This paper investigates the intersections between psychoanalysis and feminist thinking as they may be applied to organization studies by problematizing sexual difference. By critically engaging with the influence of (primarily Lacanian) psychoanalysis, I explore feminist psychoanalytic approaches with their close attention to patriarchy and phallocentrism. More specifically, I engage with the work of Luce Irigaray, whose influential role in French feminist philosophy has occupied what could be termed a difficult or sacrificial position in Lacanian psychoanalysis. I argue that the focus of psychoanalysis on the Phallus as a primary signifier may be fruitfully problematized through a feminist lens (Grosz, 1990), conceived here through Irigaray, and that its usefulness for organizational analysis depends on an ability to recognize, invite and attend to its gendered core. It is argued that Irigaray brings fruitful resources to this debate. Irigaray is concerned with the significant political and ethical dilemmas resulting from the systematic suppression of femininity and this is why her work is significant for a better understanding of gender relations in organizations relating to the exclusion of women, and for new spaces of symbolization and representation. My discussion reveals that, by scrutinizing sexual differences that constitute the subject, one is able to unearth implications for the study of organizations.
AckerJ. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4, 139–158.
2.
ArnaudG. (2002). The organization and the symbolic: Organizational dynamics viewed from a Lacanian perspective. Human Relations, 55, 691–716.
3.
ArnaudG. (2003). A coach or a couch? A Lacanian perspective on executive coaching and consulting. Human Relations, 56, 1131–1154.
4.
ArnaudG.VanheuleS. (2007). The division of the subject and the organization: A Lacanian approach to subjectivity at work. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20, 359–369.
5.
AtkinI.HassardJ.Wolfram CoxJ. (2007). Excess and mimesis in organization theory: Emancipation from within?Culture and Organization, 13, 145–156.
6.
BenjaminJ. (1988). The bonds of love: Psychoanalysis, feminism and the problem of domination. New York: Pantheon Books.
7.
BenjaminJ. (1995). Like subjects, love objects: Essays on recognition and sexual difference. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
8.
BenjaminJ. (1998). Shadow of the other: Intersubjectivity and gender in psychoanalysis. London: Routledge.
9.
BrennanT. (Ed.) (1989). Between feminism and psychoanalysis. London: Routledge.
10.
BurkeC.SchorN.WhitfordM. (Eds.) (1994). Engaging with Irigaray. New York: Columbia University Press.
ChanterT. (1995). Ethics of Eros: Irigaray’s writing of the philosophers. London: Routledge.
16.
ChodorowN. J. (1989). Feminism and psychoanalytic theory. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
17.
CollinsonD.HearnJ. (1994). Naming men as men: Implications for work, organization and management. Gender, Work and Organization, 1(1), 2–22.
18.
ContuA. (2008). Decaf resistance: On misbehavior, cynicism, and desire in liberal workplaces. Management Communication Quarterly, 21, 364–379.
19.
ContuA.DriverM.JonesC. (2010). Jacques Lacan with organization studies. Organization, 17, 307–315.
20.
De CockC.BöhmS. (2007). Liberalist fantasies: Žižek and the impossibility of the open society. Organization, 14, 815–836.
21.
DriverM. (2003). Nothing clinical, just business? Reflections on psychoanalytically grounded organizational diagnosis and intervention. Human Relations, 56, 39–59.
22.
DriverM. (2005). From empty speech to full speech? Reconceptualizing spirituality in organizations based on a psychoanalytically-grounded understanding of the self. Human Relations, 58, 1091–1110.
23.
DriverM. (2009a). Encountering the arugula leaf: The failure of the imaginary and its implications for research on identity in organizations. Organization, 16, 487–504.
24.
DriverM. (2009b). From loss to lack: Stories of organizational change as encounters with failed fantasies of self, work and organization. Organization, 16, 353–369.
25.
FieldingH. (2003). Questioning nature: Irigaray, Heidegger and the potentiality of matter. Continental Philosophy Review, 36(1), 1–26.
