一种愉悦政治，同时也解构了被视为私人的私密世界与公共领域之间的对立。仅凭其发行量和读者群，该论文就激发了女性主义组织研究，并改变了我们对自身管理机构和实践的看法。从这个意义上说，它是一种政治干预，既是一篇学术文章，也是一种政治写作。然而，它是一种没有宣言的政治，在宣言中，学者们带着他们设计社会秩序的蓝图，自认为比那些政治对象 "更了解"。相反，它是一种生产性的政治，能够产生想象力，甚至产生（不）可能的新社会秩序--不可能的意义在于，没有最终的秩序能够使组织和政治得到解决，而是需要持续不断地与权力及其排斥进行斗争。

To make these moves Calás and Smircich draw on queer theory in ways that still remain years ahead of many colleagues working in mainstream organization studies, for whom the relevance of queer theory might still not be immediately evident. Who could guess, for example, that leadership is as much about repressed or displaced homosexual desire as it is about leading organizations into greater productiveness and efficiency? That we are organized and repressed by a dominant ‘homosocial’ order that inhibits our politics and limits our capacity for action and imagination? Calás and Smircich show this by reading four widely regarded ‘classics’ in management and leadership studies (Barnard, McGregor, Mintzberg, Peters & Waterman).

Their reading and explications disclose how these texts attempt to disguise and displace the disavowed strategies of seduction in favour of Reason and its claims to serve and pursue objectivity and Truth. Leadership (Reason, the mind) is shown both to require the repression and disavowal of seduction (Sexuality, the body), but also, paradoxically, to rely upon the same seductions. These repressions always return to unsettle the leader (and author, as leader) and in surprising and often shocking ways. Calás and Smircich show that we can make more or better sense of Barnard and his writing on leadership when we carefully attend to his own economy of seduction, which is evident in the abundant use he makes of a key set of linguistic terms including ‘vitality’, ‘desire’, ‘creation’, ‘catalyst’, ‘cooperation’, ‘conviction’ and ‘adherence’. Calás and Smircich reveal this closet or ‘hidden’ agenda in Barnard by reading his text ‘intertextually’ alongside Exner’s (1932) contemporaneous The Sexual Side of Marriage. With this juxtaposition Calás and Smircich suggest that what Barnard might be carrying and conveying through his text is the idea that ‘Leadership is the absolutely necessary creation of desire, a longing, wishing, craving – the creation of sexual attraction that promises to be satisfied through faithful attachment’ (p. 575). Exploiting the polysemous – or rather, as they explain – the disseminating effects of words and textual semantics, Calás and Smircich put to work a range of deconstructive reading practices – ‘inter-textualizations in parallel and interweaving forms, marginal conversations, iterations, and mimicry’ (p. 570) – that produce a whole new repertoire of concepts and understandings to see how politics is always at work (and play) in organization.
他们的解读和阐释揭示了这些文本是如何试图掩盖和取代不被认可的诱惑策略，转而支持理性及其服务和追求客观性和真理的主张。领导力（理性、思想）既需要对诱惑（性、身体）的压抑和否定，但矛盾的是，领导力也依赖于同样的诱惑。这些压抑总是以令人吃惊、往往令人震惊的方式，使领导者（以及作为领导者的作者）感到不安。卡拉斯和斯米尔西奇指出，当我们仔细观察巴纳德自身的诱惑经济学时，我们就能更多更好地理解巴纳德及其关于领导力的著作。Calás 和 Smircich 通过将巴纳德的文本与 Exner（1932 年）同时代的《婚姻的性方面》进行 "互文 "解读，揭示了巴纳德的这一秘密或 "隐藏 "议程。通过这种并置，Calás 和 Smircich 认为，巴纳德通过他的文本所承载和传达的思想可能是 "领导力是绝对必要的欲望创造，是一种渴望、希望、渴求--性吸引力的创造，它承诺通过忠实的依恋得到满足"（第 575 页）。利用多义性--或者更确切地说，正如他们所解释的--词语和文本语义的传播效应，卡拉斯和斯米尔西奇运用了一系列解构性阅读实践--"平行和交织形式的文本间化、边缘对话、迭代和模仿"（第 570 页）--产生了一套全新的概念和理解，让我们看到政治是如何在组织中始终起作用（和发挥）的。

The paper is as fresh and astonishing to read today as it was when it was first published, and it takes our appreciation of where political struggle is being waged in organization into silenced and hitherto unimaginable dimensions of management practice. Its status as a key text for studying politics in organization will perhaps not be immediately obvious, but the power of its thesis and the vast number of articles it has inspired in organization studies speaks of its capability as a transformative resource for thinking or doing politics by organizational scholars (Benschop & Dooreward, 1998; Elliot & Stead, 2018; Fotaki, 2013; Knights, 1997; Sinclair, 2000; Vachhani, 2012). It is notable that the paper has also attracted considerable interest and citations even in the more traditional journals of our subject discipline, including the Academy of Management Review (Mumby & Putnam, 1992; Schultz & Hatch, 1996). To add to this work, we draw attention to an interstitial between affect (including pleasure) and reason that we find at work in this 1991 paper. Calás and Smircich think with their bodies and its affects. Neither reason nor affect, we might characterize this as the practice of ‘reasoned-affect’ or an ‘affective-reason’. However, this synthesis or hybrid terminology might too quickly erase the interstitial and the energies mobilized by the oscillation that plays in the dualism or opposition of reason and affect. To think politics in organization with this interstice offers exciting opportunities to extend and intensify dimensions of organization life that are currently deemed non-political – and there is now a burgeoning conversation among researchers developing affective methodologies to this effect (Fotaki, Kenny, & Vachhani, 2017; Harris & Ashcraft, 2023; Pullen, Rhodes, & Thanem, 2017).
今天读来，这篇论文与它首次发表时一样新鲜和令人震惊，它将我们对组织中政治斗争的认识带入了管理实践中沉默和迄今为止无法想象的层面。作为研究组织政治的重要文献，它的地位也许不会立即显现出来，但其论文的力量以及它在组织研究中激发的大量文章，说明了它作为组织学者思考或进行政治活动的变革性资源的能力（Benschop & Dooreward, 1998; Elliot & Stead, 2018; Fotaki, 2013; Knights, 1997; Sinclair, 2000; Vachhani, 2012）。值得注意的是，即使在我们学科中较为传统的期刊上，包括《管理学院评论》（Mumby & Putnam, 1992; Schultz & Hatch, 1996），该论文也引起了相当大的兴趣和引用。作为对这一工作的补充，我们提请大家注意我们在这篇 1991 年的论文中发现的情感（包括愉悦）与理性之间的间隙。卡拉丝和斯米尔希用他们的身体及其情感进行思考。既不是理性也不是情感，我们可以将其描述为 "理性-情感 "或 "情感-理性 "的实践。然而，这种综合或混合术语可能会过快地抹去理性与情感二元论或对立中的间隙和振荡所调动的能量。用这种间隙来思考组织中的政治，为扩展和强化目前被视为非政治的组织生活层面提供了令人兴奋的机会--目前，研究人员正在为此开发情感方法论，并展开了一场蓬勃的对话（Fotaki、Kenny 和 Vachhani，2017 年；Harris 和 Ashcraft，2023 年；Pullen、Rhodes 和 Thanem，2017 年）。

The Drama of Politics and Organization
政治与组织的戏剧性

Czarniawska-Joerges and Jacobsson’s (1995) paper is also stylistically innovative and offers, quite literally, another dramatic contribution to our understanding of politics in organization studies. Respectfully cited in our field, its full significance and influence are perhaps still to come, for reasons no doubt related to the demands it places on our literary skills. These are skills that have been neglected and woefully underdeveloped in research training and doctoral studies programmes in management and organization studies (Steyaert, Beyes, & Parker, 2016). Increasingly narrow and technocratic in orientation in recent years, driven by an impatient and instrumental agenda led by the ‘marketization’ of higher education, these programmes seek to rush junior colleagues into publication rather than to help cultivate their intellectual curiosity.
Czarniawska-Joerges 和 Jacobsson（1995 年）的论文在文体上也具有创新性，为我们理解组织研究中的政治提供了另一个引人注目的贡献。虽然这篇论文在我们的研究领域被广泛引用，但它的全部意义和影响或许还在后头，原因无疑与这篇论文对我们的文学技能提出的要求有关。这些技能在管理和组织研究的研究培训和博士学习课程中一直被忽视，发展严重不足（Steyaert, Beyes, & Parker, 2016）。近年来，在高等教育 "市场化 "所导致的急躁和工具性议程的推动下，这些课程的方向越来越狭隘和技术官僚化，它们试图匆忙地让初级同事发表论文，而不是帮助培养他们的求知欲。

Written, in part, in the form of a scripted commedia dell’arte play, Czarniawska and Jacobsson’s paper takes the writing of organization studies into uncharted territory. They do this with a creative verve, but one complemented with exacting rigour and attention to detail. The idea that politics is theatre, and theatre politics, especially in the context of media spectacle and new visual technologies, is easily graspable. However, Czarniawska and Jacobsson do much more than draw an analogy. As they explain, the dramatic form of theatre allows us to explore and convey the complexity, paradoxes, nuances and subtleties of political action that conventional forms of academic writing, exposition, analysis and explanation struggle to achieve: ‘An ambiguous phenomenon requires’ they write ‘an ambiguous metaphor’ (p. 377).
Czarniawska 和 Jacobsson 的论文部分采用了喜剧剧本的形式，将组织研究的写作带入了未知领域。他们的论文充满了创造力，但同时又不乏严谨和对细节的关注。政治就是戏剧，戏剧就是政治，尤其是在媒体奇观和新视觉技术的背景下，这一观点很容易理解。然而，查尔尼亚夫斯基和雅各布松所做的远不止是类比。正如他们所解释的那样，戏剧的形式使我们能够探索和传达政治行动的复杂性、矛盾性、细微差别和微妙之处，而传统的学术写作、论述、分析和解释形式却很难做到这一点："一个模棱两可的现象需要 "他们写道，"一个模棱两可的隐喻"（第 377 页）。

