Subject Positions and Power Relations in Creative Organizations: Taking a Discursive View on Organizational Creativity

Abstract

In this paper we take a discursive view on organizational creativity and examine subject positions and power relations produced within a discourse on creativity in two different kinds of creative organizations, an opera house and a games company. In particular, we focus on the ways in which the discourse is practised in creative production processes. The two cases illustrate how the macro-level discourse on creativity can be enacted in a more micro-level construction of subjectivities. In the study we identified several subject positions that were shared by both organizations, and examined how they were embedded in the organizations' formal and informal hierarchies. By taking a discursive approach to creativity, we have also been able to explore some unwanted consequences of emphasizing creativity in organizations.

Emotions and identity work: Emotions as discursive resources in the constitution of junior professionals’ identities

“…That is, in becoming wedded to the notion of elite 'creative' identities, tech-heads also became willing contributors to the prevailing performance regime. These findings align with prior empirical studies into workers engaged in other creative industries such as film (Rowlands and Handy, 2012), television (Lee, 2012), music (Siciliano, 2016), new media work (Gill, 2002), opera and games companies (Tuori and Vilén, 2011), which suggest that the discursive legitimacy and appeal of creative work masks negative aspects of work such as low pay and market uncertainty.…”

Governing through creativity: Discursive formation and neoliberal subjectivity in Korean firms

“…This approach, however, may overlook the fact that creativity as a discourse is a powerful tool for the realization of political ends and the transformation of individuals into normalized subjects. The early humanist psychologists argued that creativity is a universal human attribute which awaits further development to be fully realized (Tuori and Vilén, 2011), and that it is each individual's own responsibility, no one else's, to discover and develop the potentialities for his or her own creativity. Creativity discourse can turn individuals into subjects who work on themselves to increase their creativity or to become enterprising selves (Prichard, 2002).…”

“…The functionalist approach assumes the realist ontology of creativity (Blomberg, 2014; Tuori and Vilén, 2011). This approach, however, may overlook the fact that creativity as a discourse is a powerful tool for the realization of political ends and the transformation of individuals into normalized subjects.…”

“…In opposition to functionalist research, a few scholars have recently conducted a discourse analysis of creativity by employing Foucauldian concepts of power, discourse, and governmentality (e.g. Brown et al, 2010; Parush and Koivunen, 2014; Tuori and Vilén, 2011). Prichard (2002) argued that creativity discourse can reconstitute individuals as subjects who take part in a permanent project of self-development.…”

“…In most previous creativity studies, discourse analyses were conducted at a single level and Foucauldian concepts of power, discourse, and governmentality were employed (e.g. Brown et al, 2010; Fougère and Solitander, 2010; Parush and Koivunen, 2014; Prichard, 2002; Tuori and Vilén, 2011). By contrast, this study contributes to the literature on creativity by examining how creativity discourse shapes neoliberal subjects at all three levels.…”