26.
FlaxJ. (1990). Thinking fragments: Psychoanalysis, feminism and postmodernism in the contemporary West. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
27.
FlemingP.SpicerA. (2003). Working at a cynical distance: Implications for power, subjectivity and resistance. Organization, 10, 157–179.
28.
FotakiM. (2009a). The unwanted body of man or why is it so difficult for women to make it in academe? A feminist psychoanalytic approach. In ÖzbilginM. (Ed.), Equality, diversity and inclusion at work: A research companion (pp.57–71). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
29.
FotakiM. (2009b). Maintaining the illusion of a free health care in post-socialism: A Lacanian analysis of transition from planned to market economy. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 22, 141–158.
30.
FotakiM. (2010). Why do public policies fail so often? Exploring health policy-making as an imaginary and symbolic construction. Organization, 17, 703–720.
31.
FotakiM. (2011). The sublime object of desire (for knowledge): Sexuality at work in business and management schools in England. British Journal of Management, 22, 42–53.
32.
FraserN.BartkyS. L. (Eds.) (1992). Revaluing French feminism: Critical essays on difference, agency, and culture. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
33.
FreudS. (1920). Beyond the pleasure principle, standard edn. London: Hogarth.
34.
FreudS. (1921). Group psychology and the analysis of the ego, standard edn. London: Hogarth.
35.
FroshS. (1997). Psychoanalytic challenges: A contribution to the new sexual agenda. Human Relations, 50, 229–239.
36.
FussD. J. (1992). ‘Essentially speaking’: Luce Irigaray’s language of essence. In FraserN.BartkyS. L. (Eds.), Revaluing French feminism: Critical essays on difference, agency and culture (pp. 94–112). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
37.
GabrielY. (1983). Freud and society. London: Routledge.
38.
GabrielY. (1991). Organizations and their discontents: A psychoanalytic contribution to the study of organizational culture. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27, 318–336.
39.
GabrielY. (1998). Psychoanalytic contributions to the study of the emotional life of organizations. Administration and Society, 30, 292–315.
40.
GabrielY. (1999a). Organizations in depth: The psychoanalysis of organizations. London: SAGE.
41.
GabrielY. (1999b). Beyond happy families: A critical reevaluation of the control-resistance-identity triangle. Human Relations, 52, 179–203.
42.
GallopJ. (1982). Feminism and psychoanalysis: The daughter’s seduction. London: Macmillan.
43.
GiardiniF. (2003). Speculum of being two: Politics and theory after all these years. Theory, Culture and Society, 20, 13–26.
44.
GroszE. (1989). Sexual subversions. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
45.
GroszE. (1990). Jacques Lacan: A feminist introduction. London: Routledge.
46.
GroszE. (1994). The hetero and the homo: The sexual ethics of Luce Irigaray. In BurkeC.SchorN.WhitfordM. (Eds.), Engaging with Irigaray (pp. 335–350). New York: Columbia University Press.
47.
HancockP. (2008). Embodied generosity and an ethics of organization. Organization Studies, 29, 1357–1373.
48.
HardingN. (2007). On Lacan and the ‘becoming-ness’ of organizations/selves. Organization Studies, 28, 1761–1773.
49.
HassardJ.KelemanM.Wolfram CoxJ. (2008). Disorganization theory: Explorations in alternative organizational analysis. London: Routledge.
50.
HodgeJ. (1994). Irigaray reading Heidegger. In BurkeC.SchorN.WhitfordM. (Eds.), Engaging with Irigaray (pp. 191–209). New York: Columbia University Press.
51.
HoedemaekersC. (2010). Not even a semblance: Exploring the interruption of identification with Lacan. Organization, 17, 379–393.
52.
HoedemaekersC.KeeganA. (2010). Performance, pinned down: Studying subjectivity and the language of performance. Organization Studies, 31, 1021–1044.
