See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233676384

Praxis or performance: Does critical marketing have a gender blind-spot?

Article  in  Journal of Marketing Management · September 2009

DOI: 10.1362/026725709X471587

CITATIONS READS

41 261

4 authors, including:

Pauline Maclaran Emma Surman

Royal Holloway, University of London University of Birmingham
188 PUBLICATIONS   3,148 CITATIONS    15 PUBLICATIONS   161 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

article in Consumption, Markets and Culture View project

From Royal Fever: the British Monarchy in Consumer Culture View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Pauline Maclaran on 14 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 JOURNAL OF

MARKETING
MANAGEMENT

Praxis or performance:
does critical marketing have a gender blind-spot?
Pauline Maclaran, Royal Holloway, University of London, UK*
Caroline Miller, Keele University, UK
Elizabeth Parsons, Keele University, UK

PY
Emma Surman, Keele University, UK

O
Abstract To date the processes of knowledge reproduction in the emerging
field of critical marketing have been subject to little scrutiny. Given the current
C
burgeoning of the field we feel the time is over-ripe to address this absence
and explore the norms and practices of this collective scholarly group. In doing
R

so we focus our attention on the related issues of gender, embodiment and

performance. We attempt to learn from critiques within critical management
O

studies that have found a series of exclusionary practices operating in the field.
Authors argue that in particular critical management studies has encouraged
TH

performances that draw significantly on masculine ways of knowing and being

to the exclusion of alternative subjectivities. Our concern is that the emerging
field of critical marketing may be reproducing exclusionary practices in a similar
manner. Therefore we attempt to shed light on these practices and performances
AU

in critical marketing, and explore ways in which we might break through them by
offering a series of suggestions for doing both gender and organising differently.

Keywords Critical marketing; Gender; Embodiment; Performance; Feminism.

INTRODUCTION

In a recent call for papers for the next critical management studies (CMS) conference
on feminism and critical race theory, the convenors (Grimes et al. 2009) claim
that “CMS produces knowledges and spaces within the academy based on certain

*Correspondence details and biographies for the authors are located at the end of the article.

JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT, 2009, Vol. 25, No. 7-8, pp. 713-728
ISSN0267-257X print /ISSN1472-1376 online © Westburn Publishers Ltd. doi:10.1362/026725709X471587
714 JMM Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 25

unexamined practices of inclusion and exclusion”. Our agenda in this paper is to

unpack some of these “unexamined practices” in the emerging field of critical
marketing. In particular, we observe that the field may be developing a ‘gender blind
spot’ in the failure of scholars to adequately reflect on the exclusionary ramifications
of what we see as a significant gendering of embodied performance in this field.
Performance has become an inescapable part of academic life. As teachers we are
repeatedly required to assess the performance of our students, with the setting and
grading of assessments. Increasingly, however, with the spread of managerialist
thinking throughout the university sector, academics have become the subjects of
performance assessment through both measures of teaching quality and research
output (Chandler et al. 2002; Harley 2002). Commentators have also explored
the ways in which such an environment of selectivity privileges masculine values
and performance (Thomas and Davies 2002; Knights and Richards 2003; Fletcher
2007). Although the type of performance we consider in our discussions of gender
and academia is ostensibly very different to the performance assessment to which
we are subject to as academics, we will show how the two have inevitably become

PY
intertwined.
In this paper, therefore, we begin by exploring work which theorises gender
as performance. Here we draw on Judith Butler’s theory of performativity to
understand the ways in which gender is performed by academics. We also explore
O
work that has developed Butler’s theory to examine the role of organisational space
in the constitution of gendered identity (Cohen and Tyler 2007; Lester 2008). We
C
then focus on the organisational space of academia and critical management studies
(CMS) in particular. In critiques of CMS, authors question the very nature of
what it means to be “critical” within a university business school or management
R

department (Fournier and Grey 2000; Fulop 2002; Reedy 2008). We agree with
these authors in observing that, despite a commitment to encourage critical thinking
O

amongst students, and the production of an extensive number of texts demonstrating

enlightened critical analysis and reflexive thought, critical management scholars have
TH

not applied a similar reflexivity to their own performance or praxis. Therefore we

argue that whilst seeking to distance themselves from mainstream management, their
lack of reflexivity and action means they have more in common with the mainstream
AU

management culture than they would like to think. Given that critical marketers are
generally identified as a group of scholars that coalesced during the CMS conferences
in the late 1990s, we may expect them to have a close association with the sets
of values, beliefs and behaviours underpinning CMS scholarship. Thus we draw
from critiques of CMS in our analysis of the emerging field of critical marketing,
in order that we may be alerted to some of the pitfalls that can accompany critical
scholarship. In doing so we observe that, despite an espoused effort to “encourage a
more reflexive approach to the making of truth claims within the discipline” (Brownlie
2006, p. 507), the spotlight has yet to be turned on to the embodied elements of this
process of truth making, in particular the individual and collective performances
involved. In concluding (and in the critical spirit of reformation) we draw on the
work of a range of feminist organisational theorists in proposing the development
of an embodied, interactive and collaborative approach to the production (and
consumption) of critical marketing knowledge. This approach challenges the gender
norms of academia, in particular the invisible prioritising of masculine performances
and practices embedded in university culture.
 Maclaran, Miller, Parsons and Surman Praxis or performance 715

PERFORMING GENDER IN THE ORGANISATION

To better understand gender and its effects poststructuralist feminists argue for a
de-coupling of biological sex and gender and view gender as a set of both linguistic,
performative and social constructions. As such, they call for a rethinking of the
ways in which gender is constructed within and through organisational life and, in
particular, how constructions and processes may operate to reproduce inequality.
Such an approach views gender as a set of both linguistic and social constructions and
focuses on the “doing” of gender (West and Zimmerman 1987; Gheradi 1994; Bruni
et al. 2004; Butler 2004). Judith Butler (1999) theorises gender as being continually
(re)created through performance of gender roles during our daily activities,
performance that also creates and maintains masculine and feminine ideologies
(Lester 2008). Butler’s theory of gender emphasises context. Gender is “what you
do at particular times, rather than a universal who you are” (Gauntlett 1998, p. 2).
For Butler, there is no predetermined set of gender roles outside the performance
of them. These roles, she argues, are socially constructed, negotiated and then

