Resisting by re-existing in the workplace: A decolonial perspective through the Brazilian adage “For the English to See”

Abstract

For almost 200 years, the expression “For the English to See” has been applied in Brazilian society as part of its colloquial language. We choose to examine the adage from a perspective of decolonial resistance. We seek to interrogate how an understanding of “For the English to See” can help us to better comprehend the ways resistance is shaped and manifest in contemporary Brazilian society. To do so, we conducted in-depth interviews with 76 Brazilian executives, drawing from a decolonial framework. We contribute to knowledge on resistance in Management and Organization Studies through introducing the concept of resistance by re-existing, which is located “in between spaces” of the colonized and colonizers worlds. We reveal several subjectivation strategies of re-existing as resistance, through the lens of the “For the English to See” expression, which range on a spectrum of embodiment and concealing of coloniality. Our study advances decolonial studies through its use of hybridity and borderization concepts that aid our understanding of organizing resistance in postcolonial settings such as Brazil.

Introduction

“- My friend, I apparently did everything our boss said, I cleaned up everything really well, but just from the top of the desks. I put all the mess in the drawers and I think that when the executives come by, they’re going to find our office very neat and well organized! We’re going to give a good impression. It’s going to be “For the English to See”!”

Such a statement could be made anywhere today in a Brazilian workplace, because it uses an idiomatic expression that is still often employed in Brazil: “For the English to See” (Cascudo, 1984). We can affirm that this is a discursive resource, with intense symbolism, which has been used by Brazilians for almost 200 years (Caldas and Wood, 1997; Cascudo, 1984; Urbano, 2006). However, the meanings of this expression– used in an everyday conversation—are the result of continued social constructions and reconstructions that have emerged spontaneously as a manifestation of the values of Brazilian society over time (Caldas and Wood, 1997; DaMatta, 1979; Ribeiro, 2015). This includes a way of resisting colonial power that still lies in the modern-colonial world and the contemporary organizational environment (Barbosa, 2006). In other words, it might reflect local strategies of resistance and liberation to overcome colonized contexts (Prasad, 2003; Prasad and Prasad, 2000; Segnini and Alcadipani, 2014; Siltaoja et al., 2019).

In The Location of Culture, Bhabha (1994)—Indian critical theorist, points out that, in postcolonial contexts, the subject of colonialism is always resistant in a hybrid process with non-fixed dynamic categories and conflictual positions. That is, hybridity is only possible through “in-between spaces,” which encompass “difference without an assumed or imposed hierarchy” (Bhabha, 1994: 4). Also speaking on resistance in former colonies, Argentine feminist philosopher María Lugones highlights that “all resistance understands and responds to oppression” (Lugones, 2003: 13). Both authors make calls for us to reflect on resistance beyond Western perspectives and to engage with non-Western voices and methodologies to better comprehend alternative subjectivities in the intersection. These “in-between spaces” emerge from the colonial difference, which constitute border thinking (Mignolo and Escobar, 2010).

However, we draw attention to the lack of border thinking type research on resistance (in the sense of Walter Mignolo’s view of the ones that require decolonial epistemic transformations from the external border of modernity), how it is shaped and how it impacts and affects organizations and society as a whole in the fields of Management and Organization Studies (MOS). It has also been asserted by the likes of Ibarra-Colado (2006) and other decolonial scholars (Ibarra-Colado, 2006; Mignolo, 2009; Quijano, 2010) that organization otudies represents one of the most important forms of epistemic coloniality over the last 150 years. Moreover, organization studies has simplified the world by means of instrumental rationality. In addition to that, management theories have emphasized knowledge produced in “western”/Eurocentric culture as a universal model and every culture outside it as an inferior “other” and thus need of being controlled (Cooke and Faria, 2013).

Our position, on the other hand, overlaps with Ibarra-Colado (2006: 474) that: “Latin American societies may be one thing in their resounding discourses and in the appearance of their articulated power, but they are a very different thing in the silencing of their everyday practices and of their strategies of resistance.” As such, this paper urges readers to reflect on “how” workplace resistance happens through the dissemination of “For the English to See” adage in Brazilian society and its usage as cultural agency and resistance. In other words, we ask: how does the use of “For the English to See” adage help us to better comprehend the ways resistance is shaped and manifest in contemporary Brazilian workplaces?

To do so, we rely on a decolonial approach of resistance/re-existence (Grosfoguel and Mignolo, 2008) as a possible path to overcome colonial inheritance in Brazilian society. Through the analysis of multiple interviews with Brazilian executives, we aim to contribute to resistance theory in MOS by (re)constructing knowledge from the “borders” and social realities, making possible new hybrid alternatives to modernity in those fields (Mignolo, 2009; Mignolo and Walsh, 2018). Also, following Anzaldúa’s (2001) “borderization” thoughts, we call for scholars and theory to be responsive and responsible to their community, which implies producing knowledge from Latin America aimed that speaks to Latin Americans as a way to strengthen resistance and border thinking theorization.

We undertook a qualitative study with 76 Brazilian employees from diverse organizations within the cities of Belo Horizonte, Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo (the three largest cities in Brazil) between 2015 and 2016 with the aim of eliciting multiple perspectives on the adage “For the English to See,” and how this relates to resistance. We adopted a decolonial framework to better understand how this expression is used by Brazilian workers as part of their resistance repertoires. Our findings highlight how a historical adage and commonly used phrase can be used to expand the research agenda and ideas of decolonial resistance. Here, interviewees’ words helped us to understand “For the English to see” as a way to begin to perceive resist postcolonial, neopatriarchal violence in Brazilian workplace. Our constructivist qualitative study follows an inductive approach for border theorizing—as both epistemic and transformative method (Wanderley and Faria, 2012)—in order to give voice to the locus of enunciation by asking the questions “who and when, why and where is knowledge generated . . . it means to go to the very assumptions that sustain locus of enunciations” (Mignolo, 2009: 2–4).

