Introducing Affective Embodiment and Diversity

  • Marianna FotakiEmail author
  • Alison Pullen


This occurs against the revelations about the widespread sexual harassment and persisting inequalities in the workplace such as gender pay gap and the absence of women and minoritized others from positions of power. Simultaneously, there has been a powerful backlash against women’s empowerment taking the form of anti-gender and postfeminist discourses. We argue that the approach to equal opportunities in the workplace emerging from the liberal, free market conception of employment fails to address the root causes of discrimination because gender and other inequalities are often necessary for sustaining and strengthening the global capital accumulation. This edited collection offers an affective embodiment as a central practice and concept to problematize diversity. Without understanding how embodied differences are conditioned and reproduced, we might be unable to address inequalities in organizations.


  1. Acker, J. 1990. Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender and Society 4 (2): 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ———. 2006. Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender and Society 20 (4): 441–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adamson, M. 2017. Postfeminism, neoliberalism and a ‘successfully’ balanced femininity in celebrity CEO autobiographies. Gender, Work and Organization 24 (3): 314–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ahmed, S. 2012. On being included. Racism and diversity in institutional life. Durham/London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ahonen, P., J. Tienari, S. Meriläinen, and A. Pullen. 2014. Hidden contexts and invisible power relations: A Foucauldian reading of diversity research. Human Relations 67 (3): 263–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. American Association of University Women (AAUW). 2016. The simple truth about the gender pay gap. Washington, DC: AAUW.Google Scholar
  7. Andrade, O. 1954. Comunicação escrita para o Encontro dos Intelectuais, realizado no Rio de Janeiro, em 1954, e enviada ao pintor modernista Di Cavalcanti para ser lida. IEL - Unicamp.Google Scholar
  8. Ashcraft, K. 2011. Knowing work through the communication of difference: A revised agenda for difference studies. In Reframing difference in organizational communication studies: Research, pedagogy, practice, ed. D. Mumby, 3–30. Los Angeles: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Benschop, Y., and M. Brouns. 2003. Crumbling ivory towers: Academic organizing and its gender effects. Gender, Work and Organization 10 (2): 194–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bion, W. 1962. Learning from experience. London: William Heinemann Medical Books Ltd.Google Scholar
  11. Boll, C., Leppin, J., Rossen, A., and Wolf, A. 2016. Magnitude and impact factors of the gender pay gap in EU countries. Report prepared for the European Commission. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  12. Castilla, E.J., and S. Benard. 2010. The paradox of meritocracy in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 55: 543–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Charles, M. 2008. Culture and inequality: Identity, ideology, and difference in ‘post-ascriptive society’. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 619: 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clough, P.T. 2007. Introduction. In The Affective Turn: Theorizing the Social, ed. P.T. Cough with J. Halley, 1–33. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cornwall, A., J. Gideon, and K. Wilson. 2008. Introduction: Reclaiming feminism: Gender and neoliberalism. IDS Bulletin 39 (6): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crenshaw, K. 1989. Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics, 139–167. Chicago: University of Chicago Legal Forum.Google Scholar
  17. ———. 1991. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review 43: 1241–1299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dale, K., and G. Burrell. 2000. What shape are we in? Organization theory and the organized body. In Body and organization, ed. J. Hassard, R. Holliday, and H. Willmott, 15–30. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Dale, K., and Y. Latham. 2015. Ethics and entangled embodiment: Bodies–materialities–organization. Organization 22 (2): 166–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Daskalaki, M., and M. Fotaki. 2017. The neoliberal crisis: Alternative organizing and spaces of/for feminist solidarity. In Feminists and queer theorists debate the future of critical management studies, Dialogue sin critical management studies, ed. A. Pullen, N. Harding, and M. Phillips, vol. 3, 1–11, 129–153. Emerald Publishing. Bingley: UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Davis, K. 2008. Intersectionality as a buzzword: Sociology of science perspective on what makes a feminist theory successful. Feminist Theory 9 (1): 67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dhaliwal, S., and N. Yuval-Davis. 2014. Women against fundamentalism. London: Lawrence and Wishart.Google Scholar
  23. Diprose, R. 1994. The bodies of women: Ethics, embodiment and sexual difference. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. ———. 2002. Corporeal generosity: On giving with Nietzsche, Merleau-Ponty and Levinas. New York: SUNY.Google Scholar
  25. Fernandes, L. 2013. Transnational feminism in the United States: Knowledge, ethics, power. New York and London: New York University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fotaki, M. 2013. No woman is like a man (in academia): The masculine symbolic order and the unwanted female body. Organization Studies 34 (9): 1251–1275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fotaki, M., and N. Harding. 2018. Gender and the organization. Women at work in the 21st century. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Fotaki, M., B.D. Metcalfe, and N. Harding. 2014. Writing materiality into management and organization studies through and with Luce Irigaray. Human Relations 67 (10): 1239–1263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fotaki, M., K. Kenny, and S. Vachhani. 2017. Editorial: Thinking critically about affect in organization studies. Organization 24 (1): 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gatrell, C. 2017. Boundary creatures? Employed, breastfeeding mothers and ‘abjection as practice’. Organization Studies,
