Materiality turn

Last updated

The materiality turn in organization studies is the theoretical movement emphasizing objects, instruments and embodiments involved in organizations and organizing (theoretical debate [1]) and the ontologies underpinnings theories about organizations and organizing, what deeply 'matters' in the study of organizations and organizing (e.g. structures, agency, intentionality, process, movements, relations, networks, entities, substance, technologies, semiosis, etc.) (ontological debate[2]) (see e.g. Latour, 2007; [1] de Vaujany and Mitev, 2016 [2] ).

Contents

In the context of organization studies (see e.g. Tsoukas and Knudsen, 2005 [3] or Clegg et al., 2006 [4] ), a turn is a collective direction of research, focused on some coherent sets of concepts, theories and ideas, which represent a point of bifurcation for the field itself. Most turns in organization studies relate to broader ones in social sciences and humanities.

The materiality-turn is one of these major turns. It emerged in the nineties, precisely because materiality and the modes of existence of things were questioned by the digitalization of societies and organizations (Van Dijk, 2012 [5] ), the disembodiment of agency (Hayles, 1999 [6] ), and the increasingly distributed modalities of collective activity (e.g. with mobile technologies, digital nomadism, systematization of entrepreneurship, coworking spaces, end of work, see e.g. Engeström, Miettinen and Punamäki, 1999 [7] or Turner et al., 2006 [8] ). The turn can be defined as an intellectual project, a forum which encompasses a diversity of ontologies and it has a specific history.

A post-discursive project

The materiality-turn corresponds to a broad intellectual project partly related to the symbolic approach of artefacts (see Galiardi, 1990 [9] ): it develops post-discursive perspectives intended to make sense of the 'materiality' and 'matter-iality' of practices and processes at stake in organizations, organizing and management (Carlile and Langley, 2013;, [10] [11] de Vaujany and Mitev, 2013 [12] ).

As a forum to share ontological views about what matters in organizations and organizing

By contrast to debates about sociomateriality (emphasizing the co-constitution of materiality and sociality) which are more likely to lead to a strict relational ontology (see Orlikowski, 2007 [13] ), the materiality-turn is a forum gathering a diversity of ontologies or ontological dimensions (de Vaujany and Mitev, 2016 [14] ): phenomenology, pragmatism, critical realism, post-Marxism, post-structuralism, post-humanism, post-modernism, etc. which can all contribute and broaden the current debate about materiality.

History

The materiality-turn has a specific history and originates from various historical sources, in particular: Marxism (a key source), Foucauldian studies, symbolic artefacts (and aesthetic) studies, Material culture, Science & Technology Studies (STS). These studies are largely post-Marxist in the sense that Marxist studies (e.g. with notions such as "Materialism", "Historical Materialism" or "Material dialectic") have been a major turning point both in the development of post-Hegelian ontologies and (probably far from Marx own view) in the disentanglement of ideal and material dimensions, or the distinction between Nature and Society, which are questioned today by some promoters of the materiality-turn. The re-discovery of these seminal contributions have provided useful concepts such as materiality, material, devices, apparatus, modes of existence, intra-action, affordance, agentivity, entanglement, heterotopic space, material or sociomaterial practices, ontologies, process, network, meshwork, among others.

Following Latour (Latour, 2007: 139 [15] ), the materiality-turn is related to "the way we move knowledge forward in order to access things that are far away or otherwise inaccessible" (materiality) or "the way things move to keep themselves in existence." We propose to call this 'matter-iality', to emphasise how things matter.

Instrumentations, mediations, materializations and preformations are at the heart of the materiality- turn, which has strong intersections and commonalities with other turns such as the practice turn, communication turn, visual turn, process turn, performativity turn or spatial turn.

In short: both a set of theories and (their) ontologies

If some researchers interested in the materiality-turn focus on spaces, artefacts, objects, instruments, technologies and bodies and their relationships with practices, others prefer to explore broader movements and associations. The latter are not so preoccupied with the usual dichotomies such as nature vs. culture, nature vs. society, or human vs. non-human entities.

