A taste for otherness: Anthropophagy and the embodied self in organizations

Scandinavian Journal of Management (2015) 31, 351—361

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : h t t p : / / w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / s c a m a n

A taste for otherness: Anthropophagy and the embodied self in organizations Gazi Islam * ´cole de Management and Insper, 12 Rue Pierre Semard, 38000 Grenoble, France Management Grenoble E

KEYWORDS Culture; Embodiment; Critical management studies; Brazil; Otherness

Summary The current paper contributes to organizational thinking about cultural mixture as an embodied, sensory process, by examining the concept of organizational anthropophagy as a metaphor for a particular mode of organizational understanding. An emerging Brazilian literature on anthropophagic thinking combines a focus on the body, the passions and ideas of physical desire and aggression with cultural notions of hybridity and mixture, making the notion ripe for debates in contemporary organization theory. To develop these connections, I give a background to the anthropophagic movement, an artistic and cultural vanguard movement, discussing how this movement provided a unique angle on embodied forms of knowledge that can be applied to understanding dynamics of self-and otherness in organizations. Next, I examine how the body can be understood anthropophagically, linking issues of selfhood, authenticity and relationality to the bodily emphasis in anthropophagy. Finally, I discuss directions and limitations of anthropophagic thinking, suggesting that metaphorical and local movements like the anthropophagic movements can have ramifications for the literal and general in organizational theory. # 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

‘‘. . .the construction will be oriented by the intensities produced by the vibrating body, i.e. the configuration of the world as it is presented in the body — a knowledge through vibration and contamination.’’ Rolnick, Anthropophagic Subjectivity, 1998, p. 27 ‘‘The Amazon had a way of swallowing up dreams’’ wrote MacIntyre (2009) in a review about Henry Ford’s failed industrial utopia in the Brazilian rainforest (Grandin, 2009). In 1928, Ford had initiated the ‘‘Fordla ˆndia’’ project, a rubber plantation and industrial center meant to supply Ford’s modernist vision of endless tires. Fordla ˆndia, modeled

* Tel.: +33 04 76 70 62 53. E-mail address: [email protected]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2015.04.001 0956-5221/# 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

after a U.S. midwest town, was to be a paragon of austere spiritual living, its workers fed on whole wheat grains, and alcohol prohibited. Before long, plagued by tropical and venereal diseases, violence, and infertility, the project collapsed, its managers driven into the jungle, and its ruins scattered to this day along the shores of the Tapajo ´s river (Grandin, 2009). 70 years later, speculating why international companies failed to understand host environments, organizational scholars Wood and Caldas (1998a,b, 2002) presented an image of Michael Porter stewing in a boiling cauldron, surrounded by Brazilian executives. The most successful companies, they argued, were ‘‘anthropophagic’’, able to cannibalize modernist ideals and adapt them to local conditions. Applying their metaphor to developing countries generally, they yet acknowledged that the metaphor of devouring and absorption was a historical centerpiece of

352 Brazil’s relation to the outside world, especially the ‘‘advanced’’ industrialized economies. Within organizational scholarship, the rediscovery of the anthropophagic metaphor by several Brazilian-based researchers raised interest because of its combination of sensory and visceral intensity, historical self-consciousness, and critical irony (Faria, Carvalho & Collares, 2001; Islam, 2012; Wood & Caldas, 1998a,b, 2002). While recent literature (Faria, Wanderley, Reis & Celano, 2013; Islam, 2012) has focused on the colonial and post-colonial (or ‘‘de-colonial’’, in Faria et al., 2013) dimension of anthropophagy, the aspect of embodiment inherent in the concept can complement such perspectives, which stress the political economy of devoration more than they do the bodily sense of desire for the other. Simultaneously, organizational scholars have been recognizing the ‘disembodiment’ of our own theorizing as a lingering problem (e.g. Thanem & Knights, [5_TD$IF]2012; Thanem, 2006). Using the ‘monstrous’ to describe bodily excess (Thanem, 2006), the ‘vampiric’ to describe the aging body (Riach & Kelly, 2013), or ‘zombies’ to question the relation between living and dead forms of organizing (Rehn, 2009), such perspectives have used rich metaphors to evoke the embodied (or disembodied) aspect of organizing. Anthropophagy as used here stands in an interesting relation with such perspectives, sharing their concern with embodied metaphors while complementing these with a unqiue relational standpoint that is distinct from both. As a modernist movement, the Anthropophagic Movement ´gico) emphasized the ambivalent rela(Movimento Antropofa tions between self and other by framing the all-consuming desire to fuse with the other as simultaneously reverential and aggressive. Anthropophagy, for this movement, exhibits a simultaneous show of desire for the other, aggressive protest and symbolic appropriation. It is marked by an esthetic of sensual intensity and visceral provocation. The anthropophagic movement was inspired by accounts of early Brazil, in which Jesuits’ attempts to promote devotion among the indigenous inhabitants led to the devoration of the priests themselves by these inhabitants. In this act, artists saw a powerful metaphor where sublime abstract reason was countered by a sensualist response from the marginalized other, aggressive, but grounded also in appetite and desire. From their elaboration of this sensualist vision of mixture, an esthetic movement grew to integrate literature, music, and the visual arts, constituting a persistent and central metaphor for describing mixture and ambivalent sensuality (Dunn, 2010). The current paper argues that the anthropophagic metaphor illustrates a novel mode of organizational theorizing that is deeply embodied (cf. Viveiros de Castro; Rolnick, 1998). While largely theorized as a trope of colonial relations (e.g. Faria et al., 2013; Islam, 2012), I argue that the ambivalence and desire captured by the anthropophagic metaphor makes it useful as a metaphor for embodied self-other relations. Scholars have noted the intersections between ‘Western’ values and embodiment, often focusing on gender (cf. Pullen & Vachhani, 2013; Riach & Kelly, 2013; Thanem, 2006), but much less so on how complex colonial power relationships have encoded bodily relations between metropole and colony (Stoler, 2002). In such situations of power asymmetry, marginalized groups struggle for cultural space with powerful elites (e.g. Banerjee & Linstead, 2004),

G. Islam and esthetic and sensualist cultural expressions labeled inappropriate or abject (e.g. Islam, 2014; Warren, 2008) create conditions for the emergence of anthropophagic consciousness. Although under-theorized in the academic literature, anthropophagy contributes to many key themes in contemporary organizational theory, such as the body within organizations (e.g. Dale, 2001; Gatrell, 2011; Thanem, 2009), the relationship between the sensory, nature and authenticity (e.g. Banerjee & Linstead, 2004), and the emphasis on relationality (e.g. Bradbury & Lichtenstein, 2000). An elaboration of how the anthropophagy metaphor contributes to these themes is thus an important contribution to organizational scholarship. The outline of the argument is as follows. First, I briefly describe the cultural and historical roots of the anthropophagic movement as centered around the visceral reaction to abstract reason, outlining its development as a social-theoretical paradigm and its recent transposition into organizational theorizing. I then explore how anthropophagy relates to sensory and embodied views of organizational phenomena, emphasizing the lived, appetitive experience of encounters with the ‘‘other’’ or foreign, as opposed to traditional views of organizing as integrated, systemic, and coherent. Finally, I draw out the implications of anthropophagic views of organizing for organization studies, pointing out limitations of this perspective and directions for future research.

