Navigation menu Namespaces Page Discussion. Views View Edit Edit source History. Community Discord Github page. This page was last edited on 16 March , at Game content and materials are trademarks and copyrights of their respective publisher and its licensors. All rights reserved. This site is a part of Wikia, Inc. The carefully chronicled historiography provides a valuable foundation for further investigations of this period.
New Left which does not privilege white student activism and posits a critique of empire as formative rather than a late development. Third World Left as cultural and not just sociopolitical formation. Soul Power successfully challenges New Left narratives that place the activities of white middleclass youths at their center, and civil rights narratives that concentrate on the struggle against racial oppression while ignoring that against class oppression. By focusing on a series of important, fascinating, and neglected historical actors, Young offers us a much richer understanding of the s-era left.
Young has managed to create an archive of s activism in which the complexity of movements and ideologies fashioned by activists and artists of color has the power to inform and inspire present and future generations. In an inspiring chapter focused on Hospital Workers Union , Young shows how a union of black and Jewish leftists combined worker, civil, and anticolonial politics into an assault on domestic inequities and international abuses.
This chapter alone should be required reading of labor education classes. There is so much fresh material here, supported by provocative theses. The result is a welcome challenge to the seasoned reader of postwar American culture and politics. Young recovers the important hidden history of internationalism and world-transcending citizenship within the U. Black Freedom movement of the mid-twentieth century. This lively, engrossing, and engaging study reveals how commitments to global justice permeated the actions and ideas of Black trade union organizers, armed self-defense groups, community-based nationalists, visionary filmmakers, and radical feminists.
Young demonstrates that the ferment and upheaval in Black communities in the mid-twentieth century did not just generate demands for equal rights inside the U.
Cynthia A. Bk Cover Image Full.
Sign In. Search Cart. Search for:. Third World Left. Arguing that the significance of this wave of decolonization to U. Foucault argued that modern power differs from discipline or sovereign power in that it takes as its basic premise that individuals are free and therefore operates by seeking to shape their free actions. Put roughly, people should not be disciplined 'from the outside', but should be made 'self-disciplining'. Power, then, operates in individuals' self-relation and the micro-relations between individuals. For modern management this means that management should not be exercised in a commanding, controlling or disciplinary fashion.
Rather than acting directly upon individuals, one must use forms of government that connects to individuals' self-government. Or we could say that modern management must be 'a management of individuals' self-management'. Current management literature proclaims that management is not about dictating, controlling or putting demands at people, but should have as its objective to make individuals active and initiating. Employees should not be told what their specific role is, or specifically what the organisation needs from them.
Rather, employees should become self-initiating, take responsibility, and see for themselves what the organisation needs. Modern work-life is said to give employees new and unforeseen possibilities for building and reshaping their identities: "It does not restrict career to being a sequence of positions jobs , but is a series of events, experiences and actions" Larsen, It is a matter of being unique, of carving out a career and an identity of our own.
To conform and do the expected is not the way to take responsibility, or the road to pay raise and promotion. Those who just adapt and act according to the norm do not make characters of themselves. According to the new HRM-discourse it is better to diverge than to adapt Rennison, 7.
Popular buzzwords that have emerged recently include: 'involvement', 'participation', 'personal fulfilment', 'employee-ownership of values', 'delegation of competence', 'innovation from below' and more. They articulate the same fundamental principle: the employee should not be told what to do, but should be stimulated so as to 'take initiatives by his own initiative'. The basic premise is increasingly that organisational development, the formulation of values, the setting up of strategies, cannot by initiated from the top but should spring from independent reflections of every employee.
So, the development of the organisation and the personal development of the employees must take place in a simultaneous, interrelated fashion. A parallel movement needs to be established, then, between organisational development and the personal development of employees. Yet, the new management trend does not speak in terms of shaping the personalities of employees in order to accommodate organisational needs. Rather, the new management technologies present themselves as if they were representing an objective reality or-even better-as if they were operating to uncover a naturally existing order Townley, Current HRM thus gives the impression that it is there to reveal the 'natural' or 'immanent' potentials and abilities of employees, not that it seeks to transform subjectivities in a specific direction.
Where does this development leave studies of power in organisations? How can we study the strategies aimed at making individuals self-responsible, initiating and personally involved in their organisation? This article adopts a conception of power as not only exercised between individuals or groups but as inscribed in individuals' self-relation. There already exist a number of significant studies that critically analyses the new management focus on employee's personality. These contributions draw somehow or another upon Foucault as a frame of inspiration.
This paper shares the same source of inspiration, yet it takes a more circumscribed point of departure as it investigates how far one single concept can take the analysis, namely, Foucault's concept of self-technology. More specifically, it is the employment of self-technologies by current management strategies that is of critical interest here. During the last decades, many followers of Foucault have taken a key interest in Foucault's concept of governmentality, which received wider attention through his famous lecture entitled 'Governmentality' Foucault, There, Foucault used governmentality to designate the historical process through which, in Western Europe, the administrative state was transformed into a modern welfare state-'governmentalized state' resting on new social sciences and new technologies for optimising the welfare of the population.
