Abstract
What may popular cultural depictions of socio-political institutions tell us of the institutions they portray? More particularly, how are institutionalized bodies configured, discursively and materially, in filmic representations of bodily institutionalization? In order to offer possible answers to these questions, Norholm and Kirkegaard analyse war on screen and bodies at war. Through a case study they investigate how soldiers’ bodies are rendered intelligible to viewers in the Danish documentary Armadillo (2010), which follows a group of soldiers on their deployment to Afghanistan. They begin from a material-discursive ontology that emphasizes the co-constitutive character of each, and offer the notion of plasticity as an intermediary concept. Material-discursive configurations are plastic in three respects as the involved elements both give form to and take form from the relationships into which they enter, but as the elements may also become explosive and blow up form (Malabou, Plasticity at the dusk of writing. Columbia University Press, New York, 2010). Norholm and Kirkegaard operationalize these three forms of plasticity in an analysis of Armadillo that is inspired by Hall’s (Popular culture: production and consumption. Blackwell Publishers, Malden, 2001) concepts of encoding and decoding. Discursive regularities figure prominently at the film’s moment of production, as an interview with the instructor reveals how his work with the filmic material was shaped by genre conventions of war films and mythologies of the soldier. Further, the film shapes public perceptions of war at its moment of reception as reviewers and commentators alike were influenced by its depiction of war. Finally, the authors zoom in on the soldiers’ bodies as these are configured by the film-as-discourse. Here, they encounter explosive plasticity; as the soldiers are, literally and figuratively, blown to pieces, they become other to themselves and to society. In and through the analysis, they offer illustrations of their methodological and theoretical contributions. Methodologically, analysis of popular cultural artefacts may help expose public perceptions of institutional arrangements. Theoretically, plasticity may provide a conceptual key to theorizing the relationships between institutions, discourse and materiality.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Here, and in the following, we use the term ‘social imaginary’ in the sense advocated by Castoriadis: “The imaginary of which I am speaking is not an image of. It is the unceasing and essentially undetermined (social, historical and psychical) creation of figures/forms/images, on the basis of which alone there can ever be a question of ‘something’. What we call ‘reality’ and ‘rationality’ are its works” (Castoriadis 1987, p. 3; emphasis in original).
- 2.
- 3.
All material—the film, the interview with Metz and the media coverage—was originally in Danish. The translations are our own.
References
Ashcraft, K. L. (2011). Knowing work through the communication of difference: A revised agenda for difference studies. In D. K. Mumby (Ed.), Reframing difference in organizational communication studies. Research, pedagogy, practice (pp. 3–30). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Ashcraft, K. L., Kuhn, T. R., & Cooren, F. (2009). Constitutional amendments: “Materializing” organizational communication. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 1–64.
Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(3), 801–831.
Barley, S. R. (2010). Building an institutional field to corral a government: A case to set an agenda for Organization Studies. Organization Studies, 31(6), 777–805.
Boncori, I. (2017). Mission impossible: A reading of the after-death of the heroine. Culture and Organization, 23(2), 95–109.
Breitenbauch, H. Ø. (2010). Armadillo fortæller ikke hele sandheden. Berlingske. http://www.b.dk/kronikker/armadillo-fortaeller-ikke-hele-sandheden. Accessed 5 May 2018.
Bugos, G. E. (1996). Organizing stories of organizational life: Four films on American business. Studies in Culture, Organizations and Societies, 2(1), 111–128.
Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter. On the discursive limits of “sex”. New York: Routledge.
Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. New York: Routledge.
Campbell, J. L. (1998). Institutional analysis and the role of ideas in political economy. Theory & Society, 27(3), 377–409.
Carlsen, P. J. (2010). Anmeldelse: Sådan er danskere i krig. DR. https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/kultur/anmeldelsesaadan-er-danskere-i-krig. Accessed 23 Aug 2018.
Carstensen, M. B., & Schmidt, V. A. (2016). Power through, over and in ideas: Conceptualizing ideational power in discursive institutionalism. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(3), 318–337.
Castoriadis, C. (1987). The imaginary institution of society. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Cederström, C., & Spicer, A. (2014). Discourse of the real kind: A post-foundational approach to organizational discourse analysis. Organization, 21(2), 178–205.
Cornelissen, J. P., Durand, R., Fiss, P. C., Lammers, J. C., & Vaara, E. (2015). Putting communication front and center in institutional theory and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 40(1), 10–27.
Cornish, P., & Saunders, N. J. (Eds.). (2014). Bodies in conflict. Corporeality, materiality, and transformation. London: Routledge.
Crockett, C. (2010). Foreword. In C. Malabou (Ed.), Plasticity at the dusk of writing (pp. xi–xxv). New York: Columbia University Press.
DFI. (2012). Armadillo vinder Emmy. https://www.dfi.dk/omdfi/armadillo-vinder-emmy. Accessed 5 May 2018.
Ewalt, J., & Ohl, J. (2013). ‘We are still in the desert’: Diaspora and the (de)territorialisation of identity in discursive representations of the US soldier. Culture and Organization, 19(3), 209–226.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245.
Force Weekly. (2012). Arven fra Armadillo: Filmen fylder 2 år. http://forceweekly.com/2012/05/27/arven-fra-armadillo/. Accessed 5 May 2018.