Anthropophagy as an embodied metaphor Organizational scholarship has long recognized the importance of metaphor as a mode of making sense of abstract organizational concepts (e.g. Cornelissen, 2006; Patriotta & Brown, 2011; Tsoukas, 1991). Metaphors condense abstract, complex, and sometimes even contradictory ideas into concrete exemplars (Cornelissen, 2006) lending materiality to concepts (Ricoeur, 1977) and allowing conceptual innovation (Tsoukas, 1991). Perhaps because of this embodying function of metaphor, metaphors of the body are particularly salient in discourse (Lakoff and Johnson, 1999), such as when companies have ‘‘heads’’, ‘‘births’’ and ‘‘deaths’’, social relations are ‘‘hot’’ or ‘‘cold’’, or new practices are ‘‘incorporated’’ into organizations. Anthropologists have long recognized the use of bodily concepts in structuring social relations (cf. Douglas, 1970; Kirmayer, 1992[1_TD$IF]). Douglas (1966), for example, examined how notions of purity and dirtiness serve to establish cultural boundaries and consolidate group identity. Le ´vi-Strauss’ (1964) famous distinction between the ‘‘raw’’ and the ‘‘cooked’’ shaped views of the wild and the cultivated, and Ortner (1974) examined how gender distinctions reflect the nature—culture divide. These views all recognize, in particular, how bodily metaphors are key in establishing self-other boundaries, and policing these boundaries through symbolic and ritual behavior. Among these bodily metaphors, the notion of ‘‘incorporation’’ is particularly interesting in this respect, since it involves not only the establishment, but the crossing, of boundaries (Nunes, 2008). This logic has given rise to a metaphor of social relations and identifications as ‘‘cannibalistic’’ (Nunes, 2008; Queiroz-Siqueira, 1972; Rehn & Borgerson, 2005). Freud (1986) initially described the first, oral

Anthropophagy and the embodied self stage of self-development as the ‘‘cannibalistic’’ phase, where the other is incorporated into the self. Nunes (2008, p. 20) states that, as a model for the incorporation of differences, ‘‘cannibalism is a useful model for democracy’’. Queiroz-Siqueira (1972) describes a ‘‘metaphoric anthropophagism’’, built on a desire to eliminate conflict by absorbing the totality of the world into oneself. However, as Nunes (2008) points out, the ambivalence between love and aggression, inherent in this metaphor, always leaves a symbolic remainder, an unassimilable mark of otherness that problematizes relations between people, and between cultures. Just as metaphor itself never does perfect justice to its object (Nunes, 2008), incorporating its referent but always leaving an indigestible kernel, the ambivalence of anthropophagy makes it the quintessential metaphor (Nunes, 2008) and an interesting site for study.

The recognition of anthropophagy in organizational studies Notions of symbolic and metaphoric cannibalism have been long studied in the anthropological literature (cf. Hulme, 1998; Lindenbaum, 2004), and have been recognized by organizational scholars (Rehn & Borgerson, 2005) as characterizing modern capitalism. Although cannibalism and anthropophagy are distinguished by some authors (e.g. Hulme, 1998), current usage tends to use the terms roughly synonymously (cf. Ferreira, 2002). Where they arise separately, anthropophagy is often linked to the metaphoric and symbolic uses of the term (cf. Ferreira, 2002; Obeyesekere, 2005), the aspects of interest in the current paper. Relatedly, following Obeyesekere (2005) the historical existence of ‘‘actual’’ cannibalism, hotly debated yet relatively wellevidenced (Arens, 1979; Lindenbaum, 2004) is a separate issue from the social representation of the practice, which is of interest here. Thus, leaving aside historical questions about the prevalence and nature of anthropophagic practice in anthropology, this paper focuses in on one particular tradition, the Brazilian anthropophagic movement, where the metaphor was used by modern thinkers to reframe cultural dynamics in bodily terms (Andrade, 1990). Taken up by organizational scholars at the turn of the 21st century (Wood & Caldas, 1998a), this metaphor took on new meaning as an organizational phenomenon. In their introduction of the concept of organizational anthropophagy, Wood and Caldas (1998a) stress the hybrid nature of Brazilian organizations. According to their analysis, a mentality of mixture, reverence and engagement with the foreign constitutes a central facet of anthropophagic organizations. Anthropophagic organizations, like others, appropriate and implement foreign knowledge in their operations. However, anthropophagic appropriation is not isomorphic, but transformative and even subversive in its borrowing, creating hybrids from local and foreign in a self-conscious appropriation of the outside. In this view, the resulting organizational forms often are polysemic, with deep differences between surface appearance and underlying reality (Caldas & Wood, 1997), as well as a deep ambivalence toward the foreign. In Caldas and Wood’s (1997) analysis, this ambivalence was inscribed corporally in the figure of the mameluco, or racially mixed Brazilian, who felt viscerally

353 torn between colonizer and colonized, producing an ambivalent relationality to the other that remains central to Brazilian self-consciousness. The metaphor of bodily mixture as representative of this process, further, shows how it is emotionally charged and felt as central to the identity of these organizations (Islam, 2012).

Anthropophagy, modernism and desire for the other The visceral conception of anthropophagic selfhood drew its roots from a unique metaphysic that was later captured and used by modern thinkers in Brazil (Islam, 2012; Wood & Caldas, 2002). This tradition viewed the body itself as in a state of flux, where identity or essence were radically embodied (e.g. Conklin, 1997, 2001), and changes in the self could involve physical transformation of bodies or even across species (e.g. Viveiros de Castro, 1998, 2009). Because the historical roots of anthropophagic thinking as a reworking of indigenous metaphysics has been described elsewhere (Islam, 2012), I focus on modern conceptions of anthropophagic culture originating in the 1920s, with a resurgence of artistic creation and theorizing in the 1960s until the present. As Graeber (2008) notes, the European inter-war period and the period around 1968 were loci of esthetic experimentation, as well as the exploration of new forms cultural expression, linked with desire, alternative sexualities and other forms of embodied identity. Within this context, artists faced an esthetic dilemmas regarding how corporeal expression related to cultural authenticity (Ferreira, 2011). On the one hand, artists wanted to affirm a distinct culture from the European avant-garde and establish their own expressive artistic ‘‘feel’’. On the other hand, an outright rejection of modernism could result in a ‘‘back to nature’’ primitivism that would only reinforce primitivist stereotypes of Brazil (cf. Banerjee & Linstead, 2004, for the problem of representing indigenous practices in organization theory). The solution they found was to develop a cultural style that re-imagined the native as an agent of transformation, ‘‘technified’’ (tecnizado) through devouring European culture, but also aggressively independent (Ferreira, 2002). This effect was achieved through a subversion of the abstract, overly intellectual modernist esthetics, and to emphasize the material and sensual aspect of ‘‘tropical’’ life, while trying to avoid a romanticized tropical esthetic that would reproduce stereotypes of Brazil. The Anthropophagic esthetic was the answer provided by the writer Oswald de Andrade in the 1920s. His influential manifestos, Manifesto Pau Brasil (Andrade, 1972) and Man´fago, (Andrade, 1990), were central contribuifesto Antropo ´gica tions, along with his founding of the Revista Antropofa (Anthropophagic Review), which would form the backbone of the movement, juxtaposing diverse literary forms unified by a focus on the sensual and subversive (Helena, 1983). To emphasize the movements’ visceral aspect, its opening in Sao Paulo involved grotesque humor and flaunting of fleshy themes, shocking the traditionalist art world whose reference had been high art in the European classical style (Cocco, 2009). The turn toward the corporeal would be an enduring mark of the movement, a refusal to allow a complete sublimation