PY
reinforced through the act of performing. As Lester (2008, p. 283) elaborates, “an
individual’s gender identity is discursively constituted as the effect rather than the
cause – an individual’s identity does not exist behind the performance, but is created
by the performance itself.” Butler emphasises that, “gender is a project which has
O
cultural survival as its end” and that “gender performance always variously occurs
under duress” (Butler 1999, p. 178).
C
If how we do our gender is influenced, not only by mimicking others of the
same gender, but also in opposition to others of a different gender (both mimicry
R

and acting are in opposition to suggest different forms of performance), then we

are also saying that gender is affected by the time and the space in which we are
O

present. In this sense Cohen and Tyler (2007) draw our attention to the centrality
of organisational spaces in gender performativity extending “Butler’s analysis of
TH

gender performativity through the recitation of particular cultural norms over time,
drawing attention to the ways in which these norms are evoked and materialised in
the gendered configuration of organisational space”. As such individuals affect and are
affected by a particular space or place, in particular the norms evoked within these
AU

contexts. Thus performances are constrained by the norms of social practices and,
in this case, individuals are particularly constrained by what are seen as appropriate
gender roles at any given time (Lester 2008). To give an example, nurturing and
caring (soft/teaching) is often seen as feminine, whilst thinking and writing (hard/
research) is often seen as masculine. In general, individuals undertake these roles
unreflexively and, over time, “the saying and doing create what is said and done”
(Yancey Martin 2003, p. 382).
Particular organisational cultures, together with the discourses embedded in
them, will encourage specific gender behaviours, behaviours that in turn impact on
individual gender identities. We develop a tacit knowledge of how to “do” gender
within particular contexts and adapt our performances accordingly and, most often
automatically. “As practices become delineated in particular spaces by specific codes
and norms, one articulates one aspect of self-identity in one space” (Anderson 2004,
p. 52). Power relationships also operate to influence us because certain gender
identities will be considered more appropriate than others and if we step outside
these expected “hegemonic gender norms” (Lister 2008, p. 284; see also Gregson
and Rose 2000) our actions may be considered problematic and may be censored
or disciplined by others. This censorship is also reflected in Borgerson’s (2005)
716 JMM Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 25

conception of “organised subjectivities”. Therefore, “doing” gender is a response to

the contexts and situations within which individuals are situated. Importantly too,
these contexts and situations intersect, not only with occupational identities, but also
with race, ethnicity, age and social class (Connell 2000; Adib and Geurrier 2003).

GENDER AND PERFORMANCE IN THE ACADEMY

Much work has drawn on Butler’s understandings of gender to unpack the

organisational context of academia. Recent work has highlighted the links between
the spread of managerialist thinking and the promotion of certain types of
masculinity in the academy. In her ethnography of the gendered culture of a large
UK university business school, Fisher (2007) accuses the “new managerialism” that
is sweeping through the UK university sector, of being a form of macho-masculinity
that challenges academics sense of autonomy and professional judgement. Similarly
Fletcher et al.’s study of employment practices and patterns in UK universities finds

PY
that “lack of transparency, increased competition and lower levels of collegiate activity,
coupled with networking based on homosociability are contributing to a research
production process where women are marginalised” (2007, p. 269). Although the
new managerialism of UK academia may pay lip service to equality in the workplace,
O
the values embedded in its emphasis on increased productivity, greater efficiency and
quest for growth, can be seen as reinforcing masculinities, rather than femininities
C
(Mills 2002). This tendency is further exacerbated by its concomitant insistence
on producing a measurable and evaluative audit trail of everything from teaching
R

to research (Morley 2003). In this vein Knights and Richards (2003) explore the
Research Assessment Exercise. Viewing it as part of a UK academic system that
O

operates largely on the basis of meritocracy, they question the extent to which this
system perpetuates inequality by reproducing masculine discursive practices and values
TH

(see also Priola 2007). They note that, not only are measures infused by masculine
norms, but that “the tendency for meritocracy and masculine conceptions of reason
to privilege what can be measured” (2003, p. 230 our emphasis). They also observe
the divisive operation of categories such as hard/soft in their continued association
AU

with the masculine/feminine; with hard quantitative research being valued above soft
qualitative research. In particular, they argue that the functioning of objectivity, i.e.
the drive to produce orderly and systematic representations, “may be seen as no more
than a hidden desire to construct a reality within which masculine subjects can feel
secure” (2003, p. 228). Conversely, in reflecting on their own experiences in Finnish
academia, Katila and Meriläinen (1999) find that academia can be a very insecure
and uncomfortable place indeed. They observe that “patriarchal articulations of
professional identities influence … academics’ self concept and consciousness of their
own abilities” (1999, p. 163). They locate the problem largely within organisational
discourse which they see as perpetuating the status quo through its reflection of
dominant values and ideologies. More recently Katila and Meriläinen (2008) use a
communities of practice lens to observe the collective reproduction and privileging
of masculine values in the construction of professional academic identity. In their
autoethnographic paper they talk about “producing research talk” (p. 13), and
learning about “accepted and unaccepted” ways to perform academic practices. They
also observe that “the characteristics required for the professional identity seemed tied
to a system of values in which identities defined as masculine were prioritised” (p.
21).
 Maclaran, Miller, Parsons and Surman Praxis or performance 717

