Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Drawing on the poetic work of Audre Lorde on anger and inspired by recent expressions of collective anger against the many regimes of inequality and injustice in the neoliberal business school, this essay aims to delineate the contours of a reinvented minoritarian critique that emerges through the undercommons, a fugitive, non-reformist collective mode of relating to this oppressive institution. I first discuss the concept of Lordean rage, a collective and transformative form of anger at intersecting social injustices, and I reflect on its role as an affective self-defense for those in oppositional presence to the business school. I then discuss how through the undercommons, we can think differently about how we relate to the institution, and how Lordean rage manifests an uncompromising and generative presence-in-anger for those who want to exist in dignity within and against the business school. This essay aspires to reinvigorate spaces of critique in MOS with a stronger poetic, inventive, and oppositional spirit nourished by a capacious collective rage at the neoliberal business school and its multiple regimes of injustice.

Keywords

Academia anger Audre Lorde business school critique poetics rage self-defense undercommons

I cannot hide my anger to spare you guilt, nor hurt feelings, nor answering anger; for to do so insults and trivializes all our efforts.

Audre Lorde, On the Uses of Anger: Women Responding to Racism (1984)

It cannot be denied that the university is a place of refuge, and it cannot be accepted that the university is a place of enlightenment. In the face of these conditions one can only sneak into the university and steal what one can. To abuse its hospitality, to spite its mission, to join its refugee colony, its gypsy encampment, to be in but not of—this is the path of the subversive intellectual in the modern university.

Fred Moten & Stefano Harney, The University and the Undercommons: Seven Theses (2004)

Today, anger is an increasingly shared emotion in academia (Ekstasis et al., 2025; McCann et al., 2020; Tim-adicals Writing Collective, 2017; Weatherall, 2021); it takes multiple shapes and stems from a variety of sources, but anger is often a response to the systemic injustices and symbolic violence inflicted daily by a global higher education system driven by the brutal logic of racial capitalism in its current neoliberal articulation. In recent years, a number of reflections on anger toward the state of academia have emerged (Doharty, 2020; Gregory and Singh, 2018) but fewer have addressed this emotional reaction in Management and Organization Studies despite a welcome efflorescence of literature on affects (Fotaki et al., 2017; Fotaki and Pullen, 2019; Hunter and Kivinen, 2022). A notable exception is the recent work on moral anger (Kulkarni, 2024; Lindebaum and Gabriel, 2016; Lindebaum and Geddes, 2016), a form of anger at injustice that results from the breaking of social order. Anger is not only a moral but also a strongly collective political emotion. In fact, Carol Gilligan called it “the political emotion par excellence—the bellwether of oppression, injustice, bad treatment; the clue that something is wrong in the relational surround.” (Gilligan,1990: 290) It is less the moral dimension of anger that I focus on in this essay than its energetic collective nature and its poetic force against injustice. This understanding of anger is firmly positioned within a general ‘positive turn’ on anger in the recent years, more specifically from feminists (Dege, 2024). This essay aims at thinking alongside what philosopher Myisha Cherry calls Lordean rage (2021), a very specific type of anger that is grounded in a history of domination and a genealogy of struggle. This anger toward a variety of intersecting social injustices was theorized by Audre Lorde- a self-defined Black lesbian poet and one of the most powerful voices of Black feminism- as a transformative and generative collective force to fight racism and other social wrongs. Lorde continuously called for a channeling of anger into collective action and to “fight injustice and respect the reality of one’s anger without being destroyed by it” (Lorde, 2007: 129).

In this essay, I am interested more specifically in the existence of another mode of relating in anger to the unjust and inhospitable context of the neoliberal business school. By business school, I specifically mean the institutional assemblage that provides higher education in business and management but also serves as an ideological conduit for the consolidation worldwide of a market-driven neoliberal logic (Fotaki and Prasad, 2015). The business school, regardless of its location in the world today, is the site of the production and dissemination of the current dominant western-centric management knowledge, and its practices are often representative of an underlying integrated western straight male point of view (Abdallah et al., 2025; Muzanenhamo and Chowdhury, 2023; Vijay et al., 2025). When it comes to the neoliberal business school, I also share the critiques highlighting the colonial and racial logics still underpinning the functioning and the articulation of social and professional relationships within that educational institution (Dar et al., 2021). In this essay however, I want to center a particular affective relationality of a number of academics with/within the neoliberal business school. Premised on a relational understanding of emotions as “not simply individual, psychological reactions but intersubjective, collective experiences” (Goodwin and Pfaff, 2001: 283), I suggest that the collective anger felt by an increasing number of academics toward the business school is not as a momentary or chronic individual emotion but a collective permanent relationship with this oppressive institutional enclosure. The aim of this essay is to switch the perspective from the usual binary of despair and hope that animates most of the traditional critique of the business school to offer the outline of an alternative minoritarian critique emerging from a collective mode of relating in anger with the institution. The proposed critique is neither hopeless about the current state of the business school, nor does it seek to ‘civilize’ or reform it (Colombo, 2023), but it acknowledges the antagonism that is constitutive of the institution and the inevitability of a collective Lordean rage toward its many injustices.

My writing is anchored in my own lived experience of being in the perpetual throes of what Elona Hoover calls ‘affective agencies of discomfort’ within the business school (Hoover, 2022). It draws on my shaky learning to ‘stay with the trouble’ (Haraway, 2016) and to accept that to stay with discomfort implies “a postponing of the tendency to swiftly reach towards a hopeful future” (Hoover, 2022: 143) and opt instead for a presence-in-anger to an institution that I came to understand as beyond ‘saving’. This uncomfortable relationality to the institution, carried by a sustained anger toward its questionable functioning is what I would like to conceptualize here as the business school undercommons. This discomfort is less subjective than it is an expression of the contradictory and violent entanglements of material and discursive relations that business school academics constantly need to face. I offer to address this not as a position of despair or pessimism but as a generative source of creativity driven by an anger that Audre Lorde thought as a strong mode of building community. Rather than discussing the value of anger, its consequences and various declinations¹, I suggest it can be the drive of a possible re-enchantment of existence in the business school. Channeling our Lordean rage has the potential to take us beyond the constricted discourses of reform or despair to be present to the ongoing inevitable antagonism of all social life and to the fact that there always is a fugitive position within the institutional enclosure. That fugitive position is less about escaping the system than a state of continuous refusal to ‘settle’ in both meanings of the word: settling physically in the fake comfort of the institutional enclosure but also, and more importantly, settling for its oppressive practices.

In what follows, I will endeavour to be true to Adorno’s view that “the law of the innermost form of the essay is heresy” (Adorno et al., 1984: 171). The undercommons are a heresy for the establishment and for those who embody the centre point of enunciation (of knowledge, purpose, procedures, or general institutional functioning). But the undercommons persist in offering an escape within the business school and in what follows, I will discuss what I mean by that. I will then consider Lordean rage and its multiple articulations and show how that rage can take the form of an affective self-defense that capacitates the refusal of a coopted critical presence in the business school. I will end this essay by inviting us to reinvigorate spaces of critique in MOS with a stronger poetic, inventive, and oppositional spirit nourished by a capacious rage at the neoliberal business school and its violent dysfunctionalities.