  31. Gideon, J. 2006. Accessing economic and social rights under neoliberalism: Gender and rights in Chile. Third World Quarterly 27 (7): 1269–1283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gill, R., and C. Scharf. 2011. New femininities: Postfeminism, neoliberalism and subjectivity. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Grosz, E. 1994. Volatile bodies. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Holvino, E. 2010. Intersections: The simultaneity of race, gender and class in organization studies. Gender, Work and Organization 17 (3): 248–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Humphries, M., and S. Grice. 1995. Equal employment opportunity and the management of diversity: A global discourse of assimilation? Journal of Organizational Change Management 8 (5): 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hunt, V., Layton, D., and Prince, S. 2015. Diversity Matters. McKinsey. Available at Last accessed 22 July 2018.
  37. Islam, G. 2014. Appropriating the abject: An anthropophagic approach to organizational diversity. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal 33 (7): 595–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Johansson, J., J. Tienari, and A. Valtonen. 2017. The body, identity and gender in managerial athleticism. Human Relations 70 (9): 1141–1167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kabeer, N. 2012. Women’s economic empowerment and inclusive growth: Labour markets and enterprise development. SIG working paper 2012/1. Ottawa: IDRC. Available at: Accessed 22 July 2018.
  40. Kalev, A., E. Kelly, and F. Dobbin. 2006. Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review 71 (4): 589–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kenny, K., and M. Fotaki, eds. 2014. The psychosocial and organization studies: Affect at work. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  42. Kenny, K., S. Muhr, and L. Olaison. 2011. The effect of affect: Desire and politics in modern organization. Ephemera 11 (3): 235–242.Google Scholar
  43. Korolczuk, E., and A. Graff. 2017. Gender as Ebola from Brussels: The anti-colonial frame and the rise of illiberal populism. Signs, Journal of Women in Culture and Society 43 (4): 797–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Krell, C. 2004. Alter und Altern bei Homosexuellen. Basel: Weinheim.Google Scholar
  45. Kuhar, R., and D. Paternotte. 2017. Anti-gender campaigns in Europe mobilizing against equality. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  46. Lewis, P., Y. Benschop, and R. Simpson. 2017. Postfeminism, gender and organization. Gender, Work and Organization 24 (3): 213–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Massumi, B. 1996. The autonomy of affect. In Deleuze, G. A critical reader, ed. P. Patton, 217–239. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  48. McRobbie, A. 2009. The aftermath of feminism: Gender, culture and social change. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. Metcalfe, B.D., and C. Woodhams. 2012. Introduction: New directions in gender, diversity and organization theorizing – Re-imagining feminist post-colonialism, transnationalism and geographies of power. International Journal of Management Reviews 14 (2): 123–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Moghadam, V. 2005. Globalizing women: Transnational feminist networks. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Mohanty, C.T. 1998. Crafting feminist genealogy: On the geography and politics of home, nation, and community. In Talking visions: Multicultural feminism in a transnational age, ed. E. Shotat, 485–500. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  52. ———. 2003. Under western eyes. In Feminism without borders: Decolonizing theory, practicing solidarity, 17–42. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, A. 2011. The sound of a breaking string: Critical environmental law and ontological vulnerability. Journal of Human Rights and the Environment 2 (1): 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. ———. 2015. Spatial justice: Body, Lawscape, atmosphere. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Pio, E., and C. Essers. 2014. Professional migrant women decentring otherness: A transnational perspective. British Journal of Management 25 (2): 252–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pullen, A., and C. Rhodes. 2015. Is becoming-woman possible in organizations? In The Routledge companion to ethics, politics and organizations, ed. A. Pullen and C. Rhodes, 355–367. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pullen, A., C. Rhodes, and T. Thanem. 2017. Affective politics in gendered organizations: Affirmative notes on becoming-woman. Organization 24 (1): 105–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Roberson, Q.M. 2006. Disentangling the notions of diversity and inclusion in organisations. Group and Organization Management 31 (2): 212–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rottenberg, C. 2017. Neoliberal feminism and the future of human capital. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 42 (2): 329–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sassen, S. 2014. Expulsions: Brutality and complexity in the global economy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sinclair, A. 2005. Body possibilities in leadership. Leadership 1 (4): 387–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Trethewey, A. 1999. Disciplined bodies: Women’s embodied identities at work. Organization Studies 20: 423–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wilson, K. 2015. Towards a radical re-appropriation: Gender, development and neoliberal feminism. Development and Change 46 (4): 803–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Yuval-Davis, N. 2006. Intersectionality and feminist politics. European Journal of Women’s Studies 13 (3): 193–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Warwick Business SchoolUniversity of WarwickCoventryUK
  2. 2.Macquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations