This essay conceptualizes glitter as a sensuous materialization of governmentality. It does so, arguing that glitter governs in alluring ways by materializing light and sight. As such, the essay explores glitter as a sparkly substance, governing individuals in certain behavioural directions, which it also demonstrates in the illustrative case of a small group of gleaming STEM Barbies, intended to govern young girls in the direction of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics management careers, through sensuous stimulations of sight. However, in materializing light and sight, glitter leaves everything un-glittery in gloomy darkness, while governing with glitter also comes with the danger of producing an unfortunate ignorant blindness, potentially countering the aims behind the use of glitter as a governing means.
AndersenNÅKnudsenHSandagerJ (2024) Potentialising the potential: Dream of everything you can become, and become everything you dream of. European Educational Research Journal23(4): 578–597.
2.
AzevedoG (2023) Into the realm of organizational folly: A poem, a review, and a typology of organizational stupidity. Management Learning54(2): 267–281.
3.
BanoM (2018) Artificial Intelligence is Demonstrating Gender Bias – and it is our Fault. London: King’s College London New Centre.
4.
BeyesT (2017) Colour and organization studies. Organization Studies38(10): 1467–1482.
5.
BeyesT (2024) Organizing Color: Toward a Chromatics of the Social. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.
6.
BeyesTCnossenBAshcraftK, et al. (2022) Who’s afraid of the senses? Organization, management and the return of the sensorium. Management Learning53(4): 625–639.
7.
BilleMSørensenTF (2007) An anthropology of luminosity: The agency of light. Journal of Material Culture12(3): 263–284.
8.
ButlerJ (2015) Senses of the Subject. New York: Fordham University Press.
9.
CaprileMPalménRSanzP, et al. (2015) Encouraging STEM studies: Labour market situation and comparison of practices targeted at young people in different member states. Report, Policy Department A, no. 12. Brussels: European Union.
10.
CardDPayneAA (2021) High school choices and the gender gap in STEM. Economic Inquiry59(1): 9–28.
11.
ColemanR (2019) Glitter: A methodology of following the material. MAI: Feminism and Visual Culture. Available at: https://research.gold.ac.uk/id/eprint/26463/ (accessed 7 August 2024).
12.
ColemanR (2020) Glitterworlds – The Future Politics of a Ubiquitous Thing. London: Goldsmiths Press.
13.
ColemanR (2022) Worlding with glitter: Vibrancy, enchantment and wonder. In: Timm KnudsenBKroghMStageC (eds) Methodologies of Affective Experimentation. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 161–181.
14.
ColemanROsgoodJ (2019) PhEMaterialist encounters with glitter: The materialisation of ethics, politics and care in arts-based research. Reconceptualizing Educational Research Methodology10(2–3): 61–86.
15.
ComiAWhyteJ (2018) Future making and visual artefacts: An ethnographic study of a design project. Organization Studies39(8): 1055–1083.
16.
DeanM (2010) Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. London: SAGE.
17.
DevosA (2008) Where enterprise and equity meet: The rise of mentoring for women in Australian universities. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education29(2): 195–205.
18.
DevosA (2010) New teachers, mentoring and the discursive formation of professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education26(5): 1219–1223.
19.
DohertyP (2005) New Musical Express (NME), November.
20.
EdensorT (2012) Illuminated atmospheres: Anticipating and reproducing the flow of affective experience in Blackpool. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space30(6): 1103–1122.
21.
EllemersN (2018) Gender stereotypes. Annual Review of Psychology69(1): 275–298.
22.
FoucaultM (1991) Governmentality. In: BurchellC. G.MillerP (eds.) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality (pp. 87–104). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
23.
FoucaultM (2009) Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the College de France. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
24.
FoucaultM (2010) The Government of Self and Others: Lectures at the College de France. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
25.
HamiltonSN (2020) Introduction: Sensuous governance. The Senses and Society15(1): 1–8.