In developing their approach Czarniawska and Jacobsson draw from a strand of organization studies that found full expression through the movement associated with the Standing Conference of Organizational Symbolism (SCOS), at one time the biggest conference in the field with its own dedicated publication and professional association. Their thinking comes out of conversation within this network of scholars, in particular the work of Iain Mangham and Michael Overington, who pioneered a dramaturgical understanding of organizations outlined in what might have become an underground classic: Organizations as theatre: A social psychology of dramatic appearances (Mangham & Overington, 1987). Building on this, Czarniawska and Jacobsson return to the work of Sigmund Freud, George Herbert Mead and Erving Goffman where they find the intellectual resources needed to develop an attention and analytical rigour to the ‘theatre’ of everyday life. Of signal importance to this paper is the use they make of American literary theorist Kenneth Burke (1945/1969) who studied people and their cultures as symbol mediating ‘makers’, ‘users’ and ‘misusers’. Symbols were not merely superficial, representational or aesthetic decoration but were productive, action-bearing and consequential. With these resources, Czarniawska and Jacobsson invite us to consider the subtle and complex ontology at work in the organization of politics, one shrouded in feint and disguise where any certainty or definition of events, motives and interests remains elusive.
Czarniawska和Jacobsson在发展他们的研究方法时，借鉴了组织研究的一个分支，该分支通过与组织象征主义常设会议（SCOS）相关的运动得到了充分的体现，SCOS一度是该领域最大的会议，拥有自己的专门出版物和专业协会。他们的思想源于这一学者网络中的对话，尤其是伊恩-曼厄姆（Iain Mangham）和迈克尔-奥芬顿（Michael Overington）的工作，他们开创了对组织的戏剧化理解，并在可能成为地下经典的著作中进行了概述：组织即剧场：Mangham 和 Overington，1987 年）。在此基础上，Czarniawska 和 Jacobsson 又回到了西格蒙德-弗洛伊德、乔治-赫伯特-米德和埃尔文-戈夫曼的著作中，找到了对日常生活 "戏剧 "的关注和严谨分析所需的智力资源。美国文学理论家肯尼斯-伯克（Kenneth Burke，1945/1969 年）将人及其文化视为符号中介的 "制造者"、"使用者 "和 "误用者"，他们的研究对本文具有重要意义。符号不仅仅是表面的、表象的或美学的装饰，而是具有生产性、行动性和结果性的。有了这些资源，Czarniawska 和 Jacobsson 请我们思考在政治组织中运作的微妙而复杂的本体论，这种本体论笼罩在佯装和伪装之中，对事件、动机和利益的任何确定性或定义仍然难以捉摸。

The ostensible object of their study is the politics of public administration organizations in Sweden. They tell us that public administration is an ‘ugly duckling’ in our discipline insofar as we do not like to admit that much of our disciplinary inheritance comes from a lowly empirical field, one that perhaps lacks the grandeur and status of which other older-standing disciplines in the academy can boast. There are in fact two ugly ducklings in organization studies; the other is politics. Politics is an ugly duckling because of the difficulty many still have in accepting that there are politics in organizations. In popular and more behavioural versions of our discipline – with one or two exceptions aside (Buchanan & Badham, 2020) – politics is often seen as a deviation from the operation of more rational systems of management, administration and organization. Even in the studies of Buchanan and his collaborators, where politics is recognized as an inextricable element in all organization, the preoccupation with politics as a practical or ‘behavioural’ skill deployed by individuals restricts our appreciation of the more social and institutional dimensions of politics that play out and mediate work organization. There is, among some, an intrinsic difficulty acknowledging politics because it does not easily submit to strict logic or rationalistic methods of enquiry and explanation. This often provokes simplistic accusations made of politics and politicians: they lie, mislead, talk with forked tongues, do nothing but speak, and so on. However, following Czarniawska and Jacobsson, these accusations begin to seem ill-considered and imprecise. Anticipating Latour’s (2013) more recent proposal that politics forms and occupies its own mode of existence in European modernity, we should instead understand the distinctive ways in which truth is understood and established in politics. What is reasonable in politics is not recognized as reason in laboratory science, nor is it commensurate with what is deemed reason in law. Where science has its methods and procedures for the testing and verification of truth or reason, there are different modes of verification in law, religion, art and politics. Truth in politics is necessarily complicated, shrouded in a drama of smoke and mirrors or, more accurately, dependent on the interstices of fact and fiction.
他们研究的表面对象是瑞典公共行政组织的政治。他们告诉我们，在我们的学科中，公共行政是一只 "丑小鸭"，因为我们不愿意承认我们的学科遗产大多来自于一个低级的经验领域，这个领域也许缺乏其他老牌学科可以引以为豪的宏伟和地位。事实上，组织研究中有两只丑小鸭，另一只是政治学。政治学之所以是丑小鸭，是因为许多人仍然难以接受组织中存在政治的事实。在我们这门学科中，除了一两个例外（布坎南和巴德姆，2020 年），政治往往被视为偏离更理性的管理、行政和组织系统运作的一种现象。即使在布坎南及其合作者的研究中，政治被认为是所有组织中不可分割的一个要素，但将政治作为个人运用的一种实用或 "行为 "技能来关注，限制了我们对政治的社会和制度层面的理解，而这些层面的政治在工作组织中发挥着作用和中介作用。有些人对政治的认识存在固有的困难，因为它不容易服从严格的逻辑或理性主义的探究和解释方法。这往往会引发对政治和政治家的简单化指责：他们撒谎、误导、用叉子说话、除了说话什么都不做等等。然而，继 Czarniawska 和 Jacobsson 之后，这些指责开始显得考虑不周和不够精确。拉图尔（2013 年）最近提出，政治在欧洲现代性中形成并占据了自身的存在模式，我们应预先理解政治中理解和确立真理的独特方式。政治中的合理性在实验室科学中并不被认为是合理的，在法律中也不被认为是合理的。科学有其检验和验证真理或合理性的方法和程序，而法律、宗教、艺术和政治则有不同的验证模式。政治中的真理必然是复杂的，笼罩在烟雾和镜子的戏剧中，或者更准确地说，取决于事实和虚构的夹缝中。

With this in mind Czarniawska-Joerges and Jacobsson (1995) seek to explore the theatrical nature of organizational politics while exploiting through subversion the inevitable ‘theatre’ of academic writing and the journal article form. The assumption that a clear line must exist between truth and lie is revealed as a crude instrument of analysis. We need a more subtle diagnosis when dealing with politics, one that is capable of revealing a more complex and unreliable ontological reality. Czarniawska and Jacobsson deploy this interstice between fact and fiction in their very method of analysis and representation and from within its ambiguity or undecidability (and tolerance of ambiguity) find productive ways of thinking about politics in organization studies. The agnostic quality of this position (between fact and fiction, without deciding) helps the authors avoid the temptation to over-hasty explanation or to translate and explain politics as an expression of underlying organization theory or a set of master principles to which the organizational analyst retains exclusive expertise. Hence, we can understand for example that there are ‘roles’ which the participants of politics and organization must occupy, but this does not necessarily mean that there is an underlying script that acts to determine what politics can do. Nor should we simply distrust politicians because the performance of a role required of politicians implies some lack of authenticity. These roles have to be renewed moment by moment, improvised and re-scripted in the commedia dell’arte – and this demands individual invention and creativity. In these ways the commedia dell’arte of Czarniawska-Joerges and Jacobsson teaches us how to judge the relative strengths not only of professional politicians but also those who must take up political roles and exercise politics in economic and other formal organizations outside the sphere of political institutions.
有鉴于此，Czarniawska-Joerges 和 Jacobsson（1995 年）试图探索组织政治的戏剧性，同时通过颠覆学术写作和期刊论文形式不可避免的 "戏剧性 "来加以利用。真假之间必须存在明确界限的假设被揭示为一种粗糙的分析工具。在处理政治问题时，我们需要一种更微妙的诊断方法，一种能够揭示更复杂、更不可靠的本体论现实的诊断方法。查尔尼亚夫斯基和雅各布松在他们的分析和表述方法中采用了这种介于事实与虚构之间的间隙，并从其模糊性或不确定性（以及对模糊性的容忍）中找到了在组织研究中思考政治的有效方法。这种立场（介于事实与虚构之间，不做决定）的不可知论特质有助于作者避免过度急躁的解释，或将政治翻译和解释为基本组织理论的表达或组织分析师独有的一套主要原则。因此，举例来说，我们可以理解政治和组织的参与者必须扮演一定的 "角色"，但这并不一定意味着有一个潜在的剧本来决定政治能做什么。我们也不应简单地因为政治家必须扮演的角色意味着缺乏真实性而不信任政治家。这些角色必须一刻不停地更新、即兴发挥并重新编排，这就需要个人的发明和创造力。卡尔尼亚夫斯基-约尔格斯和雅各布松的喜剧艺术以这些方式教我们如何判断专业政治家的相对优势，以及那些必须在政治机构领域之外的经济组织和其他正式组织中承担政治角色和行使政治的人的相对优势。

Corporate Political Action and the Complex Games of Politics
企业政治行动与复杂的政治游戏

The paper by Barley (2010) included in our selection is an exceptionally careful piece of what Czarniawska (2016) might label ‘detective’ work. Informed by political science, historical analysis and studies of corporate political influence, Barley sets out to sketch a preliminary map of the processes and organizations that ‘corral’ and persuade the United States government to serve the interests of private sector corporations. His thinking comes from a very different tradition to Czarniawska and Jacobsson, advancing a form of institutional theory or organizational institutionalism. From these traditions Barley maps out the shady world of political lobbying made up of corporate appointed public relations and management consultancies, public affairs offices, political action committees (PACs), professional lobbyists, journalists, research foundations, think-tanks, political party managers and politicians.
巴利（2010 年）的论文被列入我们的选题，这是一篇非常谨慎的论文，就像 Czarniawska（2016 年）所说的 "侦探 "工作。在政治学、历史分析和企业政治影响力研究的启发下，Barley 开始初步勾勒出 "笼络 "和说服美国政府为私营企业利益服务的过程和组织。他的思想与查尔尼亚夫斯基（Czarniawska）和雅各布松（Jacobsson）的传统截然不同，是一种制度理论或组织制度主义。从这些传统出发，贝利描绘了一个由企业指定的公共关系和管理咨询公司、公共事务办公室、政治行动委员会（PACs）、职业游说者、记者、研究基金会、智囊团、政党管理者和政治家组成的政治游说黑幕世界。

