What I propose to do now is to use Denis Vasse’s work as a basis for a discussion, from a psychoanalytical standpoint – on the destructive effects on the human subject of certain human resources management techniques (assessments, quality standardization, audits, etc) which abuse the subject’s speech. By drawing a comparison between the structural similarities of these techniques and derision – for both consist in pushing the subject to the forefront and subsequently negating it –. I will show how these management techniques cause the human subject to suffer, by examining the clinical work of Denis Vasse[2].

However, I do not aim to restrict myself to using derision to identify the destructive nature of certain management techniques: I wish to use this standpoint to reintroduce the subject (as an end and not a means) into the question of productivity and competitiveness, and thus envisage a way of working which consists in finding the means to structure organizations without abusing the human subjects within them. In order to do this, it will be necessary to take into account human subjectivity as defined by psychoanalysis in the light of the unconscious - that is to say, to find an appropriate way to take the subject’s word into consideration.

However, it seems to me to be increasingly difficult to take the subject’s word into consideration in hyper-rational organizations, where exchanges between subjects are likened – according to the views of N.Wiener[3] and Herbert Simon[4] – to information processing. The language at play here is not only abstract (cf. my presentation last year on the blockage to/repression of “ressenti”), but anonymous and impersonal. This rational language helps the organization run smoothly, but, as Lacan has already observed, does not help the Subject speech: “The more functional language becomes, the more unsuited it is for speech…” (1966:180). “The wall of language comes into conflict with speech.” (1966:162). Herein lies the very essence of the problem I would like to talk to you about today.

According to Denis Vasse, the process of derision stems precisely from this impersonal, operative language: “The violence of derision worms its way into the child’s body in the form of words which say nothing because they are part of a discourse which in reality no one says to anyone.” (1999:99). “It is possible to find a language which is functionally extremely effective in the domain of the imaginary but which doesn’t actually say anything.” (1999:18). But what happens to the subject exposed to such language?

II. The destructive impact of derision

Derision and loss of faith in life

Before we attempt to answer this question, let us listen to the words of one of Denis Vasse’s patients. These words express the violent effects on a person who has been subjected to functional, ‘operative’ language, language which has not been spoken to the child as if he were a subject:

“Whenever my friends were talking, all I could hear was: you’re nothing! Complete derision, you’re nothing. It negates life, your faith in life(…) There’s no truth anymore, and instead of truth there’s sniggering, everything is ridiculed. It destroys all my trust in them(…) It’s horrible, I want to disappear, it’s unbearable(…) It’s as if, all of a sudden, deceit had got the better of truth(…) As if all my trust in life were shattered, destroyed in one fell swoop.” (1999 : 101)

This patient says that faced with immense derision, she experiences a negation of her subjectivity, an overwhelming sense of deceit which means that she is unable to trust other people, words, or life itself. Her words reveal a strong death drive (I want to disappear). Having been subjected to a functional, operative(and deceitful) language, this patient has never been able to experience the joy of a physical encounter, the joy of being a subject for another subject. “The prevailing wisdom which is objectifyingly (not merely objectively) effective, eliminates the dimension of otherness in a speaking body,” (D. Vasse, 1999:90). In this closed structure, Denis Vasse explains that the subject is reduced to an ego which turns to objects (thus repeating the quest for the primordial object: the mother).

The ego seeks its identity in the pleasures of the senses and in the satisfaction of being the other’s object or turning them into an object(…) This imaginary relationship leads the ego to identify itself with the object of its urges (partial object), which is precisely what is forbidden by speech. (1999: 62,63).

Indeed, words spoken to the subject as a subject (initially the father’s words) open up the imaginary, seized by urges, to the intersubjective dimension – to the desire for and by the Other. By undermining intersubjective (symbolic) speech, by reducing speech to mere language, derision undermines a person’s openness to desire.

Interestingly, an interview with a head of a factory about the ranking of one of his foremen reveals similar suffering. This foremen, reduced to being the object of a rigorous assessment, received the results in the post:

(Head of factory:) One day, one of my young foremen came into work completely deflated. He told me he was disappointed, that he’d hoped to be given a N6 ranking but only got N5. With the ratio on his pay slip, he should have been at least N6, and wondered why he had been relegated. Was it a way of saying “keep your nose clean, or else you’ll be for it,” as his wife had suggested? After all, another foreman in the factory had just been dismissed for “disloyal behaviour.”

