Inoperosità : Exposing the Position of Employees and Customers in Unemployment-Related Management Literature
(2025)- Abstract
- Regardless of our socio-juridical position in or outside of organisations, this much is certain: even if not formally employed, we all, Agamben’s Homo Sacer series and the bulk of his other texts imply, are subject to a violence that, if differentially, imprisons us in a world in which ‘work’ reigns supreme. But what precisely is ‘work’? And is there, in spite of our securing the necessities of life, still a viable ‘way out’? To probe these questions, I draw on Agamben, approaching ‘work’ in two distinct, wholly opposing ways. At base, echoing an ever-increasing appreciation of the salience of Agamben’s philosophy, I approach work, together with organisation (from ergon, meaning ‘work’), in terms of oikonomia and inoperosità.... (More)
- Regardless of our socio-juridical position in or outside of organisations, this much is certain: even if not formally employed, we all, Agamben’s Homo Sacer series and the bulk of his other texts imply, are subject to a violence that, if differentially, imprisons us in a world in which ‘work’ reigns supreme. But what precisely is ‘work’? And is there, in spite of our securing the necessities of life, still a viable ‘way out’? To probe these questions, I draw on Agamben, approaching ‘work’ in two distinct, wholly opposing ways. At base, echoing an ever-increasing appreciation of the salience of Agamben’s philosophy, I approach work, together with organisation (from ergon, meaning ‘work’), in terms of oikonomia and inoperosità.
Oikonomia, as my object of criticism, refers to the immanent execution of an allegedly foundational, absolute power – be it God, the sovereign or the people. It is stylised as such a foundational power’s attendant secondary cause/power. Therefore, with oikonomia, life is transcendentally grounded, so that work’s oikonomic executioners – for instance, managers, functionaries and bureaucrats – justify themselves and act ‘vicariously’; they justify themselves and act as messengers, intermediaries or administrators of an archē that as such does not exist, but that they – to legitimise themselves – conjure up and produce, with work being in thrall to spectacularisation. In contrast to this, inoperosità is the antidote to oikonomia’s brutal encroachment. It refers to an exit from, and neutralisation of, oikonomia’s biopolitical grip on work.
Management literature does not stand outside of oikonomia. Rather, as shown, it is often part and parcel thereof. With this in view, relying on a case study analysis of unemployment-related management texts, I provide a much-needed exposition of this literature’s oikonomic footing. This is done in three interrelated ways: first, the oikonomic position of employees and customers in these texts is expounded; second, contrary to received wisdom in the field of organisation studies, the possibility of thinking of organisation in terms of a language use that no longer corrals human beings into oikonomic positions is revealed; and third, a deposition/neutralisation of oikonomic language, implicit in the previous point, is performed, which is to say that this thesis is concerned with inoperosità not only in its content, but also its expression.
Above all, it is this interleaving of the exposition (revealing) and ex-position (neutralisation) of language that is inoperosità. Hence, no longer an oikonomic potentiality to be or not to be actualised, work and organisation emerge as a potential in contact with the act; rather than being played off against one another, foundational power (potential) and immanent execution (act) are revealed as non-related and suspended, a testimony of this contactual non-relation/suspension being the core contribution of my thesis. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Regardless of our socio-juridical position in or outside of organisations, this much is certain: even if not formally employed, we all, Agamben’s Homo Sacer series and the bulk of his other texts imply, are subject to a violence that, if differentially, imprisons us in a world in which ‘work’ reigns supreme. But what precisely is ‘work’? And is there, in spite of our securing the necessities of life, still a viable ‘way out’? To probe these questions, I draw on Agamben, approaching ‘work’ in two distinct, wholly opposing ways. At base, echoing an ever-increasing appreciation of the salience of Agamben’s philosophy, I approach work, together with organisation (from ergon, meaning ‘work’), in terms of oikonomia and... (More)
- Regardless of our socio-juridical position in or outside of organisations, this much is certain: even if not formally employed, we all, Agamben’s Homo Sacer series and the bulk of his other texts imply, are subject to a violence that, if differentially, imprisons us in a world in which ‘work’ reigns supreme. But what precisely is ‘work’? And is there, in spite of our securing the necessities of life, still a viable ‘way out’? To probe these questions, I draw on Agamben, approaching ‘work’ in two distinct, wholly opposing ways. At base, echoing an ever-increasing appreciation of the salience of Agamben’s philosophy, I approach work, together with organisation (from ergon, meaning ‘work’), in terms of oikonomia and inoperosità.
Oikonomia, as my object of criticism, refers to the immanent execution of an allegedly foundational, absolute power – be it God, the sovereign or the people. It is stylised as such a foundational power’s attendant secondary cause/power. Therefore, with oikonomia, life is transcendentally grounded, so that work’s oikonomic executioners – for instance, managers, functionaries and bureaucrats – justify themselves and act ‘vicariously’; they justify themselves and act as messengers, intermediaries or administrators of an archē that as such does not exist, but that they – to legitimise themselves – conjure up and produce, with work being in thrall to spectacularisation. In contrast to this, inoperosità is the antidote to oikonomia’s brutal encroachment. It refers to an exit from, and neutralisation of, oikonomia’s biopolitical grip on work.
