Open Research OnlineThe Open University’s repository of research publicationsand other research outputs

They have escaped the weight of darkness: Theproblem space of Michel SerresBook SectionHow to cite:

Brown, Steven D. (2016). They have escaped the weight of darkness: The problem space of Michel Serres.In: Steyaert, Chris; Beyes, Timon and Parker, Martin eds. The Routledge Companion to Reinventing ManagementEducation. Routledge Companions. London: Routledge, pp. 144–160.

For guidance on citations see FAQs.

c© 2016 The Author

Version: Accepted Manuscript

Link(s) to article on publisher’s website:https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781315852430/chapters/10.4324/9781315852430-19

Copyright and Moral Rights for the articles on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyrightowners. For more information on Open Research Online’s data policy on reuse of materials please consult the policiespage.

oro.open.ac.uk

1

TheyHaveEscapedtheWeightofDarkness:TheProblemSpaceofMichel

Serres

StevenD.Brown,UniversityofLeicester

ProductionHasComeToAnEnd

ThefinalsceneinBélaTarr’sWerckmeisterHarmoniesisasingleuninterrupted

shotfollowingthecharacterGyörgyEszterintothemainsquareofthesmall

Hungariantownwherehelives.Thesquareisoddlycalmaftertheriotsand

chaosofthepreviousevening.Debrislieseverywhere.Atitscentreisthe

colossalbodyofawhale,perchedinthebrokenshellofthecircustruckthat

broughtitintothetownthedaybefore.Eszterslowlyapproachestherotting,

preservedbodyandgazesintoitsmilky,decayingeye.Werecallthewordshe

haspreviouslyspokentoValuska–‘Nemszámítsemmi.Semminemszámít’

(‘Nothingcounts.Nothingcountsatall’).

Tarr’sfilmechoestheapocalyptictoneofthenovelonwhichitisbased,Lázló

Krasznahorkai’sTheMelancholyofResistance.Thenoveldepictsaworldthatis

quiteliterallysinkingintoitsownpollution.Refuselayscompactedonthe

streetsofthetown.Publicservicesandtransportareerraticandappear

improvised.Anoldtreehasbeenmysteriouslyuprootedovernight,asthoughit

hasclaweditselfoutofthegroundinordertodie.Eventheweatherseemsto

havecometoahalt.AsMrEszthertellsValuska,‘Nomoresnow.Snow

productionhascometoanend’.Intothisgradualwinding-downofrurallife

comesatravellingcircus,promisingtodisplay‘anextraordinaryspectacle’–

whatitclaimsis‘thebiggestwhaleintheworld’.Thecircusattractsfollowers,

outsiders,whograduallyfillupthemainsquare,waitingforasign.Whenit

comes,theyunleashatorrentofviolencethatoverwhelmstheentiretown.

Theseareend-times.Butalsoopportunities.Intheshadowoftheimpending

dissolutionofthetown,thethreecentralcharacterspursuedifferentpaths.

TündeEszther,theembitteredPresidentoftheWomen’sCommittee,interprets

thisstrangeconjunctionofsignsasindicatingthemomentwhenherlong

2

nurturedplanstoseizepowercanbeenacted,andinsodoingtakerevengeupon

herestrangedhusband.Forhispart,GyörgyEszter,seeksonlytodetachhimself

furtherfromcivicandpersonallife,towithdrawasfaraspossibleintonear

solitude.Finally,thereisJánosValuska,whodespitehisdisconnectedand

shambolicappearance,feelsnoseparationbetweenhimselfandhis

environment,andiscompelledtopacethetownatallhours,visitingallits

points.Bothfilmandnovelendinthesameway.Amilitarytake-overofthetown

securesTündeEszther’sposition.GyörgyEsztersubmitshimselftohiswife’s

machinations,unabletoseeanyalternative.Valuskaiscommittedtoa

psychiatrichospital.Thewhaleliesabandonedtorot.

ThinkingtheApocalypse

Throughoutthe60orsobookshehaswrittensince1968,MichelSerreshas

articulatedauniquelynon-hierarchicalviewofknowledge.Serresdemonstrates

alateralapproachoftravellingbetweenpractices,oftranslatingacross

languagesandsense-making.Knowledgeistreatedasapatchwork,ascattered

collectionofpocketsoforderandsensethatemergesfromthenoiseofthe

world.Therecanbenoformalhierarchywithinepistemology,outsideof

strategiesofviolenceorhygiene.Knowledgeisrootedinthelocal,inbodiesand

practicesandtheirencounterswithoneanother.

BornthesonofbargemanontheGaronneriver,andhavingservedforatimein

theFrenchmaritimeservice,Serreshasregularlyclaimedthathisearlyyearsof

sailingunderpinhisnotionof‘voyaging’betweenbodiesofthought.Hefamously

oncelikenedtheepistemicgapbetweenthehumanandthenaturalscienceto

the‘NorthwestPassage’thatconnectsthePacificandAtlanticoceans(Serres,

1980).Navigatingthispassagerequiresconsiderablymorethanjustagoodmap.

Itisanunpredictable‘adventure’,whereinalloftheembodiedskillsandknow-

howofthevoyagerwillbeputtothetest,andtheultimategoalisuncertain(see

SerreswithLatour,1995).Thingsdonotalwaysturnoutwell:hencethe

recurringthemeofcatastropheinhiswork,whichoftentakestheformof

referencetobeingtrappedaboardasinkingship(notablySerres,2008[1985]):

3

17-21).Andyet,Serres,suggests,itisthroughthesemostdifficultofexperiences

thatwearriveatnovelpersonalandmetaphysicaldisclosures.

TheliteraryscholarStevenConnor(2005)hasnotedtheimportanceofthe

thematicofthe‘hard’andthe‘soft’acrossSerres’work.Thiscanusedto

appreciatesomethingofhisintellectualtrajectoryoverthepastfortyyears.His

earlystudiesareconcernedprimarilywithtranslationsbetweentheexact

sciences(i.e.physics,mathematics)andphilosophyandculture(i.e.literature,

art,myth),wherethisisunderstoodintermsoftransformationsinthe

movementofideas.Theseearlyworksarefairlytoughgoingforreaderswho

lacktheencyclopedicturnofmindthatSerrescelebrates.Thingsbecomealittle

easierinrelationtohisworkfromthe1980s,whichabandonsextendedexegesis

infavourofamorepoeticandoftenautobiographicalstyleofexploringideas.

ThisculminatesinAngels:AModernMyth(1995[1993])andVariationsonthe

Body(2011[1999]),bothresemblingartcataloguesintheirstructure.His

millennialworkhasmoreorlessabandonedformalreferencinginbooklength

extendedessayswritteninanaccessiblestyleresemblingtheextemporaneous,

andbearingthemarkofhispubliclecturingandbroadcasting.Thumbelina

(2015),forexample,readslikeaseriesofblogposts–preciselythemediaof

thoughtwhichformstheintellectualobjectofconcerninthebook.

Butatthesametime,thereisalsoaprogressivehardeningofintent.Onefinds

littleofthespiritof’68acrosstheearlyHermesbooks,whichfeelquite

disconnectedfromthesocialandpoliticalconditionsunderwhichtheywritten

(1969-1980).Butfrom1980onwards,Serresbecomefocusedonthenotionof

thefoundationsofsocialorderinviolence–announcedbySerresreferringto

TheParasite(1982[1980])as‘thebookofevil’andRome(1991[1983])as‘the

bookoffoundations’.Thetermshenceforthbecomesynonymousinhiswork.

TheNaturalContract(1995[1990])raisesthestakeshigherstill.Usingthe

pivotalexampleofGoya’spaintingFightwithcudgels,Serresarguesthatwhilst

wearebusykillingoneanotherinthenameofabetterworld,wehavefailedto

takeintoaccountthattheearthisathirdpartytothesebattles.Fromthispoint

on,theurgencyofthinkingtheecologicalbecomescentraltoSerreswork,

4

arrivingathisrecentstatementBiogea(2012[2010]).Inthiswork,Serres

meditatesontheurgentphilosophical-practicaltasksthataccompanythehuman

transitionfromtheHolocene(11,700BPtothepresent)tothepresent

Anthropocene,theperiodwherehumanityhasaccomplishedmoreorless

completepower,asaspecies,overtheenvironment.Butthatpowercomes

withoutcontrol.Theenvironment,compromisedbyhumanactivity,perhaps

fatally,isrespondinginwaysthatwillrequirecolossaladaptationifweareto

survive.AsSerresonceputiftheAncientsdistinguishedbetweenthingsthat

dependonus,andthosethatdonotdependonus,thenthecurrentsituationis

onewhereitnolongerdependsuponusthateverythingdependsuponus(see

SerreswithLatour,1995).