To map this shape-shifting and capricious world requires a good grasp of political science, sociology, economics, law, and all the ‘skills of a historian and a taste for the longue durée’ (Barley, 2010, p. 779). Patterns that resemble something we would recognize as organization are complex and take time to distil and grasp. Barley traces, for example, the historical formation of a number of ‘peak organizations’ that represent and coordinate the interests of corporate America and examines the way enabling legislation and the creative mobilization of extant law helps legitimize and bring these organizations into being. He also ‘follows’ the money to track the funding of these organizations. The paper reports findings that shed light on the nature of their hiring and appointment and explores the channels through which their lobbying gets exercised. Barley pursues data that reveal how information is shared and coordinated within this corporate-sponsored lobby industry and measures their influence on government by an assessment of time-series data on the volume of testimony they provide to commissions and public enquiries. He also tracks down data that reveal how much money gets invested in media advertising designed to shape public opinion or to mobilize local ‘grassroots’ activism to take actions in support or opposition of particular policies and proposals.
要描绘出这个变化无常的世界，需要熟练掌握政治学、社会学、经济学、法学以及所有 "历史学家的技能和对长期的品味"（Barley，2010 年，第 779 页）。类似于我们所认识到的组织的模式是复杂的，需要时间来提炼和把握。例如，巴利追溯了一些代表和协调美国公司利益的 "顶峰组织 "的历史形成过程，并研究了授权立法和创造性地调动现行法律帮助这些组织合法化并使其诞生的方式。他还 "追踪 "了这些组织的资金来源。论文报告的研究结果揭示了这些组织聘用和任命的性质，并探讨了这些组织进行游说的渠道。大麦通过追踪数据，揭示了企业支持的游说行业内部如何共享和协调信息，并通过评估他们向委员会和公众调查提供的证词数量的时间序列数据，衡量了他们对政府的影响力。他还追踪了一些数据，揭示了有多少资金投入到媒体广告中，以塑造公众舆论或动员当地 "草根 "积极分子采取行动支持或反对特定政策和提案。

It is a world we know little about as organizational analysts, but Barley provides a useful entrée that begins to delineate some of its organizational properties. Drawing from institutional theory, he is able to identify these organizational properties in the form of an ‘institutional field’. According to many, an ‘institutional field’ is ‘the central construct’ (Wooten & Hoffman, 2017, p. 130) in institutional theory and has been defined as ‘the mechanisms of social coordination by which embedded actors interact with one another in predictable ways’ (Zietsma, Groenewegen, Logue, & Hinings, 2017, p. 392). The diagram he produces to summarize the key actors, agencies and organizations (Barley, 2010, p. 794) offers a dense and complicated set of relations and interconnectivities that characterize this embedding, and in this case shows how the field spans and mediates between the macro formal institutions of government and the micro, private world of corporations and their shareholders.
作为组织分析家，我们对这个世界知之甚少，但 Barley 提供了一个有用的切入点，开始勾勒出它的一些组织属性。他借鉴制度理论，以 "制度领域 "的形式确定了这些组织属性。许多人认为，"制度场 "是制度理论中的 "核心构造"（Wooten & Hoffman, 2017, p.130），被定义为 "嵌入式行动者以可预测的方式相互影响的社会协调机制"（Zietsma, Groenewegen, Logue, & Hinings, 2017, p.392）。他绘制的图表总结了主要的参与者、机构和组织（Barley, 2010, p.794），提供了一系列密集而复杂的关系和相互关联性，这些关系和关联性是这种嵌入的特征，在本案例中显示了该领域如何在宏观的政府正式机构与微观的企业及其股东的私人世界之间进行跨越和调解。

An institutional field is not a bureaucracy with a single apex and source of formal authority, but a form of collective or orchestrated organization made up of multiple actors and organizations of different sizes and shapes, partial and overlapping in activity and jurisdiction, composing networks and relations in ever-shifting patterns of alliance, conflict and division. It also embodies properties of ‘organization’ itself that are potentially both noun and verb, or process. Neither structure nor agency, within the terms posed by traditional sociological dualisms, an institutional field is often assumed to operate according to the principles of ‘structuration’ as laid out in Giddens’ (1984) highly influential sociology. Thinking with this ‘institutional field’, Barley opens up another important interstitial space of organization, but one made more intransigent to academic study by virtue of its very furtive and clandestine nature. Here we must think of politics as an ongoing struggle of organization in an interstitial world, conducted by political organizations that are themselves in the interstice of public and private, on behalf of the political interests of corporate organizations that may shift and change according to calculations and compromise not entirely clear to the unwary observer.
机构领域并不是只有一个最高点和正式权力来源的官僚机构，而是一种集体或协调的组 织形式，由多个不同规模和形式的参与者和组织组成，在活动和管辖范围上既有局部又有重 叠，在不断变化的联盟、冲突和分裂模式中构成网络和关系。它还体现了 "组织 "本身既是名词又是动词或过程的特性。在传统社会学二元论的术语中，制度领域既不是结构，也不是机构，通常被认为是按照吉登斯（1984 年）极具影响力的社会学中提出的 "结构化 "原则运作的。通过对这一 "制度场 "的思考，巴利开辟了另一个重要的组织间隙空间，但由于其非常隐秘和秘密的性质，学术研究对这一空间更加难以渗透。在这里，我们必须将政治视为一个间隙世界中持续不断的组织斗争，由本身处于公私间隙的政治组织代表企业组织的政治利益进行。

Barley notes that his schemata calls for additional work from organization studies. Population ecology, for example, can explore the conditions of possibility that help explain the birth of new organizations, which are born at the same time as the emergence of a wider ecology of enabling organizations, environments and other conditions of possibilities. He also thinks that more network analysis is required because ‘Beneath the highly schematic network that I have constructed lie multiple networks of dyadic relations waiting to be documented’ (p. 798). Ethnographic work is particularly well suited to the study of the intricate and inchoate nature of these dyadic relations where much of the activity and work being conducted is designed precisely to avoid public scrutiny. The complexity and multiplicity of this shadowy interstitial world also prompts us to reflect on the limits of our methods and reach as formally and publicly accountable researchers. How to engage key informants, those who occupy for example the role of a ‘deep throat’ in revealing information about the world they occupy (Bernstein & Woodward, 1974), might be expected to prove challenging. We will also need to rethink how we theorize and explain a world that is enmeshed with the practices of a ‘deep state’ (Skowronek, Dearborn, & King, 2021). We enter here a world of bluff and counterbluff, a world that is also super-reflexive about itself (Melley, 2017), and a world in which we should expect its participants to be highly educated and likely aware of the academic theories which purport to explain them. The work of foundations and funding bodies identified in this paper are also likely to be contributing funders to academic theory and research in the social sciences that might therefore corrupt presumed scholarly freedoms.
贝利指出，他的方案要求组织研究开展更多工作。例如，人口生态学可以探索有助于解释新组织诞生的可能性条件，而新组织的诞生是与更广泛的有利组织生态、环境和其他可能性条件的出现同时发生的。他还认为，需要进行更多的网络分析，因为 "在我所构建的高度模式化的网络之下，隐藏着多重的二元关系网络，等待着被记录下来"（第 798 页）。人种学工作尤其适合研究这些二元关系的复杂性和不稳定性，因为许多活动和工作的开展正是为了避免公众的监督。这个阴暗间隙世界的复杂性和多重性也促使我们反思作为正式的、对公众负责的研究人员，我们的研究方法和研究范围的局限性。如何让关键信息提供者参与进来，让他们扮演 "深喉 "的角色，揭示他们所处世界的信息（伯恩斯坦和伍德沃德，1974 年），可能具有挑战性。我们还需要重新思考如何理论化和解释这个与 "深层国家"（Skowronek, Dearborn, & King, 2021）的实践密不可分的世界。在这里，我们进入了一个虚张声势与反虚张声势的世界，一个对自身具有超级反思能力的世界（Melley，2017），一个我们应该期待其参与者受过高等教育并可能了解旨在解释他们的学术理论的世界。本文中提到的基金会和资助机构也很可能是社会科学学术理论和研究的资助者，因此可能会破坏假定的学术自由。

Historical and Political Conditions in the Rise of Organization Studies
组织研究兴起的历史和政治条件

The final paper we include in our selection, by Jim March (2007), provides a useful historical analysis of the relation between organization studies and its political and historical conditions of possibility. March charts the changing social and political conditions across Europe and North America since 1945 and shows the intimacy with which different forms of knowledge are bound up with these wider politics. Writing on the cusp of retirement and after a long career, March speaks with elegance and authority and helps us see how wider politics and geopolitics have had a significant influence on shaping both research priorities and the kind of knowledge which is considered legitimate or illegitimate. March (2007) notes specifically how
吉姆-马奇（Jim March，2007 年）的最后一篇论文对组织研究与其政治和历史条件之间的关系进行了有益的历史分析。马奇描绘了自 1945 年以来欧洲和北美不断变化的社会和政治条件，并展示了不同形式的知识与这些更广泛的政治之间的密切联系。马奇在即将退休之际，在经历了漫长的职业生涯之后，以优雅而权威的笔触，帮助我们了解到更广泛的政治和地缘政治是如何对研究重点以及被认为合法或不合法的知识种类产生重大影响的。马奇（2007 年）特别指出

significant features of the field of organization studies were moulded by three critical events in 20th-century history: (1) the Second World War, (2) the social and political protest movements of the late 1960s and early 1970s, and (3) the collapse of the Soviet Empire and the triumph of markets. (p. 12)
组织研究领域的重要特征是由 20 世纪历史上的三个关键事件形成的：(1) 第二次世界大战，(2) 20 世纪 60 年代末和 70 年代初的社会和政治抗议运动，以及 (3) 苏维埃帝国的崩溃和市场的胜利。(p. 12)