The result was sent to him in an envelope marked ‘confidential.’ When giving his assessment, the Human Resources Manager talked about him in the third person, but it wasn’t a form of politeness or deference: the employee was the object of a rigorous scientific procedure.

Having been degraded – in every sense of the word – by the results of his assessment, my foreman was worried about what fate Management had in store for him. He could feel the threat of dismissal looming over him day and night; he was physically sick at home, literally nauseated and offended by what was happening at work. Was the tenuous link between him and his company finally broken? Should he consider leaving? More than anything, he dreaded facing his workers: he said he’d lost face, that he felt he was no longer valid. How could he feel good about himself, if they didn’t look up to him anymore? Everywhere he looked he saw warning signs; he was afraid; but I listened to him and he regained his self-confidence; he said he could finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.

In this technical environment the disorientated subject thinks he will build up his self-confidence in the objectivity of assessment procedures. However, whereas it is true that the desire for a fair assessment is perfectly legitimate, in the case of this foreman, the subject made the mistake of making his self-confidence depend on the image which an objectivizing process might give him. In this case, the subject believes that his assessment is a reflection of his identity, that the image his assessment creates is him, and thus is projected into a Narcissistic mechanism. According to Vasse, this self-confidence is misleading as it is unaware of the truth of the embodied desire: “Man’s self-confidence derives from the life that speaks within him, not from his image…” (1999:166).

The fact that this process takes place without any true speech means that the subject is deprived of the symbolic dimension, (which is what brings subjects together). Speech is reduced to information: he receives the results of the analysis in the post. In this type of scenario, the words are no longer words spoken by one subject (I) to another (you), face to face; nor are they spoken in a human voice, a presence which can inspire trust and an intersubjective desire. Here “derision conflicts with the revelation of speech within language” (1999: 105). In the absence of a presence – the dimension of Real – the signals set off alarm bells in the subject’s imaginary, which, seized by a death drive, conjures up the unspoken phrase: “keep your nose clean.” The imaginary, and the flesh, thus fall prey to exclusion fantasies and a desire to fade away. Feeling offended, sickened and afraid, “When a person is a victim of derision, his desire for and by the Other is turned into a ‘rejection-refusal’ of himself,” as Vasse says (1999:147).

It should be noted, furthermore, that such assessment techniques are not designed for the subject, but are merely another way for the organization to keep the subject under its thumb: on the one hand, they let him know that in order to get ahead, he needs to try harder, be more productive, more skilled, than he thought[5]. On the other hand, they project him into a narcissistic mechanism which gives him abstract (and imaginary) assessment standards, standards which, if he is not careful, will influence the choices he makes in his personal development and take over the life of his unconscious desire[6].

In order to remain creative and open to desire within such a structure, the subject must live with the system without their life depending on the system. That is to say, he mustn’t derive his self-confidence from such a system, and thus, experience an attachment/detachment dynamic with the organization. By doing so, he will be able, in intersubjectivity, to interpret the standards and go beyond them.

To conclude this initial approach I would like to point out that a with caring boss who is a good listener and who allows the subject to express their feelings of disgust and fear, the foreman can keep his head above water. By using the metaphor “see the light at the end of the tunnel,” he articulates his regained self-confidence and faith in life.

Derision, pressure and standardization (elimination of desire)

Another aspect of derision manifests itself when the eliminated desire is replaced by pressure and standardization, as Vasse illustrates:

“See how a person condemned to a life of forced labour can get caught up, imprisoned in the grind by a series of words:

‘In my head, it’s squared: there’s a grid and I get stuck. If I go by the grid, I manage to find my way; but if I stay outside the grid, I’m lost(…) I’m a prisoner of words and meanings, I’m closed in by them(…) I never have a moment’s peace(…)I’m always under pressure(…) I never have a moment’s rest.’ (Vasse 1999:106).

In the following extract, I wish to show how a similar structure can be found in quality standardization procedures:

Head of factory: We are currently working towards ISO 9002 certification, which means that all procedures have to be formalized and written down. We have to say everything we do, write down everything we say, and improve on everything that’s written down. Once we are issued ISO certification by an independent body, we can prove to our clients that we master all the operations and processes necessary to ensure the quality of the finished product. We want to be an open book for our clients: communication must be clear, there must be no ambiguity (operative language). This will enable to focus all our energy on fulfilling our commitments to the clients (pressure).