Thethematicofthehardandthesoftcanbecomplementedbyasecond

relationshipbetweenthe‘apocalyptic’andthe‘ecstatic’thatrunsthroughout

Serres’work.Thesystematicandstructuralpushtowardsviolenceisarecurrent

motifforSerres.ThisissummedupinhisinvocationoftheRomanCultofDiana

atNemiinDetachment(1989[1983])i.Legendtellsofhowbyawarrior-priest

protectstheshrineofasacredtreeinthewoodsabovethetown.Whoeverseeks

tocontroltheshrinemustfirstkillthecurrentguardian.Butindoingso,the

burden–andinevitablefate-passestothenewcomer.ThelessonSerresdraws

fromthisisthatpowerdependsuponandbegetsviolenceandmurder.The

FoundationsTrilogy(Rome,Statues,LesOriginesdelaGéométrie)developsthis

furtherintoanaccountofthemythicfoundationsofhumanrelationsin

ritualizedviolenceandsacrifice.Serresarguesthattechnoscientificcultures

inheritandacceleratethistendencytofoundorderthroughdeath,withthe

stakesplayedoutaroundHiroshimaandweaponsofmassdestruction

demonstratingtheultimatehorizonii.Thisraisesthequestionofhowitis

possibletofindaspaceofliberty,fornon-proprietorialliving,whenallthe

positionsarealreadycolonizedbythelogicofviolentappropriation.

Fromthebeginningofhiswork,Serresalreadyknewthatthesearchforspace

wasnotsimplyamatteroffindinguncolonizedterritory,butratherofseeking

outnewrelationshipstospace.Thedemi-GodHermes,whopresidesoverfive

5

earlyworks(LaCommunication;L’Interférence;LaTraduction;LaDistribution,Le

PassageduNord-Ouest),inventsnewmeansoftransportandcommunication

(alongwithmusicandtrade).Hermescanpassoutsideofexistingnetworksand

nodes,tofindandexploitunexpectedrelationsandpointsofcontact.Heisthe

livingembodimentoftheecstatic–literallyoutwith(ex-)place(stasis).This

allowsSerrestoreadacrossthehistoryofscienceandtechnology,andtoidentify

placesofunexpectedpassage,suchasbetweenthedevelopmentof

thermodynamicprinciplesandtheartofJMWTurner,orbetweenthecybernetic

reformulationofthebodyandtheFreudianunconscious(seeSerres,1982).The

enthusiasmforinformationtechnologyexpressedinSerres’laterwork(which

leadhimtoappearasamediaadvocatefortelecommunicationscompanies),can

beunderstoodasasearchfortheecstatic,fornewmodesofmovement,and

henceanevasionoftheinherentviolenceofhumanrelations,undertheever-

presentshadowofapocalypse.Inhiscurrentwork,thefigureof‘thebomb’is

replacedwiththe‘pollution’pumpedoutbyamassofhumanitybearingdown

upontheworldwithseeminglittlesenseoftheshortandlongterm

consequences.Discoveringnewmeansofcommunicatingwiththeplanetitselfis

themosturgenttask.

InthischapterIwanttoexploretherelevanceofthinkingthisproblemspaceof

thehardandthesoft,theapocalypticandtheecstatic,formanagement

education.ThepedagogicvalueofSerres’programmeof‘voyaging’hasbeen

muchexplored(e.gSteyaert2014),andmoregenerallyenthusiasmhasbeen

widelyexpressedforSerres’classicismandwillingnesstoovercomedisciplinary

divisions(e.g.Abbas,2005;Paulson,1997).However,itseemstomethatthe

lastingmessageofSerres’workistobefoundinthetensionbetweenthetwo

statements‘timeisrunningout’and‘nothingnewunderthesun’.Ontheone

hand,weliveinuncertaintimes,wherethedisconnectionoftheglobalfinancial

systemfromthegreaterpartofhumanityandtheravagedplanetonwhichwe

subsistisasbreathtakingasitisultimatelyfatal.AsSerresnotesinTheNatural

Contract,sailinglorehasitthatoneshouldpissfromthesideofashipinorder

nottopollutethevessel.Butthatoptiondoesnotexistataplanetaryscale.On

theotherhand,thecomingfinancial,socialandecologicalcatastrophesneednot

6

paralyseourthinking.Thereareresourceswithinancienthistory,mythand

philosophy,Serressuggests,thatcaninformandenrichoureffortstofindway

throughthesetimesofperpetualcrisis.AsIwillgoontoargue,management

educationneedstobeimbuedwiththeparadoxicalcharacterofbeingboth

firmlyforwardlooking(e.g.beyondexistingepistemicandpoliticaldivisions)

andsimultaneouslyintenselybackwardlooking(e.g.toancientquestionsof

propertyandfoundation).

Inthefollowingsections,IfirstofallattempttosituateSerres’workinrelation

tocontemporarysocialscience,inordertohighlighttheproblemsfacedaround

workingphilosophicalissuesintocurriculumdelivery.Ithenmapoutthescope

oftheproblemspacethatSerresoffers,beforeproceedingtosketchoutthree

routesthroughthatspace,andtheirrelevancyformanagementknowledge.

Finally,IendwithsomereflectionsonthepracticalitiesofthinkingwithSerres.

TheScribblersofSocialScience

Therearenumerouswaysofdeliveringphilosophywithinmanagement

education,andmanyofthebestcontemporarypractitionersofthisdarkartare

contributorstothisvolume.Manywould,Ihope,agreethatthestrategiesfor

deliveringphilosophytomanagementstudentsarelimitedanddifficult.Itis

possibletoimagineofferingawholecourseonphilosophywithinamanagement

programmeiii.Buttherearenumerousbarriers,fromthepressureonspace

withinthecurriculumarisingfromtheneedtocomplywithaccreditationbodies,

throughtodifficultiesinpersuadingmanagementstudentsofthevalueof‘liberal

education’,especiallywheninternationalstudentsconstituteeitherasignificant

partoforthemajorityoftheclassiv.Thealternativeistodophilosophyby

stealth,embeddingitacrosstheentirecurriculumintheformofconceptual

discussionsoffirstprinciplesorontologicalpresuppositionsforthetopicin

hand.Thisapproachderivesfromthewell-known‘paradigm’debatesofthelate

1970s/early1980s(seeBurrell&Morgan,1979).

Thesuccessofthislatterapproachdependsuponbeingabletoconvince

studentsthattherootsforaworkableprogrammeforsocialsciencecanbe

7

surfacedfromagivenphilosopher’swork.However,inthecaseofSerres,thisis

somewhathamperedbytheoutrightantagonismhedisplaystotheveryideaof

socialscienceingeneral(letalonebusinessandmanagementstudies).

Malfeasancecontainsadisparagingexampleof‘somescribblerofasocialscience

dissertation’(2011[2008]:65)whoconsidersstudyingdirt.Sincethe

immediatelyprecedingexampleconcernsa‘PeepingTom’whomapsthe

‘ejaculatorystainsonasheet’(p.65),Serres’generalviewofthestandingof

socialscientistsisprettyclearhere.Whatmakesthisallthemorepuzzlingisthe

emphasisonthecomparativethatrunsthroughbookssuchasRomeorStatues.

GeorgeDumézil’sstudiesofreligion(e.g.1988),forexample,whichextractgrand

structuralrelationsorganizedaroundthefiguesofJupiter(religion),Mars(war)

andQuirinus(commerce),areamajortouchstoneforSerres.Buttheworkof,say

ClaudeLevi-StraussorGregoryBatesonisentirelyabsent,despiteitsobvious

resonancewithSerres’concernsaroundpatternsandconnectionswithinthe

socialfabric.Mostbafflingofallisthelackofreference(tomyknowledge)to

MaryDouglas(1986),despiteSerrescontinuousrevisitingtheproblemof‘dirt’

inrelationtothefoundingofbeliefsystems.

Whenpressedonthislackofengagement,suchinthedialogueswithLatour

(SerreswithLatour,1995),Serreshaspresentedhimselfasoneofthefew‘true

structuralists’.Whathemeansbythisistakingtheprinciplesofsettheoryand

thealgebraictopologyasguidesforspeculativeinvestigationsofhuman

relationsratherthanpositingabstractstructurallawsandaxioms.Take,for

instance,hisearlyessay‘TheWolf’sGame’v(seeSerres,1982).Thispiece

describesLaFontaine’sfableofTheWolfandtheLambintermsofalgebraic

orderingrelationsthatconstituteadirectionalflow.Serresarguesthatthelogic

ofpushingone’sopponentintoarelationthatis‘upstream’whilst

simultaneouslypositioningoneself‘downstream’createsthemostpowerful

position.HethenextrapolatestowardsadiscussionofCartesianreasonandthe

birthofmodernscience,endingwiththeportentphrase‘Westernmanisawolf

ofscience’(p.28).Inthispiece,weseeoneofthesourcesofthegeneralized

modelofparasitismthatbecomescentraltoSerres’approachtorelationality

fromTheParasiteonwards.