His paper reminds us that organization studies in North America was first established out of a combination of political science and studies of group behaviour that sought to fill out the black box of conventional economic theories of the firm. March himself was trained in political science and together with Herbert Simon set out to discover how things like decision-making, resource allocation, administration and work organization added complexity that was not recognized in standard microeconomics and economic theories of the firm. In an early paper, March (1962) argued that the business firm was better understood as a ‘political coalition’ rather than an arena in which rational economic calculation was deployed. The idea of a ‘coalition’ might not satisfy everyone of course and this is where critical management studies might help explore the complex systems that maintain and occlude power and inequality through a combination of control, repression and subjugation (Alvesson & Willmott, 1996; Prasad et al., 2016; Pullen, Harding, & Phillips, 2017). In contrast to the extensions to politics encouraged by these critical scholars, there is a fairly conventional understanding of ‘politics’ at work in March’s 2007 paper. March is interested in the practices and institutions associated with government and offices of ‘high’ politics, which offers a useful counterpoint to the preoccupation with politics of the ‘workplace’ or the ‘local’ politics of managerial power struggles over resources and career (Mintzberg, 1973).
他的论文提醒我们，北美的组织研究最初是由政治学和群体行为研究结合而成的，旨在填补传统企业经济理论的黑匣子。马奇本人曾接受过政治学训练，他与赫伯特-西蒙（Herbert Simon）一起致力于发现决策、资源分配、行政管理和工作组织等问题如何增加了标准微观经济学和企业经济理论所未认识到的复杂性。马奇（1962 年）在早期的一篇论文中指出，商业公司最好被理解为一个 "政治联盟"，而不是一个进行理性经济计算的场所。当然，"联盟 "的概念可能无法让所有人满意，而这正是批判性管理研究有助于探索通过控制、压制和征服的组合来维持和遮蔽权力与不平等的复杂系统的地方（Alvesson & Willmott, 1996; Prasad et al.）与这些批判学者所鼓励的政治扩展不同，马奇在 2007 年的论文中对 "政治 "的理解是相当传统的。马奇感兴趣的是与政府和 "高层 "政治办公室相关的实践和制度，这与人们对 "工作场所 "政治或管理权力争夺资源和职业的 "地方 "政治的关注形成了有益的反差（Mintzberg，1973）。

March does not quite seem ready to make the break with these conventional dualisms but does offer an effective check-and-balance to the Clegg and Higgins’ paper where there was a very clear politically interested prognosis and proposal. Indeed, March concludes with a very interesting provocation to those who seek to promote partisan political values and commitments through their scholarship and returns us to those preoccupations Weber (1946) advanced in his 1909 ‘Science as Vocation’ essay. ‘In a real sense’, March writes,
马奇似乎还没有准备好与这些传统的二元论决裂，但他确实为克莱格和希金斯的论文提供了有效的制衡，其中有非常明显的政治利益预言和建议。事实上，马奇在结论中对那些试图通过其学术研究促进党派政治价值观和承诺的人提出了一个非常有趣的挑衅，并让我们回到韦伯（1946 年）在其 1909 年的 "科学是天职 "一文中提出的那些关注点。真正意义上"，马奇写道、

the fact that the intellectual future will be at the mercy of historical happenings over which we have little control is not relevant to those of us who are practicing scholars. Our task is not to discern the future in order to join it; nor even to shape it. Our task is to make small pieces of scholarship beautiful through rigor, persistence, competence, elegance and grace, so as to avoid the plague of mediocrity that threatens often to overcome us. (p. 18)
知识界的未来将受制于我们几乎无法控制的历史事件，这一事实与我们这些实践型学者无关。我们的任务不是为了加入未来而辨别未来，甚至也不是为了塑造未来。我们的任务是通过严谨、坚持、能力、优雅和风度，让学术研究的小作品变得美丽，从而避免平庸的困扰，因为平庸经常威胁着我们。(p. 18)

That is a statement with its own political commitments of course and with its dedication to beauty, elegance and grace could be cited to endorse a plurality of aesthetics in the study of politics and organization, including those of Calás and Smircich, and Czarniawska and Jacobsson.
当然，这句话有其自身的政治承诺，它对美、优雅和高贵的执着可以用来支持政治和组织研究中的多元美学，包括卡拉什和斯密尔西奇以及查尔尼亚夫斯基和雅各布松的美学。

With these commitments March (2007) paves a way for how we might become aware of these political, social and historical conditions of possibility that shape what it is possible for us to think about organizations. Knowledge is both cause and effect of these historical conditions of possibility whether thought in Kantian, Marxist or Foucauldian terms, and existent political and geopolitical realities are often silent ‘authors’ influencing what it is we can think and speak. This awareness might provide the first step into practices and opportunities through which we might experiment with changing those circumstances. March might have assumed an ideal of personal transcendence in writing his piece, for his essay poses the inevitably reflexive one: What are the historical conditions for March seeing the things he does and writing this particular essay? Is it not better to see all texts like his as potentially transformative of historical conditions, or in struggle with them?
有了这些承诺，马奇（2007 年）为我们如何意识到这些政治、社会和历史的可能性条件铺平了道路，这些可能性条件决定了我们对组织的思考。无论是从康德、马克思主义还是福柯的角度来看，知识都是这些历史可能性条件的因和果，而现存的政治和地缘政治现实往往是无声的 "作者"，影响着我们的思考和言说。这种意识可能会为我们提供第一步的实践和机会，通过这些实践和机会，我们可以尝试改变这些环境。马奇在撰写这篇文章时可能已经假定了个人超越的理想，因为他的文章不可避免地提出了一个反思性的问题：是什么样的历史条件让马奇看到了他所看到的东西，并写下了这篇特殊的文章？把所有像他这样的文章都看作是对历史条件的潜在改造，或者说是与历史条件的斗争，这样不是更好吗？

In this way we might be enjoined to work on an interstice ourselves, an interstice between the object of our research and the conditions of possibility that both make it a political object of concern and provide the intellectual resources upon which we can extend our understanding of politics. To avoid the trap of an ahistorical circularity we should also exploit this interstice in ways that illuminate the dynamic forces of history as part of a media and outcome of our modes of knowledge (Carr, 1961). Certain strands of the recent ‘historical turn’ in organization studies drawing on the genealogical methods of Foucault seem promising in this respect and may prove effective in unsettling and reanimating political struggles around objects not yet seen or deemed ‘political’ (Rennison, 2007; Wallace, 2022).
通过这种方式，我们可能会被要求在我们自己的中间地带开展工作，在我们的研究对象与可能性条件之间的中间地带，这些可能性条件既使其成为我们关注的政治对象，又为我们提供了可以扩展我们对政治的理解的知识资源。为了避免陷入非历史性循环的陷阱，我们还应该利用这一间隙，阐明历史作为媒介的动态力量以及我们知识模式的结果（Carr，1961 年）。近期组织研究中的某些 "历史转向 "分支借鉴了福柯的谱系学方法，在这方面似乎大有可为，并可能被证明能有效地扰乱和重启围绕尚未被视为 "政治 "的对象的政治斗争（Rennison, 2007; Wallace, 2022）。

Towards the Interstitial: New objects and subjects of political controversy
走向间隙：政治争议的新对象和新主体

These papers in the archives of Organization Studies exemplify six different vectors that move us towards a series of interstices that we argue can be highly productive for the future study of politics in our discipline. We first opened up an interstice between modern and non-modern ways of thinking (Anders and Anders), and then between utopian and other ideals that motivate critical inquiry (Clegg and Higgins). Interstitial forms of thinking that relate affect and reason were explored in Calás and Smircich, and we then followed Czarniawska and Jacobsson into a dramaturgical ontology that weaves an interstice between fact and fiction. We saw how Barley opens up an interstice between macro and micro where formal and informal organization create an ‘institutional field’ that also occupies a space between structure and agent and the public and private, while March helped us think our reflexive entanglement in the historical conditions of possibility for thinking or acting politically. Care and attention to these interstices can hold open multidisciplinary and multi-paradigm enquiry while also helping to cultivate tolerance and mutual understanding of each other’s position, all helpful in realizing greater reflexivity and circumspection. We think these are all important resources that organization studies can draw from in our current historical moment to help improve political thinking and negotiations over who gets what, when and how.
组织研究》档案中的这些论文体现了六个不同的载体，这些载体将我们推向了一系列交汇点，我们认为这些交汇点对于我们学科未来的政治研究极具成效。我们首先打开了现代与非现代思维方式之间的间隙（安德斯和安德斯），然后打开了乌托邦与其他激励批判性探索的理想之间的间隙（克莱格和希金斯）。卡拉丝和斯米尔奇探讨了将情感与理性联系起来的间隙思维形式，随后我们跟随查尔尼亚夫斯基和雅各布松进入了编织事实与虚构间隙的戏剧本体论。我们看到了大麦如何在宏观和微观之间开辟了一个间隙，在这个间隙中，正式和非正式的组织创造了一个 "制度领域"，同时也占据了结构与代理、公共与私人之间的空间，而马奇则帮助我们思考我们在政治思考或政治行动的历史可能性条件中的反思性纠缠。对这些间隙的关注和重视可以开启多学科和多范式的探究，同时也有助于培养宽容和对彼此立场的相互理解，这些都有助于实现更强的反思性和审慎性。我们认为，这些都是组织研究在我们当前的历史时刻可以借鉴的重要资源，有助于改进政治思考和关于谁能得到什么、何时得到和如何得到的谈判。

Made up of a legacy of modern science and social science, but also the arts and humanities, organization studies is, itself, constitutively an interstitial space. This crossroads helps us to think of politics in a most capacious way. Workplace studies and the sociology of work help us to study the various micro-politics of organization: the interpersonal rivalries and jealousies of management and executives (Mintzberg, 1973), for example, to the politics of the ‘wage-effort’ bargain conducted between management and worker (Batstone, 1984). We can think of the ‘political’ skill enjoyed by the successful entrepreneur, or the charismatic charm of a political leader, but we can also ask what forms of social organization make particular personalities charismatic and attractive. With its roots partly in political science, our discipline also studies the various constitutional and institutional arrangements that form a ‘macro’ organizational realm where political representation and state administration meet. In tackling this, Clegg and Higgins find an interstice between political ideals and their realization where the practical activities of institution building are informed by expertise and scholarship in organization studies and critical social science. Their paper also helped us think about the interstitial links between the micro and the macro, showing how national political institutions of economic governance could be forged from the ground up, rooted, some would argue, in workers’ struggle in the labour process. We might think of this interstice as a ‘meso’ level that has been used in organization studies for a variety of different spaces that transgress the separation of macro and micro.
组织研究既有现代科学和社会科学的遗产，也有艺术和人文学科的遗产，组织研究本身就构成了一个间隙空间。这个十字路口帮助我们以最宽广的方式思考政治。工作场所研究和工作社会学有助于我们研究组织中的各种微观政治：例如，管理层和行政人员之间的人际竞争和嫉妒（明茨伯格，1973 年），以及管理层和工人之间进行的 "工资-努力 "讨价还价的政治（巴特斯通，1984 年）。我们可以想到成功企业家的 "政治 "技巧，也可以想到政治领袖的魅力，但我们还可以问，是什么样的社会组织形式使特定的人物具有魅力和吸引力。我们的学科部分源于政治学，同时也研究各种宪法和制度安排，这些安排构成了政治代表和国家管理交汇的 "宏观 "组织领域。克莱格和希金斯在处理这一问题时，发现了政治理想与实现政治理想之间的夹缝，在这一夹缝中，组织研究和批判性社会科学的专业知识和学术研究为制度建设的实践活动提供了信息。他们的论文还帮助我们思考了微观与宏观之间的间隙联系，展示了国家经济治理的政治体制是如何从根本上建立起来的，有些人认为，这种体制根植于工人在劳动过程中的斗争。我们可以将这一间隙视为 "中观 "层面，在组织研究中，这一层面被用于跨越宏观与微观分离的各种不同空间。

