When the political becomes (painfully) personal: Org-studying the consequences of Brexit

Abstract

This ‘Speaking Out’ essay contributes to debates over Brexit and populism by suggesting how we, as management and organisation studies scholars, might approach ‘org-studying’ Brexit. First, as UK-based European Union citizens working in UK business schools, we clarify our own position(s) in relation to Brexit. Second, we position ourselves more specifically as management and organisation studies academics by considering how we might begin to analyse the organisational consequences of Brexit through seeing it as part of a continuing global crisis – or series of crises – including and going beyond those affecting American and European societies and economies, as well as their political and other social fields and organisations. We highlight the salience of emotions with regard to Brexit, and in particular ressentiment in relation to populism as a political methodology. We also note the importance of identity and how political and personal identities are being reconstituted in the United Kingdom in light of the Brexit vote. We put forward suggestions for how management and organisation studies scholars might integrate these insights into an overarching approach to researching the organisational consequences of Brexit based on the works of Pierre Bourdieu and Gisèle Sapiro on the transposition of crisis. Our final remarks address the way that Brexit crisis continues to challenge our own established identities.

Organising populism: From symbolic power to symbolic violence

“…They also call for examination of the role of business and business-funded think tanks in enacting right-wing populism. All these analyses are consistent with Kerr and Śliwa's (2020) view of populism as building on the ressentiment and the particular emotional Zeitgeist -manifested, for example, in hostility against immigrants -that can be identified across societies.…”

“…compete against and form alliances with structurally homologous factions from other fields (Bourdieu, 2014(Bourdieu, , 2021. For example, media players with interlocking interests (newspapers, TV, radio) can help to make or break individual politicians, and also contribute to the reproduction of a Zeitgeist of fear, panic, and ressentiment (Kerr and Śliwa, 2020).…”

“…Ressentiment and political representation. The concept of ressentiment refers to the feelings of powerlessness that permeate certain social groups and individuals (Bourdieu, 2016), be it the underprivileged, in which case the group members will have a sense that their increasingly precarious economic status is threatened by invasive 'aliens'; or the relatively privileged (retirees, homeowners, and small business people), who feel they are being unjustly denied their rightful socio-cultural dominance by immigrants encouraged by the machinations of unaccountable metropolitan, cosmopolitan, liberal 'elites' (Kerr and Śliwa, 2020).…”

Riding populist storms: Brexit, Trumpism and beyond, Special Paper Series Editorial

“…From the meso level of CMS, business schools and academia, we now move to a third group, in which four papers focus more on the micro-level feelings, roles and actions of individuals and groups of CMS scholars/activists. The first in this group, Kerr and Śliwa’s (2020) essay suggests how management and organisation studies scholars might approach ‘org-studying’ Brexit. They are clear on their own positionality and highlight the salience of emotions as regards Brexit and, in particular, ressentiment in relation to populism as a political methodology.…”

“…These papers demonstrate feminist attention to the authors’ positionality and emotions. We term this an ‘affective performativity’ – a form of CMS performativity that within this current ‘emotional Zeitgeist’ (Kerr and Śliwa, 2020) adds to the arsenal of (CMS) performativities discussed in our own contribution to this series (Bristow and Robinson, 2018). The papers draw attention to the relationships and intersections between the personal and professional lives of CMS scholars, which, as highlighted in our introduction to this editorial, these populist times bring into sharp focus.…”