The business school undercommons: Relating beyond critique or reform

The business school is arguably the most archetypal representation of the technocratic and managerialist model of ‘Global academia’ today (McCann et al., 2020; Münch, 2014). As Laura Colombo rightly describes it, “the business school systematically fails to care about those who care, narrowly focused as it is on producing outputs to achieve high levels of performance, measured through research outputs, journal rankings, employability rates, etc.” (Colombo, 2023: 135). Indeed, fierce competition for resources and symbolic status, obsession with metrics, struggles to find and keep employment positions for recent graduates, overexertion of faculty, pay freezes, staff cuts, crippling student debt, insidious practices of discrimination against minorities, sexual misconducts, increased feelings of isolation and anxiety, and a profound loss of faith in a better future, are all constitutive of the business school experience today (Parker, 2018). With every new day surfaces a new account of wide and multilayered mistreatment, mismanagement, mishandling or abuse targeting racialized and/or financially overburdened students and faculty, chronically overworked staff, and a generally overextended system of ‘total administration’ (Dar et al., 2021; McCann et al., 2020; Ozturk and Berber, 2022; Zulfiqar and Prasad, 2021). This litany of crises big and small has been described at length in the recent years with various degrees of bleakness (Fleming, 2021). However, following Dar’s recent intervention to “unsettle, contaminate and challenge [. . .] the linearity of white masculine despair” (Dar, 2022: 149) of Fleming’s book and its accompanying universalizing assumptions, I would like to foreground the existence and the political transformative potential of a generative minoritarian mode of angry relationality to the business school’s oppressive institutional realm. By minoritarian, I refer to Cindi Katz’s definition of the minor as the expression of “a particular and undermining relationship to mastery” (Katz, 1996: 492; Katz, 2017) not as a numerary entity. Here, minority is an oppositional standpoint not a number. If the major is the source of enunciation, the minor is a category that opposes it and constantly questions and unsettles it. In other words, “the ‘minor’ is not so much a stable form existing in opposition to something major” but is “relentlessly transformative and inextricably relational.” (Katz, 1996: 489). A number of minoritarian initiatives have emerged in recent years from the folds of the academy and have created multiple pockets of action that, for the most part, are driven by angry reactions toward the many injustices of the neoliberal academic machine. These ‘minor gestures’ (Manning, 2016; Vachhani et al., 2024) vary in levels of formalization and organizing but constitute various strata of reluctance toward the dominant practices. Some recent examples of these minoritarian engagements are the creation of Tim-adicals, a self-proclaimed ‘timid but radical’ writing collective of academics whose “goal is to tease apart the injustices, vulnerabilities and complicities of our workplaces” (Tim-adicals Writing Collective, 2017: 692), or the emergence of communities supporting women of colour managing their career and wellbeing in an increasingly hostile academia like the Women’s Café² in the UK, or the recent creation of Ekstasis, a collective whose goal is “to collaboratively re-think management research and education through promoting experimental, philosophical and critical thought” (Ekstasis et al., 2025). These collectives are often carried by a powerful shared anger aimed at the multiple systemic injustices within the university’s symbolic, intellectual and material confines. In Tim-adicals’ words, “we choose to work from the simple principle that injustice is perpetuated when the work, lives, and dignity of certain individuals and groups are valued less than others” (Tim-adicals Writing Collective, 2017: 692).

I argue here that an organic critique of the business school has always existed in its own separate realm: a minoritarian, oppositional stratum of relating to the institution that is neither drawn to a professional mode of critiquing and despairing, nor to a reformist hope of ‘improving’ the business school. To do so, I am beholden to the idea that Stefano Harney and Fred Moten call the undercommons (Harney and Moten, 2013). Reluctant to offer a strict definition of it, they refer to it as composed of “Maroon communities of composition teachers, mentorless graduate students, adjunct Marxist historians, out or queer management professors, state college ethnic studies departments, closed-down film programs, visa-expired Yemeni student, newspaper editors, historically Black college sociologists, and feminist engineers. And what will the university say of them? It will say they are unprofessional.” (Moten and Harney, 2004: 104). The undercommons refuse the logic of assimilation into the university as a site of professionalization, academic capture and capitalist extraction. The undercommons is the idea that for those who never feel at ease within the institution, there is always an alternative, a possibility of refusal to be coopted. For the Undercommoning Collective, a network of radical academic organizers mostly centered in North America, the undercommons are “networks of rebellious solidarity that interlace within, against and beyond dominant institutions and power structures” (Undercommoning Collective, 2016). In the undercommons, shared practices of non-belonging and dissent, shape a constantly reinvented sociality of being “in the university but not of it” (Moten and Harney, 2004: 101). In other words, to be in the undercommons is to be driven by a fugitive spirit and a “fugitive convivial praxis” (Rashid et al., 2023) that needs to escape the institutional symbolic, material and epistemic enclosure³.

I would like to build on those ideas to offer the undercommons as a possible mode of conceptualizing an alternative relationality to the business school, an unfaltering presence-in-anger to its unhospitable nature. The undercommons is not an alternative space or location of critique but an uncomfortable relationship to the business school. Harney & Moten talk about the undercommons as a dis-location (2013: 91), a break from locating oneself, a break from established structures. In Fred Moten’s opus In the Break (2003), he theorizes the break- amongst other conjectures- as that moment in Jazz or Hip-Hop music when musicians step out of the rhythmic structure to improvise and explore other modes of relating to the music. The dis-location or break of the undercommons are another way of being in but not of the business school. The undercommons are a mode of relating to the institution that is driven by a resolute and tenacious resistance to and refusal of the crushing neoliberal machine. It is a shared inimical orientation to the business school that refuses to settle for the academy of misery (Halberstam, 2013). In other words, the undercommons recognize the power of the oppressive institution but make do with it and try, day in and day out, to collectively create pockets of escape, or fleeting moments of shared freedom and reinvented practices. Being in the undercommons of the business school is being in a permanent state of theoretical, epistemic, and practical displacement; it often entails finding enclaves that constitute “where we have come to understand ourselves as second-shift workers engaging in fugitive planning so that we might survive ‘academic capitalism.’” (McCann et al., 2021: 115). The feminist concept of second shift (Hochschild and Machung, 2012) is akin here to a parallel history of academic life, one that structural injustice makes inevitable. However, second shift work also incidentally capacitates an undercommon oppositional relationship to institutional enclosures as Bryan McCann and colleagues explain: “second-shift labors performed in what we call undercommon enclaves are constitutive of oppositional narratives that help render our first shifts more livable and productive, and, at times, mobilize strategies of resistance.” (McCann et al., 2021: 114)

The undercommons characterize the particular relationship that people who face daily oppression and intersecting discriminations on the basis of their gender status, sexual inclinations, racial assignation, body ability, class alignment, or even visa status, enact toward the business school. It is the specific subversive and minoritarian relationality that results from what Iris Marion Young called ‘structural injustice’ or a categorical assignment that reproduces and maintains inequality (Young, 2008). That relationality is constituted by “the (implicit or explicit) expression of material and discursive relations, not an objectively or subjectively measurable condition” (Hoover, 2022: 146). The undercommons are a presence-in-anger relationship to an oppressive institutional enclosure but they are also a presence-in-resistance and a presence-in-dissent that are manifested by a motley crew of racialized, minoritized, excluded, invisibilized, discontented academics that are often the most impacted by academia’s precarity and symbolic violence (Abreu-Pederzini and Suárez-Barraza, 2020; Bourabain, 2021; Dar et al., 2021; Grier and Poole, 2020; Settles et al., 2021). Building on my own professional experience, the many conversations with colleagues and students over the years as well as the springing of varied initiatives that I’ll discuss further in the essay, I propose that there is a collective minoritarian anger within the business school that stands against the many injustices and inequalities resulting from its neoliberal ethos (Fotaki and Prasad, 2015) and that it is a specific type of anger, close to what is termed Lordean rage, that is at play (Cherry, 2021). I’ll describe Lordean rage below and show how it is a powerful tool of affective self-defense for those who have not much power left in the system. Lordean rage, is ultimately an affective mode of survival in the business school undercommons.