8

Ineffect,Serres’moveistocreateaspacethatlooksremarkablylikesocial

sciencethroughbypassingtheexistingtraditionsofscholarshipinthearea

altogethertocreateanalternativepassagewayfromtheexactsciencestothe

humanitiesvi.Hisworkthenresemblesakindghostlydoppelgangerthatisat

onceoddlyfamiliartosocialscientistsandutterlyalien.Thiscanbeclearlyseen

intheuptakeofSerres’workinActor-NetworkTheory(ANT).MichelCallon’s

(1980)formulationoftranslationexplicitlymarksitsdebttoSerres,andin

particulartotheessay‘Betrayal:TheThanatocracy’fromHermesIII(Serres,

1974).WhatCallondoesisinhispieceistobegintodevelophishugely

influentialmodelofhowrivalmaterialsemioticordersbecomeheldtogetherin

networks(seeCallon1986forthebestinitialformalisation).Specifically,inthis

case,howdifferentversionsofwhatconstitutedanelectriccarweretemporarily

madetocoherebyRenaultandotherstakeholdersforthedurationofan

ultimatelyfailedproject.Callon’sworkaddressestheproblemwithinthe

SociologyofScientificKnowledgeofrethinkingthenatureof‘interests’,which

acquireasocio-materialratherthanideologicalcharacterinANT.Butwhat

Serresisuptoinhispieceisbothvastlydifferentinscopeandtone,andyet

strangelysimilar.Hearguesthatthehistoryofsciencehasrendereditself

unworkablebecauseitsownhistoricityiseffacedasitseekstotranslatethe

energiesoftheworldintonetworks.Thisquestion,forSerres,isoneofthe

dramaticchangesofscaleinvolved.Forsciencetoproclaimitselfmasterof

naturerequiredacolossalseriesofconversions,transformationsandruses

(hence‘betrayal’),theconsequencesofwhicharefoundintheviolenceof

Hiroshima.

BrunoLatour’sengagementwithSerresfollowssimilarlines.Inhis

extraordinary‘infra-history’oftherelationshipbetweenpeopleandthings,

Latour(1994)drawsuponSerres(2014[1987])notionof‘pragmatogony’to

describeagenealogyofthevariousformsofsocial/politicalecologythathave

emergedasartefactshavemediatedandreshapedhumanrelations.Thekeyidea

oftheexchangeofpropertiesbetweenpeopleandthings,viatranslation,has

becomecentraltothe‘materialturn’inthekindofsocialsciencethatANThas

9

helpedtoinaugurate.However,inSerres’worktherecognitionofourstatusas

subjectsthroughencounterswithobjectscarrieswithitconsiderablerisk.InThe

NaturalContract,SerresrecallstheetymologyofsubjectinLatin–sub(under)

jacere(throw).Thesubjectisthrownunder,orcastbefore,theobject,exposedto

itsmaterialaffordancesandvalences,uponwhichsheorhesubsequentlycomes

todepend.ThislineofargumentisdevelopedinSerres’writingonquasi-

objects/quasi-subjects.Inthegameofrugby,forexample,thestatusandfateof

eachplayer–asheroorvillain,victororvanquished–dependsuponhowthey

arepositionedinrelationtotheball(seeSerres,1982[1980]).Inasense,itis

theballthat‘decides’,intheoldmeaningofthephrasetomakeapath,ormakea

cut.Ourstandingassubjectsisfatallylinkedtothemovementofobjects.

Serres’ProblemSpace

Serres’influenceoncontemporarysocialsciencehasbeen,inamannerof

speaking,‘methodological’.Itishisproceduresforworkingwithdiverse

materialsthathavebeenappropriatedratherthanthebroadermetaphysicaland

ethicalargumentsthatserveastheirunderpinnings.Butitpreciselythisdark

coretoSerres’workthatspeakstothedifficultiesofteachingwould-be‘Masters’

ofthemodernbusinessworld.Forexample,inTheParasite,Serresarguesthat

appropriation–takingwithoutgiving–isattheoriginsofhumanrelations.He

modelsthisasaseriesofinterceptionswhereproductionisinterruptedand

redirected,usingthefableoftheTownRatandtheCountryRatasexample.From

aMarxistperspective,whatSerreshastosaymerelyrepeats,inadifferent

language,theprocessoftherealsubsumptionoflabourwithincapital.

Everythingbecomesexchange-value.Onecouldimagineusingthispointasa

jumpingoffpointtoadiscussionof‘culturaleconomy’orsomethingsimilar.

However,whatSerresproceedstodoistopushparasitismbackbeyond

productionitself.ForSerres,agricultureisakindofparasitismsinceitis

redirectingtheenergiesofnature;itisformofappropriation,albeitonethat

humanityhaspracticedsinceNeolithictimes.Ifproductionisparasitic,thenit

followsthatbeforeuse-valuethereis‘abusevalue’.Thisistheoutcomeof

applyingthermodynamicstopoliticaleconomy:

10

Lifeworks;lifeiswork,energy,power,information.Itisimpossibleto

translatethisdescriptionintoanethicaldiscourse.Itisthus,itmustbe

thus;Ireallydon’tknow.Theworkoflifeislabourandorderbutdoesnot

occurwithoutborrowingfromelsewhere.Itmakesorderherebutundoes

orderthere.Anditreinforcesdisorderandnoise…Oneparasitechases

outtheother,asonedisorderchasesouttheother.(Serres,1982[1980]:

88)

Whatisatoncebothfascinatingandterrifyingaboutthisargumentisthat

immediatelyproblematisestheideaofaspaceoutsideofviolenceinwhichto

groundsomeformofethics.Lifeitselfhasaparasiticdimension.Orderis

createdandsustainedbyinterruptingand‘chasingout’priorformsoforder.An

ethicaldiscoursecannotreplyuponsomeunspecified‘otherness’or

supplementarysiteforitssalvation,sinceallthepossiblepositionsarealready

occupied.WhichistosaythataBusinessEthicsinformedby,say,Derridaor

Levinaswillbeoflittleuse.Thereisnospaceoutsidetheboattopissinto.

ThisrelentlesslineofargumentisappliedinSerres’recentworkonthefinancial

crisis.TimesofCrisishasarathercheekysubtitleappendedtotheEnglish

translation–‘whatthefinancialcrisisrevealedandhowtoreinventourlivesand

future’vii.Thereaderwhotakesthistomeanthatananalysisistofollowof

modernfinancialsystemsandtheirmanifoldfailingswillbebitterly

disappointed.Serresopeninggambitistoconfirmwhatweallknowaboutthis

leastopaqueeventinrecenthistory–‘Isimplythinkthereisagapbetweenthe

numbersreachedinthevolatilestockmarketcasinosandtheweightierand

slowerrealityoflabourandgoods’(2014[2009]:1).Hethenlikensthe

relationshipbetweenthe1%and99%asakintothatbetweenmortalsandGods

inGreekorRomanculture.Butthisparticulargap,thescaleofmonetaryvalues,

issimplyapointofdeparture.Therearenumerousmeasuresrelatedtorecent

humanactivitythatreflectsimilarlyastronomicalleapsinscale,suchas

demographics,health,transportationandmedialconnectivity.Serresarguesthat

11

takentogether,theserunawaymeasuresreflectafissure,atectonicmovementin

humanhistoryor‘hominization’.

Hominizationcan,forSerres,beunderstoodintermsofatransformationinthe

natureofappropriation.Modernformsofappropriation–withthefinancial

crisisbeingtheapotheosis–arerootedin‘natural’actsofterritorialisation

(Serres,2011).Dogspisstomarktheboundariesoftheirrespectiveterritories,

placingchemicalsignstooneanother.Urineandexcrementaredirt,butrather

thanbeing‘matteroutofplace’,asMaryDouglasargued,thiskindofdirtisa

markerofplace.Itindicatesthatspaceisnowowned.Conversely,the‘clean’

designatesthatwhichisprovisionallynot-yet-ownedortemporarilyunmarked

space(hence,Serresargues,theobsessionwithwhitesheetsinhotels,inviting

theguesttomarkitoutwiththeirownfilth).Thedirtofothersisdisgusting,but

ourowndirtfeelsverydifferent.Itisgroundsusinplace,andhenceaccords

identity.Consider,forexample,TraceyEmin’sinfamousartwork,MyBed,

consistingofanunkemptbedwithsoiledsheets,strewnwithmenstrualblood

stainedknickersandcondoms.Fortheviewerthepiecehasa‘hard’exterior–it

ischallengingtolookatittooclosely–butfortheimpliedsubjectoftheartwork

ithasa‘soft’interior,itisaninhabitedspacethatmarksoutthesubjectivityofits

user/creator.Dirtispollutionforthoseoutsidetheterritory,andaboundary

markerforthosewithinwhoappropriateitthroughtheiractsofsoiling.Inthis

wayithasbothamaterial‘hard’dimensionanda‘soft’symbolicstatus:

Letusdefinetwothingsandclearlydistinguishthemfromoneanother:

firstthehard,andsecondthesoft.BythefirstImeanontheonehand

solidresidues,liquids,andgases,emittedthroughouttheatmosphereby

bigindustrialcompaniesorgiganticgarbagedumps,theshameful

signatureofbigcities.Bythesecond,tsunamisofwriting,signs,images,

andlogosfloodingrural,civic,publicandnaturalspacesaswellas

landscapeswiththeiradvertising.Eventhoughdifferentintermsof

energy,garbageandmarksneverthelessresultfromthesamesoiling

gesture,fromthesameintentiontoappropriate,andareofanimalorigin.