53.
IrigarayL. (1985a). Speculum of the other woman. GillG. C. (Trans.). New York: Cornell University Press.
54.
IrigarayL. (1985b). This sex which is not one. PorterC. (Trans.). New York: Cornell University Press.
55.
IrigarayL. (1991). Marine lover of Friedrich Nietzsche. GillG. C. (Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.
IrigarayL. (1993a). An ethics of sexual difference. BurkeC.GillG. C. (Trans.). London: Athlone.
58.
IrigarayL. (1993b). Sexes and genealogies. GillG. C. (Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.
59.
IrigarayL. (1993c). Je, tu, nous: Toward a culture of difference. MartinA. (Trans.). London: Routledge.
60.
IrigarayL. (1999). The forgetting of air in Martin Heidegger. MaderM. B. (Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
61.
IrigarayL. (2000). To be two. RhodesM. M.Cocito-MonocM. F. (Trans.). London: Athlone.
62.
IrigarayL. (2002). To speak is never neutral. SchwabG. (Trans.). London: Continuum.
63.
IrigarayL. (2004). Luce Irigaray: Key writings. London: Continuum.
64.
JonesC.SpicerA. (2005). The sublime object of entrepreneurship. Organization, 12, 223–246.
65.
KennyK. (2009). Heeding the stains: Lacan and organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 22, 214–228.
66.
KennyK.BellE. (2011). Representing the successful managerial body. In JeanesE.KnightsD.Martin YanceyP. (Eds.), Handbook of gender, work and organization (pp. 163–176). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
67.
KirtonG.GreeneA-M. (2004). The dynamics of managing diversity. London: Butterworth Heinemann.
68.
LacanJ. (1977a). The Mirror Stage as formative of the function of the I as revealed in psychoanalytic experience. In LacanJ., Écrits: A selection (pp. 1–8). SheridanA. (Trans.). New York: W. W. Norton.
69.
LacanJ. (1977b). The subversion of the subject and the dialectics of desire in the Freudian unconscious. In LacanJ., Écrits: A selection (pp. 323–360). SheridanA. (Trans.). New York, NY: Norton.
70.
LacanJ. (1977c). Écrits: A selection. SheridanA. (Trans.). New York: W. W. Norton.
71.
LacanJ. (1998). On feminine sexuality, the limits of love and knowledge, 1972–1973: Encore the seminar of Jacques Lacan book X. MillerJ-A. (Ed.), FinkB. (Trans.). New York: Norton.
72.
LeebC. (2008). Towards a theoretical outline of the subject: The centrality of Adorno and Lacan for feminist political theorizing. Political Theory, 36, 351–376.
73.
LelandD. (1992). Lacanian psychoanalysis and French feminism: Toward an adequate political psychology. In FraserN.BartkyS. L. (Eds.), Revaluing french feminism: Critical essays on difference, agency, and culture (pp. 113–135). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
74.
LongS. (1991). The signifier and the group. Human Relations, 44, 389–401.
75.
LoweL.MillsA.MullenJ. (2002). Gendering the silences: Psychoanalysis, gender and organization studies. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17, 422–434.
76.
MarksE.de CourtivronI. (Eds.) (1981). New French feminisms: An anthology. New York: Schocken Books.
77.
MartinA. (2003). Introduction: Luce Irigaray and the culture of difference. Theory, Culture and Society, 20(3), 1–12.
78.
MartinJ. (1990). Deconstructing organizational taboos: The suppression of gender conflict in organizations. Organization Science, 1, 339–359.
79.
McSwiteO. C. (1997). Jacques Lacan and the theory of the human subject: How psychoanalysis can help public administration. American Behavioural Scientist, 41, 43–63.
80.
MetcalfeB. (2005). Exiling the feminine? Re-imagining Luce Irigaray in the philosophy of organization. Paper presented at the Critical Management Studies Conference.
81.
