BODIES AND ORGANIZATIONS: DISRUPTING HEGEMONIES

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: BODIES AND ORGANIZATIONS: DISRUPTING HEGEMONIES

BODIES AND ORGANIZATIONS: DISRUPTING HEGEMONIES

by Business MGT » Mon Jun 15, 2020 12:35 pm

CALL FOR PAPERS
BODIES AND ORGANIZATIONS: DISRUPTING HEGEMONIES
Deadline: January 31st 2021
https://rae.fgv.br/sites/rae.fgv.br/fil ... ations.pdf

Guest EditorsAdriana Vinholi Rampazo (State University of Londrina, Brazil), Luiz Alex Silva Saraiva (Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil),Eloísio Moulin de Souza (Federal University of Espírito Santo, Brazil), Jo Brewis (Faculty of Business and Law, The Open University, UK),Saoirse Catlin O’Shea (Newcastle Business School, Northumbria University, UK)

PURPOSE OF THE SPECIAL ISSUE
Despite since the second half of the 20th century, the body has already been recognized in the social sciences as his-torical-cultural, lived, incorporated, constructed and reconstructed, permeated with symbols and meanings (Boltanski, 1989; Elias, 1994; Csordas, 2002; Bourdieu, 2004; Le Breton, 2007; Butler, 2011; Foucault, 2014; Küpers, 2015), and not only a bundle of nerves, fluids and flesh, this approach only began to be debated in organizational studies in the 1990s, and still quite marginally. The rejection of thinking about corporeality in organizational studies involves the difficulty of rejecting rational-legal Weberian model, basis of organization idea (Witz, Halford & Savage, 1996) and by which processes, theories and discourses were created based “to the continuing fascination that we have for the image of the one body” (Gatens, 1996, p. 26). But not just any body: what matters is the representation of a “artificial man”, neutral and universal, according to Gatens (1996) – white, masculine, slim, disciplined, and productive as a machine – reflecting fantasies about his naturally incorporated capacities (Merilainen, Tienari & Valtonen, 2015), a simulacrum of a body that does not exist (Tyler & Hancock, 2001), positioning this body in a place of privilege within “normality” (Souza, 2014, Fernandes & Barbosa, 2016). Precisely denouncing this “artificial body” that we begin to question the naturalized organizational processes that subjugate different bodies from the “artificial man” model, denouncing the bodily hierarchy that exists in organizations (Acker, 1990; Bell & King, 2010; Rosa & Brito, 2010; Sinclair, 2011; Kelan, 2013; Levay, 2014; Souza, Costa & Pereira, 2015; Gatrell, 2017). For example, if the ideal body for work is thin, which means health, energy and flexibility (Longhurst, 2003; Merilainen, Tienari & Valtonen, 2015), the fat body is abject, seen as the abnormal and pathological (Trethewey, 1999; Mik--Meyer, 2008; Saraiva, Santos & Pereira, 2020).

Top