Abstract
The process of value creation in the knowledge economy is embedded in the social context of production, where employees’ affective and communicative capacities play a central role. This positions subjectivity as a key driver of knowledge production and growth. However, the affective dimension of subjectivity and the mechanisms of its continuous reproduction remain underexplored. Within Labour Process Theory (LPT), this oversight has sparked ongoing debates, with structuralist perspectives criticised for neglecting subjectivity and poststructuralist approaches for ignoring structure. This paper engages with these debates by drawing on Lacan to propose an alternative understanding of the social bond and its role in value creation. Lacan’s concept of the University Discourse highlights how social bonds in knowledge-intensive contexts are increasingly mediated by the symbolic authority of knowledge, rather than interpersonal relationships or traditional power hierarchies. This seemingly neutral, objective knowledge channels the pursuit of desire into knowledge production by transforming its unattainable nature into a ritualised compliance with expert-defined guidelines. In doing so, it creates an ‘economy of enjoyment’ characterised by a self-perpetuating cycle of knowledge production and growth. By introducing the concept of desire labour, this paper uncovers how desire functions as a hidden, productive force, exposing new avenues of value creation within the knowledge economy.
Keywords
To be a Marxist today, one has to go through Lacan (Slavoj Žižek)
Introduction
The complexity and totality of how labour processes create value within capitalism have long been topics of investigation in organisation studies. A key element of this inquiry has been the role of subjectivity in value creation, especially in the context of knowledge work (Prichard and Mir, 2010). Modern Marxist treatments increasingly recognise that it is not merely brute labour that can be valorised; rather, the affective, social and cognitive dimensions of work are also essential (e.g. Böhm and Land, 2012; Ivanova and von Scheve, 2020; Kabwe and Tripathi, 2020; Mumby, 2016).
This paper addresses gaps in labour process analysis within the context of knowledge work by proposing that Lacan’s theory of subjectivity and discourse provides a valuable framework for examining these issues. As knowledge economies continue to grow, the nature of work is rapidly changing, making it increasingly urgent to explore the role of affects and social skills in value creation (Grugulis and Lloyd, 2010; Mezzadri, 2022; O’Doherty and Willmott, 2009). In knowledge work, value is no longer created solely through technical or cognitive tasks; it hinges on collaboration and cooperation (Arvidsson, 2009; Cremin, 2003), which makes the social and affective dimensions of work pivotal. As labour processes target employees’ identities, desires, hopes and emotions to enhance productivity, subjectivity moves to the forefront of how value is generated (Ivanova and von Scheve, 2020).
These factors have sparked fruitful discussions about the role of subjectivity in labour processes (Bloom and Śliwa, 2022; Costas and Kärreman, 2016; Rennstam and Kärreman, 2020), with scholars arguing that the organised production of knowledge increasingly depends on affective investments and communication within social contexts (Arvidsson, 2010; Sewell, 2005). Despite advances, there remains a pressing need for more nuanced theoretical frameworks to fully capture the complexity of subjectivity within capitalist labour processes (Brook, 2013; Vincent, 2011) as the social dimensions of labour under capitalism are increasingly pronounced (Ekman, 2015; Mezzadri, 2022).
This paper contributes to this need by drawing on Lacan’s theory to explore the psychic economy of work, with a particular emphasis on how aspects of desire and enjoyment may contribute to value creation. Lacan’s notion of the subject, one driven by desire and enjoyment, provides crucial insights into the affective dimensions of subjectivity (Arnaud and Vidaillet, 2018; Stavrakakis, 2008).
More specifically still, this paper concerns the need for a more dynamic understanding of subjectivity in value creation within knowledge economies. Knowledge work thrives on constant improvement, continuous learning and the potential for perpetual reorganisation of the social context of production (Harvie and Milburn, 2010). This is particularly crucial in the post-pandemic era, where work practices, including work-life boundaries, have been fundamentally transformed (Rofcanin and Anand, 2020). The resulting shift in how social contexts of production are structured and restructured (Zanoni and Mir, 2022) underscores the importance of moving beyond static conceptions of subjectivity. In today’s rapidly evolving knowledge economy, subjectivity is not a fixed state but must be continuously reproduced within ever-changing social conditions.
Lacan’s theory offers a crucial lens to explore this dynamic. Lacan argues that there is an inherent impossibility underpinning subjectivity (Vanheule, 2016), and that it is more productive to understand it as a process rather than a state (Bloom, 2016; Driver, 2017). His ideas provide a means to explore how subjectivity is continually reproduced. Lacan’s theory enables us to move beyond the static view of subjectivity, offering instead a dynamic understanding of how desire drives the reproduction of subjectivity and how this process can lead to a self-perpetuating system of knowledge production – one, we will argue, that may be valorised within capitalist structures. To capture this, we introduce the concept of desire labour. It should immediately be noted that the complexity and breadth of desire may lead to myriad forms of desire labour. We investigate but one form – one where knowledge is heavily implicated.
We commence our development by turning to Labour Process Theory (LPT) to provide the broader theoretical framework for our analysis. While LPT has long grappled with the role of subjectivity in labour processes, its structuralist foundations have often struggled to account for its complexities in knowledge work. In the following section, we revisit the debate within LPT on the role of subjectivity, highlighting how Lacan’s theory offers a fresh approach to revitalise this conversation and address its limitations. In outlining Lacan’s theory of subjectivity and discourse we show how subjectivity can be integrated into value creating mechanisms via the valorisation of desire in knowledge work. Following this, we present an illustrative case study demonstrating the valorisation of desire for knowledge through its production. Finally, we conclude by considering the broader implications of our findings for labour process analysis.
LPT, Lacan and the question of subjectivity
This paper delves into labour processes, which we define as any process that plays a role in converting labour capacity into value within the context of capitalism. To better understand this, we turn to Labour Process Theory (LPT), which provides a formal framework for analysing these processes. In the 1990s and 2000s, LPT was the subject of intense debate between two schools of thought: structuralist views, which emphasise the importance of overarching social and economic structures and poststructuralist perspectives, which prioritise human agency and subjectivity (OʼDoherty, 2009; Thompson, 2009). In this section, we briefly touch on the key aspects of this debate and explore how a Lacanian perspective can bridge the apparent gap between these viewpoints.
The core theory in LPT takes a structuralist stance, arguing that broader capitalist structures shape individual actions. In this view, understanding how workers think and feel about their roles (their subjectivity) requires analysing the broader capitalist framework, particularly the tensions between capital and labour (Thompson and Vincent, 2010). Therefore, an analysis of labour processes, according to the core theory, will necessarily draw on a number of key observations. Firstly, it is necessary to focus on the inherent tension between capital and labour. Next, the logic of accumulation shows capitalism must continually develop and revolutionise the production system. Next, control within management systems is acknowledged as a means of improving labour productivity. And finally, the framework of ‘structured antagonism’ between capital and labour necessarily directs attention to work relationships.
Advocates of the core theory argue that subjectivity should only be considered if it directly impacts these structural dynamics (Edwards, 2010: 32). They criticise poststructuralists for not giving enough attention to the specific characteristics of labour under capitalism (Thompson, 2009: 105) while focussing too much on subjectivity as an abstract, existential issue (Edwards, 2010; Thompson and Ackroyd, 1995; Thompson and Smith, 2000).
Poststructuralists, however, contend that the core theory oversimplifies the complexity of subjectivity by reducing it to the employer-worker conflict (O’Doherty and Willmott, 2009). They claim that subjectivity is existentially complex, emergent and historically contingent, and cannot be reduced to the ‘individuals within employment relationship’ (Böhm and Land, 2012; Land and Taylor, 2010; Mumby, 2016).
While the core theory is criticised for overlooking the nuances of individual subjectivity (the ‘missing subject’), poststructuralist approaches can neglect the structural factors that shape labour (the ‘missing structure’). Lacan’s theory offers a way to bridge the gap between the focus on structures and the complexity of subjectivity. Whilst there is a considerable and rich literature considering the wider psychic development of subjects, we deploy, in line with our aim of reconciling differing views of LPT, a specific line of enquiry using Lacan’s theory of discourse. The theory explores how subjectivity is shaped by and interacts with broader social structures (Cederström and Spicer, 2014; Contu and Willmott, 2005) and is thus relevant to our goal. This is especially so in the context of knowledge work, where learning and knowledge growth are key drivers of value creation (Arvidsson, 2010; Jacques, 2000; Jaros and Sells, 2004). In knowledge work, a flexible social environment is necessary, one that fosters collaboration and continuous learning (Harvie and Milburn, 2010). This raises the question: should or can learning ever be viewed solely through the lens of managerial control and structured conflict between managers and workers?