(Serres,2011[2008]:41)

12

Pollutionisnotabyproduct,oranunintendedconsequenceofsocialand

businessactivity.Itisthedeliberatemarking,occupyingandappropriatingof

space.WeneedtoadviseourBusinessEthicsstudentstostarttheirdeliberations

fromthispoint.Thespreadof‘hardpollution’,ashumansseektomarkoutthe

entireplanetastheirproperty,istheobviouscauseofenvironmentaldamage.

Hardpollutionshowsthe‘weight’ofhumanityontheEarth,thewayinwhich

humanshavebecomeacollective‘globalsubject’(Serres,1995[1990]).But‘soft

pollution’intheformofthevastproliferationoftextualandvisualmarkersisno

lessproblematic.Itclearlystatesthattherenolongeranyunmarkedspaces–

everythingisproperty:

(N)atureisperishingunder‘culture’.Inthefirstdeluge,onwhichNoah

floated,culturedisappearedbeneathnature.Inthisfinalflood,the

reverseofthefirstone,willtherebeasingledensepointleftwherea

workofartcanbefound,onelastdiamonddensewithmeaning?Who

doesn’tseethattheonlythingleftfloatingwillbethehomogeneous

excrementofthevictoriousGreatOwner,Sapienssapiens?(Serres,

2011[2008]:70)

Thedisappearanceofnatureunderthedelugeofcultureisthefinalactinseveral

centuriesofecstatic‘objectivizing’,drivenbytheso-calledhardscienceswhich

rendertheworldinto‘passiveandsubmissiveobject,reducedtoafew

dimensionsofspace,time,masseenergyandpower’(Serres,2012[2010]:33),

andcompletedbythesoftsciencesofmanagement,marketingandfinance.What

thefinancialcrisisreveals,forSerres,isthatfinally,wearemastersoftheplanet,

nolongerreliantuponamysticaldependencetotheoldgodsofearthandsky.

Ourmodernscienceisabletoproduce‘worldobjects’thatpossess‘adimension

commensurablewithoneoftheworld’sdimensions’(Serres,2011[2008]:53).

Forexample,asatelliteturnsatthespeedofthemoon,human-maderadioactive

wastehasalifespanclosertothatoftheearththantothatofanygivenhuman,

financialmarketstradesumsofmoneygreaterthantheGDPofmostnations.

Serrescoinsthephrase‘hominiscence’tonamethekindofcreaturewehave

becomeaswearriveatcompleteappropriationoftheentireplanet(i.e.fromthe

HolocenetotheAnthropocene).Humanityisthemostsuccessfulparasiteofany

13

invasivespecies,although,asSerres(2012[2010])notes,oursuccessmaysimply

bethe‘disembarkation’pointforothermorenimblerparasites,suchasviruses.

Butattheverymomentthattheworldbecomesa‘trash-canEarth’ofobjectsto

beconsumedanddisposed,somethingnewhappens.ForSerres,climatechange

inallitsmyriadforms–e.g.risingtemperatures,‘peaksoil’,watercrisis,

increased‘natural’catastrophes–areutterances,formsofspeechthroughwhich

theEarthisaddressingusdirectly.Yetwenolongerhavethemeansto

understandthisspeech.TheancientssubjectifiedtheEarththroughsymbolic

transformation(e.g.Neptunecametoembodystormsatsea,Vulcan’s

hammeringtamedtheunpredictabilityofearthquakes).Thistransformation

allowedrecognitionoftherebeingactorsoutsideofhumanrelations–third

parties–whosespeechandactionsneededtobetakenintoaccount.Oursurvival

henceforthdependsupon,onceagain,developingthemeanstohearand

interpretthisspeech:

Thegamewithtwoplayersthatfascinatesthemassesandopposesonly

humans,theMasteragainsttheSlave,theleftversustheright,

RepublicansagainstDemocrats,thisideologyagainsttheone,thegreens

versustheblues…thisgamebeginstodisappearwhenathirdparty

intervenes.Andwhatathirdparty!Theworlditself.Here,quicksand,

tomorrowtheclimate.ThisiswhatIcall‘Biogea’,anarchaicandnew

country,inertandalive,water,air,fire,theearth,thefloraandfaunaand

alllivingspecies.Thegamewithtwoplayersisoverandwestartagame

withthree.Thisisthecontemporaryglobalsituation.(Serres,

2014[2009]:31)

Theideaofhumanityasaglobalsubjectgaineditsmodernformmanyyearsago,

whenHobbesandRousseausetoutthatonlyacompactbetweenhumans,a

socialcontractthatelevatedindividualstobesomanypartsofasingleactor,

couldwardoffthewarofall-against-all.Athirdpartytoourdisputesnow

emerges,whichSerresnamesBiogea(frombio–lifeandgea–earth).The

questionisnotifweoughttorecognizethisthirdparty,sinceasglobalsubject

‘theworldobjectivisesus’asit‘fallsonourheadsandbecomestheformidable

14

residualrealitythatkeepsusalive,transcendsusandcaneradicateus’(Serres,

2014[2009]:48).Weneedinsteadtoopenupanegationwiththisnewglobal

subject,Biogea,tofindthelegalandpoliticalmeans–ineffectbrokeranatural

contracttobewovenintoourexistingsenseofthesocialcontract(Serres,

1995[1990])–whilstdialogueisstillpossible.

TheSocialScienceofThirdness

Intheearly1990s,SerreswroteaninfluentialtextTheThird-Instructed,which

arguedthatlearningbeginswhenwerecognizeanintermediatespacebetween

twoapparentsidesviii.Theterm‘instructed’isimportanthere,becauseit

deliberatelyechoesGastonBachelard’s(1986)argumentforahierarchyof

knowledge,withPhysicsplacedatthetop,whereeachdisciplineneedstotake

‘instruction’–i.e.modelitsownpracticesandmethodsofdeliberation–from

thosehigherup.Bachelard’sargumentwasunderpinnedbythewidelyshared

view,intheearlytwentiethcentury,thatonlyPhysics,whichhadits

reformulateditsfundamentaltermsofreferenceseveraltimes,couldlayclaimto

beingagenuinely‘revolutionary’science.Fromhisveryearliestwork,Serreshas

rejectedthisnotionofahierarchyinknowledge,andindeedtheconcomitant

Bachelardianideaofprogressthrough‘ruptures’or‘breaks’.Tosaythatwemust

insteadtakeourinstructionfromthespacesbetween,from‘thirdness’,is,in

effecttoargueformultiplicity,mixtureandtheas-yet-unappropriated.

Thiskindofthinkingchimeswellwithwhatwemightcalla‘soft’formof

interdisciplinarity,whichseestheexpansionoftheintellectualpalettearound

problemdefinitionasanunalloyedgood.Butconsideragainthatword

‘instruction’.Serresisnotsimplyrecommendingthatgoodpedagogyshould

embedalternativeapproaches.Heisdemandingthatweplaceourselvesunder

thedirectionofthirdness,ofacontinuousdiscipliningofthinkingthrough

multiplicity.If,aswehaveseen,thedarkcoreofSerres’workconsistsof

articulatinghumanhistoryasviolenceandappropriation,thenitwillnotbe

enoughtomerelycelebratealternativesortheinherentvalueofcrossing

intellectualborders.Serresinsistsuponapeculiarnewsyntheticprocedurethat

arrivesfromgivingoneselfoverentirelytomultiplicity:

15

Ouranalyticalhateburstsintotheselittlepuzzlepieces,intothesetexts

armouredwithcompelling,aggressive,defensivecitation.Infragmented

lives,wethinkaworldburstintotechnologies,sciences,separated

languages.Ourmeaningliesinscatteredlimbs.Bydintofquarteringthe

subjective,thecognitive,theobjectiveandthecollective,howcanIsay

therightwordandliveahappylife?Theanalysisthatuntiesthesefour

componentscomesfromthehatethatdividesthem.Whatlovewill

reunitethem?(Serres,2010:75)ix

Howmightsuchanextraordinaryproposalbeputintopractice?Veryroughly,I

thinktherearethreeroutesthroughtheapocalypticproblemspacethatSerres

hassystematicallyworkedout.Iwilltrytodescribeeachinturnwithreference

tohowitmightbeoperationalizedinmanagementeducation.

i)DarkOrganizationalTheory(TündeEszter)