The article is divided into six sections including this introduction. First, we present the theoretical approaches of the decolonial framework and the process of resistance, followed by the significance of the expression “For the English to See,” and methodology. We arrange the findings around the related theory and discuss our data as they relate to theory and practice. At the end, we pose the article’s main conclusions, contributions and future directions.

Decoloniality and subaltern re-existence

Resistance as a social phenomenon within organizations has been clarified as actions of conformity, confrontation, rebellion, retaliation and even resilience (Fleming and Spicer, 2014; Westwood et al., 2014). Studies in MOS have shown that little by little, silently, clandestinely and from underground, resistance impels or contaminates the forces of capitalism making them bend and curve in unpredictable directions (Hardt and Negri, 2004; Pereira, 2017; Roque, 2002). However, the concept is paradoxical, ambivalent and ambiguous, as are the acts, gestures, movements, images, figures, and practices of resistance themselves (Foucault, 1980; Hardt and Negri, 2004; Pereira, 2017; Scott, 2004). For instance, it is not possible to say that there is a model of “passive resistance” or “active resistance”: these are two sides of the same process. It is about a process of subjectification, and not about an already constituted subject who resists rationally or emotionally, consciously or not, individually and/or collectively (Scott, 2004). In organizations resistance plays a symbolic ambivalence that encompasses diverse actions including resignation, tolerance, a masked lack of cooperation, sabotage, collective confrontation, formal complaints, legal action, and even acts of violence (Alvesson and Kärreman, 2004; Zoller and Fairhurst, 2007). Non-violent and passive forms of resistance are, in general, more effective because violence tends to undermine the resistance forces (Arendt, 2005).

In a process of desubalternization of knowledge, we call for a decolonial perspective to better understand resistance in postcolonial contexts marked by the power matrix of coloniality (Grosfoguel and Mignolo, 2008; Maldonado-Torres, 2008; Mignolo, 2010; Quijano, 2005). That is, considering Latin America (herein, Brazil) as the locus of enunciation from the decolonial perspective, the adoption of a decolonial research would provide capacity for action for the subaltern groups that have resisted beyond hegemonic suppression of knowledge (Maldonado-Torres, 2006). This means that, local realities and knowledge have been and continue to be hidden and ignored, and what we need from a decolonial perspective is a break from this colonial domination (Mignolo, 2009, 2011).

In this way, decoloniality can be read from the practices of resistance of historically marginalized groups (Walsh, 2009) and their other worldviews that question and reveal the Eurocentric standardization, that seeks to maintain colonizing discourse (Walsh, 2013). In Latin America, the colonized subjects are objectified and ideologically standardized (vis-à-vis the colonizer’s attributes) and are taken to be those who need colonizers and what they bring: God, civilization, development, knowledge, among other things. In general, this “local” baggage does not conform to the moral and aesthetic attributes of the colonizers (Prasad, 2003; Young, 2001). Therefore, decolonial reflection of resistance means recognising those who are oppressed from their fragmented locus of enunciation. So, if we seek to embrace in a decolonial transmodernity on resistance, we must make:

Visible the invisible and analyzing the mechanisms that produce such invisibility or distorted visibility in light of a large stock of ideas that must necessarily include the critical reflections of the “invisible” people themselves (Maldonado-Torres, 2007: 262, translated from Spanish to English).

In this article, we propose the decolonial notion of re-existence, in the sense of the Colombian thinker, artist and activist Albán Achinte (2009), and further developed by Grosfoguel and Mignolo (2008). This view on decolonial resistance relates to resisting and re-existing in the face of modernity’s rhetoric and its global colonial logic through embracing epistemic decoloniality. In epistemological, political, geographical and cultural terms, decolonial resistance has been shown to be more connected to the notion of re-existence than resistance. Grosfoguel and Mignolo (2008) reaffirm the decolonial r-existence idea:

So when we say “decoloniality” and therefore we mean the third term of modernity/ coloniality/decoloniality complex, we refer to a type of activity (thought, turn, option), of confronting the rhetoric of modernity and the logic of coloniality. That confrontation is not only resistance but re-existence (Grosfoguel and Mignolo, 2008: 34 ¹ ).

In this way, Mignolo (2008) posits that decolonial resistance/re-existence implies: a) revealing the logic of coloniality and the reproduction of the colonial matrix of power; and, b) disconnecting itself from the totalitarian effects of Western subjectivities and categories of thought. Therefore, it promotes this acting/reflecting movement that creates, shapes and builds an exterior that ensures interiority. Decoloniality and subaltern resistance/re-existence thus refers to the construction of another epistemic reality through which different forms of resistance arise:

“The “epistemic otherness” we are talking about should not be understood as an absolute exteriority that bursts in but as that which is located at the intersection of the traditional and the modern. They are interstitial forms of knowledge, “hybrid,” but not in the traditional sense of syncretism or “miscegenation,” nor in the sense given by Néstor García Canclini to this category, but in the sense of “subversive complicity” with the system. We are referring to a semiotic resistance capable of resignifying the hegemonic forms of knowledge from the point of view of the posteurocentric rationality of subordinate subjectivities (. . .)” (Castro-Gómez and Grosfoguel, 2007: 20, translated from Spanish to English).