As noted by Jaros and Sells (2004), when knowledge workers are themselves inclined and capable of working at their utmost productive capacity, including the motivation to learn to be capable and productive, structured conflict ceases to be the point of departure for analysis. Instead, the focus should shift to how subjectivity contributes to the creation of a self-sustaining system of knowledge growth. By adopting a Lacanian perspective, we can better understand the interplay between individual subjectivity and larger capitalist structures in shaping these processes.
Delving into Lacan’s notion of subjectivity and one type of social bond (the University discourse), we unveil the structural formation through which desire fuels a potentially self-sustaining cycle of learning and knowledge growth – a cycle that is receptive to valorisation. However, its operation not only defies explanation by tenets of LPT core theory (notably, the control imperative and the structured conflict between managers and workers), but intriguingly functions specifically in their absence.
Lacan’s theory of subjectivity and discourse
Lacan’s work is often described as a negative ontology (Stavrakakis, 2008), which means it starts from the idea that human beings are structured around an unavoidable and permanent sense of lack (Jones and Spicer, 2005; Vidaillet and Gamot, 2015). This idea is central to how he explains human subjectivity – how we become who we are.
In early life, before the acquisition of language, the pre-conscious child experiences a sense of completeness and wholeness. But once language enters the picture, this sense of wholeness is broken. According to Lacan, the subject only emerges with the acquisition of language and the adoption of symbolic positions. Yet, language, by its very nature, cannot fully capture or express everything. This inability to completely represent reality leaves a gap, which Lacan calls the Real – that which escapes symbolisation and disturbs our sense of completeness. This tension becomes a permanent feature of our subjective experience (Fink, 1997).
This loss of wholeness drives us to constantly desire things that seem like they could fill this gap. The use of the term desire is important here. We are talking of desire in relation to the subject’s fundamental lack, not simply a wish for something. Henceforth we will use the term (including the phrase desire labour) in this Lacanian sense. Lacan illuminates this predicament with the notion of object a, the object cause of desire. It represents the unattainable and ever-receding object of our desire – the thing we endlessly pursue in an attempt to fill the sense of loss through imaginary identifications that seem to offer wholeness but can never fully deliver it (Arnaud and Vidaillet, 2018; Driver, 2010).
For Lacan, desire is a fundamental part of being human, and language plays a critical role in this (Arnaud and Vidaillet, 2018; Driver, 2017; Stavrakakis, 2008). We use language not just to communicate but to elicit responses from others and seek recognition. As Lacan (2006: 247) states, ‘the function of language in speech is not to inform but to evoke. What I seek in speech is a response from the other’. Speech is a way of seeking recognition (Lacan, 1988: 240) and is a vehicle for ‘the transmission of desire’ (Lacan, 1988: 244).
However, while language is essential for social interactions and forming identities, it is also marked by indeterminacy. Words do not have fixed meanings – they only gain meaning in relation to other words, creating a continuous and fluid chain of signification. Lacan distinguishes between two types of signifiers that he writes as S1 and S2. Meaning only becomes stable when we identify with a master signifier (S1), something that we as a member of a society accept, which gives us a position in the social order by preventing other signifiers (S2) from floating freely (Vidaillet and Gamot, 2015: 991). But this socio-symbolic system, like the subject, is always incomplete and fails to render the subject a stable and unproblematic position (Stavrakakis, 2008: 1041). Lacan refers to this incomplete subject as the barred subject ($) because it can never be fully represented.
This lack, therefore, is intrinsic to both the subject and the Other (the socio-symbolic order). Lacan views subjectivity as defined by the interplay between the lack within the subject and the lack in the Other. But lack can be both limiting and liberating (Driver, 2017; Žižek, 2009). On one hand, it drives us to continuously seek meaning through identification with societal norms and master signifiers. On the other, the lack in the Other opens up space for freedom (Contu, 2008; Stavrakakis, 2008; Vidaillet and Gamot, 2015: 992), since the subject is not fully determined by the symbolic order: ‘we would [otherwise] have a machine if symbolic determination were complete’ (Soler, 1996: 52).
The pursuit of desire and the resultant enjoyment, for Lacan, is critical but troublesome in subjectivity. The barred subject seeks to alleviate the sense of lack by identifying with socially accepted master signifiers. However, language can never fully resolve the subject’s desires or offer complete enjoyment (Contu, 2008; Kenny, 2012). This bitter-sweet enjoyment arising from the pursuit of desire (termed as jouissance in Lacan’s lexicon) transcends simple pleasure or comfort (Fierens, 2021). Jouissance is the paradoxical satisfaction we experience in the process of chasing something unattainable, even if this may – perhaps knowingly – lead to distress or harm (Loose, 2002). Jouissance is the paradoxical satisfaction in dissatisfaction, the impossibility of reaching an identity and paradoxically enjoying this impossibility by forever repeating the act of identification. The unattainable jouissance, therefore, puts the human subject into a never-ending process of becoming, identifying and speaking (Bloom, 2016; Harding, 2007). As Lacan (2007: 45) states, pursuing desire is bound up with repetition. This turns subjectivity into a cycle of repetition.
The key insight from this for our study is that this repetitive cycle of desire and subjectivity can be integrated into value-creating mechanisms. By harnessing this self-perpetuating cycle, particularly in knowledge creation, subjectivity can become part of a dynamic, ongoing process of growth. To explore this further, we will now turn to Lacan’s theory of social bonds.
Lacan’s theory of social bonds
Lacan, in his seminars between 1968 and 1970, develops his theory of discourse to explore the different ways social bonds are structured and how they grapple with the troublesome jouissance (Gallagher, 2001; Vanheule, 2016). Lacan’s theory of discourse is built upon four fundamental elements that we have already introduced in his theory of subjectivity (namely, the barred subject ($), object a, master signifier (S1) and knowledge (S2)). In his theory of discourse, by elaborating different forms of interactions between these elements, Lacan delineates four different modes of structuring social relationships.
It should be noted Lacan uses ‘discourse’ differently from how it is commonly understood. For him, discourse is not just what we say or write; it refers to deeper, underlying structures that shape how we relate to each other and to ourselves. For Lacan, discourse is ‘a necessary structure that goes well beyond speech’ (Lacan, 2007: 12); meaning that it is not simply about what we say, but about the position from which we speak and how that position is shaped by larger social forces (Gallagher, 2001: 10). Thus, within his discourse theory, Lacan explores various subject positions from which speech emanates; positions intricately entwined with institutional contexts. As Lacan (2007: 166) states, these discourses are ‘the apparatus whose presence, whose existing status alone dominates and governs anything that at any given moment is capable of emerging as speech. They are discourses without speech, which subsequently comes and lodges itself within them’. Lacan captures the logic of this theory in his overall graph of discourse (Figure 1).
Lacan’s overall graph of discourse (Vanheule, 2016).
Lacan’s discourse graph follows a straightforward yet profound logic, illustrating the dynamics of social relationships across two levels. The upper level represents the explicit aspects of the relationship, where an ‘agent’ initiates and directs the interaction by addressing an ‘other’. Beneath this, however, lie two hidden, repressed dimensions that exert a powerful influence on the interaction. The first is the ‘truth’, an underlying, often unacknowledged, force that shapes and motivates the agent’s drive. The second is the ‘product’ or outcome of the discourse, a byproduct that emerges from the interaction yet remains partly obscured. Together, these layers reveal how social exchanges are not merely direct interactions but are shaped by latent forces that subtly steer and define the relationship (Parker, 2001; Vanheule, 2016).
Lacan identifies four main types of discourse – Master, University, Hysteric and Analyst – based on how the four elements of discourse (S1, S2, $ and object a) occupy the positions in the graph. In the Master’s Discourse, for instance, Lacan describes a traditional form of power, where the ‘master signifier’ leads and directs social interaction. This discourse can be seen in the relationship between a lord or master and their subjects, where authority is imposed from a symbolic position of dominance (Zupančič, 2006). In contrast, the Hysteric’s Discourse places the ‘barred subject’ as agent. This discourse constantly challenges the accepted truths or master signifiers and represents a kind of revolutionary energy that can potentially lead to social change or emancipation (Fotaki and Harding, 2013). The Analyst’s Discourse, on the other hand, illustrates Lacan’s view of psychoanalysis as a practice. In this discourse, the analyst operates from the position of object a to guide the patient, or analysand, towards an understanding of their own lack or desire (Lacan, 2007).