PERFORMING IN CRITICAL MANAGEMENT STUDIES

Although not presenting a unified approach (Fournier and Grey 2000), the general
aims of CMS are seen to be to challenge traditional business and management
thinking and the underpinning assumptions that it makes. The key principles of the
approach have been defined as: the questioning of the taken for granted (Reynolds
1999); the challenging of authority and the distribution of power and status (Walsh
and Weber 2002); and a commitment to transform practices (including gendered
working practices) in order to work towards a more just world (Reedy 2008). In
establishing these values, CMS has positioned itself as an alternative to mainstream
management in terms of both theory and practice (Reedy, ibid., Willmott 2006).
As CMS both critiques the dominant scientific models and sources of power and
has a stated commitment to transform practices in favour of those that are more
egalitarian and just. Thus, it would not be incongruous to expect a questioning of
the existing status quo in the processes and practices that reproduce knowledge
alongside a celebration of both masculine and feminine forms of performance. We

PY
might further expect to see a willingness to perform alternative forms of academic
praxis emanating from CMS academics as part of this commitment. Yet, despite the
link between critique and practice being central to the process of transformation,
one of the accusations faced by CMS is “complete disengagement with managerial
O
practice” (Fournier and Grey 2000, p. 24), both in terms of providing the teaching
materials and resources for students (Fulop 2002), and in offering alternative insights
C
and support with implementation to management practitioners. The further and
perhaps most damaging criticism has come from within the ranks of CMS academics
R

themselves. For, not only does CMS as a whole stand accused of failure to engage with
management practitioners, but the performances and practices of CMS academics,
O

both individually and collectively, fail to embody the egalitarian and transformatory
objectives they espouse.
TH

The highly gendered nature of performances at conferences has been a specific target
for CMS critics (Grey and Sinclair 2006; Bell and King 2008). Here, CMS conferences
are seen as a key site for the reaffirmation of a collective critical management identity.
In discussing their experiences of these events Bell and King (2008) quote Knights’
AU

(2006) description of academic conferences as places where discourses of masculinity

are so dominant that “While appearing collegial, collaborative and cooperative, the
cockfighting mentality prevails…” ( p. 712). This might seem surprising given that
it is CMS academics who have drawn attention to the predominance of masculine
discourses and practices in the organisations in which they have conducted their
research. Another damming critique of CMS has come from Grey and Sinclair (2006)
who accuse CMS of perpetuating an exclusive culture where toughness is a required
aspect of performance, together with a one-upmanship in terms of debate and display
of theoretical knowledge. Feminists have long been suspicious of theory because it can
be used as a power game to silence or devalue other theoretical voices. Thus it may be
a source of intimidation, both between academics and practitioners, and also among
academics. We can see this misuse of theory, along with the “cockfighting” mentality
referred to by Knights (2006), vividly illustrated in the following reminiscences on a
session at the Critical Management Studies Conference:

We are five minutes in and I’m beginning to feel dizzy. It isn’t my hangover – paradoxically,
that’s slightly better – but I’m dizzy with names. Foucault and Derrida have been
dismissed as old hat, Zizek as a suspect popularist, Deleuze – no I haven’t been paying
718 JMM Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 25

attention, I am not sure whether he is in favour or out. Hardt and Negri show promise
but have essentialist ‘tendencies’...Now we are in the question and answer session (the
Chair tells us it is a discussion, but she is being wildly optimistic). Z has obviously had
the same insight into the speaker’s intentions as I have. But his response is different to
mine. His question seems to be designed to show what none of us thought possible: Z has
read even more than the speaker. He brings the heavyweights into our unprepossessing
room. Forget Habermas, what about Hegel? And Z has a good line in obscurity. Foucault
has been dismissed, but what about Fichte? (The speaker sniffs: ‘I wouldn’t call Fichte
particularly obscure’). But Z has a more subtle weapon in his armoury. For the really
class act – and Z is nothing if not a class act – reclaims the previously fashionable, just
to show that he is not in thrall to fashion. So Gramsci, Poulantzas and even poor old
Marx make their momentary bows before us.
(Grey and Sinclair, 2006, p. 444)

Thus the praxis of critical management scholars has been seen to be problematic
on two counts. First, CMS academics stand accused of targeting their writings for

PY
the benefit of other academics rather than at those who might change management
praxis. Second, and of greater concern in this article, is the engagement in the type
of one-upmanship regularly seen at conferences, whereby through their own praxis
and performances they are seen to reinforce specific versions of masculinity to the
exclusion of alternative subjectivities. O
C
THE EMERGING FIELD OF CRITICAL MARKETING: PROMOTING
R

EXCLUSIONARY PERFORMANCES?
O

In reviewing the current state of critical marketing we need first to sketch a background
– in particular to identify the key differences between critical marketing studies and
TH

CMS. We follow this with two key sets of concerns regarding the way in which
critical marketing knowledge is currently “performed”. There is every indication that
critical marketing is a fast-growing discipline, with several recent publications in the
AU

area (Saren et al. 2007; Tadajewski and Brownlie 2008; Tadajewski and Maclaran
2009; Hackley 2009). We observe that the time is therefore ripe to reflect critically
on the development of the subject. Although its roots can be traced back to the early
1980s and beyond (Tadajewski and Maclaran 2009), critical marketing is generally
identified as having originated as a more formal grouping within the CMS Conference
where it has been running as a track since 1999. We may therefore expect critical
marketing endeavours to be strongly influenced by this “parental” context and to
be open to the same criticisms that we have just discussed above. The wider context
of critical marketing, however, is different to that of critical management. We see
two key trends within the wider marketing discipline as impacting upon the way
in which critical marketing is developing. The first of these is the tenuous position
of marketing in relation to the wider social sciences. Here marketing has been
highlighted as one of the “Mickey Mouse” (Sinclair 1995, p. 302) behaviourally-
based subjects. As Brownlie observes, the critical marketing project might partly be
motivated by “status panic”:

By expanding our awareness of the repertoire of styles of performing knowledge claims,

of communicating and acting in wider policy contexts, critmar seeks to work through the
 Maclaran, Miller, Parsons and Surman Praxis or performance 719