The ‘institutional field’ of political lobbying explored by Barley occupies a similar meso level in terms of this macro and micro, but it is in the interstice between formal and informal organizations and that between structure and action where we think future studies of organization might stretch existing theory to think politics in new and exciting ways. It is in these interstices where we find a very fertile space in which primitive and novel experiments in organization may be emerging, helping to facilitate or obstruct the realization of new political imaginaries. A space of contingency, where chance and creativity are not bound by the measurable or predictable interactions of macro structuring forces and micro-orderings (Garfinkel, 1967) is likely to generate forms of organization that remain unfamiliar and for which we have little conceptual vocabulary. Something happens in these interstices prior to the separation of structure and agency, or the division of politics into a macro and micro realm, sometimes conceived in terms of the power of ‘the establishment’ at a macro level and grassroots activism or resistance in the micro. Falling in the gaps between our analytical categories and distinctions, we don’t know if something is large or small, significant or insignificant (within organizational terms). Hence, what might have been deemed small or marginal can proliferate and extend through channels of organization that make it suddenly become large and more of a ‘political’ presence. The concept of a ‘capillary function’ of power as sketched by Foucault in various places (e.g. Foucault, 2001, pp. 86–87) would seem prima facie useful in developing these ideas.
大麦所探讨的政治游说的 "制度领域 "在宏观和微观方面占据了类似的中观层面，但正是在正式组织和非正式组织之间以及结构和行动之间的夹缝中，我们认为未来的组织研究可能会扩展现有理论，以新的和令人兴奋的方式思考政治。正是在这些夹缝中，我们发现了一个非常肥沃的空间，在那里可能会出现原始和新颖的组织实验，帮助促进或阻碍新的政治想象的实现。在偶然性的空间里，偶然性和创造性不受宏观结构力量和微观秩序（Garfinkel，1967 年）可测量或可预测的相互作用的约束，很可能产生我们仍然不熟悉的组织形式，而我们对这些组织形式几乎没有概念词汇。在结构与机构分离或将政治划分为宏观和微观领域之前，在这些夹缝中会发生一些事情，这些事情有时可以从宏观层面上的 "当权者 "权力和微观层面上的基层行动主义或抵抗运动的角度来设想。在我们的分析类别和区分之间的缝隙中，我们不知道某件事是大是小，是重要还是微不足道（在组织术语中）。因此，可能被认为是小的或边缘的东西可能会通过组织渠道扩散和延伸，使其突然变得大而更具 "政治 "意义。福柯在不同地方勾勒出的权力 "毛细管功能 "概念（如福柯，2001 年，第 86-87 页）似乎初步有助于发展这些观点。

With this in mind, think of the politics made recently out of plastics and insulation, or the ‘politics in a sausage’ to which Latour (2013, p. 481) humorously drew our attention in an effort to show how seemingly small and trivial things can become new ‘objects of concern’ (Latour, 2005). They become objects of concern through acts of ‘translation’ that may entail the mobilization of large-scale collective actions, protest movements and even widespread civil disobedience. Think of the politics made out of the modern contraceptive pill, especially in terms of gender relations and feminist theories of emancipation, none of which was intended, predictable or designed into the object or material artefact by its laboratory pioneers (see here De Vries, 2007; Latour, 2007; cf. Winner, 1980). Think of the recent explosion of politics around the object or figure of ‘the motorist’ in UK political discourse, or the volatility that forms around what Marres (2012) calls more generally ‘issue politics’.
有鉴于此，想想最近用塑料和绝缘材料制成的政治，或者拉图尔（2013 年，第 481 页）幽默地提请我们注意的 "香肠中的政治"，以展示看似微不足道的小东西是如何成为新的 "关注对象 "的（拉图尔，2005 年）。它们通过 "翻译 "行为成为关注对象，这可能需要动员大规模的集体行动、抗议运动，甚至是广泛的非暴力反抗。想想现代避孕药的政治意义，尤其是在性别关系和女权主义解放理论方面，而这些都不是其实验室先驱们有意为之、可预见或设计的对象或物质工艺品（参见 De Vries, 2007; Latour, 2007; cf. Winner, 1980）。想想最近在英国政治话语中围绕 "驾车者 "这一对象或形象而爆发的政治活动，或者围绕马雷斯（Marres，2012 年）所称的 "议题政治 "而形成的波动。

Marres’ work leans heavily on US pragmatist philosophy and especially the thinking of John Dewey (esp. Dewey, 1927) to study this interstice between structure and agency, but one that she would argue needs to be studied in the absence of these traditional sociological dualisms that bookend this interstice. Without the anchoring provided by these dualisms we might face an unpredictable and unruly chaos in the making of politics, but it might also open up a domain of enquiry in which we can explore those organizational features that help explain how current ‘populist’ forms of politics come to power. We can imagine that this volatility will be exacerbated by an emerging media infrastructure composed of digital communications and AI technologies that will likely demand that specialists in organization studies will need to reimagine the existing repertoire of organizational forms (Husted & Plesner, 2017; Just, De Cock, & Schaeffer, 2021).
马雷斯的研究在很大程度上借鉴了美国实用主义哲学，尤其是约翰-杜威（John Dewey）（尤其是杜威，1927 年）的思想，以研究结构与机构之间的这一夹缝，但她认为，在没有这些传统社会学二元论的情况下，需要对这一夹缝进行研究。如果没有这些二元论的支撑，我们可能会在政治的形成过程中面临不可预知的混乱局面，但这也可能会开辟一个研究领域，让我们可以探索那些有助于解释当前 "民粹主义 "政治形式如何上台的组织特征。我们可以想象，由数字通信和人工智能技术组成的新兴媒体基础设施将加剧这种不稳定性，这很可能要求组织研究专家需要重新想象现有的组织形式（Husted & Plesner, 2017; Just, De Cock, & Schaeffer, 2021）。

Working with this interstice between structure and agent also renders problematic the idea of a macro and micro as stable and clearly demarcated ‘levels’ of organization and helps recover what is lively and inchoate in things lying dormant and in potential. Organization studies has made progress in finding ways of avoiding the reification of this scalar opposition and sidestepping its closed dualism, whether through versions of practice theory (Seidl & Whittington, 2014), actor-network theory (Czarniawska, 2016) or the ‘communication as constitutive of organization’ (CCO) approach (Cooren, Kuhn, Cornelissen, & Clark, 2011). With this more ‘flattened ontology’, as some call it after the work of DeLanda (1997), we are invited to consider a world more dynamic, contingent and relational. Here we might trace something like the ‘origins’ of politics in organization. This can help us understand how quite literally anything can become political, mobilizing energies around new ‘objects of concern’ that we should expect will stimulate sudden outbursts of outrage or popular enthusiasm, shifting things from the small-scale to the large and from the marginal to the mainstream.
利用结构与代理之间的这一间隙，还可以使宏观和微观作为稳定而明确划分的组织 "层次 "的观点变得有问题，并有助于恢复沉睡和潜在事物中生动活泼的东西。无论是通过实践理论（Seidl & Whittington, 2014）、行动者网络理论（Czarniawska, 2016），还是 "作为组织构成要素的沟通"（CCO）方法（Cooren, Kuhn, Cornelissen, & Clark, 2011），组织研究在寻找避免这种标度对立的重化和回避其封闭的二元论方面都取得了进展。有人根据德兰达（DeLanda，1997 年）的研究成果，称之为 "扁平化本体论"。在这里，我们可以追溯政治在组织中的 "起源"。这可以帮助我们理解，实际上任何事物都可以成为政治，围绕新的 "关注对象 "调动能量，我们应该期待这些新的 "关注对象 "会激发突然爆发的愤怒或民众的热情，将事物从小规模转向大规模，从边缘转向主流。

The interstice between fact and fiction that Czarniawska-Joerges and Jacobsson (1995) identify might also aggravate some of these instabilities and associated volatility. Their work on the dramaturgy of politics poses a fundamental ontological challenge to research in organization studies. Conventional methods of data collection and verification can work to uncover a presumed reality behind the disguise of smoke and mirrors, but they struggle to admit or recognize a world made entirely of smoke and mirrors, especially if they are asked to consider their own complicity in the making of worlds fantastic and obscure. When the map of the territory or schemas of things like institutional fields become known and acted-upon by those we are putatively mapping, we have to admit a further complication: namely, our own co-implication in a reflexivity that amplifies self-consciousness among practitioners and agents in the practical world of organization (Callon, 1998; MacKenzie, Muniesa, & Siu, 2007). Here, no simple realism can be presumed to exist. As sociology has long known, and in various ways (Garfinkel, 1967; Giddens, 1976; Gouldner, 1970; McHugh, Raffel, Foss, & Blum, 1974), there is a reflexive loop between subject/theory/representation and its object, one that can threaten to dissolve reality into a fuzzy landscape requiring what some have called constant ontological ‘gerrymandering’ (Woolgar & Pawluch, 1985). There is another politics here to which organization studies has begun to contribute, often associated with citations to the important work of Annemarie Mol (2002) and her development of an ‘ontological politics’. This politics demands reflexivity and asks specialists in organization studies to consider the kind of reality to which they are performatively committed with their theory and methods (Meyer & Quattrone, 2021). If all knowledge is enrolled in political struggles and controversy, we must ask: Who gains and who loses from our interventions and representations?
Czarniawska-Joerges 和 Jacobsson（1995 年）指出的事实与虚构之间的夹缝也可能加剧其中的不稳定性和相关的波动性。他们关于政治戏剧性的研究对组织研究提出了本体论上的挑战。传统的数据收集和验证方法可以揭示烟雾和镜像伪装下的假定现实，但他们很难承认或认识到一个完全由烟雾和镜像构成的世界，尤其是当他们被要求考虑自己在制造梦幻和模糊世界中的共谋关系时。当机构领域等事物的领域地图或图式被我们所谓的绘图者所知并付诸行动时，我们就不得不承认另一个复杂因素：即我们自身在反身性中的共同影响，这种反身性放大了组织实践世界中实践者和代理人的自我意识（Callon, 1998; MacKenzie, Muniesa, & Siu, 2007）。在这里，不能假定存在简单的现实主义。正如社会学早已熟知的那样（Garfinkel, 1967; Giddens, 1976; Gouldner, 1970; McHugh, Raffel, Foss, & Blum, 1974），主体/理论/表述与其客体之间存在着一个反身循环，这个循环可能会将现实消解为模糊的景观，这就需要不断地进行本体论上的 "划线"（Woolgar & Pawluch, 1985）。这里还有另一种政治，组织研究已开始对此做出贡献，这通常与引用安妮玛丽-莫尔（Annemarie Mol，2002 年）的重要工作及其 "本体论政治 "的发展有关。这种政治学要求反思性，并要求组织研究专家考虑他们的理论和方法所承诺的现实类型（Meyer & Quattrone, 2021）。如果所有知识都卷入了政治斗争和争议，我们就必须问：我们的干预和表述对谁有利，对谁不利？