Management literature does not stand outside of oikonomia. Rather, as shown, it is often part and parcel thereof. With this in view, relying on a case study analysis of unemployment-related management texts, I provide a much-needed exposition of this literature’s oikonomic footing. This is done in three interrelated ways: first, the oikonomic position of employees and customers in these texts is expounded; second, contrary to received wisdom in the field of organisation studies, the possibility of thinking of organisation in terms of a language use that no longer corrals human beings into oikonomic positions is revealed; and third, a deposition/neutralisation of oikonomic language, implicit in the previous point, is performed, which is to say that this thesis is concerned with inoperosità not only in its content, but also its expression.
Above all, it is this interleaving of the exposition (revealing) and ex-position (neutralisation) of language that is inoperosità. Hence, no longer an oikonomic potentiality to be or not to be actualised, work and organisation emerge as a potential in contact with the act; rather than being played off against one another, foundational power (potential) and immanent execution (act) are revealed as non-related and suspended, a testimony of this contactual non-relation/suspension being the core contribution of my thesis. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/82ee2d3c-563d-4acc-bdd2-5adeca4f8073
- author
- Tramer, Stefan LU
- supervisor
- opponent
-
- Professor Brown, Steven D., Nottingham Trent University
- organization
- publishing date
- 2025
- type
- Thesis
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- Agamben (Giorgio), Inoperosità, Management Literature, Oikonomia, Work, Unemployment, Cooper (Robert), Kafka (Franz), Agamben, Inoperosità, Management literature, Oikonomia, Work, Unemployment
- pages
- 212 pages
- publisher
- Department of Business Administration, Lund University
- defense location
- EC3:207
- defense date
- 2025-03-28 13:15:00
- ISBN
- 978-91-8104-369-3
- 978-91-8104-368-6
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 82ee2d3c-563d-4acc-bdd2-5adeca4f8073
- date added to LUP
- 2025-02-19 16:29:47
- date last changed
- 2025-04-04 15:03:24
@phdthesis{82ee2d3c-563d-4acc-bdd2-5adeca4f8073,
abstract = {{Regardless of our socio-juridical position in or outside of organisations, this much is certain: even if not formally employed, we all, Agamben’s Homo Sacer series and the bulk of his other texts imply, are subject to a violence that, if differentially, imprisons us in a world in which ‘work’ reigns supreme. But what precisely is ‘work’? And is there, in spite of our securing the necessities of life, still a viable ‘way out’? To probe these questions, I draw on Agamben, approaching ‘work’ in two distinct, wholly opposing ways. At base, echoing an ever-increasing appreciation of the salience of Agamben’s philosophy, I approach work, together with organisation (from ergon, meaning ‘work’), in terms of oikonomia and inoperosità. <br/><br/>Oikonomia, as my object of criticism, refers to the immanent execution of an allegedly foundational, absolute power – be it God, the sovereign or the people. It is stylised as such a foundational power’s attendant secondary cause/power. Therefore, with oikonomia, life is transcendentally grounded, so that work’s oikonomic executioners – for instance, managers, functionaries and bureaucrats – justify themselves and act ‘vicariously’; they justify themselves and act as messengers, intermediaries or administrators of an archē that as such does not exist, but that they – to legitimise themselves – conjure up and produce, with work being in thrall to spectacularisation. In contrast to this, inoperosità is the antidote to oikonomia’s brutal encroachment. It refers to an exit from, and neutralisation of, oikonomia’s biopolitical grip on work. <br/><br/>Management literature does not stand outside of oikonomia. Rather, as shown, it is often part and parcel thereof. With this in view, relying on a case study analysis of unemployment-related management texts, I provide a much-needed exposition of this literature’s oikonomic footing. This is done in three interrelated ways: first, the oikonomic position of employees and customers in these texts is expounded; second, contrary to received wisdom in the field of organisation studies, the possibility of thinking of organisation in terms of a language use that no longer corrals human beings into oikonomic positions is revealed; and third, a deposition/neutralisation of oikonomic language, implicit in the previous point, is performed, which is to say that this thesis is concerned with inoperosità not only in its content, but also its expression. <br/><br/>Above all, it is this interleaving of the exposition (revealing) and ex-position (neutralisation) of language that is inoperosità. Hence, no longer an oikonomic potentiality to be or not to be actualised, work and organisation emerge as a potential in contact with the act; rather than being played off against one another, foundational power (potential) and immanent execution (act) are revealed as non-related and suspended, a testimony of this contactual non-relation/suspension being the core contribution of my thesis.}},
author = {{Tramer, Stefan}},
isbn = {{978-91-8104-369-3}},
keywords = {{Agamben (Giorgio); Inoperosità; Management Literature; Oikonomia; Work; Unemployment; Cooper (Robert); Kafka (Franz); Agamben; Inoperosità; Management literature; Oikonomia; Work; Unemployment}},
language = {{eng}},
publisher = {{Department of Business Administration, Lund University}},
school = {{Lund University}},
title = {{Inoperosità : Exposing the Position of Employees and Customers in Unemployment-Related Management Literature}},
url = {{https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/files/208746148/Stefan_Tramer_-_THESIS.pdf}},
year = {{2025}},
}