‘status panic’ that often infects the discipline when held to account in the company of
the wider social sciences
(Brownlie 2006, p. 508)

Secondly, although marketing, like business and management, has been accused
of showing a masculine bias especially in terms of its rhetoric (Bristor and Fischer
1993; Desmond 1997), it has also become increasingly feminised. This contention
is supported by the increasing number and proportion of females to males studying
marketing and entering the marketing profession. It is also the area within business
and management (along with HRM) in which we are most likely to see a female
professor. Not surprisingly then, a set of discourses have also become increasingly
employed in marketing which are seen as drawing from more feminine subjectivities
i.e. the relationship marketing discourse (Fischer and Bristor 1994; Tynan 1997).
While there are no studies as yet of the impact of this increased feminisation in
marketing academia, Alvesson’s (1998) ethnography of a Swedish advertising agency
provides a good example of the way in which masculinities are affected by encroaching

PY
feminisation in marketing practice. Increasingly relying on many qualities that are
traditionally seen as feminine (creativity, intuition and social skills) to fulfil their part
in the client relationship, advertising executives are seen to require a more emotional,
rather than rational approach to work. These more highly paid and very visible roles
O
tended to be filled by men. In response to this increasing feminisation of their roles,
they found ways, through their representations and performances, to enhance the
C
femininity of female employees. This provided them with a foil or “other” against
which to more clearly define and defend their masculine subjectivities. We see the
twin features discussed above: the feminisation of marketing combined with a
R

status insecurity in relation to the wider social sciences, as providing a backdrop

for what we view as the emergence of a strongly masculinist enclave in the form of
O

the critical marketing fraternity. We would argue that in the face of the increasing
feminisation of marketing, Brownlie’s (2006) metaphor of “status panic” might be
TH

extended to encompass individual as well as collective professional identities within

critical marketing, and may well be a key driver behind some of the behavioural and
performative norms we see at conferences.
AU

We have two further observations regarding the way in which critical marketing
knowledge is currently “performed”. These are based on the current role of
reflexivity, and of theoretical pluralism. Burton (2001) links the emergence of critical
marketing to the application of critical theory to marketing, observing that critical
theory is a “distinctive approach rather than a single theoretical perspective” (p. 722)
She highlights three key tenets of critical theory as:

demystifying the ideological basis of social relations; a questioning of positivist

methodology whether that be in relation to the nature of reality, knowledge or
explanation; and the importance of self reflexivity of the investigator and the linguistic
basis of representation’
(p. 724)

These last two points are of particular relevance for us in our call for increased
self reflexivity in considering the embodied and performative dimensions of the
reproduction of critical marketing knowledge. Brownlie similarly observes the
centrality of a reflexive approach to the critical marketing project:
720 JMM Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 25

To encourage a more reflexive approach to the making of truth claims within the
discipline and also to widen the repertoire of strategic rhetorics available to those
seeking to interrogate such claims and to position their counter claims
(Brownlie 2006, p. 507)

Yet, in her review of marketing academics’ perspectives on critical marketing, Scott

observes that critical marketers were accused of “an unwillingness to critically
examine their own constructs” (2007, p. 11)
Brownlie (2006) also refers to critical marketing’s aim to “open up collective
disciplinary space for new voices and new sources of disciplinary capital, encouraging
a theoretical pluralism within marketing that draws on wider social sciences” (2006,
p. 506). However it may be argued that “new voices” remain somewhat muted to
date. In this respect we find some worrying trends in Scott’s (2007) recent review of
marketing academics’ thoughts and understandings of critical marketing. Including
“the belief that colleagues who don’t agree with the Critical stance are simply
uninformed, politically suspect, or cursed with a poor ability to comprehend complex

PY
social thought” (Scott 2007, p. 9). Other authors have highlighted concerns over the
aggrandisement of (usually critical) theory to the exclusion of other perspectives in
critical marketing:

O
There is a presumption of superiority and specialness that is annoying, as if the critical
theory camp somehow has powers of perception and conception that are simply lost on
C
the rest of us
(McCracken’s comments on critical marketing, cited in Scott 2007, p. 11)
R

The research community that has made most inroads into embracing new voices and
disciplinary perspectives is the interpretive community of consumer researchers, in
O

particular the branch termed “transformative consumer research”. This is perhaps

not surprising given that “transformation” is at the heart of the critical marketing
TH

project. Topics explored here include a range of what might be called “new voices”
of those typically marginalised in debates such as those from disadvantaged economic
groupings, the elderly and disabled. In addition these research communities are
beginning to embrace a range of disciplinary perspectives, but as yet it remains to
AU

be seen as to whether these perspectives pick up speed in garnering “disciplinary

capital”. Having said this, a series of journals have recently emerged which
embrace different (often oppositional) perspectives on marketing. These include
Consumption, Markets and Culture which was launched in 1997. The journal has a
stated commitment to interdisciplinary theorisation to include “theories of culture,
media, gender, anthropology, literary criticism and semiology”. It also reflects a critical
agenda to enquire into the “construction of the material conditions and meanings
of consumption and production”. Marketing Theory which emerged in 2000 while
having a wider remit, has similar critical objectives, it is aimed at “management and
social scientists who are committed to developing and reformulating marketing as an
academic discipline by critically analysing existing theory”.
However we would pose the question as to whether critical marketing can be
accused of clinging too tightly onto already accepted discourses that are secure and
safe modes of representation. Is critical marketing thought confined too exclusively
to academic journals and conferences where only a select (and largely closed) group
of academics attend? In Brownlie’s (2006) penetrating review of critical marketing he
refers to “unpacking performativity” in critical marketing by referring to “the status
 Maclaran, Miller, Parsons and Surman Praxis or performance 721