In making these assessments and to advance the thesis outlined in March (2007) we need to know the type and forms of organization that facilitate politicization and which forms of organization we are wittingly or unwittingly reproducing in our research by virtue of our position in relation to those wider historical forces. The history we thought we knew is also increasingly being questioned by the politics of gender, diversity and inclusion, identity politics, race and postcolonial struggles. We can anticipate that these politics are going to become increasingly mainstream in organization studies, but we should also be mindful of the effects these movements will have on our conception of methods, epistemology and ontology. Calás and Smircich (1991) deserve careful study in this respect. Their innovative methods also provide an interesting challenge to the potential trap of reflexivity which we argued might disable March – namely, his speaking from within the confines of historical conditions while presuming to be outside their control. New methods are also needed to bring voice to that which has been silenced – human and more-than-human. Following Calás and Smircich, we might learn to work on the interstices between affect and reason to register these voices.
在进行这些评估并推进 March（2007 年）中概述的论点时，我们需要了解促进政治化的组织类型和形式，以及我们在研究中由于与这些更广泛的历史力量相关的立场而有意或无意地再现的组织形式。我们自以为了解的历史也日益受到性别政治、多样性和包容性政治、身份政治、种族和后殖民主义斗争的质疑。我们可以预见，这些政治将日益成为组织研究的主流，但我们也应注意这些运动对我们的方法论、认识论和本体论概念的影响。在这方面，Calás 和 Smircich（1991 年）值得仔细研究。他们的创新方法也对我们认为可能使马奇丧失能力的潜在反身性陷阱提出了有趣的挑战--即马奇在历史条件的限制下发言，同时又自认为不受历史条件的控制。我们还需要新的方法来为那些被压制的声音--人类的和非人类的--发声。效仿卡拉什和斯米尔西奇，我们可以学习在情感与理性之间的夹缝中工作，以记录这些声音。

In this vein many in organization studies have turned to subaltern studies and queer theory (see also Riach, Rumens, & Tyler, 2014; Rumens, de Souza, & Brewis, 2019). Others have experimented with alternative forms of writing (Ericsson & Kostera, 2020; Gilmore, Harding, Helin, & Pullen, 2019) including what is called ‘affective writing’ (Ashcraft, 2017; Gherardi, 2019), ‘écriture féminine’ (Vachhani, 2019) and ‘dirty writing’ (Pullen & Rhodes, 2008). These are not mere adornments or stylistic flourishes, but like Calás and Smircich’s (1991) efforts, integral to the specific way in which each method and writing practice helps politicize gender relations and other marginalized identities in organization. They show how these relations are organized and reproduced (but also subverted) in the very writing conventions of the academic article, which are particularly egregious in ‘seminal’ male-authored texts that have helped train generations of students in the techniques and exercise of management. With this in mind, it might be politic to move towards our conclusions.
在这一思路下，许多组织研究人员转向了次等研究和同性恋理论（另见 Riach, Rumens, & Tyler, 2014; Rumens, de Souza, & Brewis, 2019）。其他人则尝试了另类写作形式（Ericsson & Kostera, 2020; Gilmore, Harding, Helin, & Pullen, 2019），包括所谓的 "情感写作"（Ashcraft, 2017; Gherardi, 2019）、"女性写作"（Vachhani, 2019）和 "肮脏写作"（Pullen & Rhodes, 2008）。这些都不是单纯的装饰或文体上的粉饰，而是像 Calás 和 Smircich（1991 年）所做的努力一样，是每种方法和写作实践帮助将性别关系和其他边缘化身份政治化的特定组织方式不可或缺的一部分。他们展示了这些关系是如何在学术文章的写作惯例中被组织和再现（但也被颠覆）的，这在男性撰写的 "开创性 "文章中尤为明显，这些文章帮助培养了一代又一代的学生，使他们掌握了管理的技巧和方法。有鉴于此，我们不妨从政治角度得出结论。

Conclusions  结论

In setting out this contribution to politics and organization studies we posed a question that asked: what are the politics at stake in organization studies and how can we help politicize the objects of our concern and the conditions of possibility for that politicization in ways that can extend the sense of possibility and choice about the worlds we inhabit? In returning to this question, we might first note that there is no shortage of politics in this historical moment to which organization studies can contribute. There are issues forming around Black Lives Matter, decolonization, no platforming, cancel culture and transgender rights, to name just a few. These have provoked new controversies and revitalized the university campus and wider society, making claims for resources, representation, justice and historical reparation while also changing the terms within which this conventional language of politics is framed. There are many other objects and subjects of enquiry being created and brought into purview for organization studies both from within and outside the discipline. Drawing on the writings of Michel Foucault and Giorgio Agamben, recent ‘biopolitical’ thinking and ‘economic theology’, for example, is helping broaden our understanding of the terrain in which politics operates and must be studied (Raffnsøe, Mennicken, & Miller, 2019; Sørensen, Spoelstra, Höpfl, & Critchley, 2012). And yet, despite this apparent proliferation of politics, we seem to face a crisis in politics today, at least in the quality and efficacy of representation achieved through the established institutions of western liberal democracies. Some talk of an era of the ‘post-political’ with respect to these issues (Wilson & Swyngedouw, 2014), and others more apocalyptically about the end (or ends) of liberal democracy (see Crouch, 2004; Runciman, 2018).
在阐述对政治和组织研究的贡献时，我们提出了一个问题：组织研究中的政治问题是什么？我们怎样才能帮助将我们关注的对象和政治化的可能性条件政治化，从而扩大我们所居住的世界的可能性和选择感？在回到这个问题时，我们可以首先注意到，在这个历史时刻，组织研究可以为之做出贡献的政治并不缺乏。围绕 "黑人的生命"（Black Lives Matter）、非殖民化、无平台、取消文化和变性人权利等问题正在形成。这些问题引发了新的争议，振兴了大学校园和更广泛的社会，提出了对资源、代表权、正义和历史补偿的要求，同时也改变了传统政治语言的框架。在组织研究领域内外，还有许多其他的研究对象和课题被创造出来并纳入研究范围。例如，借鉴米歇尔-福柯（Michel Foucault）和乔治-阿甘本（Giorgio Agamben）的著作，近期的 "生物政治 "思想和 "经济神学 "有助于拓宽我们对政治运作和必须研究的领域的理解（Raffnsøe, Mennicken, & Miller, 2019; Sørensen, Spoelstra, Höpfl, & Critchley, 2012）。然而，尽管政治在表面上不断涌现，但我们今天似乎面临着一场政治危机，至少在通过西方自由民主国家的既定机构实现的代表权的质量和效率方面是如此。在这些问题上，有些人谈到了 "后政治 "时代（Wilson & Swyngedouw, 2014），而另一些人则对自由民主的终结（或结束）提出了更多的启示（见 Crouch, 2004; Runciman, 2018）。

The papers collected here help establish a variety of interstitial spaces of enquiry through which we might now extend the practice of organization studies in ways that will encourage us to think politics in new ways and even to imagine new forms of politics adequate to the challenges we face today. Through the constellation we have formed through these papers we also seek to acknowledge the politics in our own practice as scholars of organization while providing resources with which we could address some of the most pressing political issues of our time: the rise of populism, the crisis of liberal democracy, the persistence of poverty and inequality in the richest economies of the world, the inadequate response to the climate crisis from within the institutions of established political representation, and the threats to liberties and employment posed by generative AI and new digital surveillance technologies.
这里收集的论文有助于建立各种间隙性的探究空间，我们现在可以通过这些空间扩展组织研究的实践，鼓励我们以新的方式思考政治，甚至想象新的政治形式，以应对我们今天面临的挑战。通过这些论文所形成的组合，我们还试图承认我们自己作为组织学者在实践中的政治性，同时提供资源，使我们能够解决我们这个时代一些最紧迫的政治问题：民粹主义的兴起、自由民主的危机、世界上最富裕经济体中贫困和不平等的持续存在、既有政治代表机构对气候危机的反应不足，以及生成性人工智能和新的数字监控技术对自由和就业的威胁。