Most of all, it seems that the materiality-turn and the ontology turn largely converge. Exploring what deeply matters in the study of organizations and organizing leads (or should lead) to the reflexive identification of ontologies (Goodman, 2001; [16] Coole and Frost, 2010; [17] Introna, 2013; [18] Jones, 2013; [19] Kelly, 2014; [20] de Vaujany and Mitev, 2016 [21] ). Various answers exist about what deeply matters in the study of organizations and organizing and what it means to be human, and how humanity is understood influences each perspective (Introna, 2013; [22] de Vaujany and Mitev, 2016 [23] ). For some, relations and associations (involved in movements and assemblages) are the key ontological units. For others, it is more at the level of agency and intentionality (more or less embodied) that lay the main ontological unit. Lastly, for some other researchers, sociological matter, what is expected to endure across time and space, structures, infrastructures, superstructures, are expected to be the key units of analysis.

The materiality-turn strives to go beyond oppositional debates between various proponents of sociomateriality, such as agential realism vs. critical realism or interpretivism vs. performativity. In short, the material turn is a theoretical stream covering what is expected to endure across time and space, or what is temporally and spatially constituted through everyday activities, i.e. tools, objects, artefacts, technologies, built spaces, bodies and embodiment and their relationships with organizations and organizing (Miller, 1998; [24] 2005; Carlile and Langley, 2013; [25] Dameron, Lê and Lebaron, 2015 [26] ).

The bulk of this stream of research hankers for post-discursive stances, i.e. visions which do not see language as a mere vehicle of representations and includes non-linguistic (visual) elements in analysis (e.g. through ethnographic analysis, see Meyer, Höllerer, Jancsary and Van Leeuwen, 2013 [27] ). Some of these approaches adopt critical and historical views to explain how the materiality and semiosis of our world has changed in the post WW2 period (Hayles, 1999; [28] de Vaujany and Mitev, 2015 [29] ).

Paradoxically, ontogenesis itself then needs to be historicized. Some suggest to overcome at some point the materialist terminology for a more technicist one (Latour, 2014; [30] Lemonnier, 2014 [31] ). It is also an ontological debate (de Vaujany and Mitev, 2016 [32] ) about the main assumptions underlying the theorizations involved for instance in the debates mentioned above.

Some of the key issues the materiality-turn addresses relate to: the entanglement of material and social elements in practices (Orlikowski, 2007 [33] ); the problem of ethics in a complex world and the issue of control and moral delegations in a more and more digital world (Dale, 2005; [34] Introna, 2013 [35] ); materiality and regulation in a post-crisis economy (Wasserman and Frenkel, 2011 [36] ); the temporal, spatial and material dimensions of legitimacy, institutional logics and legitimation which remain a key issue for managers and citizens (Jones, 2013 [37] ); or the new modalities of collaboration involved in the rising collaborative economy, among others. The material turn is therefore not just philosophical and ontological discussions, but fundamentally about what is happening in organizations and societies.

[1] Ontology is about what is, in contrast to epistemology which explores what we know and how we know it. For Bhaskar (1979) [38] ), one should avoid the epistemic fallacy, i.e. the conflation between what is and what we know. Beyond this strong statement (not ontologically neutral itself), it is probably important to keep in mind the possibility that epistemology and ontology sometimes need to be distinguished. [2] The theoretical debate quickly leads to the ontological debate. For numerous researchers in organization studies, objects, instruments and bodies cannot be research objects or relevant research objects per se. They need to be part of broader practices, activities, routines or processes. Why, when, how? This corresponds to the ontological debate.

See also

Related Research Articles

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality. This includes studies of the first principles of: being or existence, identity, change, consciousness, space and time, necessity, actuality, and possibility. It can also include questions about the existence of God, as well as relationships between foundational philosophical ideas such as between mind and matter, cause and effect, substance and attribute, or potentiality and actuality.