These discourses are explained in detail in other sources (Driver, 2016; Vanheule, 2016; Verhaeghe, 1995; Žižek, 1998). For the purpose of this article, we concern ourselves with the University Discourse (Figure 2). The reason is that the University Discourse, in particular, focuses on the production and dissemination of knowledge within educational institutions and other knowledge-intensive environments (Gallagher, 2001), highlighting the complex interplay between knowledge, power and subjectivity (Parker, 2001). Thus, it can provide novel insights on the valorisation of knowledge in knowledge work.
Lacan’s overall graph of the University Discourse (Vanheule, 2016).
In the University Discourse, power is not represented by a clear authority figure, like a boss or ruler. Instead, knowledge itself takes on the role of authority, subtly shaping how people think and behave. This reconfiguration of power dynamics underscores the significance of intellectual prowess and expertise in shaping subjectivities and social relations (Lacan, 2007: 35). The university, as an institution, provides a good example. The explicit aspect of the social bond (the top layer in the diagram above) consists of S2 in relation to object a. Here, it is not the individual lecturer who holds power, but the knowledge they represent, which addresses students’ desire to fill their fundamental lack or gap in knowledge – to learn. This knowledge has a repressed aspect as it is tied to the institution’s values or master signifiers, which influence what is considered important or worthy of study (Parker, 2001; Zupančič, 2006). However, the University Discourse does not and cannot fully satisfy the student’s desire for knowledge. No matter how much they learn, students remain marked by a sense of lack – an incompleteness that drives them to ‘keep on knowing’ (Gallagher, 2001; Parker, 2001).
Therefore, the University Discourse immerses subjects in a cycle of continuous learning, which Lacan directly links to valorisation processes, asserting that this cycle operates ‘under the banner of the means of production and, consequently, of surplus value’ (Lacan, 2007: 204). More importantly, this process is potentially self-perpetuating. At the core of this dynamic is the University Discourse’s failure to meaningfully confront the fundamental lack, which is central to Lacan’s theory of subjectivity. Lacan (2007: 63) describes this inability by stating, ‘the “I” that masters, of the “I” whereby at least something is identical to itself, namely the speaker, is very precisely what the university discourse is unable to eliminate from the place in which its truth is found’. In simple terms, this means that the subject in the University Discourse cannot escape the illusion of mastery over their own identity, leaving them unable to effectively confront the gaps and inconsistencies that define their subjectivity. According to Lacan, language and the symbolic always fall short of fully representing the subject, leaving a persistent gap, or lack, that disrupts any attempt at achieving wholeness. However, whilst it will be clear that desire within this discourse is about addressing the fundamental lack through knowledge, the University Discourse is structured to avoid a direct confrontation with lack, instead emphasising knowledge as a means of resolving uncertainties.
This avoidance is evident in the kind of subject the University Discourse produces. As Boucher (2006: 289) explains it is a subject ‘whose relation to social norms is not internalised but remains an external relation to mere guidelines’. Rather than deeply identifying with these norms, individuals see them as external rules to follow, without internalising their significance. This detachment prevents them from experiencing the full weight of the lack or incompleteness central to Lacanian theory (Feldner and Vighi, 2015). Instead, they focus on adhering to specific frameworks, often grounded in scientific or expert knowledge, to construct a ‘complete’ life (Dean, 2012). Yet, striving for completeness is inherently futile because life is defined by lack; no accumulation of knowledge can ever fully resolve it. As Žižek (1998: 78) points out, this relentless quest for more knowledge feeds into broader systems of production and surplus value generation. The cyclical nature of this process is depicted in the structure of the University Discourse, as shown in the cycle S2-a-$ in Figure 2, where knowledge (S2) perpetually engages the subject ($) through the lure of an unattainable object (object a).
In the introduction, we discussed that due to the centrality of collaboration and learning in the knowledge economy, there is a need for a theory of subjectivity that not only addresses the affective dimensions of the social context of production but also explains how subjectivity itself is perpetuated in this context. We also situated this discussion within the broader debate between structuralist and poststructuralist perspectives in LPT, questioning whether the desire to learn can be understood solely as part of the structured conflict between managers and workers. To engage with these issues, we propose employing Lacan’s theory of the University Discourse to offer an alternative structural analysis of the social bond. This approach reframes the imperative to enhance knowledge, showing that it is not entirely rooted in management’s direct control and orders, but emerges from deeper, more complex dynamics within the social structure. In this discourse, mastery becomes invisible: ‘don’t think that the master is always there. It’s the command that remains, the categorical imperative, “Keep on knowing”’ (Lacan, 2007: 106). The functioning of desire is critical in this process. However, it cannot be solely examined within the confines of workplace relationships characterised by structured conflicts but needs to be interrogated as an economy of enjoyment (jouissance).
To demonstrate this process at work, we employ an illustrative case study, serving dual purposes. Firstly, we acknowledge that Lacan’s conception of the University Discourse may appear somewhat abstract, hence we employ a case example to illustrate the mechanisms underpinning this conceptual framework. Secondly, this particular case example holds interest as the desire propelling the quest for knowledge growth seemingly originates from non-work aspects (i.e. the cultural value of ‘home family comes first’ in our studied case) and can reveal how the functioning of desire extends beyond workplace relationships or the quest for knowledge for its own sake.
It will be clear that our aim is different from Lacanian studies taking their lead from the psychoanalytic clinic (see Arnaud and Vidaillet, 2018). We do not psychoanalyse the participants; to account for the origins of their desires and fantasies; or offer a way to transcend psychically disruptive behaviours (Arnaud, 2003). Rather we show how a structural view of social bonds (the University discourse) provides a coherent account of learning cycles within labour processes. A clinical understanding of a desire for ‘knowledge and a full life’ is not needed for its impact to be traced.
An illustrative case
Contextual background
This paper’s data is part of a broader multi-case study research investigating subjectivity in new work practices, employing various discourses by Lacan to explore desire’s role in value creation. This article focuses on one case study (Solution-Finders), a pseudonym for a small IT consultancy operating in the UK and Spain, specialising in enhancing clients’ communication and collaboration infrastructure. Small consultancies like Solution-Finders are suitable sites for examining politics of subjectivity within knowledge-intensive firms (Alvesson and Robertson, 2006). Furthermore, our analysis reveals Solution-Finders as a high-commitment organisation, acknowledged nationally for its employee-centric approach. Moreover, there exists ample evidence pointing towards strong mutual trust between managers and workers, thereby allowing the case to exemplify how subjectivity can still be valorised without solely depending on controlling mandates that stem from structured conflicts between managers and workers. Using Solution-Finders as an illustrative case (Butler, 1997), we demonstrate how social relations shaped by the University Discourse contribute to value creation in the knowledge economy.
Solution-Finders employs a rigorous recruitment strategy targeting both technical and what can be called desiring capabilities. Prospective hires undergo a Value Realisation Session during which they demonstrate their alignment with the organisation’s core values of Family and Passion. Family signifies that at Solution-Finders ‘home family comes first’ and everybody is expected to appreciate and recognise its importance for him/herself and others, while Passion relates to the intent to learn and do the best for oneself, one’s colleagues and the company. Therefore, participation in the community is preconditioned. It requires a shared view of the Other and engagement with common master signifiers like Family and Passion. In our analysis we show how this binds people into a productive community (Arvidsson, 2010; Cremin, 2003).
Recently, Solution-Finders introduced a performance coaching initiative aiming to guide employees in becoming their ‘best selves’ and optimising their lifestyle both within and outside work hours. The programme’s foundation is that focussed, energetic work enhances productivity, allowing employees to complete tasks efficiently, safeguard their personal time and establish a harmonious work-life equilibrium. Drawing from Lacan’s graph of the University Discourse, our analysis illustrates how this coaching programme exemplifies the formation of a self-perpetuating knowledge growth system within the organisation.
Methodology
We collected data through 18 interviews, divided into two sessions, involving a sample of nine individuals. The implementation of performance coaching occurred between these interview rounds, and our analysis is presented in two parts, reflecting the distinct interview phases. The interviewees consisted of three men and six women with work experience ranging from 8 months to 6 years at Solution-Finders (see Table 1). Our approach was based on a diverse sample (Thomas and Davies, 2005), with prior days of observation to contextualise the interviews (Müller, 2013). Solution-Finders is a small organisation with 41 employees. So, the diverse sample of nine people for interviewing provides a good representation of the studied case.