Those “hybrid” and “subversive complicity” in the modern-colonial power structures relates to the process of subjectivity and knowledge production of and from the borders. Bhabha’s (1994) postcolonial studies on cultural identities in former colonies describe hybridity as cultural and as a positive way for resistance (Silva and Guedes, 2017). From a postcolonial perspective, he suggests that hybridization is a way of knowing, a process that is “always ambivalent, split between its appearance as original and authoritative and its articulation as repetition and difference” (Bhabha, 1994: 107). This involves the simultaneous coexistence of, at least, two different cultural sets (from the colonizers and colonized) in what he called “in-between” spaces. Those spaces would provide the ground for the elaboration of subjectivation strategies that could include collaboration and contestation produced in the “presence” of the colonial moment (Bhabha, 1994: 204). For instance, we can say that a society that lived directly with an oppressive colonial political-economic system is, to some extent, a society that lived or still lives in some way “under the sign of irony,” where a marked ironic subconsciousness was established. Yousfi (2014) draws from Bhabha’s concept to explain how Tunisian managers in a postcolonial setting were able to leverage hybridity in an ambivalent form when faced with the arrival of new North American corporate owners. The managers used hybridity to overcome local cultural hurdles while simultaneously resisting the newly imposed North American corporate coloniality (Yousfi, 2014).

In addition to Bhabha’s view on subjectivities and identity formations, Mignolo and Tlostanova (2006) call for a critical thinking from the margins—border thinking-, in which critical, intercultural dialogues can involve possible modernities, various identities, or “the outside created from the inside” (Mignolo and Tlostanova, 2006: 206). For Mignolo (2007), the idea is not to recover the authentic knowledge of Latin American people through the comprehension of the hybridization process, for instance, and the bases of the subjectivities of knowledge which have been treated as subaltern by and within the colonial matrix of power. Rather, it is from the inclusion of the knowledge from the borders, and the encounter between modernity and coloniality that a “colonial difference” will emerge (Mignolo, 2011). He therefore places this hybridity concept as part of his conceptualization of border thinking.

Drawing from Glória Anzaldúa’s (1987) cultural feminist border studies on Chicana theorizing of borderization, Mignolo (2000: 313) defends “border thinking” as “thinking from another place, imagining another language, arguing from another logic.” This subaltern knowledge produced from the borders as rearticulation of the colonial difference (of the colonial/modern world system) allows resistance as re-existance to arise from Latin America as a particular ethnic and cultural experience. Anzaldúa’s (1987) feminism on the border, or bridge feminism theory, highlights a new mestiza consciousness, or a consciousness of the Borderlands for women of color that encompasses biological/cultural mestizaje, female awareness, and a borderland experience and allow the articulation of a Southern feminist literature of resistance.

Additionally, from a decolonial feminist approach, Lugones (2003) created her subjective/intersubjective understanding of the “oppressing-resisting” relation that women of colour face at the intersection of gender/class/race systems of oppression in Latin America. In order to “re-exist” and overcome gender coloniality colonized women must engage at a new epistemological terrain at the “border,” where a minimum of awareness of oppression and resistance prevails (Lugones, 2003). Thus, resistance represents a response to the tension between subjectification (produced by colonialism and its imaginary collectives) and active subjectivity that emerges from the small sense of agency required for oppressing. The subjects resist as an active person, but without using the maximum sense of agency of modernity (Lugones, 2003).

These studies are in line with Grosfoguel and Mignolo’s (2008) decolonial re-existence grounded on border thinking and border epistemology that confront the rhetoric of modernity and the logic of coloniality. That is, a resistance/re-existance process “that moves along the diversity of historical processes” (Mignolo, 2020: 169) and is grounded on the “decolonialization” of knowledge and being (Castro-Gómez and Grosfoguel, 2007; Mignolo, 2007, 2009, 2011). These decolonial forms “re-existence” and how the resistance is enacted from the borders is still neglected in MOS. We aim to speak to this gap through analyzing how Brazilian executives articulate “For the English to See” in workplace.

“For the English to See”: Examining the historical origins of this Brazilian colloquial expression

Considering the importance of unveiling local knowledge and local realities in postcolonial contexts (Maldonado-Torres, 2006; Mignolo, 2009, 2011), we ground our article on the historical origins of the colloquial expression “For the English to See” because of its frequent use and the meanings associated by it in Brazil.

One of the most accepted explanations among Brazilian national historians is that, influenced by the advocacy from the British government, on November 7, 1831, the Brazilian government approved a law that abolished the slave trading in Africans to the country, for moral and economic purposes. However, within Brazilian territory, it was common knowledge that the law was not enforced. On the contrary, the infamous human trade was only abolished two decades later, in 1850, through the Eusébio de Queiróz Law. Furthermore, despite the previous slavery laws, only on May 13, 1888, the abolition of slavery ended by the Golden Law (in Portuguese, Lei Áurea), signed by the regent of Brazil, Princess Isabel. Thus, slave trading remained illegal, but active in Brazil until the year 1888, when this almost 400-year-old practice involving the transport of roughly 5.5 million Africans was abolished (Bethell, 1976; Klein, 1987; Paiva and Schwarcz, 1995; Veloso and Madeira, 1999). These historical facts and the continuity of the slavery in the country despite official state initiatives to stop it, immediately transformed these laws, from a local perspective, into something “For the English to See” (Fontes Filho, 2006; Ribeiro, 2015).

However, regardless of its exact historical or linguistic origin, for the purposes of our study we highlight the need for understanding the reasons why this expression has become so relevant in Brazilian society. It also includes the organizational environment as it has become part of the spoken language as an idiomatic and symbolic resource for almost two centuries. In addition, it is intriguing to note that over time this expression may (or may not) have assumed new meanings within specific contexts of local society, both in terms of its affirmation or denial, as well as a possible adaptation, reinterpretation, and representation of a new group of local values, and above all else, as a resistance/re-existence to relationships characterized by coloniality (Barbosa, 2006; Fontes Filho, 2006; Ribeiro, 2015).

A nation’s linguistic terms as well as the use of connotations and popular sayings are in fact an explanatory and visible part of a people’s culture (DaMatta, 1979). That is, only expressions that broadly adhere to a society’s essential values become popular, and these are implicit or invisible elements of culture. In the case of the adage “For the English to See,” it is important to point out that Portugal has always focused on exporting products from Brazil, the immense colony, to the kingdom in Europe. As the age of gold-discovery had a short period of abundance in the colony, everything was deemed fair game to export, from wood to indigo.