By way of conclusion let us make the provocation that these papers contain signs of something new that moves towards, and perhaps in some ways beyond, the ends of modern social science. As Foucault (1970), Bauman (1991), and others have shown, our modern social sciences were designed to help engineer or discipline subjectivities and to make them useful to the ‘Leviathan’ of the modern nation state. We are perhaps now in an interstitial period of history where that Leviathan might be finding its limits. The rise of China, Islam in the Middle East, and the eclipse of US-backed liberal democracies, are beginning to expose the limits of modern western conceptions of politics and society. Climate change and impending ecological catastrophe seems inevitable and marks another dimension of these challenges to state-centric thinking given the difficulties of resolving these problems within the existing competitive system of modern nation states. This is also a period of time in which centuries-old humanism (Davies, 2008) is rapidly ceding ground to an AI-accelerated post-humanism such that our notions of citizenship might have to extend to include hybrid forms of human/more-than-human entities.
作为结束语，让我们提出这样的质疑：这些论文包含了一些新的迹象，这些迹象朝着现代社会科学的目标前进，或许在某些方面超越了现代社会科学的目标。正如福柯（Foucault，1970 年）、鲍曼（Bauman，1991 年）等人所指出的，我们的现代社会科学旨在帮助设计或规范主体性，并使其对现代民族国家的 "利维坦 "有用。我们现在也许正处于历史的间歇期，利维坦可能正在寻找它的极限。中国的崛起、中东伊斯兰教的兴起以及美国支持的自由民主国家的黯然失色，都开始暴露出现代西方政治和社会观念的局限性。气候变化和迫在眉睫的生态灾难似乎不可避免，鉴于在现有的现代民族国家竞争体系内解决这些问题的困难，这标志着以国家为中心的思维面临着另一个层面的挑战。在这一时期，具有数百年历史的人文主义（戴维斯，2008 年）正在迅速让位于人工智能加速发展的后人文主义，因此我们的公民概念可能必须扩展到包括人类/超人类实体的混合形式。

If wider historical and political conditions shape our agendas as March (2007) writes, we are given opportunity by this very insight to think our way in and outside these conditions. One way of doing this might be to find ways of exploring that interstice between modern and indigenous knowledges as we saw in Anders and Anders (1986). Recent research shows that some of these pre-modern or ‘indigenous’ forms of knowledge held societies together for some 60,000 years (Pascoe, 2018). This is proving immensely attractive to many as a way of reimagining new social and political realities and there are signs that some in organization studies are beginning to think politically and to think of politics with these resources (Banerjee & Linstead, 2004; Bastien et al., 2023; Cutcher & Dale, 2023; Whiteman & Cooper, 2000). The scale of these political ambitions may appear to pose a considerable challenge to our discipline, but in many ways they echo the founding work of Weber (1946) whose diagnoses of modernity showed how politics was shaped by a tension between a ‘politics of conviction’ and an ‘ethics of responsibility’. With this dualism, Weber recognized the impossibility of finding a secure or transcendent point of observation and evaluation by which to adjudicate between different values. We are still struggling with this dilemma, but we might find hope in the traditions of diversity and multi-paradigmatic research in our discipline where differences are encouraged and negotiated by way of reason and conversation (and, perhaps, increasingly by way of an ‘affectivity’). In these ways we might just escape that bellum omnium contra omnes which we like to think of as other to politics.
如果正如马奇（2007 年）所写的那样，更广泛的历史和政治条件决定了我们的议程，那么我们就有机会通过这种洞察力，在这些条件之内和之外进行思考。要做到这一点，方法之一可能是找到探索现代知识与本土知识之间的夹缝的途径，正如我们在安德斯和安德斯（1986 年）中所看到的那样。最近的研究表明，其中一些前现代或 "本土 "知识形式维系了社会约 6 万年（Pascoe，2018 年）。有迹象表明，组织研究领域的一些人开始进行政治思考，并利用这些资源思考政治问题（Banerjee & Linstead, 2004; Bastien et al.）这些政治抱负的规模似乎对我们的学科构成了相当大的挑战，但在许多方面，它们与韦伯（1946 年）的创始工作相呼应，韦伯对现代性的诊断表明，政治是如何由 "信念政治 "与 "责任伦理 "之间的紧张关系所塑造的。韦伯通过这种二元论认识到，不可能找到一个安全或超越的观察和评价点来裁决不同的价值观。我们仍在这一困境中挣扎，但我们可能会在本学科的多样性和多范式研究传统中找到希望，在这些传统中，通过理性和对话（或许越来越多地通过 "情感"）来鼓励和协商差异。通过这些方式，我们也许就能摆脱我们所认为的与政治无关的 "万国战争"。

This paper has developed over a long time and has been through various readings and study groups including the Rethinking Politics and Organization workshop at the Copenhagen Business School in March 2019 and the Organizing Politics seminar (2019–2020) at the University of Manchester Business School chaired by John Hassard. We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their help in bringing out the full potential of this paper. A special thanks to our senior editor Renate Meyer for her unstinting attention to detail and whose combination of rigour and adventure has helped make this ‘Perspective’ worthy of publication in Organization Studies.
本文的形成经历了漫长的岁月，经历了各种阅读和学习小组，包括2019年3月在哥本哈根商学院举办的 "反思政治与组织 "研讨会，以及由约翰-哈萨德（John Hassard）主持的曼彻斯特大学商学院 "组织政治学 "研讨会（2019-2020）。我们还要感谢匿名审稿人，感谢他们帮助我们充分发挥了本文的潜力。我们还要特别感谢我们的资深编辑 Renate Meyer，感谢她对细节不遗余力的关注，感谢她将严谨与冒险相结合，使这篇 "视角 "值得在《组织研究》上发表。