The name and title of participants.
Our interview methodology prioritised eliciting narratives (Driver, 2010; Gabriel, 1995). Each interview commenced with a ‘grand tour question on narratives of career (Kuhn, 2006), prompting participants to share a brief professional biography. This approach facilitated a narrative atmosphere, maintained throughout interviews, emphasising participant-driven stories (Hoedemaekers and Keegan, 2010). Transcripts were fully analysed, employing Lacan’s concepts of subjectivity and discourse. Our abductive approach (Thomas, 2010) sought a dialectical synthesis of empirical observations and theoretical frameworks (Dubois and Gadde, 2002), involving a ‘constant back and forth movement between the data and the theory’ (Vidaillet and Gamot, 2015).
Initially, for instance, Lacan’s discourse theory was not our primary lens; however, during the first analysis round, a shared form emerged in interview accounts. This led us to consider applying Lacan’s discourse graph. Notably, performance coaching seemed structured by the University Discourse, as some experts (S2) were addressing the employees’ desire for self-actualisation and work-life balance (object a). Then we tested the repressed elements at the lower level of the graph (i.e. S1 as the truth and the barred subject as the product). The first author analysed the interview accounts according to the graph of the University Discourse and its validity was independently verified by the others. We were convinced, as we will show in our analysis, that the University Discourse can provide a ‘plausible explanation’ (Parker, 2004) of the dominant structural formation within which speech acts emerge in our case study. Moreover, embracing Lacan’s discourse theory and its link with Marx (Parker, 2001; Sharpe, 2006; Zupančič, 2006) unveiled fresh insights into desire’s role in capitalist valorisation. Guided by these insights, we revisited the data to explore novel aspects of labour and capital in knowledge work, perpetually alternating between data and theory in our analysis.
As articulated by Žižek (2009), Marx and Lacan share the belief that the secret of capitalism is the form itself rather than the content concealed behind the form. Lacan’s exposition of Discourse opens a pathway to scrutinise this form. In our analysis, relying on Discourse in its Lacanian sense, we focussed on the relations between the four elements of the discourse to see if following the arrows in Lacan’s graph of discourse can unravel the formal structure of speech. Therefore, while we use extracts and examples from individual speech acts, our aim is to uncover the pre-speech structure within which these speech acts are situated, rather than conducting detailed analyses of individual speeches. For example, from a Lacanian discursive analytical perspective, every speech act inevitably reveals gaps and inconsistencies (Driver, 2010, 2017; Hoedemaekers, 2010). However, in our analysis, we concentrate on instances where these inconsistencies unveil a common structural pattern related to the University Discourse (e.g. twists, paradoxes and pauses resulting from the unexpected emergence of the repressed S1).
It is important to note that the University Discourse, in our studied case, is the dominant discourse in the participants’ accounts about performance coaching and we are not claiming that it is the only discourse in place. At the individual level, the subject can move amongst different discourses (see Driver, 2016; Sköld, 2010). However, the dominant discourse that appears to structure our participants’ speech about performance coaching is the University Discourse. In this paper, in line with some Lacanian studies (Fotaki and Harding, 2013; Parker, 2001; Sharpe, 2006) we draw on Lacan’s theory of discourse to interrogate institutional frameworks and then link it to capitalist valorisation. Our purpose is not to unravel the vicissitudes of desire in our participants or at Solution-Finders, but rather to show how desire, if structured within the University Discourse, becomes productive by fostering the formation of a self-perpetuating cycle of knowledge growth. While not all Solution-Finders employees may be ensnared in this knowledge production cycle, Solution-Finders serves as an illustrative case study due to the prevalence of the University Discourse in interview narratives.
In line with Hardy et al. (2001), our approach acknowledges that social subjects are not merely discovered; rather each study creates its own subjects according to its theoretical underpinnings. This article does not aim to unveil ultimate truth, but rather a perspective informed by Lacanian theory that contributes to the ongoing debate on desire and subjectivity within capitalist valorisation. Furthermore, from a Lacanian standpoint, any symbolic representation inherently falls short, resulting in gaps and disparities (Driver, 2016). Our analysis is not an exception.
Valorisation of desire, part I
As previously discussed, employability within Solution-Finders hinges upon candidates showcasing their desiring capability through attributes such as Passion and Family. In this initial phase of our analysis, we delve into how this shared perception of the Other fosters robust social bonds that invigorate knowledge generation. We illustrate that the amalgamation of Passion and Family values serves as the cornerstone for establishing a productive community.
The recurring themes of transcending a lack: possessing a fervour for learning, nurturing one’s potential and striving for personal and corporate excellence are evident in the interview accounts. Demonstrating the intention and aptitude for continuous learning stands as a pivotal criterion for recruiting and retaining personnel at Solution-Finders. In the forthcoming excerpt, Sophie, the HR manager, elucidates the significance of this aspect from the perspective of the company’s directors.
What Edward [the CEO] always says is “if I truly believe people have the intent to do the good job, I’ll forgive them anything. If I believe that they came and didn’t have the intent in the first place, then I won’t”; because people have the intent and still haven’t got the skills. Therefore, they’ve got the learning skills.
To nurture this passion for learning and self-development, Solution-Finders allows the employees to explore different areas in the business, identify what they are passionate about, and thus get involved with what they enjoy. The combination of this passion for self-development with the value Family, is the bedrock for the formation of strong social ties grounded in a ‘genuine care about people’. The following extract from Anna, for instance, manifests how the culture of care generates strong social ties that are then translated into teamwork and collaboration.
We have quite a strong family focus. It’s like acting with integrity, being honest with each other, strong teamwork, looking out for each other. So, if someone is having a rough day, someone might just take him for a coffee or say, “are you alright? do you want a chat?”, and there’s a lot of that. As a project, all my project team work very closely together, and we have high collaboration.
All the participants highlight the sense of belongingness and support at Solution-Finders. This has led to the formation of a community characterised by, as the interview accounts show, ‘strong teamwork’ as they ‘genuinely care about each other’, and thus ‘go above and beyond’ by ‘jumping up to help’ and ‘putting in extra time out of choice’, since they ‘enjoy what they are doing’.
In the knowledge economy, value creation has become a highly complex process that necessitates synergic cooperation and collaboration (Arvidsson, 2010; Cremin, 2003). Consequently, we argue that employees’ capability to desire Family and Passion contributes to value creation and thus can be deemed as desire labour. From this view, we can assert that desire as elucidated is valorised by being the anchoring point for the formation of a productive community.
Valorisation of desire, part II
This section concentrates on the second round of interviews, where we delve deeper into the process of desire valorisation by examining the recently introduced performance coaching initiative at Solution-Finders. This initiative aligns itself with the values of Family and Passion, positioning performance as a route to self-actualisation and a balanced life. Through our analysis of this coaching programme, we uncover that the valorisation of desire extends beyond the mere encouragement of teamwork and collaboration. The valorisation of desire also derives from turning the radical impossibility at the heart of subjectivity into a repetitious cycle, a self-perpetuating system of self-optimising and knowledge growth – manifest in the cycle S2-a-$ in the graph of the University Discourse. To illustrate this point, we first focus on the arrows in the University Discourse, highlighting three themes to unravel the structural formation of speech acts in our studied case. Subsequently, to further illustrate this point, we present an excerpt where all these themes intersect. This excerpt exemplifies how discourse functions as a structure preceding speech, wherein speech act is lodged. Finally, we provide examples demonstrating the main subject characteristic of the University Discourse, where the impossible desire for achieving self-actualisation and work-life balance is simplified into routine practices and generic rituals. We begin with discussing the overarching themes that demonstrate how speech acts are predominantly structured by the University Discourse.
The overt aspect of the social bond (S2-a)
As mentioned earlier, the top layer of the graph of discourse manifests the explicit or overt aspect of the social bond. The University Discourse ‘generally presumes a nonknowledge on the part of its addressees’ (Sharpe, 2006: 308). Social bond is structured as knowledge that is addressing the desire of the subject. This was found in the data. Performance coaching is conceived in the respondent’s language as a scientific theory that may be put into work to help them ‘understand’ and ‘learn’. Performance coaching, to use the respondents’ language, is a ‘journey’ in which some experts with a ‘scientific background’ address the employees, helping them ‘to learn’ what they need ‘to change as individuals’ in order to develop ‘their skills as much as they want’. Furthermore, it will help them to avoid ‘eating into their home time’ and thus have a more balanced work-life relation. Therefore, performance coaching is structured as the agency of a seemingly scientific and disinterested knowledge addressing the desire of the employees.
