Mental Heath as a Weapon: Whistleblower Retaliation and Normative Violence

Abstract

What form does power take in situations of retaliation against whistleblowers? In this article, we move away from dominant perspectives that see power as a resource. In place, we propose a theory of normative power and violence in whistleblower retaliation, drawing on an in-depth empirical study. This enables a deeper understanding of power as it circulates in complex processes of whistleblowing. We offer the following contributions. First, supported by empirical findings we propose a novel theoretical framing of whistleblower retaliation and the role of mental health, which draws upon poststructuralist psychoanalytic thinking. Specifically, we highlight how intra-and inter-psychic affective and ambivalent attachments to organizations influence the use of normative violence in cases of whistleblower retaliation. The second contribution is empirical and builds upon the existing literature on whistleblower retaliation by highlighting how organizations position whistleblower subjects as mentally unstable and unreliable individuals, to undermine their claims. We conclude by highlighting the implications of normative power for the outcomes of whistleblower struggles.

Reframing the whistleblower in research: Truth‐tellers as whistleblowers in changing cultural contexts

“…The most seminal work on whistleblowers may be by Glazer and Glazer (1989), which focused on prominent whistleblowers and their experiences, highlighting widespread retaliation. Retaliation of whistleblowers is well-established (see; Jackson et al, 2010;Kenny, Fotaki, & Scriver, 2018;Lennane, 1995Lennane, , 2012Rothschild & Miethe, 1999;Rothschild, 2013;van der Velden, Houwerzijl, & van der Meulen, 2018;Verschoor, 2012) and yet, retaliation is not widely acknowledged in society. Common forms of retaliation result in job loss, loss of income, loss of home, lawsuits, divorces, bankruptcy and suicide (Lennane, 2012).…”

“…Indeed, whistleblowing is an issue filled with complexities that stretch beyond dichotomies by which it has often been framed. Whistleblowers are not either heroes or villains (see Contu, 2014;Grant, 2002;Kenny et al, 2018); whistleblowing is not just ethical or unethical; whistleblowers' choices do not fall into simple categories-they are humans interacting with many actors with various points of departure and navigating processes of meaning-making from many angles. As people interpret the properties of whistleblower disclosures differently, cultural sociology is uniquely suited to 'develop a better understanding of how widespread differentiation in common meanings and values coexist with claims to common culture' (Spillman, 2004, p. 9).…”

Whistleblower Subjectivities: Organization and Passionate Attachment

“…These naturally included positions that did not relate to their organization including as family member, person of religious faith, and citizen. These are outside the scope of our research focus, but are explored elsewhere in depth (Kenny, Fotaki & Scriver, 2018;Kenny, 2017).…”

The Performative University: ‘Targets’, ‘Terror’ and ‘Taking Back Freedom’ in Academia

“…Based on Foucault’s notion of parrhesia or fearless speech as a form of resistance, the construction of whistle-blower subjectivity is premised upon the freedom to disconnect from the organisation and engage in an apparent reinvention of the self (Weiskopf and Tobias-Miersch, 2016: 1624). However, we would like to draw attention to recent research by Kenny et al (2018: 326) who argue, through Judith Butler that this focus on freedom does not ‘disregard attachments to one’s organization and how whistle-blowers conceive of themselves as defenders of professional norms’. Several of the papers in this special issue, remind us that such freedom to disconnect is always connected to the way they are ‘passionately invested’ in their academic profession and university subject positions, either with a restorative or a reimagining lens around their social and scholarship purpose, despite acknowledging the institutional ‘terror’.…”