Response to Thomas Klikauer's review article 'Management, business, anarchism'.

Author:Stoborod, Konstantin

Response to Thomas Klikauer's review article 'Management, business, anarchism'

Anarchist Studies 23.2 (2015), pp98-103; ISBN 978-1-910448-56-4

Let us start by saying that we are very glad that the ephemera special issue we edited has sparked debate. It is particularly gratifying, given our intention with the special issue, that this debate is taking place in the pages of Anarchist Studies, even if the response comes from a management scholar.

That being said, the fact that the response is written by someone working in a business school who works on management theory means that it does less justice to the synergistic value of the project than we might have hoped. Thomas Klikauer's review focuses more on critical management studies' own internal squabbles than on the overall aims of the special issue. We are very grateful to the editors of Anarchist Studies for giving us the opportunity to respond to Klikauer's review, to continue the debate and to clarify some of our intentions and understandings in relation to critical management studies.

We (Stoborod and Swann that is, not ephemera) were not trying to hide any historical facts about the origins and genealogies of the words 'organisation' and 'management' and the capitalist practices that might lie behind them. Nonetheless, our use of these words attempts to recognise the fact that they can be applied more generally and that people very often (self-)organise and (self-)manage without, thankfully, being organised or managed by bosses, superiors or leaders.

This is the distinction that we insist is crucial and is, we would hope, something that scholars of anarchism and activists themselves would readily recognise. While the word 'management' might conjure certain connotations in the popular imagination, so might the word 'anarchism', and we should be as wary of such connotations in the case of the former as in the latter.

Critical management studies, or CMS to those in the know, does not necessarily equal managerialism in what it advocates, nor top-down management in what it does. For what it's worth, the word 'critical' is still in there as part of the core definition of the field. CMS, for us, is a space where the wheat of human organising capabilities can be separated from the chaff of managerialist ideology and practices of domination and exploitation...

To continue reading