The hidden mastery (S1)
One of the key characteristics of social bond structured by the University Discourse is that mastery and exertion of power becomes increasingly invisible, and ‘what effectively amounts to a political decision based on power [is rendered] as a simple insight into the factual state of things’ (Žižek, 1998: 78). In the graph of the University Discourse, this is evident in S1 being repressed under the bar. However, this does not mean that mastery and the functioning of master signifiers are eliminated. Our analysis shows that the repressed S1 leaves its mark on the participants’ speech in two ways. First, the participants’ desire is already marked/constituted by master signifiers (the arrow from S1 to object a). The desire to enjoy a balanced life is constituted by the intervention of performance coaching. Interviewees describe performance coaching as ‘eye opener’ and ‘introspective stuff I would’ve never thought about on my own’. It is the intervention of performance coaching that makes ‘being performant’ desirable by linking it to the cultural values of Family and Passion. It is through Performance that employees can become the best version of themselves (Passion) and enjoy a more balanced work-life relation (Family).
Second, like Foucault, Lacan identifies that knowledge is bound up with regimes of power (the arrow from S1 to S2) and is a rationalisation of the exercise of power (Nobus and Quinn, 2005: 133). In the empirical data, this reveals itself as 1) unexpected pauses in the speech when participants face the hidden mastery; or 2) as peculiar twists in their explanation of how they personally benefit from applying principles of performance coaching. Later in this paper, we will discuss the former. Here, we want to give some examples of the latter. The following extract is from Michael who is proactively involved in performance coaching as a training programme that, in his view, serves the benefit of both the individual and the organisation.
[Performance coaching is about] how we as individuals perform better
While performance coaching is supposed to be a win-win situation, Michael’s attempt to enunciate this mutuality ends up in having the company win on both sides. The mutual benefit here consists of ‘working harder for the company’ on the one hand, and ‘improving yourself, feeling better and working better’ on the other; the situation in which the meaning of ‘both’ is lost since actually it is the company that occupies the position at either ends of the relation. The deformation of the speech shows itself in another form as well. In describing Solution-Finders as one of the best places to work, another participant (Alice) refers to the mutual trust and loyalty between the employees and the directors.
I think I trust that the company would do right about me, and I trust that they would think I would do right about them too.
While mutual trust can be structured in a balanced grammatical formula of ‘I trust them and they trust me’, the structure of the sentence here has an interesting twist outweighing the trust relation more towards the subject rather than the other. ‘
Production of the barred subject ($)
What the University Discourse produces is central in unravelling how the subject falls into a self-perpetuating cycle of knowledge growth. Žižek’s (1998: 78-9) argument about the two levels of subjective positions involved in the University Discourse is helpful in unravelling this productive cycle. He explains this point using the example of the medical discourse.
At the surface level, we are dealing with pure objective knowledge that desubjectivizes the subject-patient, reducing him to an object of research, of diagnosis and treatment; however, beneath it, one can easily discern a worried hystericized subject, obsessed with anxiety, addressing the doctor as his Master and asking for reassurance from him.
Our analysis of the empirical data confirms these two levels of subjective positions in the application of performance coaching. At the surface level, it puts the employees under a scientific scrutiny to diagnose the reasons causing their inability to perform the tasks with full concentration and energy. Then it prescribes a healthy lifestyle (e.g. having enough sleep, doing more exercise and having a healthier diet regime) and provides the employees with training opportunities to become the best version of themselves and enjoy a more balanced life. What it produces though - the second level of subjective position - is a hystericised and worried subject who returns to the experts for reassurance. Participants consider performance coaching as an opportunity to recognise their passions and competencies, and identify the pitfalls in their lifestyle. The ongoing conversation with performance experts is considered to help them find ‘solutions’ in their journey. This puts them in a self-perpetuating cycle of knowledge growth (S2-a-$).
Figure 3 illustrates how performance coaching is structured by the University Discourse. The productive cycle of S2-a-$ is depicted as solid lines, and the intervention of the repressed mastery is depicted as dotted lines.
Performance coaching structured by the University Discourse.
These three themes manifest the dominant underlying formal structure of participants’ speech. Although these themes are generally evident throughout each interview, specific extracts stand out where all the themes/arrows converge and thus can show how the University Discourse can unravel the structural formation of the speech act. The following extract serves as an illustrative case. To further demonstrate this point, we interject the extract with brackets, aligning it with the four discourse elements and their interrelationships and then analyse it accordingly. This process illuminates how speech emerges within a pre-speech structural interplay among the University Discourse’s four elements.
Having been with Solution-Finders for 6 years, Antonin perceives the organisation as being very demanding and at the same time very supportive and a nice place to work. Antonin discusses performance coaching, hoping it will reduce his extensive work hours in what he refers to as doing ‘crazy hours’ in a highly demanding workplace.
They [Solution-Finders] invested, heavily, for us to understand and help us in performance [S2]. I think it’s really generous, because it’s kind of stuff they don’t need to do, but it’s something that . . . [pause] . . . of course will work out for them if we can get it right [S1] . . . I like it [performance coaching] and I think it’s going to help me not be doing these crazy hours . . . What I’m getting out of it is that it’s highlighting that my balancing of work and family life is not quite right. My health, I’m spending too much time sitting down. I could do with a lot more exercise, like genuine exercise [S2-a]. When looking at this, I can see areas that it’s because of myself that it’s happening, but I can also see areas where I think I could get help from the organisation [a-$] . . . The great thing is that you have those discussions about pros and cons, and sometimes my opinions are right and sometimes they’re wrong, but we can come to a solution [$-S2].
The first point that is evident in Antonin’s excerpt is the overt dimension of the social bond, represented at the top layer of the University Discourse graph. However, his articulation is punctuated by the unexpected disruption of the hidden mastery (see Figure 3). Performance coaching is enunciated with an air of impartial scientific information aimed at engaging the subject as a learner. However, this knowledge is bound up with power relations. As we discussed earlier, the hidden mastery either disrupts the speech or gives it a peculiar twist. In Antonin’s extract, we observe the former scenario. He initiates by depicting performance coaching as Solution-Finder’s ‘generous investment’ in employees as ‘it’s kind of stuff they don’t need to do’. Yet, an underlying association between performance coaching and Solution-Finders’ gains emerge abruptly, causing a disruptive pause followed by his remark, ‘of course it will work out for them if we can get it right’. The participants’ attempt to articulate performance coaching as a generous investment, or a win-win situation fails to hold together, and the stubborn truth of the discourse (S1) leaves its mark on their speech. As Lacan (2007: 106) points out, the hidden mastery in the University Discourse reveals itself in ‘the obvious fact that, concerning the human sciences, nothing holds together’.
Now we turn to the cycle S2-a-$. As Antonin’s extract shows, at the explicit or surface level we have a diagnosis and treatment procedure: performance experts are helping him to recognise and cure the deficiencies in his balancing of work and family life to avoid doing ‘crazy hours’ (S2-a). Beneath it, though, rather than the promised self-actualised subject with a balanced life, there is an anxious and self-criticising subject (a-$: ‘I can see areas that it’s because of myself that it’s happening’). What Antonin finds reassuring in performance coaching is ‘having those discussions’ where he can receive expert advice on his opinions, discussions that he hopes will reach a ‘solution’ ($-S2). Therefore, the impossibility of reaching a balanced life (Bloom, 2016) generates a self-perpetuating system of self-development. The subject who inevitably fails to author a stable sense of the self in his learning process (Driver, 2010), under the command ‘Keep on knowing’ falls into a repetitious cycle of self-development by constantly returning to the expert to make sure he is on the right track.
Performance coaching, in other words, protects the subject against experiencing the irremediable lack; that is, the impossibility of fully actualising the self (i.e. ‘being the best version of oneself’) and enjoying a balanced life (Bloom, 2016). The appeal of the knowledge is rooted in a certain subjective position where the impossible desire is reduced to a set of rituals (Boucher, 2006; Wilson, 2014). The following extract from Alice exemplifies this process.