In this context, the prince regent (later King Pedro II) of Brazil sought to create an institutional framework that could favour Rio de Janeiro as his capital, over Lisbon. However, Portugal did not have much to contribute to this transition that was taking place in the colony. Even schools and academies established in Rio aimed solely to meet immediate needs in the colony. As a result, this created in the country what is known as a “culture of exteriority” (Lima, 2006). In the views of chroniclers and travelers who were in Brazil in the 19th century:

[. . .] it is possible to infer that an outward-looking culture was constituted here, oriented primarily by the introduction of items linked to material comfort, luxury and the outer charms of social life, long before the awareness of the need for institutions to be implanted. (Veloso and Madeira, 1999: 65, translated from Portuguese to English).

On the other hand, the need to build a nation with life and the bureaucratic-coercive apparatus of the State promoted in Brazil a culture for the “English to see.” In this sense, we argue that the coloniality currently present in the country has its roots in this “external recognition” of what should become the country’s internal image, that is, a sense of identity. Given the absence of a sense of patriotism and of glorious “great deeds” produced by colonial Brazilians, what prevailed was an emphasis on the peculiarities of human nature in Brazil. This subalternized culture that prevailed in Brazil is useful for us to understand the country, its identity, its people and its organizations, considering its ambiguities and complexities (DaMatta, 1979; Motta and Alcadipani, 1999; Ramos, 1983).

Therefore, we need to consider the legacy of the colonial past left by the Portuguese in Brazil, including the issues and scars left by slavery in local society and organizations. In addition, we need to consider the influence of another type of domination, employed by Britain and France at the beginning in the 19th century, who at this time held global imperialist roles by imposing hegemonies on peripheral and economically dependent countries such as Brazil (Alcadipani et al., 2012; Barbosa, 2006; Rodrigues et al., 2011).

Twenty years ago, Caldas and Wood (1997) already discussed in the Organization about the sociocultural importance of the Brazilian expression “For the English to see.” In this work, the authors use as a guiding thread an approach based on the Brazilian context of the 21st century, and in particular the power relations of the organizational universe between national and foreign actors that unfold in a technological environment. In fact, Caldas and Wood (1997) argue that this expression carries with it the very personification of what can be understood as a reaction of the local (Brazilian) to the power of the dominator (foreigner), assuming its role as a signifier of language as a local cultural arm.

Thus, the bases and values of Brazilian society, that can be understood through various Brazilian expressions, which is the case with “For the English to See” or, for example, “Do you know who you’re talking to?” both anchored in oppressive colonial models. These models have influenced society by demonstrating their welcoming, friendly and happy side, as well as hiding the contradictions and defense mechanisms of implicit resistance due to the power relationships that Brazil has always been submitted to during its official colonial phase and even postcolonial times (Faoro, 2013; Jack et al., 2011).

The Brazilian “For the English to See” highlights the importance of considering local knowledge and reality from the borders to support future field work in MOS (Alcadipani and Crubelatte, 2007; Fernandes and Hanashiro, 2015; Motta and Alcadipani, 1999; Segnini and Alcadipani, 2014; Siltaoja et al., 2019). Moreover, it is central to know a society and its organizations in a simultaneous and interactive manner through its relationships of domination, resistance and acquiescence (Jack et al., 2011; Prasad, 2003; Prasad and Prasad, 2000; Segnini and Alcadipani, 2014). In this sense, the mechanisms of colonial domination mobilize every type of institutional, ideological and discursive resource to influence organizational activity (Lukes, 1980). Individuals and social groups tend to subject themselves to this movement, even though they try to resist/re-exist using the resources available to them which emerge naturally based on their culture (Hardy, 1996). Resistance/re-existence within a decolonial setting can only be hybrid or a “colonial difference,” and as such we aim to analyze and dissect hybridity considering the subdivisions and types of hybrid resistance/re-existence that operate and influence workplace resistance/re-existence within the Brazilian workplace setting. Having provided a review of relevant literature on the decoloniality and subaltern resistance/re-existence and the historical origins of the Brazilian adage “for the English to see” we present our methodology in the following section.

Data collection

This qualitative empirical study was conducted between November 2015 and January 2017. We interviewed 76 professionals, high-level executives, interviewing both men and women with supervisory, managerial and operational positions of various demographic profiles. We decided to interview professionals from 12 large private and state companies since we thought this would best reflect an array of organizational perspectives on the use of “For the English to see” during daily work situations including resistance. We obtained access to data based on criteria of convenience (our professional network), proximity, size of companies since we opted for large multinationals, representing diverse sectors and hence perspective. Our main sampling strategy once we had established contact within an organization was to leverage a snowballing approach, whereby one executive would introduce us to another appropriate one to interview. We wanted to interview higher level executives since they face more intense pressure to deliver results as they liaise with their counterparts in colonial settings, namely Europe. From a decolonial resistance perspective this is particularly intriguing and pertinent.

Interviews were conducted by two of the authors over a period of five months, with an average duration of one hour. We ensured anonymity to our interviewees and their organizations, in order to ensure they would feel confident to talk about their workplace environments. Among the companies that feature in our research include a Brazilian state oil company; Brazilian state mining company; Brazilian and Spanish financial institutions; French cosmetics multinational; Italian automotive multinational; British consulting firm; and an institution from the U.S.. The organizations represent different industries and types of organizations (public and private sector). We believe this diverse range of organizations chosen for conducting interviews allows us to gain an equally diverse range of perceptions from organizational executives regarding perceptions on resistance in the workplace and the concept of “for the English to see.” The organizations were located in the Brazilian cities of Belo Horizonte, Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo (considered to be urban centers of great relevance to the country).

