Search results

This article contributes to the debate by arguing that addressing the core concept underpinning accelerationism and helps to unpack a number of key assumptions on the nature of capitalism, identifying areas offering new and productive insights into organisation and organisations. The scope of the article will be to examine the accelerationist literature, in particular, the core principles first emerging in the prehistory of accelerationism and further developed through the various waves and iterations of the concept.

The paper offers a conceptual approach to accelerationism. It develops a critical literature review and uses a process of exemplification to highlight insights for organisation and organisations.

The paper concludes that the underpinnings of accelerationism are not well understood and thus much of the critique misses the more intriguing and interesting insights from the cluster of ideas at its core.

The scope of the paper is to provide a coherent and accessible way to navigate through a complex and demanding series of concepts. The value of the paper is that it helps to identify potential insights relevant to management, marketing and organisational scholars.

This article is concerned with the fundamental differences between Landian accelerationism and the tradition that most closely resembles it within organization studies and process organization studies. Accelerationists and process theorists seem to have much in common, since both bear the influence of vitalism, but there are important conceptual differences that need to be brought to light for accelerationist organization studies (AOSs).

This paper is a straightforward comparison of the fundamental philosophical principles orienting both process organization studies, especially those gleaned from phenomenology and speculative metaphysics, and Landian accelerationism.

Process organization studies address a localized disciplinary bias towards stability over change and leverage phenomenology and speculative metaphysics to overcome it. Landian accelerationism is a radical account of the supersession of the human by inhuman forces and abandons phenomenology and speculative metaphysics as vitalist variants of correlationism. The two perspectives are shown to be broadly incompatible.

The introduction of accelerationism into organization studies will invariably see it compared with the vitalist strains of process organization studies. This paper emphasizes some of the important differences that exist between these traditions in preparation for an emerging accelerationist organization study tradition.

The study aims to highlight and reflect on resistance to Brazil's illiberal accelerationist politics highlighting alternative possibilities based on affects and forms of relatedness.

Drawing on the case of public universities and the arts in today's Brazil, the authors point out a tragedy of resistance (when opposing change fuels its acceleration) and explore a strategy of lines of flight and becomings in the light of Deleuze and Guattari's perspective on acceleration.

Alongside an oppositional and reactive resistance, that is caught in a tragedy of resistance, the authors explore an alternative strategy that protects a plurality of life forms and forces and their becoming. This strategy differs from most critiques of accelerationism.

This strategy of resistance seems more faithful to Deleuze than the accelerationist strategies that claim to be inspired by him. The authors suggest another reading of the often quoted passage by Deleuze and Guattari. While Deleuze and Guattari favor continuous deterritorializations of the flows of desire, accelerationism reterritorializes these flows towards a (often) undesirable future.

Accelerationist thinking needs an organizational lens to progress. This paper explores how family firms cope with growth pressure.

Five case studies of French family multinationals, including semi-directive interviews conducted with senior, middle managers and operational employees showed how these allegedly “human-oriented organizations” have handled growth.

Four organizational change initiatives were undertaken: (1) the transition from a functional structure to a matrix model, (2) the formalization of a corporate value system, (3) the centralization of an information and communication system and (4) the involvement of external consultants. Further analyses suggested an empowerment-control tension. In line with previous critical work on business empowerment practices, these organizational initiatives conceal a control reinforcement. This translates into internalization of repression, among family director, manager, and operational employees, both at headquarters and subsidiaries. Thus, one is misguided if turning to family firms to escape from becoming both subject and driver of control as they are submitted to the same market pressures as others, pressure condemned by accelerationists.

Accelerationism thinking aims at a post-capitalist era and is a fertile ground for collective reflection, which should feedback the family organization with a brighter future. The family firm can only acknowledge this compelling phenomenon and fulfill its role of society stakeholder raised to a higher level.

Family businesses, themselves, roll out their own repressive mechanisms due to the market system. This paper connects two literature studies: family business growth and accelerationism thinking.

Gunther Anders in the 20th century and Hartmut Rosa in the 21st have argued that the technics of organization – that is, its physical and social technologies, have from acceleration become so uncontrollable and unpredictable that circumstances actually outstrip awareness to the degree that intentional “organizing” is more a fable than a reality, as stated in the quote from Rosa that forms the title of this article.

In this article, two critical theorists are examined who have fundamentally rejected the “control” thesis that dominates organization theory. It is a thesis that assumes that organizational change ought to be goal-directed, leadership driven and make use of soft and hard technologies to achieve defined objectives.

The prevailing “idea” of organizing has become illusionary. The technics of accelerationism have overpowered it. Not “organizing” but “ethic-sizing” is what remains as the: “What is to be done.”

The tradition of Gunther Anders and Hartmut Rosa (second and third generation Frankfurter School) and the implications of their work for our assumptions about the relations between technology, control and organization is for a first time evidenced in this article.