Management’s collusion in poverty? Archetypes, conceits, and performative neophytism

Mainstream management studies’ arm’s length engagement with poverty exemplifies its performative neophytism as field. It is enabled by its problematic archetypes of the poor and their poverty: (a) that the poor are deficient; and (b) conceptualizing poverty as distance. They make way for mainstream...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Organization (London, England) England), 2024-03, Vol.31 (2), p.402-411
Main Authors: Kumar, Arun, Cooke, Bill
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Collusion
Inventions
Low income groups
Management
Poverty
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Mainstream management studies’ arm’s length engagement with poverty exemplifies its performative neophytism as field. It is enabled by its problematic archetypes of the poor and their poverty: (a) that the poor are deficient; and (b) conceptualizing poverty as distance. They make way for mainstream management studies’ conceits: (a) that it is separate from poverty and dispossession it causes, and (b) that it possesses the resources to ‘solve’ poverty. These conceits safeguard the field and legitimizes its scholars’ inventions and interventions, many of which evidence suggests do little for poverty alleviation. It is time for management studies to cease its performative neophytism.
ISSN:1350-5084
1461-7323
DOI:10.1177/13505084221137988