Following Goldenberg’s (1997) suggestions, we opted to use a script compatible with a focused, semi-structured interview, divided into three main sections. Initially we informed the interviewees the object of our study and asked their permission to record their responses. Next, we asked each individual to talk openly about their professional trajectory. The third and final section was concentrated exclusively on the expression “For the English to See,” moreover (a) its meaning; (b) why the interviewee believes that it continues to be used in our society; (c) in which situations it is used; (d) how this expression is related to various social and cultural aspects in Brazil; (e) whether and how reification occurs in organizational environments; and, finally, (f) whether it has a positive or negative connotation.

All interviews were transcribed into a 221-page report, in the original Portuguese language, which was translated to English. We adopted the free association of ideas (Alvesson and Sköldberg, 2009) and the decolonial framework (Ibarra-Colado, 2006; Mignolo, 2007; Mignolo and Walsh, 2018) for data analysis. The free association of ideas was used nominally when we asked the interviewees to define the expression “For the English to See.” In other words, the interviewees were asked to give us their own interpretation of “For the English to See,” which we followed up with questions around how they see the use of this term in their daily work situations in addition to how, and why they employ the phrase themselves.

After that phase, we undertook an in-depth data analysis following an inductive approach. Our main goal was to engage in “border thinking” theorization—as our main method and epistemology (Mignolo, 2009; Wanderley and Faria, 2012). We took internal discussions about the data and identified three major themes related to the explanation of the “re-existance” process present in this study: “For the English to See as a constituent element of Brazilian society”; “For the English to See” and the multiple responses to colonizing pressures,” and “Critical resistance from the borders.” Those categories helped us to understand how the professionals’ understanding of the adage relate to resistance in organizations from their locus of enunciation.

Findings and interpretation

“For the English to see” is a historical adage, and commonly used by Brazilians, that helps unveil a different form of decolonial resistance. In fact, in our empirical research, the most frequent themes or associations that emerged from the transcripts were: cover-up, deception, disrespect, lies, falsity, unreal or theatrical behaviour. It is interesting to note that the word cover-up was utilized most frequently by respondents regardless of their gender or location. Also, it is important to mention that all of our respondents associated the expression with something unreal, which is artificially constructed to trick or fool foreigners, the authorities or hierarchical superiors in general (Alvesson and Kärreman, 2004; Mignolo, 2017; Prasad and Prasad, 2000).

We evidenced that interviewees through their use of the “for the English to see” expression reinforceed the existence of the hierarchical relationship between subordinates and employers or between colonizers and colonized especially since the subject of colonialism is always resistant in a hybrid process with non-fixed categories and conflictual positions (Prasad and Prasad, 2000).

This feeling of deception and cover-up is often associated with manipulative actions and falsity. Theatricality was later associated in a spontaneous manner by a large portion of the interviewees with “the Brazilian way of doing things” (o jeitinho Brasileiro). This “way” (jeitinho) is the way and style of realizing an action, task or project (Barbosa, 2006; Caldas and Wood, 1997; Duarte, 2006). This seems to respond to a need to adopt a coping mechanism or strategy to survive the pressures of supervising individuals, organizations and institutions (Mignolo and Tlostanova, 2006). At first glance, “For the English to See” involves performativity, or in other words, a way of communicating or acting, planned beforehand, and conducted to make the audience believe what they are seeing and hearing. In other words, a mediation tool between the personal and the law (impersonal).

At the same time, when we see and talk about tensions and mediations, we see the opening of the intention of separating sides by an oppressive system, which, as explained by Lugones (2003), would be the space where all the contestation as resistance takes place.

From a decolonial option, it is crucial that Latin American authors engage with the category of “geographic turn” in order to reflect from their own locus of enunciation in the Global South, with the subjectivities of those (from the Global South) taken as the “other” in modernity and whose internal conflicts have been neglected for years in the literature of MOS (Escobar, 2004; Mignolo, 2007, 2011). For this purpose, throughout data analysis, we aimed to use Brazilian authors and their theoretical lenses to better comprehend the research object. Moreover, we tried to get the interviewees’ own references to describe the phenomenon, as their decolonial subjectivity are intimately linked to their locus of enunciation as well (Ibarra-Colado, 2006; Mignolo, 2007, 2009). Finally, we stress the importance of “critical thinking of the border” for a decolonial approach (Mignolo and Tlostanova, 2006; Mignolo and Walsh, 2018). This category relates to the knowledge produced on resistance in contemporary Brazilian organizations from the South (Alcadipani et al., 2012), which is where we aim to contribute with our knowledge.

“For the English to See” as a constituent element of Brazilian society

In the search for a decolonial self-knowledge (recognition), we rely on the expression “For the English to See” not as a simple linguistic resource, but as a reification of two constituent elements of Brazilian society: formalism and bureaucratic domination (Ramos, 1983). According to Guerreiro Ramos, a figure of note in the field of social sciences in Brazil, formalism is the distance that exists between the formally established norms and practices institutionalized by the people (Ramos, 1983), or in other words, a nosography prescribed by the colonizers, which is implicit in the following interview excerpts:

“The current use of this expression is due to the history of colonization in our country (. . .) attitudes or objects exhibited in a form that appear to perform a given function, which in truth they do not” (interviewee R7, director of logistics of an Italian automobile company—BH).

“(. . .) means organizing what needs to be evaluated (store, factory, presentation) in such a way that it passes the foreigner’s inspection” (R15, marketing manager of a French cosmetics company—RJ).”

The lexical selections “colonization” and “foreigners” denote the fact that there is an asymmetry of power in which colonizers/superiors give orders, and establish targets and standards (explicitly in store, factory, presentations); however, the “plebeian” praxis is not necessarily fulfilled, as is revealed in the lexical selection “appear to perform a given function, which in truth they do not” (Ibarra-Colado, 2006; Lugones, 2005; Mignolo and Tlostanova, 2006).