References

• Alvesson Mats, Willmott Hugh, (1996). Making sense of management. London: Sage.
  Alvesson Mats, Willmott Hugh, (1996).Making sense of management.伦敦：Sage.
• Anders Gary C., Anders Kathleen K., (1986). Incompatible goals in unconventional organization: The politics of Alaska Native Corporations. Organization Studies, 7, 213–233.
  Anders Gary C., Anders Kathleen K., (1986)。非常规组织中不相容的目标：阿拉斯加土著公司的政治。Organization Studies, 7, 213-233.
• Ashcraft Karen Lee, (2017). ‘Submission’ to the rule of excellence: Ordinary affect and precarious resistance in the labor of organization and management studies. Organization, 24, 36–58.
  Ashcraft Karen Lee, (2017).对卓越规则的 "服从"：组织与管理研究劳动中的普通情感与不稳定抵抗。Organization, 24, 36-58.
• Banerjee Subhabrata Bobby, (2000). Whose land is it anyway? National interest, indigenous stakeholders, and colonial discourses: The case of the Jabiluka uranium mine. Organization & Environment, 13, 3–38.
  Banerjee Subhabrata Bobby，（2000 年）。这到底是谁的土地？国家利益、本土利益相关者和殖民话语：Jabiluka 铀矿案例。Organization & Environment, 13, 3-38.
• Banerjee Subhabrata Bobby, Linstead Stephen, (2004). Masking subversion: Neocolonial embeddedness in anthropological accounts of indigenous management. Human Relations, 57, 221–247.
  Banerjee Subhabrata Bobby，Linstead Stephen，（2004 年）。Masking subversion：土著管理人类学描述中的新殖民主义嵌入。Human Relations, 57, 221-247.
• Barley Stephen, (2010). Building an institutional field to corral a government: A case to set an agenda for organization studies. Organization Studies, 31, 777–805.
  Barley Stephen，（2010 年）。建立制度领域以约束政府：A case to set an agenda for organization studies.Organization Studies, 31, 777-805.
• Barthes Roland, (1975). The pleasure of the text. New York, NY: Hill & Wang.
  巴特-罗兰（1975 年）。文本的乐趣》。New York, NY: Hill & Wang.
• Bastien François, Coraiola Diego M., Foster William M, . (2023). Indigenous peoples and organization studies. Organization Studies, 44, 659–675.
• Batsone Eric, (1984). Working order. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Bauman Zygmunt, (1991). Modernity and ambivalence. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Benjamin Walter, (2002). The arcades project. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Benschop Yvonne, Doorewaard Hans, (1998). Covered by equality: The gender subtext of organizations. Organization Studies, 19, 787–805.
• Bernstein Carl, Woodward Robert, (1974). All the president’s men. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
• Blum Alan F., (1974). Theorizing: On the beginning of social inquiry. London & New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Buchanan David, Badham Richard, (2020). Power, politics, and organizational change. London: Sage.
• Burke Kenneth, (1945/1969). A grammar of motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
• Calás Marta, Smircich Linda, (1991). Voicing seduction to silence leadership. Organization Studies, 12, 567–602.
• Callon Michel, (1998). Introduction: The embeddedness of economic markets in economics. Sociological Review, 46(Supp. 1), 1–57.
• Carr Edward H., (1961). What is history? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Clegg Stewart R., Boreham Paul, Dow Geoff, (1986). Class, politics and the economy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Clegg Stewart R., Dunkerley David, (1980). Organization, class and control. London & New York: Routledge.
• Clegg Stewart R., Higgins Winton, (1987). Against the current: Organizational sociology and socialism. Organization Studies, 8, 201–221.
• Contu Alessia, Grey Chris, Örtenblad Anders, (2003). Against learning. Human Relations, 56, 931–952.
• Cooren François, Kuhn Timothy, Cornelissen Joep P., Clark Timothy, (2011). Communication, organizing and organization: An overview and introduction to the special issue. Organization Studies, 32, 1149–1170.
• Courpasson David, (2017). The politics of everyday. Organization Studies, 38, 843–859.
• Crouch Colin, (2004). Post-democracy. Cambridge: Polity.
• Cutcher Leanne, Dale Karen, (2023). ‘We’re not a white fella organization’: Hybridity and friction in the contact zone between local kinship relations and audit culture in an Indigenous organization. Organization Studies, 44, 765–783.
• Czarniawska Barbara, (2016). Actor-network theory. In Langley Ann, Tsoukas Haridimos, (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of process organization studies (pp. 160–173). London: Sage.
• Czarniawska-Joerges Barbara, Jacobsson Bengt, (1995). Political organizations and commedia dell’arte. Organization Studies, 16, 375–394.
• Davies Tony, (2008). Humanism. London & New York: Routledge.
• DeLanda Manuel, (1997). A thousand years of nonlinear history. New York, NY: Zone Books.
• De Vries Gerard, (2007). What is political in sub-politics? How Aristotle might help STS. Social Studies of Science, 37, 781–809.
• Dewey John, (1927). The public and its problems. New York, NY: Henry Holt.
• Elliott Carole, Stead Valerie, (2018). Constructing women’s leadership representation in the UK press during a time of financial crisis: Gender capitals and dialectical tensions. Organization Studies, 39, 19–45.
• Ericsson Daniel, Kostera Monika, (2020). Alterethnography: Reading and writing otherness in organizations. Gender, Work & Organization, 27, 1402–1417.
• Exner Max Joseph, (1932). The sexual side of marriage. New York: WW Norton.
• Fotaki Marianna, (2013). No woman is like a man (in academia): The masculine symbolic order and the unwanted female body. Organization Studies, 34, 1251–1275.
• Fotaki Marianna, Kenny Kate, Vachhani Sheena J, . (2017). Thinking critically about affect in organization studies: Why it matters. Organization, 24, 3–17.
• Foucault Michel, (1970). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. London: Tavistock.
• Foucault Michel, (2001). Truth and juridical forms. In Faubion James D., (Ed.), Essential works of Foucault, 1954–1984: Power (pp. 31–45). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
• Friedland Roger, Alford Robert R., (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions. In Powell Walter, DiMaggio Paul J., (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–263). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Furnari Santi, (2014). Interstitial spaces: Microinteraction settings and the genesis of new practices between institutional fields. Academy of Management Review, 39, 439–462.
• Garfinkel Harold, (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Gherardi Silvia, (2019). Theorizing affective ethnography for organization studies. Organization, 26, 741–760.
• Giddens Anthony, (1976). New rules of sociological method: A positive critique of interpretive sociologies. London: Hutchinson.
• Giddens Anthony, (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Gilmore Sarah, Harding Nancy, Helin Jenny, Pullen Alison, (2019). Writing differently. Management Learning, 50, 3–10.
• Gouldner Alvin W., (1970). The coming crisis of western sociology. New York, NY: Basic Books.
• Gümüsay Ali Aslan, Marti Emilio, Trittin-Ulbrich Hannah, Wickert Christopher, (Eds.) (2022). Organizing for Societal Grand Challenges, Research in the Sociology of Organizations (Vol. 79). Bingley, Bradford: Emerald Publishing Limited.
• Harris Kate Lockwood, Ashcraft Karen Lee, (2023). Deferring difference no more: An (im)modest, relational plea from/through Karen Barad. Organization Studies, 44, 1987–2008.
• Husted Emil, Plesner Ursula, (2017). Spaces of open-source politics: Physical and digital conditions for political organization. Organization, 24, 648–670.
• Just Sine N., De Cock Christian, Schaeffer Stephan M., (2021). From antagonists to allies? Exploring the critical performativity of alternative organization. Culture and Organization, 27, 89–97.
• King Daniel, Land Chris, (2018). The democratic rejection of democracy: Performative failure and the limits of critical performativity in an organizational change project. Human Relations, 71, 1535–1557.
• Knights David, (1997). Organization theory in the age of deconstruction: Dualism, gender and postmodernism revisited. Organization Studies, 18, 1–19.
• Knights David, Willmott Hugh, (Eds.) (1990). Labour process theory. London: Macmillan.
• Kornberger Martin, Clegg Stewart R., (2003). The architecture of complexity. Culture and Organization, 9, 75–91.
• Lasswell Harold D., (1936) Politics: Who gets what, when, how. New York: Whittlesey House.
• Latour Bruno, (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Latour Bruno, (2007). Turning around politics: A note on Gerard de Vries’ paper. Social Studies of Science, 37, 811–820.
• Latour Bruno, (2013). An inquiry into modes of existence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• McHugh Peter, Raffel Stanley, Foss Daniel C., Blum Alan F, . (1974). On the beginning of social inquiry. London & New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• MacKenzie Donald A., Muniesa Fabian, Siu Lucia, (Eds.) (2007). Do economists make markets? On the performativity of economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Mangham Iain L., Overington Michael, (1987). Organizations as theatre: A social psychology of dramatic appearances. London: Wiley.
• March James G., (1962). The business firm as a political coalition. Journal of Politics, 24, 662–678.
• March James G., (2007). The study of organizations and organizing since 1945. Organization Studies, 28, 9–19.
• Marres Noortje, (2012). Material participation: Technology, the environment and everyday publics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Melley Timothy, (2017). The covert sphere: Secrecy, fiction, and the national security state. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Meyer Renate E., Leixnering Stephan, Veldman Jeroen, (Eds.) (2022). The corporation: Rethinking the iconic form of business organization. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.
• Meyer Renate E., Quattrone Paolo, (2021). Living in a post-truth world? Research, doubt and Organization Studies. Organization Studies, 42, 1373–1383.
• Mintzberg Henry, (1973). The nature of managerial work. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Mol Annemarie, (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Mumby Dennis K., Putnam Linda L., (1992). The politics of emotion: A feminist reading of bounded rationality. Academy of Management Review, 17, 465–486.
• Mynott Jeremy, (Ed.) (2013). Thucydides: The war of the Peloponnesians and the Athenians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• O’Doherty Damian, De Cock Christian, Rehn Alf, Ashcraft Karen Lee, (2013). New sites/sights: Exploring the white spaces of organization. Organization Studies, 34, 1427–1444.
• Pascoe Bruce, (2018). Dark Emu: Aboriginal Australia and the birth of agriculture. London: Scribe.
• Prasad Anshuman, Pushkala Prasad, Mills Albert J., Mills Jean H., (Eds.) (2016). The Routledge companion to critical management studies. London & New York: Routledge.
• Pullen Alison, Harding Nancy, Phillips Mary, (Eds.) (2017). Feminists and queer theorists debate the future of critical management studies. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.
• Pullen Alison, Rhodes Carl, (2008). Dirty writing. Culture and Organization, 14, 241–259.
• Pullen Alison, Rhodes Carl, Thanem Torkild, (2017). Affective politics in gendered organizations: Affirmative notes on becoming-woman. Organization, 24, 105–123.
• Raffnsøe Sverre, Mennicken Andrea, Miller Peter, (2019). The Foucault effect in organization studies. Organization Studies, 40, 155–182.
• Ramsay Harvie, (1977). Cycles of control: Worker participation in sociological and historical perspective. Sociology, 11, 481–506.
• Ramsay Harvie, (1983a). An international participation cycle: Variations on a recurring theme. In Crouch Colin, Heller Frank A., (Eds.), The state, class and the recession (pp. 257–317). New York, NY: St. Martin.
• Ramsay Harvie, (1983b). Evolution or cycle? Worker participation in the 1970’s and 1980’s. In Crouch Colin, Heller Frank A., (Eds.), International yearbook of organizational democracy, Vol. 1: Organizational democracy and political processes (pp. 203–226). Chichester: Wiley.
• Ramsay Harvie, Haworth Nigel, (1984). Worker capitalists? Profit-sharing, capital-sharing and juridical forms of socialism. Economic and Industrial Democracy: An International Journal, 5, 295–324.
• Riach Kathleen, Rumens Nicholas, Tyler Melissa, (2014). Un/doing chrononormativity: Negotiating ageing, gender and sexuality in organizational life. Organization Studies, 35, 1677–1698.
• Rennison Betina Wolfgang, (2007). Historical discourses of public management in Denmark: Past emergence and present challenge. Management & Organizational History, 2, 5–26.
• Rumens Nick, de Souza Eloisio Moulin, Brewis Jo, (2019). Queering queer theory in management and organization studies: Notes toward queering heterosexuality. Organization Studies, 40, 593–612.
• Runciman David, (2000). What kind of person is Hobbes’s state? A reply to Skinner. Journal of Political Philosophy, 8, 268–278.
• Runciman David, (2014). Politics. London: Profile Books.
• Runciman David, (2018). How democracy ends. London: Profile Books.
• Schultz Majken, Hatch Mary Jo, (1996). Living with multiple paradigms: The case of paradigm interplay in organizational culture studies. Academy of Management Review, 21, 529–557.
• Seidl David, Whittington Richard, (2014). Enlarging the strategy-as-practice research agenda: Towards taller and flatter ontologies. Organization Studies, 35, 1407–1421.
• Sinclair Amanda, (2000). Teaching managers about masculinities: Are you kidding? Management Learning, 31, 83–101.
• Skinner Quentin, (1999). Hobbes and the purely artificial person. Journal of Political Philosophy, 7, 1–29.
• Skowronek Stephen, Dearborn John A., King Desmond, (2021). Phantoms of a beleaguered republic: The deep state and the unitary executive. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Sørensen Bent Meier, Spoelstra Sverre, Höpfl Heather, Critchley Simon, (2012). Theology and organization. Organization, 19, 267–279.
• Spicer André, Alvesson Mats, Kärreman Dan, (2009). Critical performativity: The unfinished business of critical management studies. Human Relations, 62, 537–560.
• Steyaert Chris, Beyes Timon, Parker Martin, (Eds.) (2016). The Routledge companion to reinventing management education. London & New York: Routledge.
• Thompson Paul, (1989). The nature of work: An introduction to debates on the labour process. London: Macmillan.
• Vachhani Sheena J., (2012). The subordination of the feminine? Developing a critical feminist approach to the psychoanalysis of organizations. Organization Studies, 33, 1237–1255.
• Vachhani Sheena J., (2019). Rethinking the politics of writing differently through écriture féminine. Management Learning, 50, 11–23.
• Vigoda-Gadot Eran, Drory Amos, (Eds.) (2016). Handbook of organizational politics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Wallace James, (2022). Making a healthy change: A historical analysis of workplace wellbeing. Management & Organizational History, 17, 20–42.
• Weber Max, (1946). Politics as vocation. In Weber Max, (Ed.), From Max Weber, Translated and Edited by Gerth Hans, Mills Charles Wright, (pp. 77–128). New York: Free Press.
• Whiteman Gail, (2009). All my relations: Understanding perceptions of justice and conflict between companies and indigenous peoples. Organization Studies, 30, 101–120.
• Whiteman Gail, Cooper William H., (2000). Ecological embeddedness. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1265–1282.
• Willmott Hugh, (1993). Breaking the paradigm mentality. Organization Studies, 14, 681–719.
• Wilson Japhy, Swyngedouw Erik, (Eds.) (2014). The post-political and its discontents. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• Winner Langdon, (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109, 121–136.
• Woolgar Steve, Pawluch Dorothy, (1985). Ontological gerrymandering: The anatomy of social problems explanations. Social Problems, 32, 214–227.
• Wooten Melissa, Hoffman Andrew J., (2017). Organizational fields: Past, present and future. In Greenwood Royston, Oliver Christine, Lawrence Thomas B., Meyer Renate E., (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (2nd ed., pp. 55–74). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Wright Chris, Nyberg Daniel, De Cock Christian, Whiteman Gail, (2013). Future imaginings: Organizing in response to climate change. Organization, 20, 647–658.
• Zietsma Charlene, Groenewegen Peter, Logue Danielle M., Hinings Robert C, . (2017). Field or fields? Building the scaffolding for cumulation of research on institutional fields. Academy of Management Annals, 11, 391–450.