MetcalfeB. (2007). Fluidity and identity. In Cox WolframJ.KelemanM.HassardJ. (Eds.), Disorganization theory: Explorations in alternative organizational analysis (pp. 72–84). London: Routledge.
82.
MillsA. J. (1995). Man/aging subjectivity, silencing diversity: Organizational imagery in the airline industry. The case of British Airways. Organization, 2, 243–269.
83.
MitchellJ. (1974). Psychoanalysis and feminism. London: Allen Lane.
84.
NancyJ-L.Lacoue-LabartheP. (1992). The title of the letter: A reading of Lacan. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
85.
OseenC. (1997). Luce Irigaray, sexual difference and theorizing leaders and leadership. Gender, Work and Organization, 4(3), 170–184.
86.
Ragland-SullivanE. (1986). Jacques Lacan and the philosophy of psychoanalysis. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
87.
RobertsJ (2005). The power of the ‘imaginary’ in disciplinary processes. Organization, 12, 619–642.
88.
RoseJ. (2005). Sexuality in the field of vision. London: Verso.
89.
RubinG. (1975). The traffic in women: Notes on the political economy of sex. In ReiterR. (Ed.), Toward an anthropology of women (pp. 157–210). New York: Monthly Review Press.
90.
SafouanM. (2000). Jacques Lacan and the question of psychoanalytic training. RoseJ. (Trans.). London: Macmillan.
91.
SchwartzH. S. (1987). Anti-social actions of committed organizational participants: An existential psychoanalytic perspective. Organization Studies, 8, 327–340.
92.
SchwartzH. S. (1995). Masculinity and the meaning of work: A response to Manichean feminism. Administration and Society, 27, 249–274.
93.
SchwartzH. S. (1996). The sin of the father: Reflections on the roles of the corporation man, the suburban housewife, their son, and their daughter in the deconstruction of the patriarch. Human Relations, 49, 1013–1040.
94.
SchwartzH. S. (2003). The revolt of the primitive: An inquiry into the roots of political correctness. London: Transaction Publishers.
95.
SellersS. (1991). Language and sexual difference: Feminist writing in France. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
96.
StavrakakisY. (1999). Lacan and the political. London: Routledge.
97.
SteinM. (2007). Oedipus Rex at Enron: Leadership, oedipal struggles, and organizational collapse. Human Relations, 60, 1387–1410.
98.
StoneA. (2003). The sex of nature: A reinterpretation of Irigaray’s metaphysics and political thought. Hypatia, 18(3), 60–84.
99.
VanheuleS.LievrouwA.VerhaegheP. (2003). Burnout and intersubjectivity: A psychoanalytical study from a Lacanian perspective. Human Relations, 56, 321–338.
100.
VanheuleS.VerhaegheP. (2004). Powerlessness and impossibility in special education: A qualitative study on professional burnout from a Lacanian perspective. Human Relations, 57, 497–519.
101.
VidailletB. (2007). Lacanian theory’s contribution to the study of workplace envy. Human Relations, 60, 1669–1700.
102.
WeedE. (1994). The question of style. In BurkeC.SchorN.WhitfordM. (Eds.), Engaging with Irigaray. New York: Columbia University Press.
103.
WeedonC. (1987). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
104.
WhitfordM. (1989). Rereading Irigaray. In BrennanT (Ed), Between feminism and psychoanalysis. (pp. 106–126) London: Routledge.
105.
WhitfordM. (1991a). Luce Irigaray: Philosophy in the feminine. London: Routledge.
106.
WhitfordM. (Ed.) (1991b). The Irigaray reader. Oxford: Blackwell.
107.
WhitfordM. (1994). Irigaray, utopia and the death drive. In BurkeC.SchorN.WhitfordM. (Eds.), Engaging with Irigaray (pp. 379–400). New York: Columbia University Press.
108.
Young-BruehlE. (Ed.) (1990). Freud on women: A reader. New York: W. W. Norton.
