To Be or Not to Be a Dot? Philosophy of Management and the Subjective Body

  • Ghislain DeslandesEmail author
Part of the Ethical Economy book series (SEEP, volume 51)


The Self has been the question of numerous studies in management that set a dualist and essentialist definition against a postmodern conception, which operates through successive detours and makes room for a divided and fragmented subject. Such investigations tend however to situate the question of Self alongside that of representation – notably by making use of images of managers, employees or leaders in order to better decrypt their respective self-identities. In opposition to these currents of thought, Henry erects an immanent and radical conception of the Self in life, in an onto-phenomenological territory situated upstream from identity and from reflexivity. In this paper, I present Henry’s material phenomenology as a first and critical philosophy of ontological monism, before delving deeper into his conception of the Self as a subjective body. Then, I draw some political and ethical lessons from this distinction and sketch out a few avenues for future research.


Life Michel Henry Philosophy of management Self-identity Subjective body 


  1. Alvesson, M. 2010. Self-doubters, strugglers, storytellers, surfers and others: Images of self-identities in organization studies. Human Relations 63(2): 193–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnaud, G., and S. Vanheule. 2007. The division of the subject and the organization: A Lacanian approach to subjectivity at work. Journal of Organization Change Management 20(3): 359–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashforth, B., and F. Mael. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review 14: 20–39.Google Scholar
  4. Aubert, N., and C. Haroche. 2011. Les Tyrannies de la visibilité – Etre visible pour exister ? Toulouse: Erès.Google Scholar
  5. Berlanda, T. 2013. Michel Henry: Une Nostalgie Pascalienne. In N. La Vie et les Vivants – Relire Michel Henry, ed. J. Gregori, J. Leclercq, and N. Monseu, 35–42. Leuven: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
  6. Butler, J. 1993. Kierkegaard’s speculative despair. In The age of idealism, ed. R. Solomon and K. Higgins, 363–395. London/New-York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Deslandes, G. 2011. In search of individual responsibility: The dark side of organizations in the light of jansenist ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 101(Supplement 1): 61–70, 10 p.Google Scholar
  8. Deslandes, G. 2012, October. The care-of-self ethic with continual reference to Socrates: Towards ethical self-management., Business Ethics: A European Review 21(4): 325–338.Google Scholar
  9. Ducharme, O. 2012. Le concept d’habitus chez Michel Henry. Journal of French and Francophone Philosophy XX(2): 42–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dutton, J., J. Dukerich, and C. Harquail. 1994. Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly 43: 293–327.Google Scholar
  11. Faÿ, E. 2007a. A critical and phenomenological genealogy of the question of the real in western economics and management. Society and Business Review 2: 193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Faÿ, E. 2007b. Phenomenological approaches to work, life and responsibility. Society and Business Review 2: 145–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Faÿ, E. 2008. Derision and management. Organization 15(6): 831–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ford, J., and N. Harding. 2011. The impossibility of the ‘true self’ of authentic leadership. Leadership 7(4): 463–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Foucault, M. 2001. L’herméneutique du sujet, Cours au Collège de France 1981–1982, Hautes études, Gallimard/Le Seuil, Paris.Google Scholar
  16. Foucault, M. 2008. Le gouvernement de soi et des autres, Cours au Collège de France 1982–1983, Hautes études,/Gallimard/Le Seuil, Paris.Google Scholar
  17. Gagnon, S. 2008. Compelling identity: Selves and insecurity in global, corporate management development. Management Learning 39(4): 375–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gély, R. 2007. Rôles, action sociale et vie subjective, Editions. Bruxelles: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  19. Gschwandtner, C. 2012. What about non-human life? An “ecological” reading of Michel Henry’s critique of technology. Journal of French and Francophone Philosophy XX(2): 116–138.Google Scholar
  20. Guillet de Monthoux, P. 2000. Performing the absolute. Marina Abramovic organizing the unfinished business of Arthur Schopenhauer. Organization Studies 21: 29–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hassard, J., R. Holliday, and H. Willmott. 2000. Body and organization. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Hatem, N. 1997. Michel Henry, contemporain de Kierkegaard. Annales de Philosophie, Université St Joseph, Beyrouth 18: 67–88.Google Scholar
  23. Hatem, N. 2006. Le secret partagé: Kierkegaard – Michel Henry, In Michel Henry. Pensée de la vie et culture contemporaine, 195–210. Beauchesne.Google Scholar
  24. Henry, M. 1963/2011. L’essence de la manifestation, PUF Epiméthée, 4ème édition.Google Scholar
