Abstract
The authors regret that the appropriate acknowledgment and attribution was not given in the passages below to work previously published in Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory [Mallory, P., and Carlson, J. (2014). Rethinking personal and political friendship with Durkheim. Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory, 19(1): 69–84] and in Social Anthropology [Rakopoulos, T. (2016). Solidarity: the egalitarian tensions of a bridge-concept. Social Anthropology, 24 (2): 142–151].
They would like to amend the following passages to give the correct references to their sources.
On page 13 of this article, the corrected citation within the sentence is provided below.
In particular, the “often overlooked horizontal, affective and moral bonds that underlie and sustain the political (Devere and Smith 2010)” (Mallory and Carlson 2014: 327)
On page 13 of this article, the corrected citation within the sentence is provided below.
Using Durkheim’s work on solidarity to understand these connections encourages us to analyze groups of friends as “a collective representation and a social fact consisting of ways of acting, thinking, and feeling (. . .) friendship, like other collective representations, would involve both beliefs and practices and have both sacred and profane qualities” (Mallory & Carlson 2014: 328)
On page 13 of this article, the corrected citation within the sentence is provided below.
Solidarity thus “carries the spark of the sacred into everyday life” (Mallory & Carlson 2014: 328)
On page 13 of this article, the corrected citation within the sentence is provided below.
This Durkheimian approach, as per Mallory and Carlson, “reveals a dialectic between collective ideals and everyday practices” (2014: 328)
On page 16 of this article, the corrected citation within the sentence is provided below.
If we follow Durkheim, the rising anomie in organizations signals “the weakening of traditionally powerful collective representations” (Mallory & Carlson 2014: 336) which subsequently weakens interpersonal relationships.
On page 17 of this article, the corrected citation within the sentence is provided below.
Mallory and Carlson mention the connection drawn by Tocqueville “between the depoliticizing potential of private friendships and despotic, tyrannical forms of democracy” (Mallory & Carlson 2014: 340)
On page 17 of this article, the corrected citation within the sentence is provided below.
It is therefore of great importance that studies of organizational politics engage in analysis of the “social bonds that underpin the political”, and explore “how the sacred qualities of friendship” (Mallory & Carlson 2014: 338) can be nourished to produce and sustain the force of collective life.
On pages 17-18 of this article, the corrected citation within the sentence is provided below.
As Mallory and Carlson (2014: 333) remind us, for Durkheim, “the beliefs and practices of friendship are inextricably linked”. Workplace resistance, generating a whole “intersubjective realm of relationships, permeated by symbols and the sacred” (Mallory & Carlson 2014: 333), is therefore fully related to an ideal of what intersubjective relations at work ought to be.
On page 18 of this article, the corrected citation within the sentence is provided below.
Experiences of resistance in neoliberal settings, such as those we have described in this paper, are moments where intersubjective encounters, because they are entangled with intense emotions, produce “collective ideals of friendship (. . .) ritually renewed” (Mallory & Carlson 2014: 333).
On page 18 of this article, the sentence “Seen from this perspective,. . . (Durkheim, 1961, p.67)”, was removed. The original sentence (but without acknowledging its original source (Mallory & Carlson, 2014)) can be found in the PDF version of this corrigendum.
On page 18 of this article, the corrected citation within the sentence is provided below.
Following Rakopoulos (2016: 143), organizational politics should therefore analyse solidarity as a bridge, “which situates people in relation and inter-dependence, and ties the contingencies of the political present to existing (even ‘deep’) practices of survival and sociality”.
The article has been corrected.