Becoming self harm, theodicy and neo‐primitive organizing – necessary evil or evil of necessity?

Abstract

The self has emerged as integral to how we comprehend the ethos of contemporary post‐bureaucratic – or what will be termed neo‐primitive – organizing. In juxtaposition, and immanent, are multiple requirements for the self to be harmed, in various ways, for the purposes of achieving organizational progress. This post‐structuralist composition explores how these requirements are inscribed, and desired, in different ways during ontotheological and neo‐primitive processes of sacrifice, neomasochism, simulacra, exclusion, and theodicy. These processes permit the possibility that the harming of the self can be justified (utility/include) and also discounted (diminish/exclude). It is argued, that relations of self and harm constantly arise, and change, during non‐integratable affects and events of radical alteration; namely where self questioning (loss of self) and questioning of self (identity) occur. However, it is argued, neo‐primitive organizing constantly refuses ethical responsiveness to self harm, through the inscriptive superimposition of exchange relations of lack, debt and guilt.

Keywords:

• alterity
• harm
• inscription
• neo‐primitive
• sacrifice
• self
• surface
• theodicy

Notes

1. Distinctively, Georges Bataille, in The accursed share (1998, Vol. 1, 136–138) clarified, servitude (i.e. slavery) is integral to the connection between religion (i.e. Calvinism) and capitalism. The ontotheological problems concerning the death of God, and the suffering/crucifixion of Jesus Christ, are constantly becoming denied, and replaced by the capitulation, and subordination, of human life to transcendent otherworldly things (products, production). In turn, as the paper suggests worship, commitment and devotion are now becoming integral to organizational life.

2. One might consider here, for example, how the practice(s) of cutting is very firmly connected to the rise of anatomical science (ten Bos and Kaulingfreks 2002a, 7). And in due course, how the ontologic and episteme of anatomical science (e.g. objectivity, surgical depth and detail) has been implicated in organizational practices of cutting (Dale 2001). One might consider, in addition to the current working examples, how Foucault's notion of dividing practices also is strongly implicated with HRM practices (Townley 1994).

3. Nietzsche provides another understanding of harmless in relation to the stupidity of the master morality in Beyond good and evil. I will refrain from this tangential line of inquiry for reasons of world limits.

4. One may consider how the recent economic growth of western societies (US, UK) has required ‘financial’ debt to become culturally constructed as necessary and desirable. Arguably, at the time of writing, this appears to be changing (e.g. credit crunch). I connect with this issue again below (note 31).

5. One might wish to consult further here, again (see note 1), with the workings of Georges Bataille's The accursed share.

6. Arguably, this occurs not only through distance, but also through face‐to‐face relations (proximity). See for example, ten Bos and Kaulingfreks's work (2002a, 2002b) on interfaces/politics of the ‘ethical’ face.

7. One may consider, out of further interest, that the phenomena of catharsis (e.g. purification) have been linked to tragedy, and sacrifice, in various ways. For example, in the dialectics of Aristotle (2001), Cassirer (1961) and Holderlin (see Warminski 1987). Catharsis is connected to much broader concerns such as mimesis, reflection and the mirror stage. Therefore, these remain beyond the scope of this paper.

8. As will be explained shortly, the primitive is the essence of alterity. The primitive counter actualizes objectivity, symbolic representations, self – centre, truth, and relations between original and copy, for example. The primitive is that which cannot be organized. The primitive is quite simply, what Gilles Deleuze (1994, 156) ‘the power of the false’.

9. Please recall the previous link (see note 2) between dividing practices and the management of human resources.

10. Please recall earlier the notion of how growing pains of organizing can be justified through a Hegelian theodicy. Additionally, self development is tied here to overcoming, and refusing, stupidity, incompetence and impotence.

11. Following Martin Heidegger (1962, H105–113), the ontology of the term in most definitely refers here to something which refuses life. In denotes geometric deductive and disembodied spatiality. From Heidegger's exegesis, in refers here to the objective truth and ontology of part–whole relationship. In presupposes, for example, that that there can be a division between inside and outside. As already discussed, for example, in relation to the ‘primitive’, and Agamben's inclusive exclusion this is highly problematic and dialectic.

12. As du Gay, Salaman and Rees (1996, 270) highlighted, participation or involvement of employees in activities are ‘offerings’.

13. See note 8 above

14. I refer here, for example, of the problems of resistance to Taylorism and scientific management, and the consequent emergence, and response, of human relations movement in the contemporary episteme of soft capitalism (see, for example, Costea, Crump and Holm 2005). And one might add also the recent emergence of neo‐normative control (Costas and Fleming 2007), where what is considered to be authentic and intimate is quickly tied to the symbolic and commercial order/exchange. One might also consider here how primitive practices of self harm, performance art, and body modification, such as tattooing, have become fashionable and re‐inscribed as expressions of western autonomous selfhood (see, for example, Pitts 2003). Given, the genealogical approach of this paper, I do not accept that Taylorism, alienation, bureaucracy, etc., are redundant features of post‐bureaucratic organizing.

15. One might consider how the etymology of management relates to grooming (see for example Burrell 1997; Lennie 1999).

16. Yet, the aporia of self harm rages again here. As suggested previously (note 14), primitive practices such as tattooing have become fashionable. As such, the primitive becomes domesticated, re‐inscribed, and consequently re‐presented as non‐primitive, foundational and original.