Funch, S. M. (2014). Armadillo i skudlinjen. Journalisten. http://journalisten.dk/armadillo-i-skudlinjen. Accessed 5 May 2018.
Glanowski, S. M. (2010). Ekspert frifinder ‘Armadillo’. Politiken. https://politiken.dk/kultur/filmogtv/art4966383/Ekspert-frifinder-Armadillo. Accessed 5 May 2018.
Godfrey, R. (2009). Military, masculinity and mediated representations: (Con)fusing the real and the reel. Culture and Organization, 15(2), 203–220.
Green, S. E., Jr., & Li, Y. (2011). Rhetorical institutionalism: Language, agency, and structure in institutional theory since Alvesson 1993. Journal of Management Studies, 48(7), 1662–1697.
Green, S. E., Jr., Babb, M., & Alpaslan, C. M. (2008). Institutional field dynamics and the competition between institutional logics. The role of rhetoric in the evolving control of the modern corporation. Management Communication Quarterly, 22(1), 40–73.
Hall, S. (2001). Encoding/decoding. In C. L. Harrington & D. D. Bielby (Eds.), Popular culture: Production and consumption (pp. 123–132). Malden: Blackwell Publishers.
Hardy, C., & Thomas, R. (2015). Discourse in a material world. Journal of Management Studies, 52(5), 680–696.
Jensen, C. (2010). Velkommen til Armadillo. Ekko. http://www.ekkofilm.dk/artikler/velkommen-til-armadillo/. Accessed 5 May 2018.
Jones, C., Boxenbaum, E., & Anthony, C. (2013). The immateriality of material practices in institutional logics. In M. Lounsbury & E. Boxenbaum (Eds.), Institutional logics in action, part a (pp. 51–75). Bringley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Just, S. N., & Berg, K. M. (2016). Disastrous Dialogue: Plastic productions of agency-meaning relationships. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 46(1), 28–46.
Koppes, C. R., & Black, G. D. (1990). Hollywood goes to war. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kornø, K. (2010). ‘Armadillo’ er manipuleret. Ekstra Bladet. http://ekstrabladet.dk/flash/filmogtv/film/article4257696.ece. Accessed 5 May 2018.
Lawrence, T. B., Leca, B., & Zilber, T. B. (2013). Institutional work: Current research, new directions and overlooked issues. Organization Studies, 34(8), 1023–1033.
Levinsen, J. (2010). Armadillo. Jyllands-Posten. http://jyllands-posten.dk/kultur/film/ECE4333932/armadillo/. Accessed 5 May 2018.
Malabou, C. (2007). The end of writing? Grammatology and plasticity. The European Legacy: Toward New Paradigms, 12(4), 431–441.
Malabou, C. (2010). Plasticity at the dusk of writing. New York: Columbia University Press.
Malabou, C., & Butler, J. (2011). You be my body for me: Body, shape, and plasticity in Hegel’s Phenomenology of the Spirit. In S. Houlgate & M. Baur (Eds.), A companion to Hegel (pp. 611–640). Chichester: Blackwell Publishing.
Monteiro, P., & Nicolini, D. (2015). Recovering materiality in institutional work: Prizes as an assemblage of human and material entities. Journal of Management Inquiry, 24(1), 61–81.
Mylenberg, T. (2010). Meningsfyldt meningsløshed. Fyens.dk. http://www.fyens.dk/Troels-Mylenberg/Meningsfyldt-meningsloeshed/artikel/1606909. Accessed 5 May 2018.
North, D. C. (1991). Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 97–112.
Orren, K. (1995). Ideas and institutions. Polity, 28(1), 97–101.
Philips, N., Lawrence, T. B., & Hardy, C. (2004). Discourse and institutions. Academy of Management Review, 29(4), 635–652.
Rehn, A. (2008). Pop (culture) goes the organization: On highbrow, lowbrow and hybrids in studying popular culture within organization studies. Organization, 15(5), 765–783.
Rhodes, C., & Westwood, R. (2008). Critical representations of work and organization in popular culture. Oxon: Routledge.
Scollon, R., & Levine, P. (2004). Multimodal discourse analysis as the confluence of discourse and technology. In R. Scollon & P. Levine (Eds.), Discourse and technology. Multimodal discourse analysis (pp. 1–6). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Skotte, K. (2010). Kim Skotte: ‘Armadillo’ er en forbløffende modig film. Politiken. http://politiken.dk/kultur/filmogtv/ECE972833/kim-skotte-armadillo-er-en-forbloeffende-modig-film/. Accessed 5 May 2018.
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective. A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Withagen, R., de Poel, H. J., Araujo, D., & Pepping, G.-J. (2012). Affordances can invite behaviour: Reconsidering the relationship between affordances and agency. New Ideas in Psychology, 30(2), 250–258.
Zemanova, C. (2010). ‘Armadillo’-instruktør: Soldaterne gjorde ikke noget galt. Politiken. https://politiken.dk/kultur/filmogtv/art4959760/Armadillo-instruktør-Soldaterne-gjorde-ikke-noget-galt. Accessed 5 May 2018.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nørholm Just, S., Kirkegaard, L. (2019). The Heart Is a Hand Grenade: Plastic Figurations of Bodies at War. In: de Vaujany, FX., Adrot, A., Boxenbaum, E., Leca, B. (eds) Materiality in Institutions. Technology, Work and Globalization. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97472-9_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97472-9_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97471-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-97472-9
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)