26.
HamiltonSNMajuryDMooreD, et al. (2017) Sensing law: Introduction. In: HamiltonSNMajuryDMooreD, et al. (eds) Sensing Law. New York: Routledge.
HolmbergT (2014) Sensuous governance: Assessing urban animal hoarding. Housing, Theory and Society31(4): 464–479.
29.
HowesDClassenC (2014) Ways of Sensing: Understanding the Senses in Society. New York: Routledge.
30.
IqaniM (2022) Glitter, shine, glow: Patinas of feminine achievement in South African celebrity portraiture. Cultural Politics18(1): 79–94.
31.
JuhlinCHoltR (2022) The sensory imperative. Management Learning53(4): 640–651.
32.
KnudsenM (2011) Forms of inattentiveness: The production of blindness in the development of a technology for the observation of quality in health services. Organization Studies32(7): 963–989.
33.
KuisminA (2022) A sense of spacing: Toward a diffractive reading of organizational space. Management Learning53(4): 718–733.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2017) The pursuit of gender equality – An uphill battle. Report, OECD, Paris, 4October.
40.
ParsleyS (2022) Feeling your way as an occupational minority: The gendered sensilisation of women electronic music artists. Management Learning53(4): 697–717.
41.
PatelKKSehgalVSKashfiK (2022) Molecular targets of statins and their potential side effects: Not all the glitter is gold. European Journal of Pharmacology922: 174906.
42.
PerezCC (2019) Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men. New York: Abrams Press.
RobertsJ (2013) Organizational ignorance: Towards a managerial perspective on the unknown. Management Learning44(3): 215–236.
45.
RoseN (1996) Inventing our Selves. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46.
RoseN (1999) Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self. London: Free Association Books.
47.
SandagerJ (2021). Mentoring as affective governmentality: Shame, (un)happiness, and the (re)production of masculine leadership. Gender, Work & Organization28(4): 1304–1322.
48.
SandagerJ (2022) Glitter, glamour, and the future of (more) girls in STEM: Gendered formations of STEM aspirations. PhD Thesis, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg.
49.
SandagerJ (2024) When a girl plays with Barbie, she imagines everything she can become. LEDERLIV – Inspiration Til Livet Som Leder6: 1–20.
50.
SandagerJPorsJG (2021) Ghostly mirroring: How taxidermy could teach us something important about current attempts to inspire STEM aspirations in young women. In: MifsudD (ed.) Narratives of Educational Leadership: Representing Research Via Creative Analytic Practices. Singapore: Springer Nature, 199–221.
51.
SandagerJRavnS (2023) Affected by STEM? Young girls negotiating STEM presents and futures in a Danish school. Gender and Education35(5): 454–468.
52.
SchneiderU (2007) Coping with the concept of knowledge. Management Learning38(5): 613–633.
53.
SchwabenlandCKofinasA (2023) Ducks, elephants and sharks: Using LEGO® Serious Play® to surface the ‘hidden curriculum’ of equality, diversity and inclusion. Management Learning54(3): 318–337.
54.
SeymourN (2022) Glitter. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.
55.
StarrCR (2018) ‘I’m not a science nerd!’: STEM stereotypes, identity, and motivation among undergraduate women. Psychology of Women Quarterly42(4): 489–503.
56.
SteyaertC (2022) ‘If a (queer) revolt is to come’: Toward a sensuous pedagogy for dis/orienting management learning.Management Learning53(4): 734–747.
57.
Van den BrinkMStobbeL (2009) Doing gender in academic education: The paradox of visibility. Gender, Work & Organization16(4): 451–470.
58.
Wachter-BoettcherS (2017) Technically Wrong: Sexist Apps, Biased Algorithms, and Other Threats of Toxic Tech. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
YurtseverM (2019) Tiny, shiny, and colorful microplastics: Are regular glitters a significant source of microplastics?Marine Pollution Bulletin146: 678–682.