A genealogy of Lordean rage: Audre Lorde and the poetics of anger

Historically, collective anger has been the source of profound societal transformations. From the fights for decolonization around the world to the movement for Civil Rights, #MeToo, and Black Lives Matter. Meaningful action against oppression has always been the result of anger and indignation channeled collectively. Today, the dominant point of view on anger is a liberal one that places consensus at the heart of societal functioning and abhors antagonism and conflict (Contu, 2019; Nussbaum, 2016). The systematic rejection of anger as negative, counterproductive, and irrational is often advocated by proponents of the liberal status quo for whom ‘shaking the boat’ is unrequired. This vision of society is that of the powerful, those who are displeased with the demands of those on whose backs the established order is maintained and consolidated. In academia, examples of the silencing of dissident voices abound. Amongst them blatant practices of dismissal and exclusion of angry minoritized and racialized academics (women and people of colour) from centers of power (Corbin et al., 2018; Rodriguez and Boahene, 2012), practices of silencing through tone policing or tone vigilance (Bailey, 2018), racially driven hiring practices (Grier and Poole, 2020) or what has been deemed ‘subtle racism’ (Mandalaki and Prasad, 2024). These practices of domesticating anger act as techniques of subjugation aimed at keeping the peace and refusing any questioning of the established order. They softly nudge individuals to swallow their pride and to move on for the sake of ‘caring’ for others. A great illustration of those practices is given by Audre Lorde when she recalls the way a white woman reacted to her reflections on anger at an academic conference: “Tell me how you feel but don’t say it too harshly or I cannot hear you” the white woman said, to which Lorde answered: “But is it my manner that keeps you from hearing, or the threat of a message that [your] life may change?” (Lorde, 2007: 125)

There is an extended genealogy of anger studies in feminisms of colour that stretches from the powerful interpellation of Sojourner Truth in her Ain’t I a woman? speech at the Woman’s Rights Convention in Ohio in 1851 to the vibrant determination of Gloria Anzaldua and Cherrie Moraga to put women of colour at center stage in their remarkable anthology This Bridge that is my Back (1983); and from Ida B. Wells’ indefatigable campaigns against lynching and for women suffrage to bell hooks’s hopeful determination in Killing Rage: Ending racism (1996). Many Black feminists and feminists of colour have given a particular attention to anger and rage (often taken as synonymous) against an unjust sexist, racist, homophobic society. In MOS, recent engagements with Black and decolonial feminisms have also discussed the critical role played by anger against racial and gender inequalities even if anger was not central to that work (Bell et al., 2021; Fotaki and Pullen, 2024; Liu, 2019, 2022, 2024; Manning, 2021; Paludi et al., 2019). Interestingly, the recent work on caste also denotes an important implied level of rage and anger even if it is not explicitly addressed in the papers (Bapuji et al., 2024; Chrispal et al., 2021). However, despite the relevance of that literature, more work in MOS needs to address anger within a broader social context rather than relying on individualized psychology-driven approaches (Elfenbein, 2023).

In order to understand the concept of Lordean rage developed by philosopher Myisha Cherry and that I center in this essay, an important detour via the work of Audre Lorde is crucial. In The Uses of Anger, Lorde proposes that anger has a particular form of energy and force she calls ‘erotic’ that transcends the “tyrannies of silence” (2007: 40). She proceeds to develop- amongst many poetic gems- three main arguments about anger. First, Lorde articulates how anger is born of the deep-seated injustices resulting from racism and sexism. Focusing particularly on racism, she shows how that “belief in the inherent superiority of one race over all others and thereby the right to dominance” (2007: 124) is rooted in a very specific understanding of ‘difference’. She discusses the three ways ‘difference’ is usually dealt with in American society: It is either ignored, tolerated or destroyed. When it is tolerated, it is in fact considered inferior and its eradication tends to be an irremediable corollary. Tolerance becomes a tool of ordering society, of keeping ‘difference’ in its place, in sum, a mechanic of oppression. The subsequent work of Wendy Brown on tolerance builds on the ideas developed by Lorde and shows how tolerance, lauded as the only possible way of co-existence in a pluralist society by classical liberal thought (Murphy, 1997), works to depoliticize, naturalize and culturalize ‘difference’ without any concern for the material and historical conditions that produced and maintained that ‘difference’ in the first place (Brown, 2006). For Lorde, the superiority over ‘difference’ is at the source of social injustice and results in a profound anger for the oppressed or the ‘different’.

The second axis developed by Lorde is that anger can be a radical tool to destroy the Master’s house⁴ and that radical tool consists of a powerful energy, an erotic force. The erotic for Lorde is not to be amalgamated with the sexual or the pornographic. The erotic is a lifeforce, a vital spirit that is in all of us that has been wrongly reduced and restricted to the sexual sphere. The pornographic for her, characterizes an objectifying gaze that simultaneously negates to the person the possibility to look back (Palazzi, 2023). It is a particular regime of visuality that is “a direct denial of the power of the erotic, for it represents the suppression of true feeling” (Lorde, 2007: 54). In other words, the pornographic is a regime of power that reduces an object or a person to what they are determined to be in the eye of the power holder, it is a tool for oppression not liberation for Lorde. The erotic is what liberates because it comes from feeling and not sensations, which for Lorde is the source of a creative energy: “When I speak of the erotic, then, I speak of it as an assertion of the lifeforce of women; of that creative energy empowered, the knowledge and use of which we are now reclaiming in our language, our history, our dancing, our loving, our work, our lives.” (2007: 55). Out of that raw vitality, we can express ourselves fully and limitlessly. Its vibrancy irradiates every aspect of our interactions with the world. The erotic for Lorde has to do with touch, with the haptic, with being-in-touch with oneself and the universe. It is a radical expansive mode of being that determines a new type of relationality, one that channels a variety of affects (amongst them anger) toward action and transformation.

Finally, Lorde defends the idea that rage, if connected to that erotic lifeforce can lead to action and lead to change rather than destruction and self-hate. This ‘productive’ dimension of rage is critical for Lorde who seeks to develop a poetics of anger, an ecology of rage (Palazzi, 2023) that thrives on love rather than hate. For Lorde, those whose anger is driven by hate “believe they have nothing to learn from the people whom they hate” (Lorde, 2007: 124) whereas the erotic anger she offers is driven by love and transformation. In her poetic engagement Lorde asserted that “Anger expressed and translated into action in the service of our vision and our future is a liberating and strengthening act of clarification.” (Lorde, 2007: 127). It is this sense of wonder and possibility that years later feminist philosopher Sara Ahmed also sees in anger when it is not silenced but transformed into collective action. Anger at systemic injustice she says, is not anger against but also anger for, leading to something that has yet to be articulated. In that sense, anger is never fully determined and can be visionary (Ahmed, 2003).

The term Lordean rage coined by philosopher Myisha Cherry in her book The Case for Rage (2021) was developed from her close reading of Audre Lorde’s articulations of anger that are described above as well as from her precise and informed reading of Black feminist thought. Alongside what she terms rogue rage (‘me against the world’ rage), wipe rage (rage at a specific ethnic group or at minorities), resentment age (anger at being disempowered), and narcissistic rage (anger determined by egocentric self-entitlement), which all share an inward looking, person-centered anger, Lordean rage is for Cherry “metabolized anger—the virtuous channeling of the power and energy of anger without the desire to harm or pass pain” (Cherry, 2021: 24). Lordean rage is transformative anger; it is very different from anger that seeks revenge or retribution. It has a collective dimension, and it seeks to energize into actions that can be small but are always altering oppression in one way or another. Myisha Cherry extends the reach of Audre Lorde’s thinking about anger to more recent iterations of the fight against racism and sexism (alongside other social injustices such as homophobia, ableism, and a variety of other discriminations). Cherry conceptualizes Lordean rage essentially as a liberating collective practice and defends its powerful political nature (Cherry, 2022). It is important to note that Cherry never defends Lordean rage as virtuous, or irreproachable, but she discusses it is a ‘non-ideal emotion in a non-ideal world’, and she argues that it is critical and essential because, Lordean rage is not itself the issue, but it is “a clarifying response to the problem of injustice” (Cherry, 2021: 8).