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions of material things. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are by-products or epiphenomena of material processes, without which they cannot exist. Materialism directly contrasts with idealism, according to which consciousness is the fundamental substance of nature.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Reductionism</span> Philosophical view explaining systems in terms of smaller parts

Reductionism is any of several related philosophical ideas regarding the associations between phenomena which can be described in terms of other simpler or more fundamental phenomena. It is also described as an intellectual and philosophical position that interprets a complex system as the sum of its parts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bruno Latour</span> French philosopher, anthropologist and sociologist (1947–2022)

Bruno Latour was a French philosopher, anthropologist and sociologist. He was especially known for his work in the field of science and technology studies (STS). After teaching at the École des Mines de Paris from 1982 to 2006, he became professor at Sciences Po Paris (2006–2017), where he was the scientific director of the Sciences Po Medialab. He retired from several university activities in 2017. He was also a Centennial Professor at the London School of Economics.

The theory of structuration is a social theory of the creation and reproduction of social systems that is based on the analysis of both structure and agents, without giving primacy to either. Furthermore, in structuration theory, neither micro- nor macro-focused analysis alone is sufficient. The theory was proposed by sociologist Anthony Giddens, most significantly in The Constitution of Society, which examines phenomenology, hermeneutics, and social practices at the inseparable intersection of structures and agents. Its proponents have adopted and expanded this balanced position. Though the theory has received much criticism, it remains a pillar of contemporary sociological theory.

Actor–network theory (ANT) is a theoretical and methodological approach to social theory where everything in the social and natural worlds exists in constantly shifting networks of relationships. It posits that nothing exists outside those relationships. All the factors involved in a social situation are on the same level, and thus there are no external social forces beyond what and how the network participants interact at present. Thus, objects, ideas, processes, and any other relevant factors are seen as just as important in creating social situations as humans.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wanda Orlikowski</span> American computer scientist

Wanda J. Orlikowski is a US-based organizational theorist and Information Systems researcher, and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Information Technologies and Organization Studies at the MIT Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Theories of technological change and innovation attempt to explain the factors that shape technological innovation as well as the impact of technology on society and culture. Some of the most contemporary theories of technological change reject two of the previous views: the linear model of technological innovation and other, the technological determinism. To challenge the linear model, some of today's theories of technological change and innovation point to the history of technology, where they find evidence that technological innovation often gives rise to new scientific fields, and emphasizes the important role that social networks and cultural values play in creating and shaping technological artifacts. To challenge the so-called "technological determinism", today's theories of technological change emphasize the scope of the need of technical choice, which they find to be greater than most laypeople can realize; as scientists in philosophy of science, and further science and technology often like to say about this "It could have been different." For this reason, theorists who take these positions often argue that a greater public involvement in technological decision-making is desired.

In international relations (IR), constructivism is a social theory that asserts that significant aspects of international relations are shaped by ideational factors. The most important ideational factors are those that are collectively held; these collectively held beliefs construct the interests and identities of actors.

Karen Michelle Barad is an American feminist theorist and physicist, known particularly for their theory of agential realism.

Speculative realism is a movement in contemporary Continental-inspired philosophy that defines itself loosely in its stance of metaphysical realism against its interpretation of the dominant forms of post-Kantian philosophy.

Lucas D. Introna is Professor of Organisation, Technology and Ethics at the Lancaster University Management School. He is a scholar within the Social Study of Information Systems field. His research is focused on the phenomenon of technology. Within the area of technology studies he has made significant contributions to our understanding of the ethical and political implications of technology for society.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Graham Harman</span> American philosopher (born 1968)

Graham Harman is an American philosopher. He is Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the Southern California Institute of Architecture in Los Angeles. His work on the metaphysics of objects led to the development of object-oriented ontology. He is a central figure in the speculative realism trend in contemporary philosophy.

The communicative constitution of organizations (CCO) perspective is broadly characterized by the claim that communication is not something that happens within organizations or between organizational members; instead, communication is the process whereby organizations are constituted. Specifically, this view contends: “organization is an effect of communication not its predecessor." This perspective is part of a broader constitutive view of communication arguing, "elements of communication, rather than being fixed in advance, are reflexively constituted within the act of communication itself".

Levi Bryant, born Paul Reginald Bryant, is a professor of philosophy at Collin College in the Dallas–Fort Worth metropolitan area.

Agential realism is a theory proposed by Karen Barad, in which the universe comprises phenomena which are "the ontological inseparability of intra-acting agencies". Intra-action, a neologism introduced by Barad, signals an important challenge to individualist metaphysics.