Foucault, therefore, launched a vigorous attack on the conception of the modern state as a centre of repressive powers, which has been dominant in political theory and still is influential in organisational theory. According to Foucault , this 'juridico-political' conception of power fails to grasp that modern power is not repressive in its objectives. Moreover, conceptualising power in terms of the state, sovereignty, leadership, hierarchy and so on implies that power is localisable and limitable. This conception, in Foucault's view, misses the essence of modern power, namely that its objective is not to suppress but to make individuals self-governing and that it works through individuals' own free actions.
Modern power, then, does not spring from the state apparatus and is not exercised 'top-down' but is rather to be found in all the mundane micro-social relations Foucault, It inscribes itself in the micro-relations between, for instance, doctor and patient, social worker and client or between manager and employee. In this perspective, the classic organisational pyramid is merely a specific modern way of codifying the problem of government and cannot be used as a foundation for analysing power.
Discussing how to minimize repressive power by putting a limit on authoritative 'power-holders' or by abolishing hierarchical structures e. Kanter, is an insufficient approach to modern government and management. Let us turn to another definition of governmentality that can be found in Foucault-a definition, which seems better suited to make adequate and critical analysis of present management. In a later lecture, Technologies of the self , Foucault simply defines governmentality as the specific modern mentality of government, which im-plies that government or management must be directed at individuals' self-government Or put differently, government has to employ governmental technologies that can attach themselves to individuals' selftechnologies.
Modern power, then, should not act directly upon people to force and control; it should rather shape and influence the ways in which people act upon themselves. This definition highlights a key observation that Foucault did on liberalism, namely that liberal government operates with a double-sided conception of the objects to be governed, that is, as both ontology and creation, as fundamentally self-governing and a product of government. Liberalism never withdrew from governing but emphasised the need to govern cautiously, in accordance with natural mechanism, to secure the operations of the free market and so on.
One might say, therefore, that there has always been a very active side to laissez-faire Gordon, In liberal government, then, the individual is fundamentally autonomous and sovereign, but at the same time in need of guidance, improvement, discipline, development etc.
SOUL POWER BAND
How to govern individuals who are fundamentally self-governing has turned out to be an extremely 'fertile' problematic giving rise to a permanent injunction to find new practices of government. We thus witness a relentless creativity aimed at inventing new management technologies that can influence and direct individual's self-government without managing 'too much' or taking over responsibility.
In a time when management has become afraid of 'governing too much' new technologies have to be invented that can facilitate employee's self-development at an arm's length. Instead, government has to be exercised by setting up programs, values and objectives that individuals can 'translate' into their own interest. Facilitating this 'translation' is indeed what the new management strategies and their self-technologies are about. But how are 'self-technologies' defined more specifically?
Foucault describes them as instruments and procedures that " Self-technologies, then, are means that individuals can use in order to transform themselves, to work upon themselves, and to isolate certain aspects in themselves as objects of knowledge and intervention. It should be stressed that such technologies are rarely people's own inventions. Most often, they are invented by various kinds of experts who in many cases also initiate and monitor their use. Examples of self-technologies are, for instance, diet programs, self-therapeutic exercises, or personal development plans. Of particular importance for current management are technologies that make the employee speak.
These are technologies that Townley calls 'confessional' with a reference to Foucault. Making the employee speak about his personality, weak sides, needs, plans for development and so on, is a tricky exercise of power because it ties the individual to his own words. The individual can be held responsible for a truth that he has stated about who he is.
Foucault terms this kind of exercising power 'pastoral', hereby drawing a line back to the technologies of confession and self-examination that were used in the Christian church to bring forward the truth about the inner qualities of every member of the congregation. For present purposes it is sufficient to note that there is indeed an affinity between these old, pastoral technologies and present management requirements that the employee speaks the truth about who he is.
With this background, let us take a look at two new technologies for managing employees that are indeed designed to make the speaker an authority of his own discourse. They are both instruments aimed at making the employee develop his personality in the light of organisational needs and challenges.
The following case studies will thus demonstrate how the modern employee is brought to reflect upon his 'full personality' in relation to the organisation and its needs. This strategy requires different types of self-technology capable of bringing the work-related reflections into the private sphere and of making these reflections a continuous element in the employee's self-reflection. The self-technologies could also be termed 'pastoral' since their aim is to make the employee state the specific goals and needs for personal transformation.
The case examples are taken from public organisations in Denmark 2 , a country in which the public sector praises itself of being a front runner with respect to implementing new management technologies. The cases below are not rare and arbitrary incidences, I contend, but they reflect a broader international trend in human resource management.
The Power of Soul: The Way to Heal, Rejuvenate, Transform, and Enlighten All Life by Zhi Gang Sha
One element in this review was a dialogue between manager and employee about the goals for personal development on the part of the employee. As a preparation for this dialogue, the employee was to make an interview with his spouse at home about his personal qualifications and qualities-a 'home assignment'. This technology is designed to open up the private, trusting space of the home to a reflection about competencies.
Questions should include, among others: "In which areas could you imagine that I have good cooperative skills at my job? In this way, the technology makes use of a safe and intimate space to open up an observation of the personality of the employee as consisting of competencies. The home assignment gives the employee an outside look upon himself-an evaluating look that comes from a trusted person. It thus helps to initiate a dialogue about personality as competence, which can then be continued with the superior in a formal interview about the employee's development.
The important point, however, is that the home interview with the spouse is fundamentally a preparation for the employee's self-interrogation about his strong and weak sides. It is a modern self-technology. Figure 1.