But you must realize the amount of work this entails: everything has to be clarified, the Quality department wants to write everything down, so we’ll have to explain everything to them, which won’t always be easy. They want to know everything; it’s as if they were getting their own back. Also, the Quality Department wants to change its name to Control and Accuracy, but we’re not happy about that in Production – it belittles us.

By asking someone to explain everything beforehand, one overlooks the fact that every situation is unique: in each case, the workman discusses the problem with other people and finds a solution which is suitable for that particular problem. When everything is written down, there is no room for discussion: the subject can no longer speak. He must restrict himself to doing what he says and what has been objectivized. Vasse defines the kind of violence which is generated by such techniques thus:

“The hidden violence in derision always tries to reduce the speaking subject– the speaking-being – to a spoken subject, to an ego staged in the discourse (…) Thus truthful speech – or the speaking truth – is cancelled out.” (1999:108).

The fact it is deemed necessary to arrange audits to check that things are done by the book, rather than to check that things are done appropriately in a given situation, is proof of this violence and belittlement.

Head of factory (cont’d): Several of my workers say that the job isn’t what it used to be, that they no longer take pleasure in doing a job well (elimination of desire). All that matters now is the result. It doesn’t matter if we do a crappy job: as long as the quality standards are maintained, we’re all right (regression to the anal phase). Our job is to comply with the standards – the product isn’t important anymore (standardization, complying with the grid, with an abstraction). We used to have a good relationship with our co-workers; now we don’t see our friends anymore, we never have time to chat, we don’t meet up by the coffee machine as often as we used to(desire is eliminated). You have to be the right man, in the right place at the right time. There’s no room for anyone useless or unproductive anymore. This system actually isolates people.

If due care is not taken, standardization techniques isolate human beings; work loses its value as a mediation of intersubjective encounters. In such cases, people often demonstrate individualistic behaviour and become extremely competitive with one another. This technique puts people under pressure, (control), increases productivity and makes sure there is no room for time-wasting - no intersubjective space. With ISO standards, “when words are dissociated from their source and from their effects they turn the human subject away from the truth of the desire from and for the Other.” (1999:96). Thus work becomes a painful constraint, a chore: “derision always uses the question of anal fixation to a greater or lesser extent.” (1999:114).

Derision as false sociability and violence through shock

Another aspect of the structure of derision is to feign openness to Otherness, only to deny it afterwards. Derision is the weapon of the perverse mind, a way of masking oneself behind a facade of friendliness. As one of Vasse’s patients said:

“The more violent I feel, the more I tend to express it through an exaggerated display of politeness – that’s what violence is(…)I experience a kind of cold satisfaction; it’s a way of controlling my hatred.”(Vasse 1999:122).

Thus we can see a split between an apparent openness for the benefit of social situations, and the subject who is closed and withdrawn into himself. Thus, following this perverse logic, the person asks question without waiting for an answer.

We can observe a similar pattern when a hyper-rational manager on an efficiency drive and following the managerial methods and models currently in fashion, asks for certain information but doesn’t want to hear anything that surprises him, anything that come from Otherness of the speaking subject:

“Having listened to my suggestions, the boss replied immediately and with vehemence: it’s self-absorbed, it’s an invitation to conduct endless discussion. It’s too simple, it won’t come to anything, it’s a waste of time. We must act, we can’t afford to waste time on pointless discussions.”

Trained in communication techniques whereby the sole purpose is to convey a message effectively or to enhance an image, the manager displays a semblance of communicativeness; he tries to reassure his listeners. And yet behind this facade of openness, he uses other words and techniques which drive his imaginary, without being able to open up to the Other during an encounter. The following interview strikes me as particularly revealing.

A colleague of mine in Marketing told me that once, just before the holidays, his department was called for a special meeting with Management. The Director told them while consulting his notes that he had decided to reassign their head of department and to have an audit. He said: ‘I made this decision because I want to save your department (words of reassurance, an open, friendly image). Under the circumstances, I could have taken far more drastic measures (threats). I want to fight for the future of your department (words of reassurance, seduction). I decided to reassign the head of your department because we don’t share the same ideas about what his role should be. His idea of a head of department is someone who defends their team, whereas what he should be doing is carrying out the decisions made by Management. The Assistant Manager will fill in for the meantime (closure: “Derision strips all differences of their symbolic function, which is to bring together all the elements of a living structure” (1999:117)).