Lordean rage is rooted in oppression, or rather, in the realization of one’s own oppression. For philosopher Céline Leboeuf “anger is revealed to be a political emotion in the sense that it enables members of oppressed groups to reaffirm themselves under oppressive conditions” (Leboeuf, 2018: 24). The concept of Lordean rage builds on Lorde but also on a long tradition of feminist philosophy and Black studies scholarship that argues for the inherent value of anger to fight oppression (Chemaly, 2018; Frye, 1983; Lugones, 1995; West, 2016). Lordean rage was articulated more recently by Brittany Cooper as an ‘eloquent rage’ (2018), not a problem per se but an appropriate response to a problem (Srinivasan, 2018) by those who usually bear an “evidentiary burden” (Cherry, 2021: 45), an obligation of justification of their anger which in itself, constitutes a form of epistemic injustice. For Cherry, Lordean rage builds on a “triple emotional burden of oppression” (2021: 45): experiencing the injustice, carrying an emotional response to it, and being constantly asked to convince others of the legitimacy of that emotional response. Interestingly, on the question of anger’s legitimacy, Lugones (1995) brilliantly shows that anger of the oppressed is always de-legitimized by the powerful who set the realm of legitimacy in which that anger is received in the first place. For her, anger has two orders: a first order, that is essentially communicative and needs to be expressed and heard, but she suggests that there is a second order to anger of the oppressed that rejects norms around what is deemed acceptable or legitimate in their anger. She goes on to offer that the oppressed change the frame of intelligibility of anger and posit it as a refusal of the hegemonic terms of order always already decided by the center of power. Lordean rage is close in meaning to that second order anger that shifts the focus from a reading of anger as an individual affect, reacting to a specific ‘trigger’, to a complete reconfiguration of one’s relation to what made that ‘trigger’ exist in the first place. In other words, Lordean rage is a rage against what made racial and social injustices possible, it is a structural rage, one that aims less at ‘pacifying’ society and more at radically transforming it. Lordean rage within that framework can therefore do without the approval or rejection of its aptness by the powerful (Srinivasan, 2018). It does not seek legitimate recognition from those who are in power but wants to change the legibility of the world imposed by the powerful. As such, Lordean rage comes to embody an inherent form of sovereignty and dignity to those who channel it. It is an energy, a breath of life, a vital spark that generates its own transformative spirit. Lordean rage is not pathological anger but a path to salvation for those who stand in opposition to an oppressive machine.

In the context of business school, Lordean rage is not a person-centric rage, it constitutes something akin to a collective emotional and relational energy (Baker, 2019). It is that energy that also holds the undercommons and that creates affective solidarity (Vachhani and Pullen, 2019). It is perfectly illustrated by the Ekstasis collective created by a group of angry business school academics who also organized a workshop at the 2023 Critical Management Studies Conference entitled Fifty shades of Rage: Prefiguring a school for organising. The paper published in Ephemera in 2025 in the wake of that workshop (Ekstasis et al., 2025) discusses how Ekstasis initiatives echoed with a surprisingly large number of business academics at all career stages who feel increasingly alienated and enraged by ruthless practices such as the reliance on unattainable metrics, gendered invisible work, unfair promotion and tenure practices, increased precarity, silencing of dissenting voices, and a lack of collective action to tackle broader issues such as climate change and systemic racism (Blell et al., 2023; Bourabain, 2021; Dar et al., 2021; Jashnani, 2025; Pyke, 2018; Rodríguez, 2018). Their Lordean rage stems from the continuous deterioration of their working and living conditions and more poignantly for some of them, it is fueled by the ‘evidentiary burden’ (Cherry, 2021) that they are asked to carry to constantly provide illustrations and concrete examples of the way they are being discriminated against. Lordean rage is reignited every time these claims are doubted or questioned or gaslighted and every time a call for more justice is expressed. Lordean rage in the business school is not only a collective transformative energy that comes from sharing outrage against the many injustices experienced and witnessed, but also a way to exist in anger together in an increasingly atomized and atomizing context. For those who feel Lordean rage, the goal is not retribution or revenge, it is to stand together in solidarity and help each other reclaim dignity in a crushing context. Lordean rage fuels a collective energy of survival in hostile contexts that acts both as a generative force for change and a way to refuse a well-established system of domination that uses soft technologies of subjugation to incessantly tame and discipline people into compliance and renunciation. What being moved by Lordean rage offers for instance, is a collective subversive answer to the calls for more ‘ontological empathy’ in the research field (Prasad and Śliwa, 2022) that posit anger as pathological and antithetical to thriving and that offer forgiveness and letting go as appropriate caring practices. Lordean rage is an apt response to the hegemony of discourses of benevolence and empathy that nourish the status quo and end up silencing those they were supposed to stand in empathy with whilst constantly reminding them to be nice to each other and swallow their grievances⁵. Disregarding anger as inappropriate and labeling it ‘unhealthy’ misses the point. It psychologizes it and leads to a pervasive ‘hush culture’ that perpetuates the existing dominating order under the guise of care and implicitly delegitimizes any manifestation of anger toward the system as unpleasant, unhelpful, and unproductive. I argue in what follows that delegitimizing Lordean rage, rather than invalidate it, reaffirms its aptness, and in so doing, cements it as an affective mode of preservation and survival.

Lordean rage as affective self-defense

In her book Self-defense- A genealogy of violence (2022), philosopher Elsa Dorlin demonstrates that there always was a double genealogy to defending oneself: one that was considered ‘legitimate’ and that stood for the protection of privileges (wealth, whiteness, masculinity) and the other that was deemed ‘rogue’, illegitimate, unlawful and that originated in subalternity and oppression (enslaved peoples uprisings, anticolonial fights, feminists movements and, in academia, Rhodes Must Fall, Decolonize my Curriculum, #MeToo, etc.). This double genealogy also applies to Lordean rage. In other words, some are allowed to be angry and manifest it whereas others are pathologized, silenced, gaslighted because of it. Indeed, depending on who it is attributed to, anger can be welcomed as a healthy youthful and rebellious mindset like it is depicted in this laudatory portrait of the Business School Dean at Bentley University titled “The ‘Angry Young Man’ Who Became A Business School Dean” (Damast, 2015), or that same anger becomes an ‘intellectual bondage’ that ‘Angry Black women’ academic are consistently reduced to and are still made to carry (Doharty, 2020).

The double genealogy of anger carries at its heart the indignation and injustice that Audre Lorde’s writing so poetically depicts. It is what feminist philosopher Amia Srinivasan calls ‘affective injustice’ (2018), the unequal access to legitimate rage, or as she explains it, “the injustice of having to negotiate between one’s apt emotional response to the injustice of one’s situation and one’s desire to better one’s situation” (Srinivasan, 2018: 13). The impossibility of that feeling of injustice runs parallel to the historical impossibility for racialized and minoritized subjects to defend themselves. Historically and as shown in Dorlin’s work (2019), there were always two polarized conceptions of ‘the self’ to be defended: a juridical-political tradition of legitimate defense articulated to various practices of biopower, and a ‘dark’ fugitive resistance to those practices through a continuous struggle to reclaim bodily integrity and dignity that she calls a “martial ethics of self” (2019: 8). The ontological question is key here: who are the selves that are legitimated in their anger and those who are not?

I came to reflect upon these questions as I realized that I was taken by an immense and overwhelming feeling of rage that lasted for years. I was, as the expression goes, beside myself with anger on multiple instances in which I realized that my anger was never seen as legitimate but always approached as either ‘unjustified’, ‘exaggerated’, ‘extreme’, or even ‘ridiculous’. Interestingly, to be ‘beside oneself’ is how Frantz Fanon (1963) defines the state of being colonized. To be outside of your body, alienated, in a position of exteriority that whilst suspended in time and space allows for a better general view. There is lucidity in anger – Lugones (1995) talks about the “clear-headedness of anger” - and the paradox of being beside oneself is that it is only by experiencing it that you give body to that anger. Collectively, angry bodies are powerful, they march, they protest, they build encampments, but they also constitute themselves politically. By being together in Lordean rage, we also become political subjects. For Fanon, the only way to liberate the colonized was to liberate their anger and welcome it as a new act of subjectification. In his radical view of anger, you become a subject when you embody your rage. By becoming a subject, one recognizes oneself and is recognized as such and therefore, can act. The anger shared by those who are not legitimated to express it can become a source of recognition, care and self-respect if used in the Lordean sense. It becomes a form of affective self-defense against an unjust world. In situations where the double-bind of being wronged and not being allowed to manifest any emotional reaction to it, Lordean rage, the erotic life-driven energy of rage becomes the only form of affective self-defense available to those who are never really recognized as legitimate angry subjects. It is an anger that propels collectives forward (Contu, 2018, 2020; Ekstasis et al., 2025) and serves as a conduit to self-respect and dignity.