Alice experiences a sense of indebtedness towards Solution-Finders. She shares custody of her child from a previous relationship, cherishing the days they spend together as ‘precious times’ in her life. Solution-Finder’s flexibility in accommodating her personal responsibilities has led to work encroaching upon her personal life, driven by gratitude. Similar to Antonin, Alice is concerned about balancing her work and family life. To be more precise, it is the intervention of performance coaching that triggers this concern or sparks the formation of this desire within her. During the first round of interviews, Alice displays no apprehension regarding her work-life balance and speaks predominantly positively about the work environment, flexibility and the mutual trust between employees and directors at Solution-Finders. As Žižek (2009: 132) puts it, ‘through fantasy, we learn how to desire’. The intervention of performance coaching constitutes the desire by rendering Alice a fantasy, and thus prompts her to seek a solution; that is, adopting a more efficient lifestyle by becoming the best version of herself. The following excerpt from Alice highlights how self-actualisation is simplified to a series of ‘skills’, involving the ability to identify one’s passions and access ample learning opportunities. Alice perceives these ‘skills’ as applicable both within and beyond the workplace.
They [performance coaches] might say, “Are you enjoying your job? Have you ever thought about skills or trainings you want to potentially be moving into a different area of the business?” Or “do you feel you’ve got everything you need to be doing the best you can do?” . . . I guess there’s two mindsets with it [performance coaching], because a lot of people would say “oh God! Solution-Finders is really trying to make you perform”. But actually, it benefits me to perform well when I’m doing [pause] . . . yes ok work task . . . but I can relate the same skills to things outside of work . . . A lot of the stuff that I’m hearing in the performance coaching sessions, I think they’re just logical . . . It is common sense and I think, hopefully, it’ll make a positive change.
Alice takes an external relation with performance coaching principles (Boucher, 2006) and considers it as certain ‘skills’ which are ‘logical and common sense’ which can be applied within as well as outside working hours. Again, the hidden mastery leaves its mark on the speech with a disruptive pause (. . . yes, ok work tasks . . .). But the way out is the assumption that she can apply the same ‘skills’ outside of work. The command ‘Keep on knowing’ is extended and includes self-knowledge; that is, knowing one’s motivation, passion and competencies. However, the key point is that this is reduced to identifying ‘skills and trainings’ one needs to become the best version of oneself.
The case of Michael can further illustrate this point. He is actively engaged in performance coaching, where he enthusiastically praises Solution-Finders as an excellent workplace. His dedication stems partly from the organisation’s unwavering support during a challenging period when his child was born prematurely. Grateful for this assistance, Michael adopted the habit of working late into the night as a means of reciprocation. However, through the insights gained from performance coaching, Michael has experienced a significant shift in perspective. He now perceives staying up late as detrimental, both to his own well-being and the organisation’s productivity, acknowledging the importance of maintaining a healthy lifestyle for optimal performance. The following extract from Michael demonstrates that achieving a healthy and balanced lifestyle is reduced to generic skills such as adjusting one’s diet, increasing physical activity and improving sleep patterns.
You think me staying up later on is just extra stuff getting done. But, really, I’m making myself tired and therefore I’m not performing as well as I could the next day. All of this is introspective stuff I would’ve never thought about on my own. It’s because we have these “performance coaches” come in, courtesy of Solution-Finders, to talk to you about it and teach you to think about these things . . . I’ve been quite interested in this recently. Stuff that I’ve been looking at is trying to lose a bit of this [points to his stomach] and get a bit more sleep . . . I do drink too many soft drinks. I’m trying to have more coffee . . . Before, I was definitely sitting all day on my desk. Whereas now I started moving around, consciously.
By reducing the impossible desire into generic skills and rituals, performance coaching provides a protective layer that guides and supports the subject in her journey towards self-actualisation and work-life balance. Before performance coaching, employees had their line manager as a ‘capability lead’ to give them advice on their technical development. Performance coaching adds a new layer to the bureaucracy of self-development. Each employee now has a people coach as well, whose role is, as Anna puts it in the following extract, to ‘support and make sure they are developing their skills as much as they want to’.
A: The role [performance coach] really is just to support, make sure if we’re developing our skills as much as we want to . . . I started in an admin role and I’m now moving to a project manager role. I wanted to grow my skills. Q: Was it your decision to move to this new role? A: Uh . . . kind of. It was both really. I started doing my project management qualifications. It was company funded. So, they’ve helped me with it, and it was a conversation I’ve had with my people coach and my capability lead.
Utilising a Lacanian viewpoint within our studied case, we examined how an apparently shared form of desire in relation to the fundamental lack transforms itself into a productive element through a network of interconnected processes. Initially, a selective recruitment policy establishes a foundational precondition for employability and retention by promoting a shared perception of the Other. This forms the bedrock of a productive community, fostering collaborative efforts and cooperative engagement that invigorate the production of knowledge.
Secondly, the introduction of a performance coaching programme intricately weaves the participants into a cycle of knowledge creation, guided by the command ‘keep on knowing’. The system is self-perpetuating as what it produces is the barred subject. What performance coaching represents is a curtailed subject whose full life is supposed to be attained solely through the application of a predetermined skill set. Nonetheless, contrary to the envisioned self-realised individual with a balanced life, what it produces is an anxious subject who fails to reach the promised land and seeks an escape through a heightened reliance on performance experts. This illustrative case study demonstrates that when desire is shaped within the University Discourse, it may become a catalyst for productivity, fuelling a continuous cycle of knowledge expansion. The jouissance derived from this pursuit leaves subjects in a state of paradoxical satisfaction within dissatisfaction, enjoying the unattainable nature of their goals (see Bloom, 2016).
Thirdly, the allure of performance coaching lies in its introduction of a fresh layer of bureaucratic support, namely the people coach, which shields individuals from confronting the traumatic lack. This continuous assistance provides ongoing aid in their personal development journey. The coaching environment envelops subjects in a protective cocoon, reassuring them that the promised land is not an insurmountable challenge but rather an attainable goal through constant guidance from expert coaches. These three intricately linked mechanisms collectively unveil how desire’s capacity operates as a form of labour, energising the production of knowledge (desire labour).
To sum up, employing a Lacanian perspective to investigate a knowledge-intensive organisation where social bonds are predominantly structured by the University Discourse, we presented a case illustrating the successful valorisation of a form of desire. In essence, the Lacanian lens allows us to uncover the intricate interplay between desire, subjectivity and knowledge production, shedding light on how within the context of knowledge work, desire labour (work arising from engagement with the fundamental lack) becomes a fundamental driving force behind this process.
Lacan, political economy and labour processes
This illustrative case study shows one way in which Lacan can expose hidden domains of labour valorisation through the notion of desire labour. But how do these findings relate back to the literature and what is added to current understanding? We consider this below by highlighting that to comprehend the role of subjectivity in labour processes, specifically in the realm of knowledge work, we need to extend the analysis beyond the scope of Marx (O’Doherty and Willmott, 2009) and encompass Marx’s economic analysis within a broader theory of capitalist subjectivity (Böhm and Batta, 2010) as value is not derived solely from labour (Böhm and Land, 2012; Mumby, 2016). The application of a Lacanian view has implications regarding the question of subjectivity in labour processes, which we will delve into by highlighting three points.
First, it examines how desire, as the Other’s desire, functions as a transformative mechanism in labour processes, extending the analysis of subjectivity beyond individual interests to the structural dynamics of the political economy. Second, it proposes an alternative view of the social bond, highlighting how the University Discourse mediates labour relations through the symbolic authority of knowledge, displacing traditional conflict models. Finally, it interrogates the conditions for resistance within these structures, suggesting that meaningful resistance emerges by reconfiguring the economy of enjoyment (jouissance). Together, these themes bridge gaps in LPT by integrating Lacan’s theory of discourse to link the production of subjectivity with the broader political economy, offering a nuanced perspective on labour and agency under late capitalism.
Desire is the other’s desire
Labour process is a transformative mechanism in which labour power (the capacity to work) converts into labour (actual work effort) (Edwards, 2010). A Lacanian view sheds light on the function of desire in this process, highlighting that desire is not a mere contingent and individualised phenomenon. Rather, it is inherently hooked onto the Other. This perspective challenges the conventional understanding of desire as a purely personal pursuit and underscores its complex relationship with the broader political economy. Kabwe and Tripathi (2020), for instance, employ LPT core theory to critically examine talent management systems within the core theory framework. They argue that employees are inherently interested in self-development focussed on their career aspirations. However, due to the structured antagonism between capital and labour, ‘talent’ is commodified, treated as any other organisational resource by management, rather than being regarded as the possession of individuals with autonomy, discretion and career goals.
