Abstract
This paper uses historical studies as a means to explore the relation of organizations to subjectivity. The first part of the paper illustrates this relation through exploring the work of Elias, Kieser and Brewer. It focuses on the interrelation between 18th-century freemasonry, the emergence of complex financial credit networks and figurational shifts in power relation. The second part of the paper uses the prior analysis in order to engage with recent debate concerning history, organizations and subjectivity. First, the issue of whether we can ascribe continuity, closure and unity to subjectivity is examined. Second, the ‘default’ assumption of historical continuity is debated, drawing on studies by Baert, Jacques, Halttunen and Morgan. In contrasting between ‘traditional’ history and the alternative assumptions contained in post-structural and Foucauldian work, the paper argues for openness rather than rebuttal of particular positions. It suggests that subjectivity, such as that of employees, should be thought of as mobile, yet selectively continuous. It also argues that it is unnecessary to choose between historical positions, such as that which prioritizes historical discontinuity over continuity (or vice versa).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