Jane Bennett is an American political theorist and philosopher. She is the Andrew W. Mellon Professor of the Humanities at the Department of Political Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Arts and Sciences. She was also the editor of the academic journal Political Theory between 2012 and 2017.

Dialectical materialism is a materialist theory based upon the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels that has found widespread applications in a variety of philosophical disciplines ranging from philosophy of history to philosophy of science. As a materialist philosophy, Marxist dialectics emphasizes the importance of real-world conditions and the presence of functional contradictions within and among social relations, which derive from, but are not limited to, the contradictions that occur in social class, labour economics, and socioeconomic interactions. Within Marxism, a contradiction is a relationship in which two forces oppose each other, leading to mutual development.

Sociomateriality is a theory built upon the intersection of technology, work and organization, that attempts to understand "the constitutive entanglement of the social and the material in everyday organizational life." It is the result of considering how human bodies, spatial arrangements, physical objects, and technologies are entangled with language, interaction, and practices in organizing. Specifically, it examines the social and material aspects of technology and organization, but also emphasizes the centrality of materials within the communicative constitution of organizations. It offers a novel way to study technology at the workplace, since it allows researchers to study the social and the material simultaneously.

The ontological turn is an increased interest in ontology within a number of philosophical and academic disciplines during the early 2000s. The ontological turn in anthropology is not concerned with anthropological notions of culture, epistemology, nor world views. Instead, the ontological turn generates interest in being in the world and accepts that different world views are not simply different representations of the same world. More specifically, the ontological turn refers to a change in theoretical orientation according to which differences are understood not in terms of a difference in world views, but a differences in worlds and all of these worlds are of equal validity.