Thelogicoftheparasiteisthemotorofhumanrelations.Theparasitetakes

withoutgiving;itinterceptsanexistingsetofprocessesandfindsawayto

extractvalue(seeSerres,1982[1980).Theparasiteproducesnothingby

themselves–everythingtheyhaveisborrowedorstolenfromothers–but

becausetheyactas‘irritant’toapriorsystem,theyareneverthelesscatalystsof

change.Parasitismisachallengetoappropriation;itsomnipresenceamongst

humanrelationshasprovokedpowerfulstrategiesofre-appropriation.For

example,thefoundingofthegreatcityofRomewasdone,Serresargues,tosolve

thecomplexinheritanceproblems–i.e.swarmsofparasites–aroundthe

existingcityofAlbaLonga(Serres,1995[1983]).InSerres’language,anew

‘whitespace’orownedsiteneededtobecreated.Thiswasdonethrougha

sacrificethatconvertedpollutionintopurification.RomuluskillsRemus,andthe

cityisconstructedonthesitedrenchedwithhisblood.Serresseestheoriginsof

modernreligioninthisfoundationthroughsacrifice–‘deathdesignatesthesite

andoftenitslimits’(2011[2008]:10).Whenthetimecomesforanew

foundationforRome,asRomulus’powerebbsaway,heisinturnmurderedby

theRomanSenators,legendhasit,andisreplacedbyNuma,whoformalizes

Romanreligiousprinciples(‘Ontheheelsofthefirstmurdercomereligions’

16

p.15).ThestrategyoftheCultofDianaatNemibecomesthefoundationofpre-

modernstatecraft.

Socialorderandinstitutionsarefoundedthroughviolence.Murderandsacrifice

cleansthesite,opensitupforre-appropriation.Bloodreplacesurineasthe

markerofproperty.ThisideabearstheimprintofReneGirard’sworkon

‘scapegoating’(e.g.2005).Girard–towhomRomeisdedicated–positsthat

humandesireshaveamimeticstructure.Wewantwhattheotherwants,and

whenourdesiresaremutuallyfrustrated,weseektocollectivelydestroythe

elusiveobjectthatisthesourceofourfrustration.Thusenvyandjealousyare

fundamentaldriversofcollectivity,bringingwithittheongoingthreatof

violence.Thescapegoatingmechanismisasolutiontothecollectivedescending

intothe‘warofallagainstall’.Ourmimeticdesiresforthesamethinginvertinto

acollectivehatredagainstthesameobject.Thisisembodiedbytheritualvictim

–RomulusinthemythofthefoundationsofRome,Christinthefoundationsof

Christianity–whosesacrificeputsatemporaryhalttoviolence.Indoingso,the

sacrificialvictim,thescapegoat,becomessacred,astheyarenowattributedwith

thepowertopreservesocialorder.

ThescapegoatisthefirstexampleofwhatSerresreferstoas‘quasi-objects’.

Theseareobjectsthatconferidentityuponsubjects.Werecognizewhoorwhat

wearethrougharelationshiptothequasi-object(i.e.Christiansarethosewho

arebothcomplicitinandredeemedbyChrist’ssacrifice).ForSerres,the

emergenceofthequasi-object–whichisalsoaquasi-subject,byvirtueofits

powerstoactuponthecollective–inauguratesthesubject/objectdichotomy

thatwillprovesopivotaltohominization(anargumentmademorefullyin

Genesis).Butquasi-objectsareunstable,theyonlyputanendtoviolence

temporarily.Theyrequireaninstitutionalstructuretobeplacedaroundthemin

ordertocontinuetosecuresocialorder.HereSerresturnstoGeorgeDumezil’s

studiesofarchaicIndo-Europeansocieties.Dumézil(1988)claimedthatsocial

ordercoheresaroundthreedistinctfunctions–worship,warandcommerce.In

RomanmythologytheseareembodiedintheGodsofJupiter,MarsandQuirinus.

OnSerres’reading,eachinstitutionalgrouphousesitsownquasi-subject–

fetishes(tracesofthebodyofthescapegoat)forreligion,stakes(pollutingand

17

purifyingblood)forthemilitary,andmerchandise(circulatingsignsofsoft

pollution)forproducers.Thegoalofeachinstitutionistokeeptheirrespective

quasi-objectmovingtowardoffthethreatoftotalviolenceandthedestruction

ofthecollective.

Incontemporaryterms,whatthismeansisthatthesecuringofsocialorder

requiresevermorerelics,bloodandmoneytobeputintocirculation,inan

ecstaticmovement.Thefinancialcrisisisatestamenttothis:thesolutiontothe

failureoflegitimacyoffinancialinstitutionsistopumpmoremoneyintothem,in

thesamewaythatthesolutiontoconflictinthetwentiethcenturywastoinvent

technologiestoexponentiallyincreaseactualorpotentialdeathtoll.Foratime,

notablyinAngels:Amodernmyth,Serresappearedtobechampioningafourth

God–Hermesorcommunication–asthesourceofanew-quasiobjectof

‘information’.Andyetthistooseemstobetendingtowardshyperbolic

breakdown,wheresocialandpoliticalproblemsaretreatedasreducibletothe

needformoredata,whateverthe(social,political)cost.

Inpedagogicterms,thelessontobedrawnhereisthatorganizationisalways

parasiticuponpriorformsoforder.Contrarytotheroutineandtiresomeclaims

madeforextraordinaryentrepreneurialsuccessex-nihilo,wemayinstead

enquireastheextensivechainsofparasitismandappropriationthroughwhich

thisaccomplished.Thecurriculummayspeakofinnovationorcreativity,but

whatwearereferringtoisalwaystheftandviolence.Parasitismistherule,not

theexception.Butparasitescomeinmanydifferentforms,andtheirstrategies

mayvarygreatly.Forexample,parasitesthatkilltheirhoststendingeneraltobe

lesssuccessful,andbydefinitionareunabletogainnumericalsuperiorityover

hostorganisms.Endoparasitesthatdwellwithinthebodyofthehostare

themselvesdependentonotherparasitesthatserveastheirvectorof

transmission(recallhowSerresspeculatesthathumanitymayultimatelyhave

beenthevectorforother,asyetunknownparasitestoimplantthemselves).

Symbiontsexistinmutuallyparasiticrelationshipswithotherspecies,insemi-

stablearrangements.Iforganizationisparasitic,thenacentraltaskistodescribe

thepreciseformssuchparasitismtakes.

18

Equallypressingisthetaskofanalyzingthemovementofquasi-objects.Herewe

canusefullybeginbydispensingwiththeideathatthereisaneconomiclogicat

thecoreoffinance,oralegal-politicalrationaletowar,or,indeedan

existential/spiritualneedbeingplayedoutinreligion.Whichisnottosaythat

therenothing‘economical’abouteconomics,andsoon,butratherthese

institutionalpracticesarefoundedintheadministrationandregulationof

violence.Thus‘management’itselfbecomesthemoderndomestificationofan

ancientlogicofsacrificeandscapegoating.Fromurinetobloodtospreadsheets.

Recognitionofthepersistenceofarchaicviolenceinmodernmanagement

practicesmeansthatthestudyofrecentandancienthistory,andofmythand

fable,isnolessimportantthancontemporarytheoriesandconcepts.AsSerres’

mantragoes:‘nothingnewunderthesun’.

ii)Detachment(GyörgyEszter)

OneofthemostcuriousofSerres’worksisasmallvolumeofessaysfromthe

mid-1980s,Detachment.Thefourpiecescontainedwithinitmeanderbetween

myth,real,orperhapsfalse,autobiographicalrememberingandahauntingsense

oflossanddespondency.Theguidingthreadbetweenthemisofthenatureof

endurance,whatitmeansforsomethingtopersistintime.Commonlywethink

ofthisintermsofthehistorical–thechronologicalsuccessionofevents,one

succeedingtheother.Yet,aswehaveseen,thehistoryofhumanrelationsis,for

Serres,thecontinuousevolutionofviolenceandthestrategiesthatcontainit.

Historicalendurancethenamountstoaninterplayofparasitismand

(re)appropriation.Isthisallthatcanbehopedfor?

Inoneoftheessays,‘TreesofDeath,TheTreeofLife’,Serresspeculatesonthe

symbolismoftrees.Assacredsymbols,treesappearassourcesoflifeand

rebirth,germinationandthecontinuityofspecies.Thespreadingoutofbranches

servesasapotentrepresentationofdivisionanddistributionthroughthe

growthofsuccessivegenerations.Smallwonderthenthattheimageofa‘treeof

life’findsitswayintomanydifferentreligions.Togivebutoneexample,the

JewishKabbalahprovidesarepresentationoftheemanationofGodintothe

createdworld,andhenceofthewaysinwhichhumansmaycometoknowGod’s

19

creation.Thetreeoflifeisthenalso,typically,atreeofknowledge,a

diagrammaticrepresentationoftheprincipledistinctionswithinwhatis

knowable.Inthisway,thetreestructuremediatesbetweenthesacredandthe

profane.Finally,thetreeoflifeandknowledgeisalso,inevitably,thesiteof

power.IntheChristianbible,transgressingtheprohibitionsaroundthetreeof

liferesultconstitutes‘originalsin’.