of performative marketing knowledge”. Drawing from work in critical accounting,

he observes the centrality of language in such performances. He also refers to the
need to “have a repertoire of more than one way of performing your knowledge” (p.
514), highlighting, more specifically, the need to perform knowledge in relation to
a wider community including, for example, the managed, consumers and citizens.
However it seems this conception of means and ways of performing are confined
to language, audience and publication outlet. As yet authors have not considered
the embodied elements of knowledge performance in critical marketing (or in
marketing more generally). From this standpoint critical marketing might be said to
be repeating some of the mistakes of CMS – in failing to fully reflexively consider
the embodied self in its modes of knowledge reproduction. This demonstrates a lack
of self understanding. We are concerned about the ways in which, on account of this
lack of reflection around the performative and embodied construction of knowledge,
particular (we would argue masculine) norms and subjectivities are strengthened and
encouraged, thereby marginalising and silencing others. This acts as a sort of filtering
process whereby “gaining full membership” (Katila and Meriläinen 2008) is not only

PY
about publishing in the right places but reproducing a range of tightly normalised
embodied performances.
In our final section we put forward some suggestions as to how critical marketing
scholars can counter some of the challenges identified above. In particular we are keen
O
for critical marketing studies to avoid some of the pitfalls that critical management
scholars appear to have encountered to date.
C
BREAKING-THROUGH MASCULINE PERFORMANCES: TOOLS FOR
R

CHANGE
O

Moving within the field: accepting the status quo?

TH

Given the deeply embedded nature of masculinity in academia (which creates

inequality), it may be prudent to accept the need to disrupt the status quo. In this
respect Swan (2005), discusses the way in which glamour is used in the management
AU

classroom. She observes that glamour serves to “interrupt the highly visible and
uniform embodiment of corporate masculinity in the classroom” (Swan 2005, p.
326). As such, she is using her body in performance to challenge the dominance of
masculinities. However, in doing so she admits that it also provides her with a sense
of mastery, a “will to power”, through feelings of pleasure and erotics. It might be
argued that such practices do little to interrupt the gender status quo in the academic
institution and actually only serve to perpetuate it. As such they still serve to produce
a present that is “eternal” (Fournier 2006) and a future that can only be conceived of
in terms of the present. However Brewis, Hampton and Linstead’s (1997) comments
on gendered appearance in their paper “Unpacking Priscilla” may suggest otherwise.
They argue that gender represented in this binary fashion can only continue to be
represented as such if, “we comply with its governmental effects, namely if we continue
to behave either as ‘men’ or as ‘women’’’. Butler (1999) also suggests that it is when
we parody gender by over-doing it that misogynistic stereotypes are denaturalised.
Perhaps then, Swan’s (2005) mixing of glamour with corporate masculinity can play
a more significant role than first thought.
The academic world is disembodied with a focus on the (masculine) intellect,
722 JMM Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 25

rather than the (feminine) body. In order to invoke a feeling of control necessitates
what Linstead and Pullen (2006, p. 1290) describe as, “a dominating origin or
ontology…a unity of purpose…”. As Swan notes, the academic is seen as “mindful
and bodyless” (Swan 2005, p. 318). Glamour disrupts academic norms because it is
mindfully focusing on performance, pleasure and play rather than control. The use
of glamour finds a way to connect other than through hierarchy. “It is momentary,
interrupted constantly [literally in meetings and at conferences by individuals seeking
to dominate and control], and dispersed consistently” (Linstead and Pullen 2006,
p. 1291). Glamour connects across diverse domains and so has the power to create
unlikely partnerships and communities.

Changing the field: doing both gender and organising differently

Perhaps we need to ask what we must do in the long term in order for the performance
of masculine norms to be no longer accepted as the status quo. Despite the long
tradition of “critique” in organisation studies, there are few attempts to radically shift
the terms in which organising is imagined, even though there are invitations to do

PY
so (Fournier 2006). One way in which change might be achieved is by rendering the
masculine visible, for invisibility ‘is an essential condition for the maintenance of …
dominance’ (Robinson 2000 as cited in Lewis 2006, p. 455) This invisibility “allows
O
the attributes and standards of this [one] group to be presented as a universal norm
applied to everyone in a similar manner” (Lewis 2006).
C
In countering value claims that have their basis in certain types of (masculinised)
performances we feel there is much to be learnt from the Agora model put forward
by Benschop and Brouns, who outline the implications of such an approach for the
R

(re)valuing of research and teaching:

O

A total commitment to research is no longer compulsory; but instead the Agora

approach acknowledges the value of knowledge transmission and teaching, and of
TH

social services and connections to other social fields. This leaves room for more flexible
working relations, too. Scientific quality is no longer solely related to the output (defined
as the number of articles in international refereed journals), but also to the processes of
gathering and distributing scientific insights. The audience the sciences are addressing
AU

becomes more diversified; alongside the international scientific forum, also national or
local social actors in search of contextualised and situated knowledge. This aspect of
social responsibility induces a cultural change within the institutions, possibly bridging
the described gap between value orientations of female researchers and of scientific
institutions.
(2003, p. 209)

Although Benschop and Brouns are referring in their analysis to the scientific
community, the above principles could easily be applied in the social scientific
community of business and marketing. They draw our attention away from the
research paper (and performances surrounding this) as key indicators of performance,
to focus on the processes and practices through which both research and teaching are
produced. Such a perspective also moves away from a “top ten journals” approach
to publishing and encourages a relational rather than individual approach to writing
and research.
An Agoran approach would also promote an environment that is more supportive
of aspiring, junior academics and teaching fellows through mentors, informal
 Maclaran, Miller, Parsons and Surman Praxis or performance 723

research networks, and boutique conferences. This has certainly been tried in the
field of management with the Gender in Management group whose stated aims are to
“provide a supportive environment in which both new and established academics can
share and develop ideas (e.g. through mentoring, study groups and peer reviewing).”
It is also the case that the Association for Consumer Research gender conferences
have offered a supportive and encouraging environment for younger researchers
in the consumer research field to air their ideas. However, effecting real change
still remains a challenge as Parsons and Priola (2008) found, for the academics in
their study the objective of effecting change to the gender order in their institutions
remained largely elusive.
If we accept that “praxis” is a crucial part of a critical approach, then we need to
accept that, just as the classroom is the “real world” (Reynolds and Trehan 2001), so
too are the spaces of academia. While we mean this to include the spaces of journal
pages and conference programmes, we also mean spaces such as the conference room
and the meeting room, as well as the corridor and the coffee room. For an academic
does not become “gender aware” just because they observe, report on, and theorise