354 of culture at the intellectual level, and an insistence on the esthetic. As Rolnick (1998, p. 10) describes, the modernist movement stressed an ‘‘anthropophagous mode of subjectivization actualized in its most active vector: a certain state of the body, in which its nerve fibers vibrate to the music of the universes connected by desire.’’ Rather than an empty anesthetization, ignoring wider political and social frameworks, however, it was precisely in and through the focus on the sensory and bodily aspects of experience that these wider frameworks were made most salient. Whereas foreign culture had been mainly imported in the form of abstract, allegedly universal principles of theory, a focus on the body was a way of inscribing a position of resistance, so that the metaphor of devouring European culture was a way of both appropriating this culture and subverting it by insisting on the carnal nature of this appropriation. The Revista Antropofagica was launched in May 1928, with the editorial salvo that it would not promulgate ‘‘any particular orientation or point of view, only a stomach’’ (Revista Antropofagica, 1928, p. 8). Publishing works of key figures in Brazilian art, such as Mario and Oswald de Andrade, and the painter Tarsila do Amaral, the Revista is one of the most wellknown artifacts of Brazilian cultural production in the 20th century, and would later influence Brazilian cinema (e.g. Nagib, 2007) and music (Veloso, 1997). The opening edition, ´fago, detailed the which featured the Manifesto Antropo necessity of resisting the ‘‘catechism’’ of the foreign, but taking in the foreign viscerally, not theoretically. This meant that artistic movements were to be seen not as ideals to be copied but as material culture, to be modified based on the material circumstances, needs, and desires of local producers. According to this perspective, ‘‘What results is not a sublimation of the sexual instinct. It is the thermometric scale of the anthropophagic instinct. From the carnal, it becomes freely chosen and cultivates friendship. Affect, love’’ (Andrade, 1990). The dynamism and fluidity of cultural digestion was contrasted with the ‘‘vegetal elites’’, whose static vision of traditional culture cut off all dialog between cultures. ´gica was short lived in duration; The Revista Antropofa Nevertheless, the esthetic and cultural style of visceral desire and mixture represented by anthropophagy remained, resurging in the context of the Brazilian military dictatorship and the Cold War (Young, 1998). In this context, cultural influences from rock music, hippie, libertine and spiritualist movements highlighted questions of sensuality and the liberation of the desire, as well the fusion of diverse cultures, late modern themes that fit well with anthropophagy (Dunn, 1993). Anthropophagy was a cross-field movement in the 1960s involving poetry, literature (Perrone, 1990), and painting to emphasize the body. The movement was felt foremost in cinema, with the emergence of Brazilian New Cinema (Cinema Novo, cf. Nagib, 2007), and in music with a movement that came to be known as ‘‘tropicalia’. In cinema (Nagib, 2007), films such as Macunaima (depicting the adventures of a comic anti-hero who both engages in and is the victim of cannibalism by both capitalist barons and traditional mythical figures, cf. Nagib, 2007) and How Tasty was my Little Frenchman (Como Era Gostoso o Meu Frances), in which scenes of cannibalism and sexuality between natives and Frenchmen exemplify the double meaning of the title

G. Islam word ‘‘gostoso’’ as both ‘‘sexy’’ and ‘‘delicious’’, (cf. Young, 1998) use a focus on the body and grotesque humor to make culturally subversive statements involving sexual and political liberties denied under the dictatorship. In the musical field during the same period, the figures of Caetano Veloso and Gilberto Gil launched the tropicalist movement in self-conscious relation with the older Brazilian anthropophagic tradition (Veloso, 1997). As Veloso (1997) stresses, they were a continuation of the anthropophagic movement, yet resisted direct assimilation to that movement, in true anthropophagic spirit. In his own words, the movement engaged in ‘‘eating the Beatles and Jimi Hendrix’’ (Veloso, 1997, p. 247), leading to a caricatured and satirically grotesque rock and roll style. The irony, sensualist nature, and cultural ambivalence of this movement placed it in the anthropophagic tradition (e.g. Dunn, 2010). The unique cultural and esthetic forms approached by anthropophagy involved seeing the cultural struggles of the period from the perspective of the ‘‘outside’’, an outside that framed cultural knowledge as a form of desire (cf. Gherardi, 2004). Anthropophagy thus demonstrates an ambivalence that combines a cross-cultural perspective with issues of self and other, unified by a bodily analogy that frames self-other relations as viscerally felt relationships between bodies. Turning to the organizational applications of this metaphor, in the next section I describe its appropriation into organizational studies and the thematic contributions it brings to this field.

Anthropophagic ways of understanding organization Although organizational themes of sensoriality (e.g. Strati, 2007) the body (e.g. Gatrell, 2011) and relationality (e.g. Bradbury & Lichtenstein, 2000) have been widely discussed in organizational studies, the unification of these themes in the context of the embodied selfhood is relatively unique, making the anthropophagic movement rich in possibilities. That it has only recently been brought into social and organizational theorizing may have to do with its provocative and grotesquesounding allusions, a shocking element which ironically was a deliberate provocation by its founders. However, recent literature has embraced this very aspect of excess in embodied metaphors, from monstrous organizations (Thanem, 2006, 2009) to vampiric organizations (Riach & Kelly, 2013), to cyborg aspects of organizing (Ball, 2005), embodying a resurgence of corporeal metaphors to describe organizing and organizations. Such metaphors are useful to organization theory to the extent that, through their ability to draw useful analogies between material bodies and abstract ideas (e.g. Islam, Endrissat & Noppeney, 2015), they can make certain kinds of organizational relationships more palpable. The embodiment literature tends to focuses on the ‘othering’ of the body, particularly through the treatment of the body as excessive or ‘monstrous’ (Thanem, 2006). This literature tends to highlight the gendering of bodies within organizations (e.g. Thanem & Knights, 2012; Vachhani, 2009, 2012); for instance, Vachhani (2009) uses the metaphor of ‘vagina dentata’ to describe the threatening and monstrous treatment of the feminine in organizations, while Brewis and

Anthropophagy and the embodied self Linstead (2000) focus on the body of the sex worker in its relation to commodification. When the term first entered the organizational literature (Wood & Caldas, 1998a,b, 2002), it was largely purged of its sensualist implications and of the complex metaphysical and colonial relations embedded in the term. Rather, it became an interesting metaphor to describe how Brazilian organization often imported and adapted foreign practices, changing these practices to fit the local context. As a contribution to international management, organizational anthropophagy was useful because it showed how emerging market companies often pick and choose which parts of foreign practices they will implement, in a kind of ‘‘creative adaptation’’ of management practices (Wood & Caldas, 1998b). That this paralleled colonial descriptions of warriors’ ‘‘picking and choosing’’ enemy captives to physically devour was not ignored by these authors, but the cultural implications of the adoption and aggression through bodily integration were largely left untouched. Even without the turn to the body, the anthropophagy concept was useful in understanding the relational and fluid nature of Brazilian organizations, and fluidity of managerial practices that pass through these institutions (e.g. Wood, 2010) as well as in the Brazilian socio-political establishment more generally (e.g. Martins, 2000). From Sader’s (1987) study of Brazilian political parties, to Vilac¸a (2007) examination of contradictory identity politics at the Rio Earth summit, Brazilian organizations have been characterized as hybrid and subject to diverse and often contradictory forces, involving ambivalent relations between self and other. With organizational studies’ increasing interest in relationality ¨ zbilgin, 2006; Bradbury more generally (e.g. Kyriakidou & O & Lichtenstein, 2000), the exploration of forms and process of relational identity begins to take significance beyond the Brazilian contexts and to offer a link to organizational theory as a whole. However, to do justice to the anthropophagy concept requires going beyond the simple fact of organizational hybridity and mixture, and looking to the esthetic, embodied experience of relationality. Some initial work has in fact begun to develop the links between political economy, the esthetic, and organizational anthropophagy (Faria et al., 2001; Faria et al., 2013). Faria et al.’s (2001) call for future research specifically linked anthropophagy to recent attempts in organizations study to link arts and esthetics to organizations, for example, Carvalho and Siqueira (2000) study of Commedia dell’arte as a mode of organizational understanding. Faria et al. (2013) apply the anthropophagic perspective to a Rio-based NGO, where esthetic and theatrical educational methods are used to create an intermediate space between violent slums and the labor market. In Faria et al’s (2013) study, anthropophagy involved a decolonizing gesture meant to join different worlds; how such worlds are felt in the bodies of the members, however, how they manifest themselves in desire or longing to know the ‘other side’, remains to be explored. Thus, the sensory and esthetic aspect of anthropophagic thinking as a tool for theorizing the relation between power relations and embodied experience has been largely overlooked. Perhaps because of this esthetic focus, most studies using the concepts invoke artistic or design communities. For instance, Campos (1986: 51) describes the ‘devoration’