A Lacanian view challenges this perspective that regards employees’ vested interest in self-development as the starting point of analysis, as something possessed by autonomous individuals. For Lacan language cannot simply be considered as a communicative tool. Lacan (2007: 66) specifies that ‘when I say, “the use of language”, I do not mean that we use it. It is language that uses us. Language employs us, and that is how it enjoys’. The subject speaks and is spoken at the same time. To speak, the subject’s speech is inevitably hooked onto the Other, the symbolic system of culture, and thus the subject is spoken by the Other. This underscores the profound influence of the Other in shaping our desires and subjectivities (Arnaud and Vidaillet, 2018), which manifests itself both locally within the organisation and, more importantly, within the broader realm of political economy. At the organisational level, as discussed in the empirical analysis, before performance became established as a master signifier, being performant was not at the core of the participants’ desire, and that is why they perceive performance coaching as enlightening, providing insights they would not have considered independently. This perspective builds on earlier applications of Lacanian theory to organisational contexts, particularly the emphasis on the role of the Other in shaping desire for performance (Ekman, 2013, 2015; Hoedemaekers and Keegan, 2010).
However, this paper takes the analysis further to elucidate the crucial function of the capitalist Other, the broader realm of the political economy, in shaping a self-perpetuating cycle of knowledge growth fuelled by desire. Capitalism (as symbolic system) has a constitutive role in the formation of the psyche of not just consumers but workers. A central point here is how the University Discourse, as previously discussed, constrains the subject’s ability to confront or experience the inherent lack that defines subjectivity. This limitation is not merely psychological but is deeply entwined with the broader political economy of late capitalism, which operates as a ‘discourse of the possible’. By disavowing the fundamental impossibility of achieving a complete, fulfilled life (Dean, 2012; Ekman, 2013, 2015; Welsch, 1997; Zupančič, 2006), this discourse perpetuates an illusion of endless potential and self-optimisation.
Ekman (2015) demonstrates, for instance, how disavowing the inherent impossibility at the heart of subjectivity gives rise to win-win fantasies, where conflicting demands and tensions are reframed as complementary and mutually reinforcing rather than fundamentally irreconcilable. This reframing sustains the illusion of harmony while obscuring deeper contradictions. For example, in the case studied in this paper, the fantasy sustains the belief that excelling in one’s professional role, striving to become the best version of oneself, and simultaneously achieving work-life balance is not only attainable but also complementary, as harmonious goals that reinforce the subject’s commitment to perpetual self-improvement.
Ekman (2015) argues that these win-win fantasies emphasise individual passion and innate talent, which devalue skills and routines that require long-term effort, discipline and humility. These fantasies, according to Ekman, celebrate spontaneity and creativity, sidelining the slower, more deliberate processes necessary for skill development. However, this paper, drawing on Lacan, expands on Ekman’s argument by shifting the focus to the underlying dynamics of desire in the University Discourse. It highlights that these fantasies operate by reducing the inherently impossible nature of desire into a manageable, finite set of competencies and skills. In late capitalism, technological and scientific advancements, coupled with market imperatives, transform ‘the subject’s lack of being into the lack of having’ (Šumič, 2016: 33). In this way, capitalism sustains the fantasy of completeness, encouraging individuals to seek fulfilment through external means and guidelines (Dean, 2012; Sharpe, 2006). Therefore, the subject of the University Discourse sees social norms as knowledge to be accepted which then becomes conflated with a set of guidelines (Boucher, 2006). A consequence of this is that the possibility of experiencing the lack is drastically reduced (Feldner and Vighi, 2015). In this process, the unattainable ideal is reframed as something achievable through adherence to ritualised skill development. This framing transforms desire into a structured and repetitive pursuit, creating a self-sustaining cycle of growth where individuals continually strive for mastery.
A Lacanian approach, therefore, ameliorates criticisms of post-structuralist developments in LPT (Böhm and Land, 2012; Thompson, 2009) by allowing specific characteristics of labour power to be considered. Lacan’s exposition of the University Discourse highlights some subjective characteristics that emerge as a result of market rationality (Sharpe, 2006; Sturdy et al., 2010; Tomšič, 2015) and thus can bridge the political economy to the question of subjectivity. A Lacanian view aligns with the notion that the production of subjectivity precedes economic production (Lazzarato, 2004). This suggest that labour capacity includes an element (namely, desire) whose functioning cannot be reduced to workplace relationships. It adheres to a distinct logic, and grasping its operation necessitates transcending certain tenets of the core theory. It requires viewing it as an economy of enjoyment (jouissance) rather than merely as a component of effort-reward bargain within the structured antagonism. In other words, it brings to fore an alternative view of the structure of the social bond that we discuss further in the following.
An alternative view on the structure of social bonds
According to the LPT core theory, structured conflict between capital and labour is central to understanding the dynamics of work under capitalism. This perspective emphasises that managers act as ‘agents of capital’ (Edwards, 2010; Smith, 2015; Thompson and Smith, 2000; Vincent, 2011), framing the study of labour processes largely around the tensions and antagonisms between managers and workers (Bloom and Śliwa, 2022; Brook, 2013; Ivanova and von Scheve, 2020; Kabwe and Tripathi, 2020; Vincent, 2011). While structured conflict remains highly relevant in explaining the politics of work in many contexts, treating it as a universal foundation for analysis risks overlooking alternative dynamics that shape subjectivity and labour processes.
Ekman’s (2013) Lacanian analysis of win-win fantasies, for instance, offers an important challenge to this assumption. Rather than focussing on conflict, it reveals how intense mutual recognition between managers and workers can cultivate a high-commitment workforce. This perspective broadens the analytic lens of labour processes, showing how alignment and mutual recognition can be as central as conflict in shaping the politics of work under capitalism. However, despite its Lacanian foundation, Ekman’s (2013) study remains tied to a core assumption of LPT: it continues to frame the social bond primarily as the relationship between managers and workers. This relational lens, while valuable, risks underexploring broader structural and symbolic forces that shape subjectivity and labour practices.
This paper advances the analysis by building on Lacan’s theory of the University Discourse to propose an alternative view of the social bond in late capitalism. Lacan argues that in this era, social bonds are no longer rooted primarily in interpersonal relationships or symbolic positions of power but are increasingly mediated by the symbolic authority of knowledge. Under the tyranny of knowledge (Gallagher, 2001), knowledge-intensive institutions become the incarnation of the command to continuously learn and grow. As Lacan (2007: 105) puts it, ‘it is impossible not to obey the commandment there in the place of what is the truth of science, “Continue. March on. Keep on knowing more and more”’ (Lacan, 2007: 105). In this framework, agency is displaced from managers and workers onto the seemingly neutral and objective authority of knowledge itself. The demands for continuous improvement, framed as rational and scientific, emanate from an unknown source – the capitalist Other. This Other operates under the guise of neutrality but ultimately serves the imperatives of capital, subordinating subjectivity to its logic. Lacan’s insight reveals that a hidden mastery is in place, the insidious force of knowledge (S2). In this system, the command to ‘keep on knowing’ becomes the mechanism through which individuals are interpellated into the social bond, sustaining the valorisation processes of the knowledge economy while obscuring its deeper contradictions.
This perspective responds to poststructuralist critiques of LPT core theory. LPT core theory posits that structures precede actions and possess ‘independent causal powers that cannot be reduced to the identities and subjectivities of the actors who constitute them’, and consequently, ‘the labour process can be viewed as an antecedent structure within which various agents are located’ (Thompson and Vincent, 2010: 60–62). Poststructuralists have challenged this emphasis on antecedent structures, arguing that it inadequately addresses the role of subjectivity, leaving the subject under-theorised or ‘missing’ (see OʼDoherty, 2009). Lacan’s theory of discourse offers a framework that reconciles structural analysis with the centrality of subjectivity. In Lacan’s conceptualisation, subjectivity is not external to structure but is produced within it, making the question of subjectivity inherent to the analysis. As Böhm and Batta (2010) argue, addressing labour processes in contemporary work practices necessitates integrating Marx’s economic critique with a theory of capitalist subjectivity. Lacan’s discourse theory provides this foundation, enabling a structural analysis that considers the dynamics of labour subjectivity under capitalism. Focussing on the University Discourse, this paper contributes an alternative structural perspective on the social bond, highlighting how the agency of knowledge converts desire into a productive force. This process sustains a self-perpetuating cycle of knowledge expansion and growth, illustrating how subjectivity and structure are deeply intertwined in contemporary labour practices.