PY
about, gender issues in the areas in which they research i.e. through the pages of
journal articles and conference proceedings. As Butler (1999, p. 243) notes: “genuine
knowledge emerges only after we act upon our theories, to thus reform them and
reform ourselves”– in essence critical scholars have to practice what they preach, or
more accurately practice what they write. O
As Fenwick suggests we need “a dialectic of critical reflection and practical
C
action” because “without productive engagement in action, analysis is hollow and
circular” (2005, p. 32). In addition to researching and engaging in the development
of theory, academics need to put “themselves” into practice. This does not just mean
R

greater engagement with practitioners but indicates that they themselves should live
alternative lives as academics, employees, colleagues and mentors.
O
TH

CONCLUSION

As Scott (2007) observes, the emergence of critical marketing is currently at a liminal

AU

stage wherein the rethinking and reframing of a “fresh ethic” is still possible. In
this article we have drawn upon the theory of performativity to better understand
some of the current practices of inclusion and exclusion operating in business schools
– in particular management and marketing departments. Our key concern is the
lack of reflection by critical scholars on the “embodied” mode of their knowledge
reproduction. Through performativity we have argued that we repeat gendered
patterns unreflexively that continually reinforce the status quo. We have also
suggested that masculine norms are perpetuated by critical scholars just as much
as by the mainstream. We have also shown, however, the potential for embodied
trangressive performances that challenge gender norms. In this respect our example of
glamour is purely illustrative of the way in which a focus on embodiment can disrupt
existing power structures in connecting across diverse domains with the power to
create unlikely partnerships and communities. Butler advocates that, “the notion of
an original or primary gender identity is often parodied within the cultural practices
of drag, cross-dressing, and the sexual stylising of butch/femme identities [glamour]”
(Butler 1999, p. 174). Critical marketers can learn from the parody of glamour as
an example of good transgressive practice. Whenever glamour shows itself as an
724 JMM Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 25

imitation, the over-doing of gender, “displace[s] the meaning of the original” (Butler
1999, p. 176) and causes disruption of norms. Through parody we put some body,
albeit a subversive body, back into academic practice to make it more meaningful.
This over-doing highlights the power of norms in both constraining performances
and excluding those seen as falling outside these norms.
We have also suggested that the performance of masculinities to obtain control
and the “will to power” be made visible, for it is the cloak of invisibility which allows
dominance of one group over another. Individualistic empire building, cockfighting
and the elevation of one mode of representation, for example, (critical) theory over
others needs to be exposed. Interdisciplinarity in teaching and research needs to be
encouraged, and teaching and research need to either be equally valued, or shared
equally amongst staff to diffuse ambition at the expense of others. Cockfighting
at conferences could be discouraged by changing the form of conferences and/or
proceedings. Boutique conferences are already becoming popular, offering an
informal, relational approach to helping aspiring academics at all stages of their
careers. At larger conferences, roundtables follow a similar approach where a small

PY
number (not usually exceeding 15) of individuals with an interest in specific areas
are teamed up to read papers and provide a forum for discussion, improvement and
sometimes publication. At present these often take the form of “staged” roundtables
where the great and the good share their views with the (less knowledgeable) audience.
O
This practice can serve to reinforce power differentials and further promote specific
modes of argument and self presentation.
C
We do not pretend to have all the solutions and nor is it our intention to throw the
(masculine) baby out with the bath water in privileging an evaluative system based on
the assessment of feminine performances. It seems to us that we require in academia
R

a recognition that both have value and can work in complementary ways that support
and reinforce each other. We agree that critical marketers have gone a good way in
O

thinking reflexively across a range of modes of knowledge reproduction. However

we feel there is a way to go, and entreat critical marketers to be more aware of the
TH

embodied reproduction of critical marketing knowledge both at conferences and in

the classroom.
AU

REFERENCES
Adib, A. and Guerrier, Y. (2003), “The Interlocking of Gender with Nationality, Race, Ethnicity
and Class: the Narratives of Women in Hotel Work”, Gender, Work and Organization, Vol.
10, No. 4, pp. 413-432.
Alvesson, M. (1998), “Gender Relations and Identity at Work: A Case Study of Masculinities
and Femininities in an Advertising Agency”, Human Relations, Vol. 51, No. 8, pp. 969-
1005.
Anderson, J. (2004), “The Ties that Bind? Self and Place-identity in Environmental Direct
Action”, Ethics, Place and Environment, Vol. 7, No 1-2, pp. 45-57.
Bell, E. and King, D. (2008), “The Elephant in the Room: Embodied Identity and Critical
Management Studies”, Paper presented at the ESRC Seminar Series Emotion and
Embodiment in Research, Keele University, April.
Benschop, Y. and Brouns, M. (2003), “Crumbling Ivory Towers: Academic Organizing and its
Gender Effects”, Gender, Work and Organisation, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 194-212.
Brownlie, D. (2006), “Emancipation, Epiphany and Resistance: On the Underimagined and
Overdetermined in Critical Marketing”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 22, No.
5/6, pp. 505-528.
 Maclaran, Miller, Parsons and Surman Praxis or performance 725