355 running through Brazilian literary communities, culminating in a literature that is both sensualist and highly politicized. As an esthetic of the ‘concrete’, Campos argues that anthropophagic literature ‘‘speak[s] difference in a universal code’’, by simultaneously adopting and rejecting otherness from the West. Describing this movement, Campos (1986: 51) writes, ‘‘Metalinguistically, it rethinks its own code, the poetic function itself (or the operation of this code). . .assumassuming, criticizing and ‘‘chewing over’’ a poetics’’. In an separate example, Jones (2013) analyzes as anthropopophagic the architectural designs of architect Oscar Niemeyer, which alternate abruptly between ‘modular’ modernist forms taken from the West, abstract and disembodied, with curvy and sensualist subversions. As Niemeyer (cited in Jones, [6_TD$IF]2013: 31) describes of his marquee for the 2nd Sao Paulo Biennale, it is meant to show ‘‘the body of the beloved woman. . .full of curves, like the mulattas painted by. . . Di Cavalcanti.’’ Design in this register is both sensualist and highly politicized, aware of it dependence on outside influences while using the concept of desired multiracial ‘curves’ to establish its autonomy in the face of power. Theorizing from the illustrations above, anthropophagic conceptions may be discussed along three related aspects, namely (a) the role of embodiment in the construction of relational selves, (b) the role of the body in establishing claims of authenticity, and (c) the role of bodily relation as a way of negotiating hybrid social forms, involving ambivalent self-other relations. Although these themes are not exhaustive, each of them formed an important problematic for the anthropophagic movement (Andrade, 1990; Nunes, 1990), and thus do justice to the spirit of anthropophagy as developed by the thinkers described above. More central here, each of these themes allows engagement with issues of embodiment, contributing to discussions of the role of the body in organizational scholarship. Thus, the issues of selfhood related to authenticity and relationality can be recalibrated as issues regarding bodies and bodily experience by engaging with the anthropophagy metaphor, and were selected for this purpose.

Anthropophagy and the embodied self Anthropophagy can contribute to organizational discussions of embodiment and situated identity (e.g. Creed, DeJordy & Lok, 2010; Dale, 2001; Mitchell, Randolph-Seng, & Mitchell, 2011; Swan, 2005) because of its unique way of conceiving the relation between the body and the ‘‘spirit’’. As Viveiros de Castro (e.g. Viveiros de Castro, 1998, 2009) explains, the metaphysics from which reflection on this topic emerged viewed the self as relational and perspectival in a deep departure from current views of the self as integral and ‘self-contained’. According to this metaphysic, relations between individuals (e.g. predator/prey, insider/outsider) weigh not only upon social status or role, but impinge on the very bodily essence of the organism. As Vilac¸a (2005) concurs, the anthropophagic notion of the body is not that of an inert or grounded object, but is fundamentally in flux. Although the twentieth century authors and artists that appropriated the anthropophagic metaphor were not directly linked to indigenous groups, they looked to indigenous visions of self and body for alternatives to prevailing views of selfhood. This reconceptualization of bodies makes it possible to view

356 selves as bodies without turning them into inert objects, moving away from dualistic visions of mind and body as radically separate. Such a view of embodiment fits well with contemporary challenges to such dualisms, viewing selfhood as fluid, indeterminate, or in flux. For example, Richardson (2007) views the gendered body as something unstable and in flux, with the female body, although still physical, also acting as a site for the inscription of social and organizational norms (c.d. Gatrell, 2011). Similarly, Vachhani ([7_TD$IF]2012) treats embodied gender dualisms as fraught with symbolic danger, and gender exclusion as a reaction to visceral threat. Contemporary social theorists such as Judith Butler (e.g. Butler, 2005) have questioned the ‘‘wholeness’’ of selfhood and moved toward relational perspectives emphasizing the desire for mutual recognition; while these accounts emphasize gender issues, the points around de-centered and other-involved selfhood are more general. While such perspectives are increasingly present, rare are cases in which the body is seen as radically relational, and the relational correspondingly embodied. In his ‘‘Anthropophagic Metaphysics’’, Viveiros de Castro (2009) clearly draws parallels between the fluidity of essences and the anthropophagic metaphysics, emphasizing in particular the work of Gilles Deleuze, with the premise that the ‘‘perspectivism’’ involved in both approaches can complement each other. It is notable that Deleuze’s critical engagement with Freud in Anti-Oedipus, for example (Deleuze & Guattari, 1977), which frames the self as fluid and based on a relation of difference, is ´fago, strikingly similar to Andrade’s (1990) Manifesto Antropo which also is heavily influenced by yet deeply critical of Freud, and frames the self as formed around relationality and difference, arising from the simultaneous connection and distance between bodies. The link with Deleuze also connects anthropophagic thinking with currents in organizational thinking (e.g. Linstead & Thanem, 2007) that emphasize fluid ontologies, and use Deleuze to emphasize the indeterminacy of dualities in ‘monstrous’ organizations (Thanem, 2006). Within an emerging organizational literature on embodied identity (e.g. Ladkin & Taylor, 2010; Mitchell, Randolph-Seng, & Mitchell, 2011; Swan, 2005), the complex nature of the corporeal in anthropophagy can provide an interesting lens on the relation between bodies and selves. Organizational treatments have tended to focus either on the body as a physical object (e.g. Gatrell, 2011; for a critical analysis see Ball, 2005), or on the self as a symbolic social identity (e.g. Creed et al., 2010; Mitchell, Randolph-Seng, & Mitchell, 2011), but as some have pointed out, objects in organizations tend to have both material and non-material aspects (Strati, 1996), their materiality marking certain ‘‘invitations’’ to engage in a symbolic relation, as Strati describes with relation to organizational artifacts. That such a perspective can be applied to the body itself allows and important bridge to be drawn between physicalist and symbolic perspectives in organizations. This bridge is particularly important because unlike other organizational artifacts, embodiment selfhood is not only material and symbolic, but also expresses a lived subject whose phenomenological self coincides with this material/ symbolic entity. Part of the increasing importance of organizational esthetics research, for instance, is due to its

G. Islam acknowledgment of the body as a seat of lived experience, couched between the material and the symbolic (e.g. Martin, 2002). Debates regarding the lived versus symbolic nature of the self have struggled to tease apart these seemingly distinct yet coexistent aspects of human bodies (e.g. Ayouch, 2008). Anthropophagy acknowledges this complex aspect of the self because it unifies the appropriation/ingestion of the material, the consolidation of social roles through the ritualistic appropriation, and the communion with another subjectivity whose separateness causes longing and desire. In its mixture of violence, longing, and material expression, anthropophagy encapsulates the major features that characterize esthetic and artistic features of human experience as lived, symbolic, and material.