A few hopeful calls were made recently to ‘civilize the business school’ (Colombo, 2023) and to collectively take action to make academia better and more livable (Contu, 2019; Korica, 2022). These engaged critiques and reflections are useful and welcome. Yet, I would like to push further in this essay and not call for more traditional critical modes of resistance in the business school (Alvesson and Szkudlarek, 2021; Rintamäki and Alvesson, 2023) or for more proposals for change. My aim is not to offer another ‘professional’ critique of the situation that would seek institutional validation and reinforce institutional norms without really contributing to the transformative change Lordean rage calls for. Today, the neoliberal business school “tolerates criticality to the extent it can domesticate and commodify such work in ways that reflect the norms of civil society” (McCann et al., 2021:115); this essay itself arguably contributes to the reinforcement of these institutional norms by appearing in a well-established critical journal. However, in line with the spirit that animates it, it is fugitive in the sense that it does not hope to improve or ‘fix’ the current situation or to offer advice to the powerful on how to achieve progress based on the multiple instances of past dissent. This is a non-reformist engagement that can be understood as a speculative practice or an ongoing rehearsal (Harney and Moten, 2013).

Through the idea of the undercommons, I would like to think and imagine a fugitive critique, an otherwise relation to the world (King et al., 2020), an alternative modality to being either a sycophant or an adversary of the university. It is a modality of critique rooted in refusal, not in disengagement; an active refusal to be coopted affectively by the neoliberal machine. I would like to suggest that there is another mode of relating to the business school that has to make do with the situation but that is also not interested in offering superficial improvements to an unjust and dysfunctional system. Adjacent to the master narratives of decline and deterioration, there was always an alternative oppositional dissenting narrative, one that existed outside the official borders of the knowledge enclosure, a narrative of escape, of circumvention, of sidestep. This is illustrated in the words of the Undercommoning Collective, a self-described “North American network of radical organizers operating within, against, and beyond the (neo)liberal, (neo)colonial university.” In their founding essay, they state the following: “We refuse to suffer silently the depression and anxieties the university-as-such and its constant crises instill, trigger and exploit. We will not relinquish the senses of radical wonder, passionate curiosity, and critical integrity we create together. We insist that the splendor of the university is not to be found in the mahogany or the oak of its aristocratic chambers but in the tapestry and grain of insurgent collaborations” (Undercommoning Collective, 2016). This undercommoning spirit can be found in other initiatives through which minoritarian academics have built common bonds toward finding a way of surviving institutional hostility such as the creation of independent outsider community gatherings like Ekstasis, or the launch of the Peer Community in Organization Studies initiative⁶- an open access community that reviews, recommends and publishes papers in a collaborative and transparent manner. There always was a collective shared experience of anger born of marginalization, invisibilization, gendering, exclusion, de-legitimation, a “space of minor knowledges and experiences that do not seek to become a major or representative form, instead forming tools from discarded refuse and remains” (Shukaitis, 2009: 167) that led to enact/embody the notion of survivance. In the words of indigenous poet and scholar Gerald Vizenor “Survivance is not just survival but also resistance, not heroic or tragic, but the tease of tradition, and my sense of survivance outwits dominance and victimry” (Vizenor, 1999: 93). Survivance is a modality of being outside the traditional dichotomies of adherence or critique. It is based on an understanding that refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the system that delegitimizes and crushes you and simultaneously refusing to be seen as solely a victim of it, is a strong act of reclaiming your dignity.

For a poetics of rage in the business school undercommons

In business schools, where ostentatious demonstrations of dissent are rare, multiple forms of mundane, daily micro-resistances outside of the established social normative structures are happening (Parker, 2021). Recently, MOS scholars have drawn attention to the role played by business in the deep-seated social injustices that the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated further. They challenged the ideological foundations of racial, gender, environmental, and labor regimes of inequality globally, and through that, they are also openly embracing their anger toward an indefensible system (Peredo et al., 2022). This anger, akin to Lordean rage, is to be welcomed and embraced. In fact, it is salutary in a burning world.

Here, the use of time is key. Today, how we employ our time is implacably determined by the institution (Means, 2021). We are entrapped in neoliberal time in the business school. Worse, our relationship with time is fraught. Indeed, Shahjahan (2020) shows that neoliberal time in academia functions through a shame logic that subordinates and disciplines academics whose various socializations are based on integrating that dominant conception of time. However, the spirit of the undercommons subversively reminds us that “in the face of these conditions, one can only sneak into the university and steal what one can” (Moten and Harney, 2004:), what we can steal is time. Changing our mode of relating to the institution by fugitively reinventing ways to escape institutional time is profoundly subversive because time is the shape of capitalism today. Time is the ultimate power and the institutional assemblages that construct, (re)produce and solidify time, hold the system together.

Some of us create new paths, new modes of teaching and learning and some play with the rules, slightly bending them, and by doing that, help others in various unruly ways. The forced reliance on virtual platforms following the recent global pandemic despite its cost for academics and students opened several fugitive paths from the policies of relationality imposed by the institution in the form of cross-disciplinary study and writing groups, collective online spaces, mentorship initiatives, support systems, informal seminars, etc. From Barbara Grant’s systematically muting her microphone against her department’s injunctions as an act of refusal of the post-pandemic normalization of problematic teaching policies (Grant, 2021: 539), to the recent polyphonic autoethnographic collective engagement of a group of self-described minority academics entitled Acting with intentional dissent (Bennett et al., 2023), new modalities of academic refusal are emerging and flourishing. Examples of collective subversive and oblique responses to assaults are numerous. They are all animated by anger against an unjust system and all share the same spirit of refusal and the same reliance on esthetic modalities of being and resisting. Recently for instance, three women of colour academics From the University of Oregon who sought to develop a sense of self-worth and to find purpose amidst the assaults they experienced regularly, described how by creating a writing group and relying on a method they termed collective biography, they started to inhabit a specific realm of ‘academic becoming’. The collective biography meant to be a work read and performed collectively, is what they call an act of survivance or an active act of creation “of a collaborative space that is simultaneously outside and within the neoliberal settler colonial academy” (Brooks et al., 2018: 139).

The undercommons is a messy idea. I am aware of its ambiguities but rather than joining the sad chorus of those who judge it at best unpractical and at worst unreasonable and foolish, I welcome the idea of the undercommons as a sideways, quasi-anarchistic oppositional relationship to the oppressive structures. In the words of philosopher Marquis Bey, the undercommons is not a place you enter but a groove that enters you (Bey, 2019). The undercommons is a position where everything is shared, and everything is owed. We share Lordean rage born of ignominies big and small, and we share the knowledge that collectively there was always a way to escape the symbolic enclosure. But we also owe each other to always have one another’s backs. Being in the undercommons is a particular positionality in the business school which entails neither adhering nor playing the expected assigned role of ‘critic’. It means reclaiming a space of escape and freedom. This is not a new idea. These eclectic collectives of those who refuse the exclusionary and carceral logic of the neoliberal postcolony (Abdallah, 2025; Mbembe, 2001) have always found a way out of it. They are inside but out at the same time. They feel anger that it is neither destructive nor hateful but generative and hopeful. That anger is erotic and poetic in the Lordean sense, it is a lifeforce, a sustenance, a form of affective self-defense that is critical for survivance.

Being in the undercommons is also being in debt to one another, a debt that can never be paid off. In the undercommons, we give another sense to what is owed. It is the incalculable debt toward those who lift us, who teach us, who feed us, who stand with us. It is a reinvented relationality where individualized notions of performance and success lose their meaning because it is impossible to think and live on one’s own. In the undercommons, we are not so much ‘against’ the business school but in fugitive presence-in-anger to it. We are with other people in defiant presence to a system whose false meritocratic logic is based on flawed unquestioned assumptions of individual sovereignty (Harney, 2020) and whose foundations are built on the systematic eradication and invisibilization of alternative modalities of being and knowing. What we strive for is to not be enclosed or settled within the limits of a logic of critique that plays by the rules and never questions the established terms of order (Robinson, 1980). The undercommons are not a metaphor for a symbolic location of resistance but they are a mode of being and relating to the institution outside of the confines of what is already thought.

