Jason Glynos, David Howarth. “Interpretations, Mechanisms, and Logics” paper presented at 1st IDA World Conference Roskilde University, Denmark. Sept 8-10, 2008. pp.37.
Relations of Subordination
Those practices which appear not to invite or need public contestation of social norms, either by the subjects engaged in the practice, or by the theorist who is interpreting the practice. In the absence of dislocations, existing social relations are reproduced in this mode without public contestation. Here we might include everyday activities such as working, going on holiday, playing sport … All these activities may in fact involve and rely upon relations o subordination, but they are not experienced as oppressive, nor are they regarded as unjust by the analyst.
Relations of Oppression
Point to the features of a practice, or a regime of practices, that are challenged by subjects in the name of a principle or ideal allegedly denied or violated by the social practice itself. Here the experiences of dislocation are symbolized in terms of a questioning of norms, which may be accompanied by political challenges to the practices or regime of practices examined. But equally they may be met with renewed efforts to offset challenges and maintain the existing social relations. Here the political dimension comes to the fore.
Relations of Domination
Point to the way subjects are judged by the theorist to be dominated or unjustly treated, whether or not the norms so judged are explicitly challenged by those engaged in the practice. Here interpretation may focus on those practices which appear to actively prevent the public contestation of social norms from arising in the first place. In this case, social relations are understood to be reproduced without public contestation, either because dislocatory experiences are processed privately or informally, or because they do not arise at all. They may take the form of ‘off the record’ complaints … made by employees amongst themselves, or even toward their managers, who then elicit, deflect, or satisfy requests … On the other hand, the concealing of dislocation will be accomplished most completely and effectively if subjects are rendered ideologically complicit in the practices they partake. More generally, then, in the context of a set of dislocatory experiences, these ‘pre-emptive’ aspects of a practice seek to maintain existing social structures by muffling or guiding the process by which grievances are articulated, so that the existing social structure remains unthreatened. An important part of contemporary labour process theory, organization theory, and critical management studies literature deals with precisely these aspects of social practices. Moreover, since such activities are geared toward keeping public contestation at bay, they tend to be unofficial in character, in the sense that they operate in the interstices of official institutional practices.
Characterizing practices as fostering or reinforcing relations of domination immediately highlights the sociological and normative character of the approach we advocate.
After all, the very identification of a social norm as worthy of public contestation, as well as the claim that a norm is actively prevented from being contested, presupposes some view of social domination. It implies that we already have some grasp of the practice, both sociologically and normatively. And this is where social logics are particularly relevant, as they are crucial in making explicit the sociological and normative aspects of this process of characterization. In this context, to highlight the political dimension of a practice entails pointing to those aspects of a practice which seek to generate, maintain, contain, or resolve the public contestation of social norms. Put differently, the political aspects of a practice involve attempts to challenge and replace existing social structures, as well as attempts to neutralize such challenges in a transformist way (citing Gramsci Selections from the Prison Notebooks. 1971: 58-9)