Theintertwiningoflife,withthegrowthofknowledgeandtheplayofpower

rendersthetreestructureasakeysymboloftheunfoldingofhistory.Serres

recountsanexperienceofstandingbeforeaSequoiatree,oneofthelargestliving

organismsonearth.Thecurrentformofthistree,withitspowerfulattributesof

longevityandfire-resistance,speakstoalongevolutionaryhistory(datingback

totheJurassicperiod).Itmayevenbedirectlyspeakingtousofthishistory,

sinceasSerresobserveselsewhere,the‘thingsoftheworld’communicatewith

oneanother,throughchemicalandelementalprocessesfarfasterandmore

effectivelythanwedo(Serres,2012[2010]:128-130).Serresfantasisesthatat

somepointtheSequoiawasplantedbyanancientculture,whoseintentions,

knowledgeandpracticesarenowlost.Thisisnotanentirelyfancifulidea,since

themarksofcultivationanddomesticationdatebackatleasttotheNeolithicera:

Fourthousandyearsagosomegiftedancestors–Ididnotkeeptrack–

bequeathedtousplantsandanimalsonthissideoftheworld,onthe

otherslopeofthesun.Todayweeatlamb,areclothedwithwool;my

fatherraisedcattle,wetastewheat-bread,wedrinkwinefromthevine,

thankstotheirimmortalgenius…[B]reedingandcultivationperpetuated

themselveswithoutshortcoming…[O]urforefathersoffortycenturies

agotrainedphylogeny.Theyforeverdomesticatedthespecies.They

formedthematrixofallmatrices.Theyawakenedtheirgenealogy,we

onlyknowhowtolullittosleep,theycreatedittoservethem,wecan

onlykillit.(Serres,1989[1983]58-9)

Serreshereobservesthatsomeofthemostancienttechnologiesinventedbyour

ancestorsinthedeeppast–viticulture,animalhusbandry,milling–continueto

shapeourworld.Inthissenseakindof‘immortality’akintothegrowthofthe

20

Sequoiahasbeenbequeathed.Serrescontraststhiswiththeformsoflongevity

thatthemodernworldaccomplishes–hazardousradioactivewastewithan

enormoushalf-life,hugecarbonfootprints,irreversiblesoilerosion.Itseems,

Serresargues,thatwehavelosttheabilitytodisappearintotheworld,to‘live

on’inperpetuitythroughtechniquesthatfosterlife.Ourtechnologiesseem,by

contrast,remarkablyshort-sightedandimposeaproblematichistorythatfuture

generationswillbeforcedtoendure:

Whydowenolongerinventdurabletraditions?Whydoweonlyfoment

revolutionslastinghardlyonegeneration?Whydowenolongerdiscover

newknow-howscuttingthroughtime?Whatdidwelosetoallowusto

enterhistory,thismythofdeath?(Serres,1989[1983]:61)

Long-termspeciessurvival–theimmortalityaccomplishedbytheancients–

dependsuponescapinghistory,understoodhereasthecontinuousviolence

playedoutaroundthetreeofknowledge/life.Serrespointstothepre-modern

conditionofChina,wheremasslabour-intensiveagriculture,createda

traditionalcultureseeminglyunchangedbythecenturies–‘Notime,nohistory,

formillenniaagriculturalChinashowstheendofhistory,theendoftime–an

adaptedeternity–theabsorptionofhumanityintotheloam’(Serres,

1989[1986]:9-10).Chinesefarmersweredetachedfromhistory,Serresmuses,

becausetheyweresunkintoanenduringlandscapeinwhichtherewasnospace

forchangex.

Wemaythenproposetoourstudentstheimportanceofthe‘offgrid’–formsof

sustainablelivingthatdeliberatelytrytoextricatethemselvesfromhistoryand

seekadifferentrelationshiptotheenvironment.Detachmentisaccomplished

herebyawithdrawal,asfaraspossible,fromexistingcircuitsofproductionand

consumption(whichSerreswouldseeasinherentlyparasiticinnature).Thisis

nottosaythatthereissomeclearlydefinedspaceoutsideofparasitism.Rather

thatitmaybepossiblethroughanti-parasitictechnologies,suchasopen-source

developmentandproduction,tofindawaytodisconnectandeffectively

‘disappear’intothefabricofsocialspace,intotheloam.Fordecadeswehave

beentellingourstudentsofthepowerandvalueofnetworks.Nowweneed

21

championthenecessityforpartialdisconnection,forcuttingoneselfoutofthe

ecstaticcirculationoffetishes,stakesandmerchandise.

iii)Cords(JanosValuska)

LanguagehasacomplexstatusthroughoutSerres’work.Forathinkerwho

revelsintheuseofarchaiclanguage,whocelebratesdialectandlocalidiom,

Serresalsodisplaysireatthemannerinwhichspeechisgivenpriorityoverthe

body.Fromclassicaltimesonwards,thetonguethatspeaksisdeemedofgreater

importancethanthetonguethattastesorthatkisses-‘Socrates,Agathonand

Alcibiadesspeakoflovewithoutevermakinglove,orsitdowntoeatwithout

actuallyeatingordrinkwithouttasting’(Serres,2008[1985]:165).Acentral

concernofoneofSerres’keymid-periodworks,TheFiveSenses,istheliberation

ofthebodyfromlanguage,andreconstitutionofknowledgeandempiricismin

oursensuousembodiedengagementswithoneanotherandtheworld.

Arepeatedimageofamountainclimber,abodyshornoflanguage,recurs

throughoutSerres’work.InVariationsontheBody,aseriesofimagesof

mountainsaccompaniesastrangegymnasticexperiment,wheretheauthor

invitesreaderstostretchoutandtracetheedgesofageometricshapeformedby

theirfurthestphysicalextension.‘Whoclimbsarockface?’Serresasks,‘Nota

visiblebodyexposedtothevoid,but,precisely,thismobileextensibleballinside

ofwhichthesimianorganismreposes’(Serres,2011[1999]:5).Physicalactivity

demonstratestousthatourbodiesarenotsolidcontainerssetagainsttheworld,

butareinsteadadynamicandmutablemixtureofforcesandsurfacesthat

becomemingledwiththeenvironment.Atonemomenttheclimberisspread

taughtagainsttherock,nowheldtoothersbyropes,thencurledtightlyintothe

snow.Allbodies–whetherhumanornon-human–are,inessence,mixturesor

‘minglings’ofconstituentpartsratherthandiscreteentitiesseparatedfromtheir

environment:‘thestateofthingsbecomestangled,mingledlikethread,along

cable,askein’(Serres,2008[1985:82).Theclimberis,insomesense,apartof

themountainforthedurationoftheascent,thecorporealandtheelemental

flowingtogether.Theyareknottedtogetherliketheropesorcordsthatattach

theclimbingpartytooneanother.

22

Theterms‘cord’and‘contract’convergenceupontheideaof‘drawingtogether’

parties.TheNaturalContractexpoundstheideathatweneedtonotonlyarrive

atabetterlegalandpoliticalframeworkaroundtheenvironment,butalsotofind

anewunderstandingofthemannerinwhichwearejointlyattached.Thefirst

issueistoreframeourrelationshiptoproperty.Humanityisnolongerthe

owner-occupierofBiogea,butatenant–‘weshouldnolongerbethemasters

andpossessorsofnature.Thenewcontractbecomesarentalagreement’(Serres,

2011:72).Onthisformalbasis,weneedtodevelopbettermeanstounderstand

whatBiogeaissayingwhenitspeaks.Thisgivesapragmaticratherthana

principledprioritytotheLifeSciences,whichareabletoengagewiththe

processeswhereinthingscodeandbecomecodedbyoneanother:

Whetherfluidorofair–evensolidscommunicate–thingsrespire

together,theyconspirewiththeirdifferentbreaths,butinaconstantand

totalcirculationthat’schancy,torn,chaoticandconsenting.Thesebreaths

haverhythms,tempi,amusic,waves,codes.Caused,causing,certainly,but

coding,coded,Isayagain.Theworldaddsupthecodes.(Serres,2010:

129)

ThelifesciencesarebestplacedtoactaslegislativecounselsonbehalfofBiogea.

Serrescallsforapolitical-legalforuminwhichtheresultingnaturalcontractcan

benegotiated,towhichhegivesthetitlewhichtranslatesintorather

unfortunateEnglish:WAFEL(Water,Air,Fire,Earth,Living).Muchaswith

Latour’s(1993)callfora‘parliamentofthings’,whatisinterestingaboutthis

propositionisnotsomuchthedetailsofhowitbeputintopractice,butrather

thenewrelationshipbetweenlaw,politicsandecologythatitassertsas

necessary.