In her book The mushroom at the end of the world: on the possibility of life in capitalist ruins (2015), anthropologist Anna Tsing uses the poetic image of ‘patches of life’ to think how in disturbed landscapes and ecosystems like abandoned industrial sites or managed forests, multispecies life persistently emerges, in a complex web of interdependent relations, despite damaged environmental conditions. Anna Tsing shows how it is ultimately collaborative survival that enables life in capitalist ruins. Throughout the book, there is a determined insistence on the need to learn to notice the ‘unruly edges’ and pay attention to often-overlooked spaces where life continues in unexpected ways. The undercommons are ‘patches of life’ in the business school messed-up ecosystem; they offer us to stay with the unruly edges. They are a form of poetic ongoing re-enchantment, one in which we can reinvent the terms of engagement, and which is moved by a collective energy, a constant rage, an esthetic, what Lorde called a lifeforce.

There are many ways to be angry but also many ways to generate something from that anger. In Poetry is Not a Luxury, Audre Lorde urges women to use poetry to invent a new language to channel their rage and to reenchant their world. In all her work, she calls for a reinvestment of the erotic and the poetic. The energy of life and the beauty of life. For her, “poetry is not a luxury. It is a vital necessity of our existence. It forms the quality of the light within which we predicate our hopes and dreams toward survival and change, first made into language, then into idea, then into more tangible action. Poetry is the way we help give name to the nameless so it can be thought” (Lorde, 2007: 37). To Audre Lorde, poetry was not only an art, but a way of life (Hall, 2004). In the undercommons of the business school, a lot is still unthought, still to be birthed. The poetic force of anger toward a harmful and implacable institutional setting is what holds us together and what propels us forward. We need to forget about the master discourses of despair and decadence and invent our own fahlawa of existence (Yousfi, 2021), our own collective liberatory practices and language. “And where that language does not yet exist, it is our poetry which helps to fashion it. Poetry is not only dream or vision, it is the skeleton architecture of our lives” (Lorde, 2007: 37). We need to find our own poetic language of survivance, our ‘patch of life’ in the business school. The poetry of a mode of being and relating that is present to the violence and miseries yet refuses to be crushed by them.

This essay offers to consider that Lordean rage, “a non-ideal emotion, in a non-ideal society” (Dege, 2024: 602), can channel an alternative minoritarian collective modality of being within and against oppressive social structures like the business school, into a fugitive politics of embodiment and refusal. It is not a plea for rage in/at the business school but a call to give existing rage its due and recognize it as more than an unfortunate, pathological affective state but as a collective energy of survival. To live with anger is an ongoing challenge and is never easy. It is also an ambiguous emotion that carries its own limits (Lorde, 2007: 126). However, it is also a powerful energy that carries struggles forward and creates collective generative capacities. The collective nature of Lordean rage is ultimately what makes it fruitful. For feminist writer Sara Ahmed collective becoming is “based not on the possibility that we might be reconciled, but on learning to live with the impossibility of reconciliation, or learning to live with and beside each other, and yet we are not as one” (Ahmed, 2014: 39). Being collectively in Lordean rage in the undercommons of the business school is being fully aware of what the collective is: an ongoing production of antagonism.

Yet, to exist collectively in the undercommons of the business school is also to be held together by the erotic, “the power which comes from sharing deeply any pursuit with another person” (Lorde, 2007: 56), and held together by the poetic, the ability to see beauty but feel collective anger toward injustice at the same time. Being in the undercommons of the business school is being present in full acknowledgment that the neoliberal institution might never be overcome, but it is also knowing that our collective rage against it is our gift to survive it. This presence-in-anger and presence-in-refusal, held by the lifeforce of collective rage and its poetic capacities, is a relationality that doesn’t seek to master or extend power over anything but whose main aspiration, in the business school and elsewhere, is to stand in dignity in an increasingly undignified world.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Chahrazad Abdallah

Notes

Author Biography

Chahrazad Abdallah is Associate Professor, Université du Québec à Montréal in Canada. Her current research focuses on a renewed critique of the Business School as one of the main sites of reproduction of the neoliberal racial regime of capital and knowledge accumulation. Her most recent publications appear in Organization, Management Learning, and The Routledge Companion to Anthropology in Management.

References

Abdallah

(2025) ‘Against Mastery: Epistemic Decolonizing in the Margins of the Business School’, Management Learning 56: 389–400.

Abdallah

Dar

Kalemba

, et al. (2025) ‘Anti-Blackness in Management and Organization Studies: Challenging Racial Capitalism in Organizing and Knowledge Production’, Organization 32(2): 167–79.

Abreu-Pederzini

G. D.

Suárez-Barraza

M. F.

(2020) ‘Just Let Us be: Domination, the Postcolonial Condition, and the Global Field of Business Schools’, Academy of Management Learning and Education 19: 40–58.

Adorno

T. W.

Hullot-Kentor

Will

(1984) ‘The essay as Form’, New German Critique (32): 151–71.

Ahmed

(2003) ‘Feminist Futures’, in Eagelton

(ed.) A Concise Companion to Feminist Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

Ahmed

(2014) The Cultural Politics of Emotion. Edinburgh University Press.

Ahmed

(2021) Complaint! Durham: Duke University Press.

Alvesson

Szkudlarek

(2021) ‘Honorable Surrender: On the Erosion of Resistance in a University Setting’, Journal of Management Inquiry 30: 407–20.

Bailey

(2018) ‘On Anger, Silence, and Epistemic Injustice’, Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 84: 93–115.

10.

Baker

W. E.

(2019) ‘Emotional Energy, Relational Energy, and Organizational Energy: Toward a Multilevel Model’, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 6(1): 373–95.

11.

Bapuji

Chrispal

Attri

P. S.

, et al. (2024) ‘An Integrative Review of Management Research on Caste: Broadening Our Horizons’, Academy of Management Annals 18(2): 506–49.

12.

Bell

M. P.

Berry

Leopold

, et al. (2021) ‘Making Black Lives Matter in Academia: A Black Feminist Call for Collective Action Against Anti-blackness in the Academy’, Gender Work and Organization 28: 39–57.

13.

Bennett

Baines

Gates

T. G.

, et al. (2023) ‘Acting With Intentional Dissent as Minorities: Opportunities and Challenges in the Higher Education’, in Majumdar

Baikady

Ashok Antony

D. S.

(eds) Indigenization Discourse in Social Work: International Perspectives. Springer International Publishing, pp. 31–47.

14.

Bey

(2019) Critical praxis towards no end. Critique & Praxis 13/13. Columbia University Center for Contemporary Critical Thought.

15.

Blell

Liu

S. S.

Verma

(2023) ‘Working in Unprecedented Times: Intersectionality and Women of Color in UK Higher Education in and Beyond the Pandemic’, Gender Work and Organization 30(2): 353–72.

16.

Bourabain

(2021) ‘Everyday Sexism and Racism in the Ivory Tower: The Experiences of Early Career Researchers on the Intersection of Gender and Ethnicity in the Academic Workplace’, Gender Work and Organization 28(1): 248–67.

17.

Brooks

Franklin-Phipps

Rath

(2018) ‘Resistance and Invention: Becoming Academic, Remaining Other’, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 31(2): 130–42.

18.

Brown

(2006) Regulating Aversion: Tolerance in the Age of Identity and Empire. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

19.

Chemaly

(2018) Rage Becomes Her. New York: Simon and Schuster.

20.

Cherry

(2021) The Case for Rage: Why Anger is Essential to Anti-Racist Struggle. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

21.

Cherry

(2022) ‘Political Anger’, Philosophy Compass 17(2): e12811.

22.