Solution-Finders is an illustrative example of such a symbolic system. By taking principles of performance coaching as mere guidelines, our subjects were not confronted with a traumatic lack, they simply needed to follow the science of the coach. They are not duped. They are pursuing what appears to them as their own personal interest by taking performance coaching as a win-win situation. However, their symbolic articulation has a preceding structure and is caught in the gravitational force of a certain form of narrative characterised by constant learning and self-development (Pavón Cuéllar, 2019). Through this lens, we can explore how desire fuels a self-sustaining system of knowledge growth. As Lacan asserts, the master wants the expansion of knowledge ‘without his having to lift a little finger’ (MacCannell, 2006: 197). This does not in any way discard the idea that a control imperative plays a role in labour processes. Instead, it offers a different view on the structure of social bond and highlights the central role of a certain economy of enjoyment (jouissance) within the context of late capitalism. This perspective has important implications for how resistance and agency are understood, which we explore further in the following.
Resistance
Certainly, this does not suggest that a Lacanian perspective is totalising and disregards any room for resistance. Other Lacanian studies have interrogated the politics of subjectivity in non-authoritarian systems of management (Contu, 2008; Costas and Taheri, 2012; Vidaillet and Gamot, 2015). At the individual level, Lacan’s exploration of subjectivity highlights that lack can play a liberating role by prompting individuals to confront their desires and motivations (Driver, 2010, 2016). Furthermore, lack is not confined to the individual and the Other is also marked by an intrinsic lack (Stavrakakis, 2008). Stavrakakis (2000) elaborates on this point by framing the political as a space of radical indeterminacy, where the interplay of desire and the impossibility of full social closure make both identity and social order precarious. This perspective reveals the political as a domain characterised with the dialectics of subjugation and freedom, not merely as opposites but as mutually constitutive forces operating at the margins of subjectivity.
The extent to which individuals can engage with their experiences of lack, however, is deeply influenced by the discursive frameworks within which their speech emerges, or in other words, the position from which they speak. Lacan’s theory of discourse offers a powerful foundation for interrogating these institutional contexts and the structural conditions that shape the possibilities for resistance and agency. It is no coincidence that Lacan titled Seminar XVII, where he introduced his theory of discourse, The Other Side of Psychoanalysis. This title reflects his intention to contrast the institutional context of psychoanalysis – where lack is directly engaged and explored – with other discursive frameworks that impose limitations on such engagement. Lacan’s conception of the Analyst’s Discourse exemplifies a social bond that positions object a as the agent and actively invites the subject to confront their lack. In contrast, the University Discourse functions in a fundamentally different way. It prioritises the reproduction of knowledge and the preservation of institutional stability, often distancing itself from the disruptive potential of lack.
Vidaillet and Gamot (2015), in their Lacanian analysis of an organisation facing imminent closure, illustrate how the obliteration of symbolic authority- essentially the agency of statements emanated from an unknown source- profoundly undermines the capacity for resistance. Building on their insights, our paper extends this argument by demonstrating that the obliteration of symbolic authority is not confined to moments of crisis or specific organisational contexts but is, in fact, a structural feature of Lacan’s University Discourse. This framework explains how this dynamic operates systematically within knowledge-intensive firms, where the subversive potential of desire is neutralised, while simultaneously channelling it as a driving force for the production and accumulation of knowledge. The primary purpose of employing the selected case study in this paper is to exemplify this notion, rather than delving into the vicissitudes of desire at Solution-Finders or among our participants.
Meaningful resistance can arise by bringing back the negativity (see Žižek, 2016) and challenging the grip of ostensibly impartial statements tied to these key signifiers, which promise an impeccable life, a generic system that always ‘holds together’ (see Ekman, 2015). Understanding the logic of the University Discourse is crucial in this context, as it provides the framework for conceptualising resistance. The very logic of the University Discourse must be dismantled in order to resist its grip. For instance, at Solution-Finders, the symbolic constellation of performance coaching revolves around the interaction of performance, self-actualisation and work-life balance. As previously mentioned, Solution-Finders has two aspects: its demanding nature and its positive work environment. The generic framework of performance coaching can be partially deconstructed by introducing new signifiers such as workload. This prompts an interrogation of the underlying rationale of performance coaching, suggesting that the primary issue causing work encroachment on personal time is not solely individual performance but rather the unmanageable workload. More importantly, this alters the position from which the subject speaks and generates a different economy of enjoyment (jouissance). However, it carries a significant psychic toll as it interrupts the dominant form of the formation of social bonds.
Fotaki and Harding (2013), for instance, demonstrate how Lacan’s conception of the Hysteric Discourse can unravel the structural formation of such a subjective position where knowledge is not the driving force but rather the product of constant questioning of the master signifiers. Hence, it is the very desire that can unsettle the system, though it needs a drastic shift in the position from which the subject speaks. This aligns with perspectives that emphasise the potential risk of trivialising resistance (Contu, 2008) and advocate for looking beyond the forms of action by considering the distinct rationales underlying these actions (Bélanger and Thuderoz, 2010: 153). Through Lacan’s theory of discourse, we can better understand how different forms of social bonds and economies of enjoyment (jouissance) function within institutional contexts. Some discourses, like the University Discourse, work to neutralise desire by integrating it into a productive framework, while others, such as the Hysteric Discourse, challenge and potentially subvert these structures. By examining the social bond within these frameworks, a Lacanian perspective provides a deeper understanding of how resistance can arise – not just from external actions but through a fundamental shift in the subject’s relationship to desire, knowledge and the symbolic order that sustains them.
Conclusion
Revisiting the initial question posed in the introduction of this paper, our study illuminates how an enunciated desire has transformed into a productive force under the tyranny of knowledge. Building upon Lacan’s concept of the University Discourse and employing an illustrative case, we have demonstrated how this desire is effectively valorised in a self-sustaining cycle of knowledge growth. Our Lacanian approach unravels the manner in which such desire propels an economy of enjoyment, serving as a link between the political economy of capitalism and the role of subjectivity within labour processes. We note that ritualistic disavowal of the lack is not the exclusive manner in which desire becomes productive. We therefore suggest that other economies of desire may reveal other shades and shapes of desire labour that can be explored in future research. While this paper focuses on the intersection of desire and labour, the blending of work and domestic life observed in our case study opens intriguing possibilities for future research into consumption as another critical site where economies of desire may operate. Such an enquiry could illuminate additional shades and shapes of desire labour, further enriching our understanding of how subjectivity is mobilised in the broader cycles of capitalist valorisation.
We recognise that the agency of knowledge can also be seen in our study. It appeals to psychoanalytic concepts that are addressing our desire for gaining recognition in the community of ‘critical scholars’ (S2 in relation to object a). However, the difference is in the nature of the knowledge. Lacan, rejecting the rationality of psychology, in his unpublished seminar states that ‘all modern psychology is made to explain how a human being can behave in the capitalist structure’ (Pavón-Cuéllar, 2011: 71). The agency of Lacan’s psychoanalytic knowledge in our study, therefore, does not contribute to reproducing the tyranny of knowledge, rather to unravel its exploitative truth. Lacan’s theory of subjectivity and discourse, with its fundamental premises as a negative ontology, ‘is still too irrational to be assimilated to capitalist rationality’ and the tyranny of knowledge (Pavón Cuéllar, 2019: 287).
A Lacanian viewpoint shows that the indeterminacy of subjectivity, its inherent impossibility, transforms it into a repetitive cycle– a cycle susceptible to valorisation. It is the capacity to desire that energises this cycle. According to the core theory, labour process, as the object of enquiry in LPT, is fundamentally intertwined with effort-reward bargains within the structured antagonism (Edwards, 2010; Smith, 2015; Thompson and Vincent, 2010). From this view, ‘worker identity and other issues are relevant to the extent that they affect the terms of the struggle, but they are not a constituent part of the analysis in their own right’ (Edwards, 2010). A Lacanian approach, however, unravels an element (namely, desire) that contributes to labour processes but operates precisely by being positioned outside the struggle. Desire is an element whose functioning extends beyond structured conflicts, making it an inherent part of the analysis in its own right. As outlined by Lacan, pursuing desire has fallen into the category of value (Lacan, 2007) and the analysis of labour processes can gain valuable insights by integrating this perspective into its examination.
Footnotes
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
