{"title":"A processual perspective on alternative organization: Reorienting critical research through a study of two political parties","authors":"Emil Husted, Erik Mygind du Plessis, Sara Dahlman","doi":"10.1177/00187267251322053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article reorients Critical Management Studies (CMS) literature on alternative organization by proposing a processual perspective that relies on Foucault’s concept of ‘critique’ and Mathiesen’s notion of ‘the unfinished’. Rejecting the predefined and normative conception of alternativity that guides much CMS literature, we suggest viewing alternatives as constituted through ever-changing processes of making and breaking dominant orders. This perspective moves the study of alternatives forward by allowing researchers to discover alternativity in unexpected places and appreciate the constitutive intertwinement of ‘the alternative’ and ‘the mainstream’. Most importantly, however, it helps us study the organizational evolution of alternatives and their ongoing struggle to remain deviant. We demonstrate the analytical utility of our approach through a comparative study of two political parties: Independents for Frome (IfF) in the UK and Alternativet in Denmark. Building on this analysis, we explore how and why one organization appears to be thriving while the other seems moribund. We further outline three ‘liberating tactics’ that alternatives may use to remain unfinished and thus alternative: reiteration, compartmentalization, and alliancing. In conclusion, we discuss what it might mean to study alternatives in a processual manner and point to future avenues of research.","PeriodicalId":48433,"journal":{"name":"Human Relations","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Relations","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267251322053","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This article reorients Critical Management Studies (CMS) literature on alternative organization by proposing a processual perspective that relies on Foucault’s concept of ‘critique’ and Mathiesen’s notion of ‘the unfinished’. Rejecting the predefined and normative conception of alternativity that guides much CMS literature, we suggest viewing alternatives as constituted through ever-changing processes of making and breaking dominant orders. This perspective moves the study of alternatives forward by allowing researchers to discover alternativity in unexpected places and appreciate the constitutive intertwinement of ‘the alternative’ and ‘the mainstream’. Most importantly, however, it helps us study the organizational evolution of alternatives and their ongoing struggle to remain deviant. We demonstrate the analytical utility of our approach through a comparative study of two political parties: Independents for Frome (IfF) in the UK and Alternativet in Denmark. Building on this analysis, we explore how and why one organization appears to be thriving while the other seems moribund. We further outline three ‘liberating tactics’ that alternatives may use to remain unfinished and thus alternative: reiteration, compartmentalization, and alliancing. In conclusion, we discuss what it might mean to study alternatives in a processual manner and point to future avenues of research.
期刊介绍:
Human Relations is an international peer reviewed journal, which publishes the highest quality original research to advance our understanding of social relationships at and around work through theoretical development and empirical investigation. Scope Human Relations seeks high quality research papers that extend our knowledge of social relationships at work and organizational forms, practices and processes that affect the nature, structure and conditions of work and work organizations. Human Relations welcomes manuscripts that seek to cross disciplinary boundaries in order to develop new perspectives and insights into social relationships and relationships between people and organizations. Human Relations encourages strong empirical contributions that develop and extend theory as well as more conceptual papers that integrate, critique and expand existing theory. Human Relations welcomes critical reviews and essays: - Critical reviews advance a field through new theory, new methods, a novel synthesis of extant evidence, or a combination of two or three of these elements. Reviews that identify new research questions and that make links between management and organizations and the wider social sciences are particularly welcome. Surveys or overviews of a field are unlikely to meet these criteria. - Critical essays address contemporary scholarly issues and debates within the journal''s scope. They are more controversial than conventional papers or reviews, and can be shorter. They argue a point of view, but must meet standards of academic rigour. Anyone with an idea for a critical essay is particularly encouraged to discuss it at an early stage with the Editor-in-Chief. Human Relations encourages research that relates social theory to social practice and translates knowledge about human relations into prospects for social action and policy-making that aims to improve working lives.