Chrispal

Bapuji

Zietsma

(2021) ‘Caste and Organization Studies: Our Silence Makes Us Complicit’, Organization Studies 42(9): 1501–15.

23.

Colombo

L. A.

(2023) ‘Civilize the Business School: For a Civic Management Education’, Academy of Management Learning and Education 22(1): 132–49.

24.

Contu

(2018) “. . . the Point is to Change It’ – Yes, But in What Direction and How? Intellectual Activism as a Way of ‘Walking the Talk’ of Critical Work in Business Schools’, Organization 25(2): 282–93.

25.

Contu

(2019) ‘Conflict and Organization Studies’, Organization Studies 40(10): 1445–62.

26.

Contu

(2020) ‘Answering the Crisis With Intellectual Activism: Making a Difference as Business Schools Scholars’, Human Relations 73(5): 737–57.

27.

Cooper

(2018) Eloquent Rrage: A Black Ffeminist Ddiscovers Her Ssuperpower. St. Martin’s Press.

28.

Corbin

N. A.

Smith

W. A.

Garcia

J. R.

(2018) ‘Trapped Between Justified Anger and Being the Strong Black Woman: Black College Women Coping With Racial Battle Fatigue at Historically and Predominantly White Institutions’, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 31(7): 626–43.

29.

Damast

(2015) The ‘Angry Young Man’ Who Became A Business School Dean, Poets & Quants for Undergrads. https://poetsandquantsforundergrads.com/news/the-angry-young-man-who-became-a-business-school-dean/

30.

Dar

(2022) ‘Dark Academia How Universities Die, Peter Fleming, Pluto Press, 2021, 244 p’, Management International/International Management/Gestiòn Internacional 26(5): 149–56.

31.

Dar

Liu

Martinez Dy

, et al. (2021) ‘The Business School is Racist: Act Up!’, Organization 28(4): 695–706.

32.

Dege

C. L.

(2024) ‘Shades of Complaint: Towards a Feminist Political Theology of Anger’, Political Theology 25(6): 598–617.

33.

Dixon

(2020) ‘What is the History of Anger a History of?’, Emotions: History, Culture, Society 4(1): 1–34.

34.

Dixon

(2023) The History of Emotions: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

35.

Doharty

(2020) ‘The ‘Angry Black Woman’ as Intellectual Bondage: Being Strategically Emotional on the Academic Plantation’, Race Ethnicity and Education 23(4): 548–62.

36.

Dorlin

(2019) ‘What a Body Can Do’, Radical Philosophy 205: 3–9.

37.

Dorlin

(2022) Self Defense: A Philosophy of Violence. London: Verso Books.

38.

Ekstasis

Woods

Döbbe

, et al. (2025) 50 shades of rage. Ephemera. Forthcoming contribution. https://ephemerajournal.org/contribution/50-shades-rage

39.

Elfenbein

H. A.

(2023) ‘Emotion in Organizations: Theory and Research’, Annual Review of Psychology 74(1): 489–517.

40.

Fanon

(1963) The Wretched of the Earth. New York, NY: Grove Press.

41.

Fleming

(2021) Dark Academia How Universities Die. London: Pluto Press.

42.

Fotaki

Kenny

Vachhani

S. J.

(2017) ‘Thinking Critically About Affect in Organization Studies: Why It Matters’, Organization 24: 3–17.

43.

Fotaki

Prasad

(2015) ‘Questioning Neoliberal Capitalism and Economic Inequality in Business Schools’, Academy of Management Learning and Education 14(4): 556–75.

44.

Fotaki

Pullen

(Eds.) (2019) Diversity, Affect and Embodiment in Organizing. Dordrecht: Springer.

45.

Fotaki

Pullen

(2024) ‘Feminist Theories and Activist Practices in Organization Studies’, Organization Studies 45(4): 593–616.

46.

Frye

(1983) Politics of reality: Essays in feminist theory. Berkeley, California: Crossing Press.

47.

Gilligan

(1990) Joining the Resistance: Psychology, Politics, Girls, and Women. The Tanner Lectures on Human Values. https://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_resources/documents/a-to-z/g/Gilligan_91.pdf

48.

Goodwin

Pfaff

(2001) ‘Emotion Work in High-Risk Social Movements: Managing Fear in the U.S. and East German Civil Rights Movements’, in Goodwin

Jasper

J. M.

Polletta

(eds) Passionate Politics: Emotions and Social Movements. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.

49.

Grant

B. M.

(2021) ‘Becoming-Teacher as (In)activist: Feeling and Refusing the Force of University Policy’, Policy Futures in Education 19(5): 539–53.

50.

Gregory

Singh

S. S.

(2018) ‘Anger in Academic Twitter: Sharing, Caring, and Getting Mad Online’, TripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 16(1): 176–93.

51.

Grier

S. A.

Poole

S. M.

(2020) ‘Reproducing Inequity: The Role of Race in the Business School Faculty Search’, Journal of Marketing Management 36(13-14): 1190–222.

52.

Halberstam

(2013) ‘The Wild Beyond: With and for the Undercommons’, in Harney

Moten

(eds) The Undercommons: Fugitive Planning and Black Study. London: Minor Composition.

53.

Hall

J. W.

(2004) Conversations With Audre Lorde. Jackson, Mississippi: University Press of Mississippi.

54.

Haraway

D. J.

(2016) Staying With the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press.

55.

Harney

(2020) ‘Meritocracy in Singapore’, Educational Philosophy and Theory 52(11): 1139–48.

56.

Harney

Moten

(2013) The Undercommons: Fugitive Planning and Black Study. London: Minor Compositions.

57.

Hochschild

Machung

(2012) The Second Shift: Working Families and the Revolution at Home. London: Penguin.

58.

Hooks

(1996) ‘Killing Rage: Ending Racism’, Journal of Leisure Research 28(4): 316.

59.

Hoover

E. M.

(2022) ‘Affective Agencies of Discomfort’, Borderlands Journal 21(2): 143–74.

60.

Houdek

(2023) ‘(An) Allegory of the Undercommons: A Rhetorical Slipstream Into the Fugitive Temporal Horizon’, Rhetoric Society Quarterly 53(3): 353–65.

61.

Hunter

Kivinen

(2022) Affect in Organization and Management. London: Routledge.

62.

Jashnani

(2025) “Built on My B(l)ack’: Racial Capitalism and Anti-Blackness in Predominantly White Institutions of Higher Education’, Race Ethnicity and Education 28: 331–52.

63.

Katz

(1996) ‘Towards Minor Theory’, Environment and Planning D Society and Space 14(4): 487–99.

64.

Katz

(2017) ‘Revisiting Minor Theory’, Environment and Planning D Society and Space 35(4): 596–9.

65.

King

T. L.

Navarro

Smith

(eds) (2020) Otherwise Worlds: Against Settler Colonialism and anti-Blackness. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press.

66.

Korica

(2022) ‘A Hopeful Manifesto for a More Humane Academia’, Organization Studies 43(9): 1523–6.

67.

Kulkarni

(2024) ‘The Role of Moral Anger in Social Change Efforts’, Organization Studies 45(2): 223–45.

68.

Leboeuf

(2018) ‘Anger as a Political Emotion: A Phenomenological Perspective’, in Cherry

Flanagan

(eds) The Moral Psychology of Anger. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield.

69.

Lindebaum

Gabriel

(2016) ‘Anger and Organization Studies: From Social Disorder to Moral Order’, Organization Studies 37(7): 903–18.

70.

Lindebaum

Geddes

(2016) ‘The Place and Role of (Moral) Anger in Organizational Behavior Studies’, Journal of Organizational Behavior 37(5): 738–57.

71.

Liu

(2019) ‘An Embarrassment of Riches: The Seduction of Postfeminism in the Academy’, Organization 26(1): 20–37.

72.

Liu

(2022) ‘How We Learn Whiteness: Disciplining and Resisting Management Knowledge’, Management Learning 53(5): 776–96.

73.

Liu

(2024) ‘Teaching Race in Business Schools: The Challenges and Possibilities of Anti-Racist Education’, Journal of Business Ethics 193: 749–64.