Thelifesciencesare,ofcourse,nottheonlyknowledgepracticesthatwillbe

needed.Fromhisveryearliestworks,Serreshasarguedforakindof‘synthesis’,

or‘encyclopedic’approachtoknowledge(seeSerres,1982;SerreswithLatour,

1995).Whoistosaywhatwewillneedtoknowinordertonegotiatewith

Biogea?Ifepistemologyhaspreviouslybeeninthralltoappropriationand

division,alternatingbetweentheGodsofJupiter,MarsandQuirinus,thenthe

23

kindofknowledgenowrequiredisa‘thinkingwith’ratherthana‘thinking

against’.Itisskillsatmediationandtranslation–thinkingfromthemiddle–that

becomeimportantintheattempttounite‘thefieldsofknowledgeamongst

themselvesthewaythethingsareconnectedamongthemselves’(Serres,

2012[2010]:131).

Ultimately,thisamountstoaself-transformation.Serres(1982:7)oncedefined

thehumaninthefollowingway,asthegreatestofallparasites–‘Manisawolf

forman,aneagleforsheep,aratforrats.Intruth,araraavis’.Butparasitism

alonewillnotpreserveusformuchlonger.AnewrelationshiptoBioegais

required:

Toattempttoopentalkswith[Biogea]andnegotiatetogether,thanksto

thecodessharedinthisway,amutualaidandbenefitpact,sothatwecan

passfromparasitismtosymbiosistogether.That’swhyIwanttolistento

thevoicesofBiogeawhilecomparingthemwithours.Communication,

interferences,translation,distribution,passagesandbridgesxi.Howcan

theinvasiveorderbecomeareciprocaldialogue?Howcantheobject

becomesubject?Inwhatlanguagedoesthismuteworldspeak?(Biogea,

2012[2010]:171)

SerresismuchtakenwithAldoLeopold’sphrase‘thinkinglikeamountain’.To

thinkamongstBiogea,withBiogea,likeBiogeameansfindingwaysof

encounteringwind,sea,fire,earth,beingexposedtotheircontingencies.Hence

thetextBiogeaiscomposedofnumerousnarratives–reliableandunreliable–

whereextraordinaryeventsovertaketheauthor.Atthecloseofone,heoffersthe

gnomicphrase‘Rare,thesemomentsofbeingonthelam.Mostoften,everything

toisdecidedatthecrossroads’(Serres,2010:150).Tobe‘onthelam’istotravel

asafugitive,awayfromhome,towardsanuncertaindestination.Itistooffer

oneselfuptoevents,tocontingencies.Thereisthechanceofunexpected

hospitality,theriskofsuddenhostility.And,mostofall,therearetheuncertain

momentsinbetween,atthecrossroads,wheredecisionshavetobemade.Thatis

perhapssomethinglikewhatitmeansto‘thinklikeBiogea’.

24

Thegoalofmanagementeducationistypicallyframedaroundsomedesired

archetype–thereflectivepractitioner,theeffectivemanager,theservantleader

etc.WhatSerresproposesisthatwedispensewiththesekindsofimagesand

recommendthinkinglikemore-than-humans.‘ThinkinglikeBiogea’means

understandingstrategyfromtheperspectiveofatree,marketingfromthebelly

ofthesnake,financeamidsttheexcessoffrogspawn,innovationamongstcoral.

Managementeducationneedtobe‘de-hominized’ifwearetounderstandhow

wecanlivewithratherthanagainstBiogea.

ThinkingWithSerres

LetmeconcludebytryingtodevelopsomepracticalimplicationsofSerres’work

formanagementeducation.IhavesuggestedthattheproblemspacethatSerres

drawsupbetweenthehardandthesoft,theapocalypticandtheecstatic,sees

therootsofmodernorganizationandhumanrelationsinviolenceanditsfuture

inongoingpollution.Onepossibilityistodevelopthisargumentfurtherintoa

counter-narrativeoforganizationalandinstitutionallife.InTheParasite,Serres

developshisgeneralizedmodelofparasitisminoppositiontoanaccountof

systems,withtheirguidingprinciplesorequilibriumandfeedback.WhatSerres

describesaresystemsthatarebeingleached,subjecttointerference,drawn

downunpredictablepathways.Butwhichstill,neverthess,‘work’.Heaskswhat

weshouldmakeofthisrelationshipbetweenapparentorderandtheparasitical

–‘Whathappenswouldbetheobscureoppositeofconsciousandclear

organization,happeningbehindeveryone’sback,thedarksideofthesystem.But

whatdowecallthesenocturnalprocesses?’(Serres,1982[1980]:12).Elsewhere,

Ihavesuggestedthephrase‘darkorganizationaltheory’asawayoftreating

parasitismnotasanexception,butastheverycentralmotoroforganizational

lifexii.

Darkorganizationaltheoryisamyth,afable,atalltale.Butitisonethatis

satisfyingtonarrate,and,Ihope,tohear.Ratherthanconvincestudentsthat

organizationisourdefenceagainstnoise,ourmeansofsecuringourcommon

interests,weshouldtelltheminsteadofhowitisfoundedonexcrementand

murder.Thatorganizationsonly‘work’becauseofthecontinuousmovementof

25

parasitesupanddownstreaminrelationtooneanother.Insteadoftellingthema

Kantianoraneo-Derrideanfairystoryaboutthe(im)possibilityofethics,we

shouldletthemknowwhathistorytellsus,that‘thecollectivecollectsitselfby

killing’(Serres,2012[2010]:21).Organizationisfoundedupontheft,

appropriation.Itis,intheonesense,inherentlyevil.ThetranslatorofLeMal

Propresettledupon‘malfeasance’asameansofcapturingtheplayoneviland

propertyatworkinSerres’fable.Butitseemstomethat,atleastina

managementcontext,thedirectrenderingof‘cleanevil’betterarticulatesthe

hardandsoftpollutionpiledupbythemoderncorporation.Itwouldseema

littleambitioustosuggestthatourstudentstaketheoaththatSerres

recommendstonoserveanyofDumezil’sthreegods–religious,militaryand

economicinterests.Butwecouldatleastinvitethemtoconsiderhowtoplace

theinterestsofBiogeaaboveallelse.

Anotherpossibility.InTheFiveSenses,Serresarguesforthecorporeal,lived

dimensionofknowledge.Welearnthroughencounters,throughphysical

engagementwiththeworld.Themetaphorofthevoyage,theadventurehas

alwaysbeencentraltoSerres’work.Itiswhatonelearnsalongtheway,atthe

crossroads,perhaps‘onthelam’thatmatters.Ourstudentscometousthrougha

varietyofroutes,somewithmoreorlessinterestingstoriestotell.Butallof

themcomefromsomewhere,fromaplaceinwhichtheirknowledge,their

language,theirexperienceisrooted.Howmightthisbemobilized,liberatedas

centralratherthanasperipheraltoteaching?Itisnotsimplyamatterofadding

afewculturalreferencestoleavenoutthelecture,butinsteadsomethingmore

far-reaching.Whynotgiveoversessionstothediscussionofancientandmodern

mythology?Ortoexplorationsoflocalpracticesofbrewing,culinaryarts,rituals

ofconsumption?Insteadofspeakingandwriting,whynotmakingorcreating–

fashioningobjects,theusecraftskills,visualarts,demonstrationsofaesthetic

preferences?Serresarguesthatultimatelyitisnot‘hard’analyticknowledgethat

gainimmortality,butinstead‘soft’technologies:

[F]orthetwoeconomicsystemsknowntothisday,nottakinganyaccount

ofthisworld,haveonlytakenafewdecades,negligibleatthescaleof

Biogea,toexhaustthemines,therivers,theentiretyoftheavailable

26

stocks,destroyingtheseas,pollutingtheair,layingwastetotheEarth,

killing,atalightning-fastpace,thelivingspecies,inaword,devouringall

earthlycapital,hardaccumulatedovermillionsofyears,notwithout

drowningwhat’sleftofhumanculturesunderafloodofugliness;better,

saidsustainabledevelopmentservesasdeceptiveadvertisingforthemto

finishtheplundering.Whatisleftthat’slasting?Yes,thesoft.Waterlasts

longerthanearth,airlongerthanwater…signslongerthanfire.Hereis

mytheoreminfull:theharddoesnotlast,onlythesoftlasts.(Serres,

2010:192)

Finally,whyremainintheclassroomitself?DonnaHarawayhasdevelopeda

pedagogicstrategyshereferstoas‘implosion’(seeGhelfi,2015).Studentsare

askedtopickanobjectanduseitasastartingpointforadiscussionofthe

historiesthatmaybetiedtogetherwithinit.Forexample,acottonshirtmaylead

tothehistoryofpesticidesandCaliforniawaterprojects.However,tofollow

Serres’suggestionof‘goingonthelam’,whynotjustleavethelecturehall

altogetherandexplorethemyriadobjectsandsitesinnearbysurroundings?