Anthropophagy and the relational body The relational aspect of anthropophagy, arising from cultural hybridity and mixture, is a second area in which the anthropophagic movement can contribute to organizational studies. The anthropophagic perspective argues argued that the self in organizations is not unified and coherent, but is rather relational, linked to but also opposed to the other in a relation neither of identity nor of difference, that arises from hybridity (Islam, 2012). According to Hinderliter et al. (2009: 14) relationality implies ‘‘interruption, an element of disjunction such that community itself becomes the enactment of a dislocation’’. This dislocation between self and other traces an inarticulable ‘‘third space’’ or ‘‘inbetween’’ area with regards to social categories (Bhabha, 1994). This third space allows multiple and often competing selves to coexist in individuals, leading to dynamics that are difficult to understand with views of selfhood as coherent and unitary. That multiplicity and hybridity weigh upon the bodily experience of individuals can been seen some authors who treat identity as a product of difference. For example, DuBois (1961) discusses racial marginalization as involving a split self with warring black and white identities that struggle for control over a single body, thus creating a racialized split between the body and the soul. Darling-Wolf (2008) discusses virtual spaces as freeing competing selves from the constraints of the physical body (see also Islam, 2006, on the implications of the virtual for subjectivity). Organizational theorists have debated the implications of multiple and hybrid selves (e.g. Sluss & Ashforth, 2007; Zanoni, Janssens, Benschop & Nkomo, 2009), but have only recently connected these debates with the embodied identity (Zanoni et al., 2009). Anthropophagy provides a stark example of how not only different selves can become materialized in bodily symbols, but also how these different selves are entrained with each other in processes of aggression and love. To illustrate, Caldas and Wood (1997) describe a Brazilian obsession with the foreign, but go beyond efficiency or economic development considerations to discuss the very bodies of Brazilians as ambiguous and mixed. This deep sense of mixture leads individuals to see the other within themselves, and to avidly import foreign business practices while ultimately rejecting the implementation of these practices (Caldas & Wood, 1997). The result, according to this analysis, is a performative gesture of otherness, a ritualistic display of convergence with important organizational practices, and a

Anthropophagy and the embodied self disregard for local practices as inferior (cf. Caldas, 1997), while, at the same time, a plasticity and creative adaptation that conserves local identities despite projecting an image of otherness. Outside of Brazilian contexts, the organizational literature on hybrid identities (e.g. Zanoni et al., 2009) suggests that new ideas regarding self and other should link these concepts with embodied selves. For example, Cavanaugh’s (1997) work on the incorporation of otherness approaches an anthropophagic perspective by discussing organizational diversity as the internalization of identities along gender and class criteria. An anthropophagic extension of such a perspective would focus on how the experience of the foreign in organizations is experienced as a simultaneous desire for and aggression toward the bodies of the other, a sensory focus which can inform diverse areas such as abuse and violence at work, workplace sexuality, and discrimination and diversity.

Anthropophagy and the authentic body Organizational studies of the body often characterize bodies as marks of the natural, authentic individual, whose physical stability provides a basis for measurement and an authenticator of truth (e.g. Ball, 2005; Banerjee & Linstead, 2004). For example, Ladkin and Taylor (2010) claim that authenticity in the area of leadership derives from a heightened attention to bodily and sensory information, while recognizing that this focus on the body of the leader has been taboo in organizational studies. They conclude by focusing on the trustworthiness of the body as a ground for authenticity. Alternatively, the indeterminacy of the body as a site for potentially contested organizational meanings throws into doubt the relation between embodiment and authenticity (e.g. Ball, 2005; Steyaert & Hjorth, 2002). As described above, anthropophagic views place social and relational configurations in bodily terms, while simultaneously viewing bodies as symbolic, polysemic and uncertain. Not only does this view of bodies hold with contemporary organizational theories of the body (e.g. Ball, 2005), but it also undermines the ability of the body to act as a guarantor for authenticity. Rather than the body as a ground of one’s singular and core essence, this perspective sees bodies as the products of mixture and thus are not ‘‘pure’’ markers of authenticity. The undermining of authenticity has been shown in the Brazilian context, for example, by studies of organizational borrowing (e.g. Barros, 2010). Here, organizations borrow practices from each other and engage in dialog despite doubts about the cultural authenticity of the borrowings, in a gesture of indifference to cultural origins, even within such traditional settings as church and community organizations (Barros, 2010; Reinhardt, 2007). Stephen (2001, p. 31), in addition, uses a ‘‘cultural portability’’ model of cultural borrowing in HRM to argue how Brazilian companies often ignore the original specifications of imported technologies or models, engaging in an ‘‘anthropophagous model of cultural portability’’. To the extent that global organizations require such portability, practicality may be more important than the authenticity of practices, leading to practices of organizational improvisations and bricolage (e.g. Duymedjian & Ru ¨ling, 2010) that flout notions of authenticity. Beyond the difficulties created for organizational theory by questioning authenticity as a mode of cultural knowing,

357 such questioning also poses a challenge for studies of the body and the sensory as seats of authentic experience. As Andrieu (2008) explains, one of the reasons that the bodily and sensory have come to the forefront of social theory in recent years is that these features of human existence seem more ‘grounded’ and reliable sources of knowledge than the increasingly fragmented and fluid social categories of modern life. However, if bodies themselves are to be seen as fluid, indeterminate, and marking of interpersonal, social, and cosmic relations, grounding authenticity within the bounds of the corporal is severely compromised.

Discussion and limitations This conceptual paper has argued for the contribution of organizational anthropophagy in understanding key aspects of self and embodiment in organizations. Discussing bodies from an anthropophagic perspective recognizes the importance of the body for several important themes in organizational scholarship. Among these themes are ambivalent selfother relations, the embodied sense of relationality and the questioning of authenticity. Taking such a perspective has the virtue of emphasizing the body without falling into biological or reductionist accounts that reduce to bodies to physical objects. Rather, throughout this paper, bodies have been seen as embodiments of relations that always imply more than their objective physical aspects, disallowing a simple nature—culture dualism in favor of, on the one hand, a cultural/symbolic view of bodies, and on the other, a physical/embodied view of social relations. The complexity and unpredictability of modern organizational life may require an ontology that is correspondingly fluid and non-essentialist as these aspects (cf. Westwood & Clegg, 2009). Successive generations of Brazilian thinkers, also dealing with issue of mixture and fluidity, used the symbolic form of anthropophagy to express their ambivalence to an uncertain world, and the metaphor derives its power from the encoding of the resulting tension. In a contemporary scenario where organizations are more interconnected and more unstable (e.g. DeBell, 2006), scholars have again discovered the salience of this metaphor. Focusing on the anthropophagic metaphor opens up several lines of future research in this regard, around the ways bodies are understood in organizational studies. Critical perspectives on embodiment in organizations tend to focus on how bodies are used to establish social expectations and power roles (e.g. Fotaki, 2011). For example, scholars have studied how the female body is managed to establish organizational power relations in ways that mirror social power relations (e.g. Fotaki, 2011; Gatrell, 2011). Less studied are the ways in which views of the body are translated across settings (e.g. Czarniawska, 2012), suggesting the plasticity of notions of the body. The anthropophagic perspective carries this line further by examining the ambivalence of body concepts. Anthropophagy, rather than establishing social identity, problematizes stable identities and socially encodes a view of the body as multifaceted. This idea, particularly placed against its post-colonial context, suggests that bodies can reflect contradictions in trans-cultural interaction that become encoded as both desiring and aggressive (Fotaki, 2011). Future research can thus begin to explore the body,