17. As Thomas Sheehan (2002, 288) has affirmed, the etymology of necessity, or the Latin ne‐cesse (ne+ cedo), implies not withdrawing or not yielding. Here, necessity is not tied to necessary. Following Emmanuel Levinas (see Bernstein 2002), it may be considered that evil is experienced outside of, and refuses, thematic calculation and integration. If we follow the workings of Nietzsche, Artaud, and Deleuze, for example, it becomes apparent how life is cruel. The outside of life is cruel (see, for example, Deleuze 1997; Dale 2002), because it is indeterminate, and in constant flux; thus infinitely posing complex challenges, problems, dilemmas, difficulties and demands. But equally, as Levinas alludes, we experience evil through the flesh as relational, disruptive and directed at/towards us. This induces us to take flight (redirection) from our self and question the outside world. Evil cannot be denied, objectified or justified (theodicy). Experiences of pain and suffering (toil) are not merely our own. As such, this demands an ethical response/challenge.

18. This is not to suggest that there are not profound disagreements between the two.

19. Following David Michael Levin (1998), one may appreciate how the skin is already inscribed with ethical potential. It is through our contacts with the earth, that what Levin calls archi‐writing becomes apparent/affirmed. It is an instance of flight or becoming drawn to the alterity of circumstances and events. However, despite the multiple inscriptions and brandings that are designed to categorize people (e.g. race, gender, sex, identity, hierarchy), for example, as already suggested the effects and affects of trying to superimpose, and brand, power–knowledge relations onto the body/bodies are never guaranteed. The body for example can express shock and anger (Pitts 2003, 6), through the involuntary capacity to/for affect; thus by producing counter inscriptions or subversive re‐inscriptions.

20. Imitation is strongly related to Plato's dialectics of participation (see Ansell Pearson 2001). One may also consider how feigning injury and pain (e.g. gamesmanship) may also be performed as a resistance to organizational goals (e.g. sickness) or to seek an advantage (e.g. manipulation); but not actually change the order of things (e.g. slave–master morality). See, for example, Nietzsche's philosophical anthropology during Human all too human.

21. Following Lawrence J. Hatab (2002, 264) we may gather how a form of ethical relatedness – empathy – has its limits. For example, medical staff may seek to respond automatically to the other. However, experiences of shock and horror (e.g. road accident) may induce problems of coping, which are non‐representational, calculative or chosen. The body may resist ethical behaviour.

22. See Blanchot (1995, 272–278).

23. We connect again here with note 4. For example, the meeting of individual organizational goals, targets and objectives, for example, may bring temporary relief through the purging of anxiety (e.g. catharsis).

24. Of course, as we saw recently, through the work of Peter Lohmann and Chris Stayaert and in relation to the body, anger, guilt and hatred can be turned to the outside through resistances to formal organizational change, and through the production of counter inscriptions. As such, the inside (see note 8) becomes reversed by the outside/exterior.

25. Implicit here is the absurd carnivalesque spirituality of transformational leadership which is not associated with the position of CEO, but with self management and self development.

26. Immanent to this estimation is a Nietzschean ethic concerning slave morality. Nietzsche urged humanity to literally go beyond or overcome good and evil. The slave experiences suffering, anxiety, abuse, mistreatment, indignity, etc. These features of contemporary post‐bureaucratic organizing are indeed instances of the evil of necessity; having to endure (e.g. servitude) that which does not withdraw. For example, insecurity and pending sacrifice, infinite control and development of controls (e.g. neo‐normative) are seemingly necessary for organizational survival, and progress. Also, at stake is the ‘necessary’ perpetuation, and maintenance, of this unfolding order. We discovered earlier the notion of necessary evil. Through Nietzsche (1990), necessary evil is a master morality, where the ‘good’ inspire and desire continued states of emergency or exception in order to remain powerful. The good is therefore separated from the bad or contemptible. As such, the discourses and practices, such as spirituality, development and autonomy are applied in the name of achieving goodness (profit, efficiency, productivity) and maintaining/perpetuating the order of things (states of emergency). As such, slavery is integral to consumption, and post‐ bureaucratic neo‐primitive organizational cultures of customer centricity. Slavery must be both chosen (self management, ascesis) and masked (games, simulacra, theodicy).

27. I connect here with the recent neoDeleuzian workings of Dorothea Olkowski (2007, chap. 5). She argues, following Gilles Deleuze, that societies of control are underpinned by a masochistic structuring around principles of disavowal, suspense, waiting, fetishism, and fantasy. Pleasure, relaxation and catharsis are tied to enduring harm and self depreciation. Olkowski points to how customer centric and ICT organization is no less dangerous or harmful than in the past (factory). There is now an excess of competition for jobs (e.g. IT industry); A demand for human resources to constantly re‐train and learn (e.g. organizational learning); internal competition or economy of saving oneself are required to achieve organizational objectives (e.g. performance management). As such, the outside or external forces can be invoked through theodic accounts to simultaneously attempt to absolve and justify (e.g. master morality) the necessary evil of human organizing. In the justification of progress, deformation and degeneration occur.

28. One might consider, for example, the invisible hand of the market or global competitors that will never be encountered.

29. We connect again with note 8.

30. One may here, incorporating Levinas's (1989, 33) pursuit of the anthropologist Levy‐Bruhl, see how neo‐primitive organizing requires people to become indifferent to impending sacrifice (e.g. suicide bombers).

31. One might consider how currently, given the global financial problems, we might ask following Jean Baudrillard (1988, 3) what do we do after the orgy of consumption and debt? For those with high financial debts (e.g. mortgages, credit cards) – who have lived beyond their means, as consumers – the consequences of exclusion from work, and sacrifice, is arguably becoming more problematic and terrifying.