Architecturecanleadtoaccountsofsocialhistory,oftheparasitismofsocial

space.Gardenscanprovokediscussionoftheshapingofhumanandnon-human

relations.Observingtheskylinecanrevealmoreaboutglobalcommunication

networksthanmosttextbooks.Weneedtofreetheeyeofpowerpoint,liberate

theearfromlecturing,releasethebodyfromthetorporofmanagement

education.

ProductionHasComeToAnEnd

TheopeningsceneofWerckmeisterHarmonies.ItisclosingtimeatthePeafeffer

inn.Oneofthedrunksadvancestowardsthecamera,holdingtheirdrink

precariously.Valuskaissummoned–‘Comeon’,‘Showus’.Tablesarepulled

awaytomakeaspace.Valuskamovesthedrunksintopositiononebyone,

assigningtoeachtheroleofaplanetarybody.‘Thesun’swaysonhisfeet,

wigglinghisfingerstoimitatesolarrays.‘Theearth’isslowlywaltzedaround

‘thesun’,gentlyspuninitsrotationbyValuska.Withgreatereffort‘Themoon’is

drawntogetherintowhatisnowacrowdedspace,andsetonitscoursearound

27

‘theearth’.Valuskatellsoftheimmortal,unchangeablevastnessofspace.Ofthe

powerandweightydarknessofaneclipse.Theremainingdrunksjoin,forminga

moving,turningthronginwhichValuskabecomeslost.Hisfaceisrapturous,

ecstatic.Thelandlordintervenes,showsthedoor.Valuskaleaveswiththewords

‘ButMrHagelmeyer,it’sstillnotover’.Hewalksaway,thecamerafollowinghim

untilhebecomeslostinshadow.

References

Abbas,N.(Ed)(2005)MappingMichelSerres.AnnArbor:UniversityofMichigan

Press.

Bachelard,G.(1986)[1934]TheNewScientificSpirit.(Trans,A.Goldhammer).

Massachusetts:BeaconPress.

Brown,S.D.2013.Inpraiseoftheparasite.InformáticanaEducação:Teoriae

Prática16(1),83-100.

Callon,M.(1980)Strugglestodefinewhatisproblematicandwhatisnot:The

socio-logicoftranslation.InK.D.Knorr,R.Krohn,&R.Whitley(Eds.).The

socialprocessofscientificinvestigation:SociologyoftheSciences,VolIV.

Dordrecht:D.Reidel.

Callon,M.(1986)Someelementsofasociologyoftranslation:Domestificationof

thescallopsandfishermenofSt.Brieucbay.InJ.Law(Ed.).Power,action,

belief:Anewsociologyofknowledge?London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul.

Douglas,M.(1985)PurityandDanger:AnAnalysisoftheConceptsofPollutionand

Taboo.London:Ark.

Dumézil,G.(1988)[1971]TheDestinyofaKing.(Trans,A.Hilfebeitel).Chicago:

UniversityofChicagoPress.

Frazer,J.G.(2009)TheGoldenBough:AStudyinMagicandReligion.Oxford:

OxfordUniversityPress.

Ghelfi,A.2015.WorldingPolitics:Justice,CommonsandTechnoscience.PhD

submittedtoUniversityofLeicester.

Girard,R.(2005)Violenceandthesacred.London:Continuum.

Latour,B.1993.WeHaveNeverBeenModern.Cambridge,Mass:Harvard

UniversityPress.

28

Krasznahorkai,L.1998[1989]TheMelancholyofResistance.(Trans,G.Szirtes)

NewYork:NewDirections.

Paulson,W.(1997)‘WritingthatMatters’,SubStance83:22–36.

Serres,M.1974.HèrmesIII:LaTraduction.Paris:ÉditionsdeMinuit.

Serres,M.1980.HèrmesV:PassageduNord-Ouest.Paris:ÉditionsdeMinuit.

Serres,M.1982.Hermes:Literature,ScienceandPhilosophy.Baltimore:Johns

Hopkins.

Serres,M.1982[1980].TheParasite.(Trans,L.Schehr)Baltimore:JohnsHopkins

Press.

Serres,M.1989[1983]Detachment(Trans,G.JamesandR.Federman).Athens:

OhioUniversityPress.

Serres,M.1991[1983]Rome:TheBookofFoundations.(Trans,F.McCarren)

Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.

Serres,M.1993.LesOriginesdelaGéométrie.Paris:Flammarion.

Serres,M.1995[1982]Genesis.(Trans,G.JamesandJ.Nielson)AnnArbor:The

UniversityofMichiganPress.

Serres,M.1995[1990].TheNaturalContract.(Trans,E.MacArthurandW.

Paulson)AnnArbor:TheUniversityofMichiganPress.

Serres,M.1995[1993].Angels:AModernMyth.(Trans,F.Cowper)Paris:

Flammarion.

Serres,M.withB.Latour1995[1990]ConversationsonScience,Cultureand

Time.(Trans,R.Lapidus)AnnArbor:TheUniversityofMichiganPress.

Serres,M.1997[1991]TheTroubadourofKnowledge.(Trans,S.F.GlaserandW.

Paulson).AnnArbor:TheUniversityofMichiganPress.

Serres,M.2008[1985].TheFiveSenses:APhilosophyofMingledBodies.(Trans,

M.SankeyandP.Cowley]London:Continuum.

Serres,M.2011[1999]VariationsontheBody.(Trans,R.Burks).Minneapolis:

Univocal.

Serres,M.2011[2008]Malfeasance:AppropriationThroughPollution?(Trans,A-

M.Feenberg-Dibon).Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.

Serres,M.2012[2010]Biogea.(Trans,R.Burks).Minneapolis:Univocal.

Serres,M.2014[1987]Statues:TheSecondBookofFoundations.(Trans,R.

Burks)London:Bloomsbury.

29

Serres,M.2014[2009]TimesofCrisis:WhattheFinancialCrisisRevealedand

HowtoReinventOurLivesandFuture.(Trans,A-M.Feenberg-Dibon).

London:Bloomsbury.

Serres,M.2015[2012]Thumbelina:TheCultureandTechnologyofMillennials.

(Trans,D.W.Smith)London:Rowman&Littlefield.

Steyaert,C.2014MichelSerres(1930b).InJ.Helin,T.Hernes,D.HjorthandR.

Holt(Eds.)TheOxfordHandbookofProcessPhilosophy&Organization

Studies.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPresspp.549-566.

iTheexampleisalsocentraltoFrazer’sTheGoldenBough.iiGeometryhaslongservedasanexampleof‘Martial’scienceinSerresworks–themathematicaltechnologyofdivisionandcontroloverspace.iiiThedegreeprogrammesinBusinessAdministrationandPhilosophyrunfromtheDepartmentofManagement,PhilosophyandPoliticsatCopenhagenBusinessSchoolareexcellentexamplesofthispractice.ivThishasbeenasignificantissuearoundourprovisionofphilosophyandrhetoricontheundergraduateBusinessandManagementStudiesprogrammeatLeicester.vThishasrecentlyreceivedanewtranslationbyRandolphBurks(thebesttranslatortodateofSerresinEnglish)alongwithasetofothershortpiecesfromHermesIVas‘Streams’.viIcannotresistmentioninghereaphrasecoinedbymyformerdoctoralsupervisor,RexStaintonRogers,whoreferredtothesiteconnectingthegreatdivisionsofthescienceandthehumanitiesasthe‘istmus’ofsocialscience,akintotheplaceofPanamabetweenNorthandSouthAmerica.Serres(1980)famouslyoffersthealternativemetaphorofexploringtheNorthwestpassagetogetbetweenthegreatdivisions,ratherthantakingthemoreobviousrouteofthePanamacanal…viiThismayhavebeenaddedbecausetheoriginalFrenchtitleLeTempsdesCrisisisarathersatisfyingpunonLeTempsdesCerises(‘CherrySeason’),asongassociatedwiththeParisCommune(‘Iwillalwayscherishtheseasonofcherries,ItisthattimethatIkeepinmyheart…’).TheFrencheditionreinforcesthiswithanimageofthefruitonthecover.Inaddition,thedualmeaningofletempsand‘time’and‘theweather’suggeststhelinkbetweenhistoryandecologythatisimportanttoboththistextandTheNaturalContract.Anglophonereadersaredeniedthesehooksintothetext.viiiTheEnglishtranslationtitleistheratherunhelpfulbutperhapsmorecatalogue-friendlyTheTroubadourofKnowledge.ixIleaveittothereadertodecidewhetherquotingthissectionthisisitselfaninstanceofacompelling,aggressivedefensivecitation.xTheexampleisclearlynotunproblematic–orevenperhapshistoricallyaccurate–andisaninstanceoftendencytowardsromanticidealizationofsupposedruralidyllthatrecursthroughoutSerres’work.

30

xiTheseareinorderthesubtitlesofthefiveHermesbooksfrom1968-1980.xiiBrown,2013