358 not as the concrete and factual ground of social identities, but as the fluid and polysemic outcome of attempts at cultural understanding. Second, the multi-faceted, ambivalent nature of anthropophagy as a concept can inform the ways in which concepts of the excessive and corporeal can be appropriated strategically as metaphors by cultural actors far removed from their origins, from artists to organizational theorists. Indeed, the re-appropriation of the anthropophagy figure by local actors, and its taking up by organizational scholars, may result from both the interpretive openness of the ‘cannibal’ idea and its disturbing implications for interpersonal relations. Rather than limit its usability, the ambiguity and shocking aspects of the concept may make it ideal for inversions of meaning, for capturing ever-changing cultural relations, and for expressing ambivalent self-other relations (i.e. aggression and intimacy). Anthropophagy thus shows an interesting case of strategic ambiguity (Giroux, 2006), illustrating how such a concept can function across history. More importantly perhaps, it shows how ambiguity can be used for irony and inversion, to subvert old stereotypes (i.e. the indigenous cannibal) and reappropriate local culture. By linking the multiple meanings of embodied metaphors with ambivalent relations (rather than simply with diffuseness or openness of meaning), future studies may explore how ambiguous terms are deployed specifically in those areas where ambivalence exists, thus providing a clue for uncovering potential social contradictions, power relations, or repressed voices. Because such voices may specifically seek out multiple meanings (cf. Scott, 1985), ambiguity might be fruitfully linked to organizational power relations. Third, the case of anthropophagy illustrates how concepts can be fruitfully adopted from artistic and cultural settings to inform social and organizational thinking more generally. Caldas and Wood (1998a,b) took the anthropophagic idea from a Brazilian artistic modernism that was searching for new vocabularies, and applied them to the organizational phenomenon of cultural borrowing that itself was in need of new concepts. Organizational studies has recently begun to adopt many concepts about organizing from diverse cultures (e.g. Alcadipani, Khan, Gantman & Nkomo, 2012; Faria, Ibarra-Colado & Guedes, 2010), and this borrowing has extended to local appropriation and hybridization of Western cultural forms by non-Western societies, including rock music in Turkey (Yazicioglu, 2010), worker’s theater in South Africa (von Kotze, 1987) and cultural borrowings in[2_TD$IF] film ([1_TD$IF]Foreman & Thatchenkery, 2003). However, anthropophagic borrowing establishes relationality in a spirit of parody and irony that is missing from these examples, thus demonstrating a simultaneous mimicry and resistance that is theoretically novel. Despite these potential areas of study, however, organizational anthropophagy must confront several theoretical challenges. First, the metaphorical status of anthropophagy may cause disquiet to organizational scholars interested in the body. Why, one might ask, when there are real bodies undergoing surveillance, visceral desire and aggression, and immediate esthetic and sensory experiences, should we focus on an ongoing historical metaphor involving people eating each other, a practice which is evidently rare in most of our organizations? Why adopt a metaphor for bodies, when there are real bodies that need to be understood? In response, it may be pointed out that a call for theorization is already a

G. Islam move toward abstraction, and one of the main advantages of the anthropophagy metaphor is to highlight the conceptual and symbolic element in ‘‘real’’ bodies. Even when anthropophagy involved actual flesh eating, it was equally metaphorical (Vilac¸a, 2005), and by adopting such an extreme metaphor for understanding bodies, we may escape the tendency to slip into a naı¨ve realist paradigm when talking about bodies. Extending this point, metaphor is ubiquitous in organizational studies (e.g. Cornelissen, 2006; Tsoukas, 1991), and although the current metaphor may parade grotesquely its status as metaphor, this may amount to an honest confession of the limits of metaphor. Beyond this limitation, however, anthropophagy does have a peculiar status as a metaphor; if the task of metaphor is to juxtapose different essences, finding in their different material expressions traces of similarity, then anthropophagy is a metaphor par excellence. Anthropophagy is appropriate as a metaphor because metaphor is, in a sense, in the business of exchanging flesh for flesh (Oestigaard, 2004), thereby unveiling an underlying identity between different material objects. Second, one may ask whether the anthropophagic metaphor has currency outside of Brazil, or whether it is a culturally and historically specific trope that does not resonate outside of this context. After all, anthropophagy as a cultural metaphor does not derive its power from the idea of people devouring each other in general, but from a specific way in which such a practice came to be represented in a specific national imagination, and resonated for Brazilian writers, musicians, and later, organizational theorists. Outside of this context, the movement has been practically invisible. There are two responses to such a concern which merit attention, the first engaging directly with questions of historical and national context, and the second, with the generality of the conceptual components of anthropophagy. First, historically, it is true that the anthropophagic movement follows a particular trajectory in Brazil. Additionally, the anthropophagy metaphor draws on several cultural tensions that are prevalent — although not unique — to Brazilian history (Nunes, 2008). Among these are the ideas of progress versus social order, racial democracy versus stratification, and social harmony versus the denial of difference. Thus, theorizing ambivalence may be particularly suited to the Brazilian context (cf. Ribeiro, 1995). At the same time, the ideas of mixture reflected in anthropophagy go back to early ideas at the start of modernity (e.g. Obeyesekere, ´fago itself was heavily 2005), and the Manifesto Antropo influence by Montaigne’s (1964) essay on cannibalism, which was in turn derived from rumors regarding indigenous Brazilians (Islam, 2012). Thus, the concept itself, developed into a movement by Brazilian authors, is itself an example of cultural mixture and borrowing from diverse sources. Additionally, as argued in the paper, although discussions of cultural anthropophagy have mainly taken place in the Brazilian context, they deal with issues of bodies, desire, relationality and selfhood that are at the forefront of contemporary social theoretic debates. Although social theory often claims to hold bodies as theoretically important (e.g. Ayouch, 2008), the abstract language and conceptual apparatus of such theories may lose the corporality whose rescue they intended. Although theorizing anthropophagy no doubt

Anthropophagy and the embodied self engages post-modern theories at a similarly abstract level, perhaps the embedding of theory in a metaphor so shockingly corporeal can serve as a reminder not to forget about bodies in the process of our theorizing.

Conclusion In sum, the move to draw insights from anthropophagy as a metaphor for the body in organizations opens up diverse paths for theorizing about selves, others and their interactions within organizations. Seeing the fields of anthropology and esthetic movements as legitimate sources for organizational knowledge reinforces attempts to link organizational theory to the human sciences. It does so by integrating a voice emerging from the global periphery, but alimented with a long history of social theory from the core. By digesting European thought, the anthropophagic movement constructed a unique voice based on a grotesquely distorted colonial vision of itself, but one that was able to express the visceral sense of desire, aggression and irony that intercultural relations can produce. As our own taste for embodiment, relation, and fusion with the other grows within the organizational literature, we may find much to digest of these cultural sources in our theory[.3_TD$IF]

References Alcadipani, R., Khan, F. R., Gantman, E., & Nkomo, S. (2012). Southern voices in management and organization knowledge. Organization, 19(2), 131—143. Andrade, O. (1972). Manifesto da poesia pau-Brasil. In O. Andrade ` Antropofagia e a `s Utopias (pp. 4—10). Rio (Ed.), Do Pau-Brasil a de Janeiro: Civilizac¸a ˜o Brasileira. ´gica: Obras completas de Andrade, O. (1990). A Utopia Antropofa Oswald de Andrade. Sa ˜o Paulo: Globo. Andrieu, B. (2008). Le monde corporel. Paris: Colle `ge de France. Arens, W. (1979). The man-eating myth: Anthropology and anthropophagy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ayouch, T. (2008). Lived body and fantasmatic body: The debate between phenomenology and psychoanalysis. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 28(2), 336—355. Ball, K. (2005). Organization, surveillance and the body: Towards a politics of resistance. Organization, 12(1), 89—108. Banerjee, S. B., & Linstead, S. (2004). Masking subversion: Neocolonial embeddedness in anthropological accounts of indigenous management. Human Relations, 57(2), 221—247. Barros, M. (2010). Emancipatory management: The contradiction between practice and discourse. Journal of Management Inquiry, 19: 166—184. Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. London and New York: Routledge. Bradbury, H., & Lichtenstein, B. M. B. (2000). Relationality in organizational research: Exploring the space between. Organization Science, 11(5), 551—564. Brewis, J., & Linstead, S. (2000). ‘‘The worst thing is the screwing’’: Context and career in sex work. Gender, Work & Organization, 7(3), 168—180. Butler, J. (2005). Giving an account of oneself. New York: Fordham University Press. Caldas, M. (1997). Santo da casa nao faz milagre: Condic¸o ˜es nacionais e implicac¸o ˜es organizacionais da fixac¸a ˜o Brasileira pela figura do ‘‘estrangeiro’’. In F. Motta & M. Caldas (Eds.), Cultura Organizacional e Cultura Brasileira (pp. 73—93). Sa ˜o Paulo: Atlas.

359 Caldas, M., & Wood, T. (1997). ‘For the English to See’: The Importation of Managerial Technology in Late 20th-Century Brazil. Organization, 4(4), 517—534. Campos, H., De, & Wolff, M. (1986). The rule of anthropophagy: Europe under the sign of Devoration. Latin American Literary Review, 14(27), 42—60. Carvalho, J. L. F. S., & Siqueira, R. P. (2000). Espetaculo Organizacional e teatro de servicos. Revista do ESPM 7(4). Cavanaugh, J. M. (1997). (In)corporating the other? Managing the politics of work-place difference. In P. Prasad, A. Mills, M. Elmes, & A. Prasad (Eds.), Managing the organizational melting pot: Dilemmas of workplace diversity. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Cocco, G. (2009). Anthropophagies, racisme et actions affirmatives. Multitudes, 35: 41—54. Conklin, B. A. (1997). Body paint, feathers, and VCRs: Aesthetics and authenticity in Amazonian activism. American Ethnologist, 24: 711—737. Conklin, B. A. (2001). Consuming grief. Compassionate cannibalism in an Amazonian society. Austin: University of Texas Press. Cornelissen, J. P. (2006). Making sense of theory construction: Metaphor and disciplined imagination. Organization Studies, 27(111), 1579—1589. Creed, W., Dejordy, R., & Lok, J. (2010). Being the change: Resolving institutional.contradiction through identity work. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1336—1364. Czarniawska, B. (2012). Organization theory meets anthropology: A story of an encounter. Journal of Business Anthropology, 1(1), 118—140. Dale, K. (2001). Anatomising embodiment and organization theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Darling-Wolf, F. (2008). Disturbingly hybrid or distressingly patriarchal? Gender hybridity in a global environment. In K. E. I. Smith & P. Leavy (Eds.), Hybrid identities (pp. 63—81). Boston: Brill Press. DeBell, C. (2006). What all applied psychologists should know about work. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37(4), 325—333. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1977). Anti Oedipus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and danger: An analysis of the concepts of pollution and taboo. London: Ark Paperbacks. Douglas, M. (1970). The two bodies. Natural symbols: Explorations in cosmology, New York: Pantheon (pp. 65—81). DuBois, W. E. (1961). The souls of black folk. Greenwich, CT: Fawcett Publications. Dunn, C. (1993). It’s forbidden to forbid. Americas, 45(5), 14—21. Dunn, C. (2010). Beatriz Azevedo and the art of anthropofagia Retrieved from: http://beatrizazevedo.uol.com.br/uploads/ Downloads/5/beatriz_azevedo_and_the_art_of_antropofagia. doc on June 1, 2010. Duymedjian, R., & Ru ¨ling, C. (2010). Towards a foundation of bricolage in organization and management theory. Organization Studies, 31, 133—151. Faria, A., Carvalho, J. L. F. S., & Collares, L. (2001). Antropofagia, antropofagia organizacional e estudos tribais: Em busca da con˜o diale ´tica de arte, cultura e management no Brasil’. ciliac¸a Campinas: XXV Encontro Nacional da AnPAD. Faria, A., Ibarra-colado, E., & Guedes, A. (2010). Internationalization of management, neoliberalism and the Latin America challenge. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 6(2), 97—115. Faria, A., Wanderley, S., Reis, Y., & Celano, A. (2013). Can the subaltern teach? Performativity otherwise through anthropophagy. In Malin, V., Murphy, J., & Siltaoja, M. Eds. Dialogues in critical management studies. Vol. 2 (pp.205—224). London: Emerald. Foreman, J., & Thatchenkery, J. (2003). Representation of organizational change in Ron Howard’s Gung Ho: the role of speech acts and conversation. In S. Linstead (Ed.), Text/work: Representing

360 organization and organizing representation (pp. 88—109). New York: Routledge. Ferreira, M. A. C. (2002). Tornar-se outro: O topos canibal na literatura Brasileira. Sa ˜o Paulo: Annablume. ´ticas antropofa ´gicas:reflexo ˜es sobre Ferreira, M. A. C. (2011). Po(i)e uma perspectiva brasileira para a crı´tica de arte http://www.fafich. ufmg.br/manifestoa/pdf/poieticas. Fotaki, M. (2011). The sublime object of desire (for knowledge): Sexuality at work in business and management schools in England. British Journal of Management, 22(1), 42—53. Freud, S. (1986). Three essays on the theory of sexuality. Hammondsworth: Pelican. (original work published 1905). Gatrell, C. (2011). Managing the maternal body: A comprehensive review and transdisciplinary analysis. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(1), 97—112. Gherardi, S. (2004). Knowing as desire. Dante’s Ulysses at the end of the known world’’. In Y. Gabriel (Ed.), Myths, stories and organizations (pp. 174—194). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Giroux, H. (2006). It was such a handy term: Management fashions and pragmatic ambiguity. Journal of Management Studies, 43(6), 1227—1260. Graeber, D. (2008). The sadness of post-workerism — Or- ‘‘art and immaterial labour’’ conference: A sort of review. The Commoner Available at: http://www.commoner.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2008/04/graeber_sadness.pdf. Grandin, G. (2009). Fordlandia: The rise and fall of Henry Ford’s forgotten jungle city. New York: Metropolis Books. Helena, L. (1983). Uma Literatura Anthropofagica. Fortaleza: Edicoes UFC. Hinderliter, B., Kaizen, W., Maimon, V., Mansoor, J., & Mccormick, S. (2009). Communities of Sense: Rethinking Aesthetics and Politics.. Durham: Duke University Press. Hulme, P. (1998). Introduction: The cannibal scene. In F. Barker, P. Hulme, & M. Iverson (Eds.), Cannibalism and the colonial world (pp. 1—38). Cambridge: Cambridge Press. Islam, G. (2006). Virtual speakers, virtual audiences: Agency, audience and constraint in an online chat community. Dialectical Anthropology, 30(1), 71—89. Islam, G. (2012). Can the subaltern eat? Anthropophagic culture as a Brazilian lens on post-colonial theory. Organization, 19(2), 159—180. Islam, G. (2014). Appropriating the abject: An anthropophagic approach to organizational diversity. Equality Diversity and Inclusion, 33(7), 595—613. Islam, G., Endrissat, N., & Noppeney, C. (2015). Beyond the eye of the beholder: Scent innovation through analogical reconfiguration. Organization Studies, (forthcoming). Jones, C. (2013). Anthropophagy in Sa ˜o Paulo’s Cold War. ARTMargins, 2(1), 3—36. Kirmayer, L. J. (1992). The body’s insistence on meaning: Metaphor as presentation and representation in illness experience. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 6(4), 323—346. ¨ zbilgin, M. (2006). Relational perspectives in Kyriakidou, O., & O organizational studies: A research companion. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Ladkin, D., & Taylor, S. S. (2010). Enacting the ‘‘true self’’: Towards a theory of embodied authentic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 64—74. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy on the flesh. The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York, NY: Basic Books. Le ´vi-Strauss, C. (1964). The raw and the cooked: Introduction to a science of Mythology. New York: Harper & Row. Lindenbaum, S. (2004). Thinking about cannibalism. Annual Review of Anthropology, 33, 475—498. Linstead, S., & Thanem, T. (2007). Multiplicity, virtuality and organization: The contribution of Gilles Deleuze. Organization Studies, 28(10), 1483—1501.

G. Islam MacIntyre, B. (2009). Dearborn-on-Amazon, review of Fordlandia: The rise and fall of Henry Ford’s forgotten jungle city. New York Times (p. 2009). Martins, L. (2000). Muddling through changing references: Late nation building to the crisis of the nation state. Daedalus, 129(2), 195—206. Martin, P. Y. (2002). Sensations, bodies, and the ‘‘spirit of a place’’: Aesthetics in residential organizations for the elderly. Human Relations, 55(7), 861—885. Mitchell, R., Randolph-Seng, B., & Mitchell, J. R. (2011). Socially situated cognition: Imagining new opportunities for entrepreneurship research. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 774—776. Montaigne, M. (1964). Selected essays. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. (Original work published in 1581). Nagib, L. (2007). Brazil on screen: Cinema Novo, new cinema, utopia. London: IB Tauris. Nunes, B. (1990). Antropofagia ao alcance de todos. In Oswald de ´gica (pp. 5—39). Sa Andrade (Ed.), A Utopia Antropofa ˜o Paulo: Globo. Nunes, Z. (2008). Cannibal democracy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Obeyesekere, G. (2005). Cannibal talk: The man-eating myth and human sacrifice in the South Seas. Berkeley: University of California Press. Oestigaard, T. (2004). Death and ambivalent materiality——Human flesh as culture and cosmology’. In T. Oestigaard, N. Anfinset, & T. Saetersdal (Eds.), Combining the past and the present: Archaeological perspectives on society (pp. 23—30). Oxford: BAR. Ortner, S. B. (1974). Is female to male as nature is to culture? In M. Z. Rosaldo & L. Lamphere (Eds.), Woman, culture, and society (pp. 68—87). Stanford, CA: Stanford Press. Patriotta, G., & Brown, A. D. (2011). Sensemaking, metaphors and performance evaluation. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 27(1), 34—43. Perrone, C. (1990). Poesia concreta e tropicalismo. Revista USP, 4. Pullen, A., & Vachhani, S. (2013). The materiality of leadership. Leadership, 9(3), 315—319. Queiroz-Siqueira, P. F. (1972). Un sinulier manifeste. Nouvelle Revue de Psychanalyse, 6, 273—276. Rehn, A. (2009). Theory Z reconsidered: Organizing the living dead. In Allison Pullen & Carl Rhodes (Eds.), Bits of organization (pp. 184—196). Malmo ¨: Liber. Rehn, A., & Borgerson, J. (2005). Is there a cannibal in organization studies? Notes on anthropophagy and organization (recipe included). Culture and Organization, 11(2), 69—81. Reinhardt, B. (2007). Espelho ante espelho. Sao Paulo: Attar. Revista Antropofagica. (1928). Editorial note. Riach, K., & Kelly, S. (2013). The need for fresh blood: Uunderstanding organizational age inequality through a vampiric lens. Organization, 7, 2013 Online before print November. ˜o e o sentido do Ribeiro, D. (1995). O povo Brasileiro: A formac¸a Brasil. Sa ˜o Paulo: Companhia das Letras. Richardson, D. (2007). Patterned fluidities: (Re)imagining the relationship between gender and sexuality. Sociology, 41: 457—474. Ricoeur, P. (1977). The rule of metaphor: Multi-disciplinary studies in the creation of meaning in language. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. (trans. R. Czerny). Rolnick, S. (1998). Antropophagic subjectivity. Arte Contempora ˆnea Brasileira: Um e/entre Outro/s, Sa ˜o Paulo: Fundac¸a ˜o Bienal de Sa ˜o Paulo. Sader, E. S. (1987). The Worker’s Party in Brazil. New Left Review, 165, 93—103. Scott, J. C. (1985). Weapons of the weak: Everyday forms of peasant resistance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2007). Relational identity and identification: Defining ourselves through work relationships. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 9—32.

Anthropophagy and the embodied self Stephen, D. (2001). Taking the ‘‘cross’’ out of cross-cultural transfer ˜o de Empresas, of management practice. Revista de Administrac¸a 41(4), 26—31. Steyaert, C., & Hjorth, D. (2002). Thou art a scholar, speak to it. . .’’ — On spaces of speech: A script. Human Relations, 55(7), 767—797. Stoler, A. L. (2002). Carnal knowledge and imperial power: Race and the intimate in colonial rule. Berkeley: University of California Press. Strati, A. (1996). Organizations viewed through the lens of aesthetics. Organization, 3(2), 209—218. Strati, A. (2007). Sensible Knowledge and practice-based learning. Management Learning, 38, 61—77. Swan, E. (2005). On bodies, rhinestones and pleasures: Women teaching managers. Management Learning, 36, 317—333. Thanem, T. (2006). Organization living on the edge: Towards a monstrous organization theory. Organization, 13, 163—193. Thanem, T. (2009). There’’s no limit to how much you can consume’: The New Public Health and the struggle to manage healthy bodies. Culture and Organization, 15(1), 59—74. Thanem, T., & Knights, D. (2012). Feeling and speaking through our gendered bodies: Embodied self-reflection and research practice in organisation studies. International Journal of Work Organisation and Emotion, 5, 1—31. Tsoukas, H. (1991). The missing link: A transformational view of metaphors in organizational science. Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 566—585. Vachhani, S. J. (2009). Vagina dentata and the demonological body: Explorations of the feminine demon in organisation. In A. Pullen & C. Rhodes (Eds.), Bits of organization (pp. 163—183). Copenhagen: Liber. Vachhani, S. J. (2012). The subordination of the feminine? Developing a critical feminist approach to the psychoanalysis of organizations. Organization Studies, 33(9), 1237—1255. Veloso, C. (1997). Verdade tropical. Sao Paulo: Companha Das Letras. Vilac¸a, A. (2005). Chronically unstable bodies: Reflections on Amazonian corporalities. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 11(3), 445—464.

361 Vilac¸a, A. (2007). Cultural change as body metamorphosis. In C. Fausto & M. Heckenbergers (Eds.), Time and memory in indigenous Amazonia: Anthropological perspectives (pp. 1—26). Gainsville: University of Florida Press. Viveiros de Castro, E. (1998). Cosmological deixis and Amerindian perspectivism. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 4(3), 469—488. Viveiros de Castro, E. (2009). Metaphysiques cannibales. Paris: Presse Universite de France. von Kotze, A. (1987). Workers’ theater in South Africa. New Left Review, 163, 155—167. Warren, S. (2008). Empirical challenges in organizational aesthetics research: Towards a sensual methodology. Organization Studies, 19(4), 559—580. Westwood, R., & Clegg, S. (2009). Debating organization: Pointcounterpoint in organization studies. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ˜o de Wood, T. (2010). Organizac¸o ˜es hı´bridas. Revista de Administrac¸a Empresas, 50, 241—247. Wood, T., & Caldas, M. (1998a). Antropofagia organizacional. Revista ˜o de Empresas, 38(4), 6—17. de Administrac¸a Wood, T., & Caldas, M. (1998b). Consulting in emerging countries: An anthropophagic method to avoid the ‘‘Lost in Space’’ and ‘‘Just Business as Usual’’ syndromes. Academy of Management Proceedings, MC: B4. Wood, T., & Caldas, M. (2002). Adopting imported managerial expertise in developing countries: The Brazilian experience. Academy of Management Executive, 38(2), 19—32. Yazicioglo, E. T. (2010). Contesting the global consumption ethos: Reterritorialization of rock in Turkey. Journal of Macromarketing, 30(3), 238—253. Young, T. R. (1998). Anthropophagy, tropicalismo and Como Era Gostoso Meu Frances. Chicago, IL: Latin American Studies Association. Zanoni, P., Janssens, M., Benschop, Y., & Nkomo, S. (2009). Unpacking diversity, grasping inequality: Rethinking difference through critical perspectives. Organization, 17(1), 9—29.