Borgerson, J. (2005), “Judith Butler: On Organizing Subjectivities”. In: Jones, C. and Munro,
R., editors, Contemporary Organisation Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 63-79.
Brewis, J, Hampton, M. P. and Linstead, S. (1997), “Unpacking Priscilla: Subjectivity and
Identity in the Organization of Gendered Appearance”, Human Relations, Vol. 50, No. 10,
pp. 1275-1304.
Bristor, J. M. and Fischer, E. (1993), “Feminist Thought: Implications for Consumer Research”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19, March, pp. 518-536.
Bruni, A., Gherardi, S. and Poggio, B. (2004), “Doing Gender, Doing Entrepreneurship: An
Ethnographic Account of Intertwined Practices”, Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 11,
No. 4, pp. 406-429.
Burton, D (2001), “Critical Marketing Theory: The Blueprint?”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 35, No. 5/6, pp. 722-743.
Butler, J. (1999), Gender Trouble, London: Routledge.
Butler, J. (2004) Undoing Gender, New York: Routledge.
Chandler, J, Barry, J. and Clark, H. (2002), “Stressing Academe: The Wear and Tear of the
New Public Management”, Human Relations, Vol. 55, No. 9, pp. 1051-1069
Cohen, L. and Tyler, M. (2007), “Spaces that Matter: Gender In/visibility, Materiality and the
Poetics of Organizational Space”, Proceedings of the Fifth International Gender, Work and

PY
Organization Conference, Keele, June, p. 74.
Connell, R. W. (2000), The Men and the Boys, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Desmond, J. (1997), “Marketing and the War Machine”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning,
Vol. 15, No. 7, pp. 338-351.
O
Fenwick, T. (2005), “Ethical Dilemmas of Critical Management Education: Within Classrooms
and Beyond”, Management Learning, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 31-48.
C
Fisher, G. (2007), ““You Need Tits to Get on Round Here”: Gender and Sexuality in the
Entrepreneurial University of the 21st Century”, Ethnography, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 503-517.
Fischer, E. and Bristor, J. (1994), “A Feminist Poststructuralist Analysis of the Rhetoric of
R

Marketing Relationships”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 11, No. 4,

pp. 317-331.
O

Fletcher, C. (2007), “Passing the Buck: Gender and Management of Research Production in
UK Higher Education”, Equal Opportunities International, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 269-286.
TH

Fletcher, C., Boden, R., Kent, J. and Tinson, J. (2007), “Performing Women: the Gendered
Dimensions of the UK New Research Economy”, Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 14,
September, pp. 433-453.
Fournier, V. and Grey, C. (2000), “At the Critical Moment: Conditions and Prospects for
AU

Critical Management Studies”, Human Relations, Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 7-32.
Fournier, V. (2006), “Breaking from the Weight of the Eternal Present: Teaching Organizational
Difference”, Management Learning, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 295-311.
Fulop, L. (2002), “Practicing What you Preach: Critical Management Studies and its Teaching”,
Organization, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 428-436.
Gauntlett, D. (1998), “Summarizing Gender Trouble”, Retrieved Sept. 12, 2008 from http://
theory.org.uk/ctr-butl.htm.Theory.org.uk.
Gherardi, S. (1994), “The Gender We Think, The Gender We Do in Our Everyday
Organizational Lives”, Human Relations, Vol. 47, No. 6, pp. 591-610.
Gregson, N. and Rose, G.; (2000), “Taking Butler Elsewhere: Performativities, Spatialities and
Subjectivities”, Environment and Planning D, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 433-452.
Grey, C. and Sinclair, A. (2006), “Writing Differently”, Organization, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 443-
453.
Grimes, D., Jones, D., Metcalfe, B., Mease, J., Parker, P., Proctor-Thomson, S., Stead, V. and
Swan, E. (2009), “Feminism and Critical Race Theory? That’s Chapter 12. Doing Critical
Management Studies as if Feminism and Critical Race Theory Really Mattered”, Call for
papers for the 6th International Critical Management Studies Conference, Warwick Business
School, July 2009.
726 JMM Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 25

Hackley, C. (2009), Marketing: A Critical Introduction, Sage: London.

Harley, S. (2002), “The Impact of Research Selectivity on Academic Work and Identity in UK
Universities”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 187-205.
Katila, S. and Meriläinen, S. (1999), “A Serious Researcher or Just Another Nice Girl?: Doing
Gender in a Male-Dominated Scientific Community”, Gender, Work and Organisation, Vol.
6, No. 3, pp. 163-173.
Katila, S. and Meriläinen, S. (2008), “Gaining Full Membership in a Gendered Community
of Practice”, Paper presented at the 24th EGOS Colloquium, sub theme Changing Gender,
Gendering Change, July, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Knights, D. (2006), “Authority at Work: Reflections and Recollections”, Organization Studies,
Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 699-720.
Knights, D. and Richards, W. (2003), “Sex Discrimination in UK Academia”, Gender, Work and
Organisation, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 213-238.
Lester, J. (2008), “Performing Gender in the Workplace: Gender Socialization, Power, and
Identity Among Women Faculty Members”, Community College Review, Vol. 35, No. 4,
pp. 277-305.
Lewis, P. (2006), “The Quest for Invisibility: Female Entrepreneurs and the Masculine Norm
of Entrepreneurship”, Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 13, No. 5, pp. 453-469.

PY
Linstead, S. and Pullen, A. (2006), “Gender as Multiplicity: Desire, displacement, Difference
and Dispersion”, Human Relations, Vol. 59, No. 9, pp. 1287-1310.
Mills. A. (2002), “Studying the Gendering of Organizational Culture Over Time: Issues,
Concerns and Strategies”, Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 280-307.
O
Morley, L. (2003), Quality and Power in Higher Education, Buckingham: Open University
Press.
C
Parsons, E. and Priola, V. (2008), “Agents for Change and Changed Agents:Women’s Experiences
of Researching their Own Organisations”, 24th European Group for Organisational Studies
Colloquim, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
R

Priola, C. (2007), “Being Female Doing Gender: Narratives of Women in Education

Management”, Gender and Education, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 21-40.
O

Reedy, P. (2008), “Mirror, Mirror, on the Wall: Reflecting on the Ethics and Effects of a
Collective Critical Management Studies Identity Project”, Management Learning, Vol. 39,
TH

No. 1, pp. 57-72.

