The Third Riverbank of Critical Studies on Management and Organizations in Brazil: (Re)thinking the Critique from Post-Colonialism

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to present an introduction to postcolonial thought from its origin, the main areas of study and from possible dialogues between the Anglophone and Latin American traditions. To do that, we analyze the notions of subalternity, decolonization and hybridity as a theoretical possibility to explore the post-colonial perspective in the Brazilian critical organization studies. Although the debate on post-colonialism and subordination is relatively new in organizational studies, in and out of Brazil, the literature review in the area shows that, even outside the context of post-colonial demarche, many works produced about management and organizations in Brazil took into account the same concerns of postcolonial authors. Indirectly, the works address topics that are related to the effects of colonialism on the contemporary world and still recognize the need to decolonize this field of study when considering the question of cultural dependency in Brazilian intellectual tradition and technology transfer between managerial countries of the center and the periphery, when problematize the use of theories produced in the Global North and seek references that value a look from the Global South, and they identify the strong presence of the dynamic Brazilian cultural hybridity. On the other hand, when analyzing the field of critical studies in Brazil, we find the presence of a dichotomy that tends to radicalize the center/periphery relationship with the separation between a supposedly Brazilian critical study on organizations and critical management studies (CMS). Such distinction performs an intellectual binarism typical of colonial mentality. Such mentality in this particular case seeks to define what is and is not critical approach in Management and Organization Studies. Aiming to challenge such binary wisdom, we propose a hybridization process that aim to reconcile the two poles of the binary perspective. To conclude, we argue that the theoretical and political development of both sides depends on a perspective that exploits the fissures of colonial discourse and from a third space perspective reconfigures knowledge production.