  25. Henry, M. 1976a. Marx, Tome 1, Tel Gallimard, Paris.Google Scholar
  26. Henry, M. 1976b. Marx, Tome 2, Tel Gallimard, Paris.Google Scholar
  27. Henry, M. 1985. Généalogie de la psychanalyse, PUF Epiméthée, Paris.Google Scholar
  28. Henry, M. 1988. “Shopenhauer et l’inconscient”. In J.P. Bertrand Schopenhauer ou la force du pessimisme, Edition le Rocher, 85–96.Google Scholar
  29. Henry, M. 2000a. Incarnation, une philosophie de la chair. Paris: Le Seuil.Google Scholar
  30. Henry, M. 2000b. Speech and religion: The Word of God. In Phenomenology and the “Theological turn”: The French debate, 217–242. Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Henry, M. 2003. Phénoménologie de la vie – De la Phénoménologie, Tome I, PUF.Google Scholar
  32. Henry, M. 2004. Phénoménologie de la vie – De l’art et du politique, Tome III, PUF.Google Scholar
  33. Henry, M. 2005. Entretiens. Sulliver.Google Scholar
  34. Henry, M. 2008. La barbarie, PUF, 2ème édition, Paris.Google Scholar
  35. Henry, M. 2011a. Phénoménologie de la vie – De la Subjectivité, Tome II, PUF.Google Scholar
  36. Henry, M. 2011b. Philosophie et Phénoménologie du corps – Essai sur l’ontologie biranienne, 6ème tirage, Epiméthée PUF.Google Scholar
  37. Inkson, K. 2008. Are human resources? Career Development International 13: 270–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jean, G. 2011. Présentation de “l’expérience métaphysique d’autrui” à “l’intersubjectivité en première personne. Revue Internationale Michel Henry 2: 16–70.Google Scholar
  39. Jones, C., and A. Spicer. 2005. The sublime object of entrepreneurship. Organization 12(2): 223–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Khosrokhavar, F. 2002. La scansion de l’intersubjectivité: Michel Henry et la problématique d’autrui. Rue Descartes 35(1): 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Letiche, H. 2009. Reflexivity and affectivity. Culture and Organization 15(3–4): 291–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mary Parker Follet, « Community is a Process », Philosophical Review, 1919, XXVIII.Google Scholar
  43. McMurray, R., A. Pullen, and C. Rhodes. 2011. Ethical subjectivity and politics in organizations: A case of health care tendering. Organization 18(4): 541–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mead, G.H. 1934. Mind, self and society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  45. Morgan, G. 1997. Images of organization. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  46. O’Doherty, D., and H. Willmott. 2001. The question of subjectivity and the labor process. International Studies in Management and Organization 30(4): 112–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Painter-Morland, M. 2013. The relationship between identity crises and crises of control. Journal of Business Ethics 114: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Parker, M. 1999. Capitalism, subjectivity and ethics: Debating labour process analysis. Organisation Studies 20(1): 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Puyou, F-R. 2013. “Les individus et leur rôles: l’apport des “personnages” au travail vivant. In La Vie et les Vivants – Relire Michel Henry, eds. J. Gregori, J. Leclercq, N. Monseu, 545–553. Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
  50. Puyou, F.R., and E. Faÿ. 2013. Cogs in the wheel or spanners in the works? A phenomenological approach to the difficulty and meaning of ethical work for financial controllers. Journal of Business Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1986-6.Google Scholar
  51. Rappin, B. 2011. De l’unité ontologique des épistémologies gestionnaires et de ses conséquences. Revue management et avenir 43(3): 476–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rhodes, C. 2009. After reflexivity: Ethics, freedom, the writing of organization studies. Organisation Studies 30(6): 653–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rhodes, C., and E. Wray-Bliss. 2013. The ethical difference of organization. Organization 20(1): 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sen, A. 1987a. On ethics and economics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  55. Sen, A. 1987b. Commodities and capabilities. Oxford: India Paperbacks.Google Scholar
  56. Simone, R. 2013. Face à une droite hédoniste, la gauche n’a que l’effort à proposer. Philosophie Magazine 58: 59–63.Google Scholar
  57. Stokes, P. 2008. Locke, Kierkegaard and the phenomenology of personal identity. International Journal of Philosophy 16(5): 645–672.Google Scholar
  58. Tansley, C., and S. Tietze. 2013. Rites of passage through talent management progression stages: An identity work perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 24(9): 1799–1815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Thoroughgood, C., A. Padilla, S. Hunter, and B. Tate. 2012. The susceptible circle: A taxonomy of followers associated with destructive leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 23(5): 897–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Townley, B. 1994. Reframing human resources management: Power, ethics and the subject at work. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ESCP EuropeParisFrance

Personalised recommendations