Here we present our initial example of a unique decolonial form of resistance, unique to Brazil as a former colony of Portugal. This idiosyncrasy can be appreciated through the tacit acceptance of rules, norms and standards determined by the colonizers or by the “superiors” (Lugones, 2005; Prasad and Prasad, 2000). However, at the same time, they are engaged in distorted practices which are supported by other Brazilian cultural elements (Barbosa, 2006). This discrepancy between concrete conduct and the prescribed forms of conduct which are supposed to regulate it, Ramos (1983) calls “formalism.” The author also notes that it is not correct to characterize formalism as a social pathology; it is, in reality, in transformational societies like Brazil, a strategy for social change which has been imposed by the dual character of its historical formation and the particular manner in which it articulates with the rest of the world. This is what reinforces the locus of enunciation (Ibarra-Colado, 2006; Mignolo, 2009).

Whenever we sought to explain the expression “For the English to See” our interlocutors placed themselves in their natural role of the colonized, and never as the “English” colonizer. In other words, they viewed themselves as inferior when in touch with a culture that is perceived as superior. The nature of the roles in the game thus was evident: the colonizer gives the orders; the colonized follow them without questioning them, or at least not appearing to question (Mignolo and Walsh, 2018; Segnini and Alcadipani, 2014). The concept of hybridization by Bhabha (1994), also reinforces the existence of this tension and the resistance that occurs in this “in-between” space.

This logic relies on the foundations of Brazilian society which has been built upon the Eurocentric model of the patriarchal family and have established rigid (almost) inflexible moral paradigms of conduct (DaMatta, 1979). These social behaviors, influenced by Portuguese colonization have regulated the relationships between those who govern and are governed, defining the norms of domination, entrusting the centralization of power to the hands of those who govern, as well as the subordination of those who are governed (Caldas and Wood, 1997; Mignolo and Walsh, 2018).

The origin of Brazilian society, rigidly stratified and hierarchical, is based on the fact that various human groups have been structured in diametrically opposing classes and, historically, they have never negotiated minimum conditions for their relationships (DaMatta, 1979; Ramos, 1983; Ribeiro, 2015). Thus, indigenous people, African slaves, the colonized and urban and rural workers have always been seen as a workforce to be given orders, repressed and silenced (Escobar, 2004; Lugones, 2005; Mignolo, 2011). But what strategic responses do the colonized offer the colonizers?

“For the English to See” and the multiple responses to colonizing pressures

Brazil’s subalternized culture is useful for understanding its people and organizations, considering the ambiguities and complexities present (DaMatta, 1979; Motta and Alcadipani, 1999; Ramos, 1983). In this locus, decoloniality can be understood from the practices of resistance of historically marginalized and oppressed groups (Walsh, 2009) that seek to minimize the harmful impacts of the colonizing discourse and actions (Walsh, 2013). Though it is undeniable that the pressure exerted by the dominant side is strongly present in the entire social fabric, leaving traces of its hegemony (Prasad, 2003; Young, 2001). Therefore, decolonial reflection of resistance and re-existence should, in the first place, recognise these both sides and their actions. The excerpt below elucidates this issue when the interviewee talks about these differences between him and the colonizer/foreigner/gringo (gringo is a Brazilian pejorative way to say foreigner).

“gringos are very proper [sic]; that’s why everything works there [in Europe]. Here it’s a mess. What happens here would have never happened in the first world” (R6, financial manager of an information technology firm—SP).

Thus, these supposed “colonizers” have authority in terms of certain standards of conduct: economically (capitalism), politically (representative democracy), socially (how to dress, for example) and in organizational terms (definition of procedures, processes and metrics) (Escobar, 2004). But how do Brazilians react to these colonizing pressures? In this study, we limited ourselves to the way they resist by re-existing in the organizational dimension. The following quote reveals how a colonized subject immediately associates the adage with English colonial superiority:

“(. . .) every time that I think of the expression “For the English to See,” I think a little bit about submission, meaning submission in the sense of I should do something to be seen as better [than now] (. . .) because I’m going to be evaluated” (R3, sales manager of a Brazilian retail chain—Belo Horizonte).

The lexical selection “I should do something” reveals the sense of obligation to act socially, and that this agent will be made responsible for standards that are superior to his or her standards (“to appear better”); however, this behavior is neither voluntary nor spontaneous, it is adopted, because there is an asymmetric relationship based on historical colonial power asymmetries and the fear of being punished (“because I’m going to be evaluated”) (Fleming and Spicer, 2014; Mignolo and Walsh, 2018; Prasad, 2003). The fear of being punished is explicitly vocalized in the following interview excerpts:

“(. . .) with the goal of passing [the evaluation] unscathed” (R22, director of operations of an American information technology services company—SP).

“(. . .) when we should follow orders without being able to question them” (R11, HR manager of a multinational Brazilian energy company—RJ).

The extractivist-orientation of the Portuguese colonizers is pinpointed by an interviewee in terms of its relevance in explaining how colonization permeates contemporary organizational life in Brazil:

“the subjugation to which [Brazilian] society has been submitted (. . .) because our society was formed by colonizers who came with purely exploitative goals including the usurpation of goods and materials. This behavior has been reinforced over centuries and today it is part of the social fabric” (R6, manager of an Institution of Higher Learning—BH).

This interviewee also infers that the logic of domination already permeates the discourse and to do something just “For the English to See” is not only acceptable (even though strictly speaking it is morally questionable according to the ethical standards of the colonizers), but even desirable, because it avoids creating explicit confrontation between ruler versus the colonized. However, not all individuals have sufficient judgment to obey those in charge, and thus they opt for resistance as a way to re-exist from the borders (Mignolo, 2007, 2011).

Critical resistance from the borders

The following section illustrates empirical manifestations of a distinctive colonized understanding of workplace resistance. Postcolonial Brazil is deemed to have a conflict averse culture as a consequence of colonialism, subjugation, slavery and repression, thus traditionally Brazilians have avoided the strategy of explicit confrontation (DaMatta, 1979). This type of behavior is not viewed in a positive light in social or organizational life (Barbosa, 2006). Therefore, when this confrontation occurs, it is disguised on purpose, and can be projected as a form of craftiness as highlighted in the following excerpts:

“In my opinion it means covering up a situation in which only an English person [ironic tone] would not perceive what was wrong” (R14, product manager of a French cosmetics firm—RJ).

“The best thing about doing something “For the English to See” is to know that you’re making the gringos look like idiots (. . .) they really think we’re doing what they want, but nothing turns out like they want in the timeframe that they’ve given (. . .) we [Brazilians] drive these English people around the bend (laughs)” (R39, manager of a multinational English business consulting firm—SP).

This strategy retains a similarity with the above mentioned jeitinho brasileiro (“the Brazilian way of doing things” and “national craftiness”) to be capable of emerging unscathed after doing something wrong; because, according to the first excerpt “only an English person would not perceive what was wrong.” This interviewee demonstrates not only a tone of irony in this affirmation, but rancor as well. In this way, the ability to fool the colonizer who historically has dominated, exploited and usurped is a source of morbid pleasure, since this colonizer is not aware that, in reality, he or she is being confronted (Lugones 2005; Mignolo, 2009, 2011). In effect what we see here are the semblances of resisting to re-exist.

In the second excerpt, we see how resisting by re-existing takes place through an ambiguous tone by referring to the English as “gringos,” because, even though it is used in a sweet tone of voice, this is an expression with a pejorative connotation. Moreover, this person makes it clear that he takes pleasure in not doing what the English expect, and feels pleasure in confronting them and symbolically defeating them, as is made explicit in the second part: “we drive these English people around the bend” [followed by laughter]. In fact, the expression “For the English to See” is the vocalization of not just a social battle, but mainly an intellectual battle between the colonizers and the colonized (Prasad, 2003; Walsh, 2009).

Workplace resistance from the borders requires colonial subjects to identify a source of injustice and feel a sense of outrage, as the following impassioned outburst by a Brazilian against his English “bully” bosses:

“In my case, it is literally “For the English to See” [the interviewee works on a project with the English] (. . .) they are arrogant bullies who sprout rules non-stop (. . .) they think they are the rulers of the world and look at us with disgust, as if I should thank God that I have the privilege of working with them” (R56, project manager of a multinational firm in the Brazilian energy area—SP).

“(. . .) I push things along with my belly as much as I can, pretend that I’m doing what they want, only I’m not [sarcastic smile] (pause) (. . .) they ask for the impossible, they don’t understand how things work here” (R44, process manager of a multinational Brazilian firm in the energy area—SP).

The lexical selection “they think they rule the world” coexists with I “pretend that I’m doing what they want, only I’m not,” which is followed by a sarcastic smile. This statement enables us to infer that these interviewees are engaged in a strategy of resistance through retaliation. In fact, they support the exercise of power by the British, who “look at us with disgust” but they oppose them in another form of re-existence, that of silence.

The second quote suggests a certain disgust and sadistic pleasure of the English subject in imposing tasks on Brazilians, which cannot be executed due to local bureaucracy (lexical selection “don’t understand how things work here”). It reinforces the idea that the subject in charge of a Global-North origin does not understand the tacit “from the borders” knowledge that exists within the work relations in the Brazilian organizational context (Mignolo and Walsh, 2018).

Thus, the organizations represent arenas of struggle between the “colonizers” and the “colonized” that could be seen as the “in-between” spaces of confrontation where Bhabha (1996) contextualizes hybrid interaction. In truth, these sentiments do not exist between the “colonizers” who dehumanize the “colonized,” who become the personification of this sense of inferiority (Mignolo, 2009).

On the other hand, these same individuals who pride themselves on using “For the English to See” as a synonym for craftiness to fool foreigners or hierarchical superiors; ironically, are simultaneously ashamed of using this tactic, explicit in the following excerpt:

“I believe that the current use of this expression is a function of our country’s history of colonization. We have a society that still is affected by a sense of inferiority and seeks to avoid showing its weaknesses through dissimulation and seeks ways to avoid doing something by placing blame on others” (R13, engineering manager of an Italian multinational firm—BH).

In this statement, more than any other, the asymmetry of power generated by the (neo)colonization process is evident (Fleming and Spicer, 2014; Mignolo and Walsh, 2018). The so-called colonizer (white, civilized, organized, pragmatic, punctual, rational, and predictable) built models of standards and norms that should be observed (Ibarra-Colado, 2006). The incorporation of this logic by the colonized themselves imprisons a large part of the imaginary of the Brazilian identity, in which “For the English to See” is a fundamental element in its constitution and helps us to better understand the processes of resistance as a form of re-existence within contemporary Brazilian organizations as we will demonstrate in the following discussion.

Discussion

We enrichen literature on workplace resistance and MOS in general is by introducing the concept of “resisting by re-existence” in postcolonial settings (Albán Achinte, 2009). For us, this concept represents a reaction that emanates from the “borders,” where traditional and modern knowledges collide and merge into a new form of decolonial resistance within the context of organizational interactions. This view on decolonial resistance relates to resisting and re-existing in the face of modernity’s rhetoric and its global colonial logic through embracing epistemic decoloniality.

We postulate that it encapsulates a non-essentialist version of hybrid and distinctive coloniality “critical thinking from the margins” where the “colonial difference” emerges from the meshing of traditional and modern knowledge (Mignolo, 2007, 2011). Re-existence as resistance from our study is distinctive to the setting of Brazil. More specifically it builds on the theoretical advances made by Brazilian MOS scholars with regards to cultural expressions and social relations unique to Brazil (Caldas and Wood, 1997; Duarte, 2006). We demonstrate how re-existing as resistance occurs “in-between” spaces coexisting with two different cultural worlds (from the colonizers and colonized). In these in-between spaces we uncovered subjectivation strategies that facilitate collaboration and contestation that fall along a spectrum ranging between embodiment and masking of coloniality produced in the “presence” of the colonial moment.

The main subjectivation strategies of re-existing as resistance, we contend include (cover up, trickery/fooling superiors/foreigners; through enacting subjectivities of submission to superiority as well as through sarcasm and silence). In contrast to the conclusions made by Yousfi (2014) our findings reveal how in hybrid settings local culture can sometimes acquiesce workers to submission towards colonial actors.

Our case transcends other Bhabhaian approaches, which focus on mimicry and resistance (see Siltaoja et al., 2019; Yousfi, 2014) since our findings bring to the surface contradictions along the full spectrum of submission to confrontation. We advance a decolonial case for re-theorizing re-existence anchored in knowledge and epistemologies from Latin America.

A border thinking perspective enabled us to go beyond a Bhabhaian epistemology. In this sense we were able to embrace processes of subjectivities of those who straddle the border (of the modern global-capitalist system). We posit that by employing border-thinking we were able to reveal the complexities involved in self-identifying as subalterns, which allows for new collective forms of re-existence. Furthermore, border thinking encouraged us to reflect in the systems of oppression located at the border. Resisting through re-existence we argue, adds to identified coping mechanisms of the colonized within postcolonial management settings such as that of silence (Chakraborty et al., 2017) and mimicry (Siltaoja et al., 2019; Yousfi, 2014).

In contrast to a postcolonial Bhabhaian approach, we contend that border thinking aided in unmasking the invisibilities promoted by westernism and eurocentrism with respect to the colonized. Border thinking encourages the use of language and voice to overcome invisibilities (Mignolo, 2020), which in our case was the idiomatic expression “for the English to see.” Our study goes beyond describing how hybridization unfolds in practice in postcolonial contexts, by making visible invisibilities, which include unique forms of resistance. Additionally this allows us to theorize from our locus of enunciation, embedded in the Portuguese language as a means to re-exist against systems of oppression.

The Brazilian phrase “jeitinho” (a unique craftiness required for survival in Brazil) in this regard is seen as a crucial means to enact “for the English to see” conduct. In this way the idiomatic expression “For the English to See” lends itself as an appropriate example of Anzaldúa’s (1987) “borderization” and imaging in another language and logic (Mignolo, 2000).

This form of decolonial-fused resistance has not been detected and discussed by traditional mainstream Eurocentric research, simply because they operate within a colonizers’ logic. Resistance as a social phenomenon within organizations has been mainly described as actions of conformity, confrontation, rebellion, retaliation and even resilience in MOS. From this empirical study we argue that these notions of resistance do not encompass all local realities from the “borders” (Mignolo, 2011). Although they are very helpful in understanding this organizational phenomenon, they present limitations for explaining processes of resistance worldwide. More specifically, they are limited to explain resistance in places strongly marked by (neo) colonial relations, which affects individuals’ subjectivity. The “geographic turn” (Mignolo, 2007) enables us to see through the subaltern lens.

A further contribution we propose from our study is to underscore how a single phrase premised on a historical adage can be used to effectively expand research and ideas of decolonial resistance. We contend the qualitative methodology pursued (with word association play) in our research serves as a further contribution to decolonial studies in MOS literature. Our research on the perception of organizational members from Brazil of a colonial expression has highlighted that there is significant potential for broadening out our theorization of workplace resistance, namely from a decolonial perspective.

Conclusion and future directions

This study sought to extend and enrichen our knowledge on workplace resistance by adopting a decolonial lens. Our empirical analysis anchored in qualitative research on border thinking by using the common Brazilian adage “For the English to See” helps further our understanding of decolonial workplace resistance. Our data analysis helps us to see how resistance through re-existence is not so self-evident, straightforward or universal. Indeed, we find that such resistance through re-existence occurs in circumstances where the colonized subject is able to self-identify as such. Here the importance of creating their own world, systems and language is paramount (Anzaldúa, 2001). Our findings also lend further evidence and credence to decolonial theoretical concepts such as “in-between spaces” (Mignolo and Escobar, 2007); “border thinking”; and “colonial difference” which, emerge from the meshing of traditional and modern knowledge (Mignolo, 2007, 2011). Overall, our study advances Bhabha’s postcolonial perspective on hybridity through “border thinking” or “borderization” as coined by Anzaldúa (1987), which we contend has been largely overlooked within MOS literature. Our study shows that resisting by re-existence is full of contradictions along the full spectrum of submission to confrontation.

In the end, we argue that the literature on resistance within MOS has been helpful to comprehend this phenomenon, albeit in northern contexts thereby neglecting the Global South. From the decolonial investigation of the current uses of the expression by Brazilian professionals “For the English to See,” we call for resistance scholars within MOS to widen their theoretical lens by adopting a decolonial one. Our interviewees, colonized subjects (from Brazil) displayed some acknowledgement, in the way they articulated their own unique forms of resistance that fit within the realms of the colonizers’ imaginary. We encourage mainstream organizational research scholars to incorporate decolonial logics into their research agendas and studies. In short resisting by re-existing opens the space to re-think resistance from the gaze of the colonized subject as opposed to the current one of the colonizer. We also suggest further studies on workplace resistance in other marginalized contexts to explore how resistance compares with the realities of Brazilian organizational life. For example, to what extent is resisting by re-existence applicable and valid in other postcolonial settings within the global south? How can other commonly used colloquial phrases steeped in coloniality further our understanding of workplace resistance? Secondly, we also recommend researchers to examine under what conditions resisting by re-existence can flourish. Last, but not least, in any event, we believe that this new scenario of resistance from the south reveals a qualitative change in the perception of the reality of the social environment from subaltern voices.