Reynolds, M. (1999), “Grasping the Nettle: The Possibilities and Pitfalls of a Critical
Management Pedagogy”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 171-184.
Reynolds, M. and Trehan, K. (2001), “Classroom as Real World: Propositions for a Pedagogy
AU

of Difference”, Gender and Education, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 357 - 372.
Saren, M., Maclaran, P., Goulding, C., Elliott, R., Caterall, M. and Shankar, A. (2007), Critical
Marketing: Defining the Field, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Scott, L. (2007), “Critical Research in Marketing: An Armchair Report”. In: Saren, M.,
Maclaran, P., Goulding, C., Elliott, R., Caterall, M. and Shankar, A. (eds), Critical Marketing:
Defining the Field, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 3-17.
Sinclair, A. (1995), “Sex and the MBA”, Organization, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 295-317.
Swan, E. (2005), “On Bodies, Rhinestones, and Pleasures: Women Teaching Managers”,
Management Learning, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 317-333.
Tadajewski, M. and Brownlie, D. (eds.) (2008), Critical Marketing: Issues in Contemporary
Marketing, Chichester: John Wiley.
Tadajewski, M. and Maclaran, P. (2009), “Critical Marketing Studies: Introduction and
Overview”. In: Tadajewski, M. and Maclaran, P. (eds.), Critical Marketing Studies, Vol. I,
London: Sage.
Thomas, R. and Davies, A. (2002) “Gender and New Public Management: Reconstituting
Academic Subjectivities”, Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 372-397.
Tynan, C. (1997), “A Review of the Marriage Analogy in Relationship Marketing”, Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 13, No. 7, pp. 695-704.
 Maclaran, Miller, Parsons and Surman Praxis or performance 727

Walsh, J. and Weber, K. (2002), “The Prospects for Critical Management Studies in the
American Academy of Management”, Organization, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 402-410.
West, C. and Zimmerman, D. H. (1987), “Doing Gender”, Gender and Society, Vol. 1, No. 2,
pp. 125-151.
Willmott, H. (2006), “Pushing at an Open Door: Mystifying the CMS Manifesto”, Management
Learning, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 33-37.
Yancey Martin, P. (2003), “‘Said and Done’ Versus ‘Saying and Doing’: Gendering Practices,
Practicing Gender at Work”, Gender and Society, Vol. 17, pp. 342-366.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS AND CORRESPONDENCE

Pauline Maclaran is Professor of Marketing and Consumer Research at

Royal Holloway, University of London. Her research interests focus on
cultural aspects of contemporary consumption, and she adopts a critical perspective
to analyse the ideological assumptions that underpin many marketing

PY
activities. Her publications have been in internationally recognised journals such as
the Journal of Consumer Research, Psychology and Marketing, Journal of
Advertising, and Consumption, Markets and Culture. She has co-edited several
books including Marketing and Feminism: Current Issues and Research and
Critical Marketing: Defining the O
Field. She is
in Chief of Marketing Theory, a journal that promotes alternative and
also Editor
C
critical perspectives in marketing and consumer behaviour.
Corresponding author: Professor Pauline Maclaran, School of Management, Royal
R

Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey, TW20 0EX, UK

T +44 (0)1784 276409
O

E pauline.maclaran@rhul.ac.uk
TH

Caroline Miller is a Lecturer in Marketing at Keele University. She has

prior experience as a researcher at Manchester Metropolitan University. She
has practised in the private sector as she spent fourteen years working
in the steel industry and has experience of running family-owned small/medium
AU

sized business. She gained a PhD in Philosophy studying women and

entrepreneurship at Keele University and also has a Masters in Research and a
degree in Business Studies and English. Her research interests have a wide
focus and include business start-up, gender, social exclusion (difference),
sustainable practices in marketing and critical marketing. Her publications
are international and interdisciplinary; examples appear in International
Journal of Business and Economics; International Journal for Management
Theory and Practice .
Dr Caroline Miller, Keele Management School, Keele University, Staffordshire,
ST5 5BG, UK
T +44 (0)1782 544110
E mna45@mngt.keele.ac.uk

Elizabeth Parsons is a Senior Lecturer in Marketing at Keele University.

She has prior experience as a Lecturer in Marketing at the University of
Stirling and gained a PhD in Human Geography from Bristol University.
728 JMM Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 25

Her research interests bring critical and ethnographic perspectives to two

key areas: the cultures of consumption, in particular the marketing and
consumption of the non-new; and the construction of gender and identity
in organisational life. Her publications are strongly inter-disciplinary,
spanning journals in marketing, retailing, consumer research, geography and
voluntary sector studies. She has recently co-edited the Sage three volume
major work on Nonprofit Marketing and is assistant editor of Marketing Theory.
Dr Elizabeth Parsons, Senior Lecturer in Marketing, Keele Management School,
Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK
T +44 (0)1782 733426
E e.parsons@mngt.keele.ac.uk

Emma Surman is a Lecturer in the School of Economic and Management

Studies at Keele University. After completing her PhD at Keele in 2004, Emma
was a Research Fellow at the University of Exeter and subsequently a
Lecturer at the University of Warwick before returning to Keele in August 2007. Prior

PY
to her career in academia, she held marketing posts in a variety of
organizations that encompassed the private, public and charity sectors. Her research
interests include: telework, emotion in the workplace, the production
O
and consumption of organisational space, and gender, identity and power relations.
Dr Emma Surman, Keele Management School, Keele University, Staffordshire,
C
ST5 5BG, UK
T +44 (0)1782 583781
R

E e.l.surman@keele.ac.uk
O
TH
AU

View publication stats