74.

Lorde

(2007) ‘On the Uses of Anger: Women Responding to Racism’, in Audre

(ed.) Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches by Audre Lorde. New York, NY: The Crossing Press.

75.

Lugones

(1995) ‘Hard-to-Handle Anger’, in Bell

L. A.

Blumenfeld

(eds) Overcoming Racism and Sexism. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.

76.

Mandalaki

Prasad

(2024) ‘Racialized Experiences as In-Betweenness in Academia’, Organization 31(1): 199–212.

77.

Manning

(2016) The Minor Gesture. Durham, North Carolina: Duke university press.

78.

Manning

(2021) ‘Decolonial Feminist Theory: Embracing the Gendered Colonial Difference in Management and Organisation Studies’, Gender Work and Organization 28(4): 1203–19.

79.

Mbembe

(2001) On the Postcolony. Oakland, California: University of California Press.

80.

McCann

B. J.

Erincin

Mack

A. N.

, et al. (2021) ‘When We Come Together, We Build Theory: Working the Second Shift in the Undercommon Enclave’, Journal of Autoethnography 2(1): 113–8.

81.

McCann

Granter

Hyde

, et al. (2020) “Upon the Gears and Upon the Wheels’: Terror Convergence and Total Administration in the Neoliberal University’, Management Learning 51(4): 431–51.

82.

Means

(2021) ‘Foucault and Fugitive Study’, Philosophy & Social Criticism 47(8): 974–86.

83.

Moraga

Anzaldúa

(Eds.) (1983) This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color. New York, NY: Women of Color Press.

84.

Moten

(2003) In the Break: The Aesthetics of the Black Radical Tradition. Mineapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.

85.

Moten

Harney

(2004) ‘The University and the Undercommons: Seven Theses’, Social Text 22(2): 101–15.

86.

Münch

(2014) Academic Capitalism: Universities in the Global Struggle for Excellence. London: Routledge.

87.

Murphy

A. R.

(1997) ‘Tolerance, Toleration, and the Liberal Tradition’, Polity 29(4): 593–623.

88.

Muzanenhamo

Chowdhury

(2023) ‘Epistemic Injustice and Hegemonic Ordeal in Management and Organization Studies: Advancing Black Scholarship’, Human Relations 76(1): 3–26.

89.

Nussbaum

M. C.

(2016) Anger and Forgiveness: Resentment, Generosity, Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

90.

Ozturk

M. B.

Berber

(2022) ‘Racialised Professionals’ Experiences of Selective Incivility in Organisations: A Multi-Level Analysis of Subtle Racism’, Human Relations 75(2): 213–39.

91.

Palazzi

(2023) A Political Philosophy of Anger. Doctoral dissertation, University of Essex, Colchester, UK.

92.

Paludi

M. I.

Helms Mills

Mills

(2019) ‘Cruzando Fronteras: The Contribution of a Decolonial Feminism in Organization Studies’, Management & Organizational History 14(1): 55–78.

93.

Parker

(2018) Shut Down the Business School. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press Economics Books.

94.

Parker

(2021) ‘The Critical Business School and the University: A Case Study of Resistance and Co-optation’, Critical Sociology 47(7-8): 1111–24.

95.

Peredo

A. M.

Abdelnour

Adler

, et al. (2022) ‘We are boiling: Management scholars speaking out on COVID-19 and social justice’, Journal of Management Inquiry 31(4): 339–57.

96.

Prasad

Śliwa

(2022) ‘Towards an Aspirational Future: Cultivating Ontological Empathy Within the Ethos of Management Learning’, Management Learning 53(2): 139–45.

97.

Pyke

K. D.

(2018) ‘Institutional Betrayal: Inequity, Discrimination, Bullying, and Retaliation in Academia’, Sociological Perspectives 61(1): 5–13.

98.

Rashid

Scherrer

B. D.

Carter

, et al. (2023) ‘Praxis of the Undercommons: Rupturing University Conviviality and Coded Formations of Diversity’, Globalisation Societies and Education 21(4): 496–509.

99.

Rintamäki

Alvesson

(2023) ‘Resisting Whilst Complying? A Case Study of a Power Struggle in a Business School’, Academy of Management Learning and Education 22(2): 257–73.

100.

Robinson

C. J.

(1980) The Terms of Order. New York: SUNY Press.

101.

Rodríguez

C. O.

(2018) Decolonizing Academia: Poverty, Oppression and Pain. Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: Fernwood Publishing.

102.

Rodriguez

Boahene

(2012) ‘The Politics of Rage: Empowering Women of Color in the Academy’, Culture Studies Critical Methodologies 12(5): 450–8.

103.

Settles

I. H.

Jones

M. K.

Buchanan

N. T.

, et al. (2021) ‘Epistemic Exclusion: Scholar(ly) Devaluation That Marginalizes Faculty of Color.’, Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 14(4): 493–507.

104.

Shahjahan

R. A.

(2020) ‘On ‘Being for Others’: Time and Shame in the Neoliberal Academy’, Journal of Education Policy 35(6): 785–811.

105.

Shukaitis

(2009) ‘Infrapolitics and the Nomadic Educational Machine’, in Amster

DeLeon

Fernandez

, et al. (eds) Contemporary Anarchist Studies: An Introductory Anthology of Anarchy in the Academy, pp. 182–90. London: Routledge.

106.

Sowards

S. K.

(2023) ‘The (Under)Commons Across the Américas: Connecting Spaces for Fugitivity and Futurity’, Rhetoric Society Quarterly 53(3): 301–15.

107.

Srinivasan

(2018) ‘The Aptness of Anger’, Journal of Political Philosophy 26(2): 123–44.

108.

Tim-adicals Writing Collective (2017) ‘Vulnerabilities, Complicities and Injustices: ‘Tim-Adical’ Actions for Change in the Neoliberal Academy’, Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization 17(3): 691–704.

109.

Trafí-Prats

(2024) ‘Fugitive Study at University: Moving Beyond Neoliberal Affect Through Aesthetic Experimentation With Space-Times’, International Journal of Art & Design Education 43(3): 363–78.

110.

Tsing

A. L.

(2015) The Mushroom at the End of the World: On the Possibility of Life in Capitalist Ruins. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

111.

Undercommoning Collective (2016) Undercommoning within, against and beyond the University-as-Such. Roar Magazine, 5.

112.

Vachhani

S. J.

Bell

Bristow

(2024) ‘The Affective Micropolitics of Craftivism: Organizing Social Change Through the Minor Gesture’, Organization Studies 01708406241305752.

113.

Vachhani

S. J.

Pullen

(2019) ‘Ethics, Politics and Feminist Organizing: Writing Feminist Infrapolitics and Affective Solidarity Into Everyday Sexism’, Human Relations 72(1): 23–47.

114.

Vijay

Nair

V. G.

Gupta

(2025) ‘Irreverent and Indisciplined: Outranking Management Learning Amid Planetary Ruination’, Management Learning 56(1): 32–43.

115.

Vizenor

G. R.

(1999) Manifest Manners: Narratives on Postindian Survivance. Lincoln, Nebraska: U of Nebraska Press.

116.

Weatherall

(2021) Reimagining Academic Activism: Learning From Feminist Anti-Violence Activists. Bristol: Policy Press.

117.

West

(2016) Breaking Bread: Insurgent Black Intellectual Life. London: Routledge.

118.

Young

I. M.

(2008) ‘Structural Injustice and the Politics of Difference’, in Grabham

Cooper

Krishnadas

, et al. (eds) Intersectionality and Beyond, pp. 2017–0292. Oxfordshire: Taylor & Francis.

119.

Yousfi

(2021) ‘Decolonizing Arab Organizational Knowledge: “Fahlawa” as a Research Practice’, Organization 28(5): 836–56.

120.

Zulfiqar

Prasad

(2021) ‘Challenging Social Inequality in the Global South: Class, Privilege, and Consciousness-Raising Through Critical Management Education’, Academy of Management Learning and Education 20(2): 156–81.