References

  1. ↑ Latour, B. (2007). "Can we Get our Materialism Back, Please?", Isis, 98(1), 138-142.
  2. ↑ de Vaujany, F. X., & Mitev, N. (2016). "Introduction au Tournant Matériel", in de Vaujany, F.X., Hussenot, A. & Chanlat, J.F. (Eds) (2016). Les Théories des Organisations, Paris : Economica.
  3. ↑ Tsoukas, H., & Knudsen, C. (2005). The Oxford handbook of organization theory. Oxford Handbooks Online.
  4. ↑ Clegg, S. R., Hardy, C., Lawrence, T., & Nord, W. R. (Eds.). (2006). The Sage handbook of organization studies. Sage.
  5. ↑ Van Dijk, J. (2012). The network society. Sage Publications.
  6. ↑ Hayles, N. K. (1999, 2008). How we became posthuman: Virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature, and informatics. University of Chicago Press.
  7. ↑ Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R. L. (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge University Press.
  8. ↑ Turner, W., Bowker, G., Gasser, L., & Zacklad, M. (2006). Information infrastructures for distributed collective practices. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 15(2), 93-110.
  9. ↑ Gagliardi, P. (Ed.). (1990). Symbols and Artifacts: Views of the Corporate Landscape (Vol. 24). Walter de Gruyter.
  10. ↑ Carlile, P. R., & Langley, A. (2013). How matter matters: Objects, artifacts, and materiality in organization studies (Vol. 3). Oxford University Press.
  11. ↑ Leonardi, P. M., Nardi, B. A., & Kallinikos, J. (2012). Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world. Oxford University Press on Demand.
  12. ↑ De Vaujany, F. X., & Mitev, N. (2013). Materiality and space: organizations, artefacts and practices. Palgrave Macmillan.
  13. ↑ Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). "Sociomaterial Practices: Exploring Technology at Work". Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435-1448.
  14. ↑ de Vaujany, F. X., & Mitev, N. (2016). "Introduction au Tournant Matériel en Théories des Organisations", in de Vaujany, F.X., Hussenot, A. & Chanlat, J.F. (Eds) (2016). Les Théories des Organisations, Paris : Economica.
  15. ↑ Latour, B. (2007). "Can we Get our Materialism Back, Please?", Isis, 98(1), 138-142.
  16. ↑ Goodman, D. (2001). "Ontology Matters: the Relational Materiality of Nature and Agro-food Studies". Sociologia Ruralis, 41(2), 182-200.
  17. ↑ Coole, D., & Frost, S. (Eds.) (2010). New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency, and Politics. Duke University Press.
  18. ↑ Introna, L. D. (2013). "Epilogue: Performativity and the Becoming of Sociomaterial Assemblages" In de Vaujany, F.X. & Mitev, N. (Eds). Materiality and Space, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan Press. (pp. 330-342).
  19. ↑ Jones, M. (2013). "Untangling Sociomateriality", in Carlile, P. R., & Langley, A. (2013). How Matter Matters: Objects, Artifacts, and Materiality in Organization Studies (Vol. 3). Oxford University Press.
  20. ↑ Kelly, J.D. (2014). "The Ontological Turn in French Philosophical Anthropology Theory", Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 4 (1): 259–269.
  21. ↑ de Vaujany, F. X., & Mitev, N. (2016). "Introduction au Tournant Matériel", in de Vaujany, F.X., Hussenot, A. & Chanlat, J.F. (Eds) (2016). Les Théories des Organisations, Paris : Economica.
  22. ↑ Introna, L. D. (2013). "Epilogue: Performativity and the Becoming of Sociomaterial Assemblages" In de Vaujany, F.X. & Mitev, N. (Eds). Materiality and Space, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan Press. (pp. 330-342).
  23. ↑ de Vaujany, F. X., & Mitev, N. (2016). "Introduction au Tournant Matériel", in de Vaujany, F.X., Hussenot, A. & Chanlat, J.F. (Eds) (2016). Les Théories des Organisations, Paris : Economica.
  24. ↑ Miller, D. (1998). Material Cultures: Why Some Things Matter. University of Chicago Press.
  25. ↑ Carlile, P. R., & Langley, A. (Eds.) (2013). How Matter Matters: Objects, Artifacts, and Materiality in Organization Studies (Vol. 3). Oxford University Press.
  26. ↑ Dameron, S., Lê, J. K., & LeBaron, C. (2015). "Materializing Strategy and Strategizing Material: Why Matter Matters ", British Journal of Management, 26(S1), S1-S12.
  27. ↑ Meyer, R. E., Höllerer, M. A., Jancsary, D., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2013). "The Visual Dimension in Organizing, Organization, and Organization Research: Core Ideas, Current Developments, and Promising Avenues" The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 489-555.
  28. ↑ Hayles, K. (1999). How We Became Posthumans. Chicago: University of Chicago.
  29. ↑ de Vaujany, F. X., & Mitev, N. (2015). "The post-Macy Paradox, Information Management and Organising: Good Intentions and a Road to Hell?", Culture and Organization, 1-29.
  30. ↑ Latour, B. (2014). "Technical Does not Mean Material", Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 4 (1): 507–510.
  31. ↑ Lemonnier, P. (2014). "The Blending Power of Things", HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 4(1), 537-548.
  32. ↑ de Vaujany, F. X., & Mitev, N. (2016). "Introduction au Tournant Matériel en Théories des Organisations", in de Vaujany, F.X., Hussenot, A. & Chanlat, J.F. (Eds) (2016). Les Théories des Organisations, Paris : Economica.
  33. ↑ Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). "Sociomaterial Practices: Exploring Technology at Work". Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435-1448.
  34. ↑ Dale, K. (2005). "Building a Social Materiality: Spatial and Embodied Politics in Organizational Control". Organization, 12(5), 649-678.
  35. ↑ Introna, L. D. (2013). "Epilogue: Performativity and the Becoming of Sociomaterial Assemblages" In de Vaujany, F.X. & Mitev, N. (Eds). Materiality and Space, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan Press. (pp. 330-342).
  36. ↑ Wasserman, V., & Frenkel, M. (2011). "Organizational Aesthetics: Caught Between Identity Regulation and Culture Jamming". Organization Science, 22(2), 503-521.
  37. ↑ Jones, M. (2013). "Untangling Sociomateriality", in Carlile, P. R., & Langley, A. (2013). How Matter Matters: Objects, Artifacts, and Materiality in Organization Studies (Vol. 3). Oxford University Press.
  38. ↑ Bhaskar, R. (1979, 2014). The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences. Routledge.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.