My colleague said that he had felt relieved at hearing this news (despite the news of the reassignment, he thought that the Management was going to keep his department). However, the Director went on: the Assistant Manager will do an audit; he will look into the situation, take stock, have a sift through and see where a cutback can be made.(Violence after the initial friendliness). It’s not an easy task, but we have to be brave and just do it. (Modern and widespread idea of a violent and risk-free so-called courage). We have to increase our margins, competition is tough…(thinly veiled threat of downsizing).

So at that point my colleague thought: I must say something, or I’m dead. So he made a few points about his department’s activities, to which the Director replied: your job is to cooperate, cooperate, cooperate… My colleague was disappointed as he felt he hadn’t managed to get his point across. After the meeting, everyone was stunned: they couldn’t see or imagine any way out of the situation (shock). My colleague blamed himself for not having spoken up in favour of their head of department.

This announcement of a rescue by audit, with its focus on cost-cutting, demonstrates how this manager’s mind is utterly taken up by management thought patterns – to the extent that he refuses to listen to his inner voice (in the name of courage). This announcement, with its openness and closure, is typical of “modern-day derision.” It could therefore be argued that in this case, desire for the Other is substituted by a rationally argued death drive. Imprisoned by derision, such a subject develops a split personality and can no longer acknowledge the difference: As Vasse points out:

Despite his appearance he’s not listening…his reasoning is perfectly clear to him: he strips the difference of its substance. He turns it into a dual opposition, clearly contradictory and perverse. In doing so he excludes or eliminates his partner – but not without pitying him, and almost always for his salvation!” (1999 : 118, 119)

III. Recommendations for researchers, consultants,
employees and managers

A person who is a victim of derision should not envisage revolting against it as the solution. According to Vasse, revolting against derision, we cannot be part of the truth of desire which is the vital link between human beings. Vasse suggests that those who are subjected to derision will feel better if they have someone to confide in, someone who will listen to them with gentleness and compassion: “gentleness, compassion and acceptance of the truth of desire will help to detonate the mine of derision.” (1999:105). He needs a sounding-board which will enable him to see how he imprisons himself in derision by choosing a “rejection-refusal” attitude. With such an attitude, the victim of derision effectively becomes a consenting victim. But though the gentleness of the words of who listens to him with compassion, he is enabled to reconcile himself with the truth of the desire that stirs him – a desire which is not based on the models and objectives of organizations, nor on an imaginary object (a) associated with a primordial image.

Through the suffering inflicted upon her by certain management techniques, the subject can come to realize that her identity does not derive from her images; that being a subject does not mean being manipulated into a model of operational efficiency – or being a manipulator. According to Vasse, if the subject is listened to, “full speech” - genuine words can reveal the “I am” to his innermost being, and thus she becomes a fully-fledged subject. The very thing she thought she had to produce in order to settle a debt is bestowed on her as a gift – the gift of the truth of life which empowers her to say “I,” thus articulating the unique distinctiveness she experiences in the encounter: “Whoever belongs to the truth listens to the voice that reaches the I am which is in me, and they answer with it.” (1999:183). A sign of this gift can be observed while the subject is resting – that moment when she relinquishes her imaginary search for identity and rests (note the French word for to rest reposer, or re-place) in the Other’s desire.

For those who are confronted with derision in hyper-rational organizations, the first step is to create a place for subjects which is not directly subjected to the pursuit or efficiency or money to express themselves. This leads to a very particular kind of research or consultation. When organizing open spaces for speaking, the underlying assumption is that organizations will run more smoothly if their employees are healthy and are recognized as speaking and desiring subjects. As this is not always possible, it might be advisable for subjects to find open spaces for speaking outside their workplace.

The second step is rather more delicate and would involve allowing the researcher or consultant to attend the forums within the organization, as a third party, in order to observe the difficulties of speaking. Thus symbolic speech would once again be allowed to flow freely within the social body - and thus establishing it as a social body.

As for administrators and managers who work according to rational models, with the pressure of financial constraints looming over them, the situation is even more tricky. Instead of suffering from the split personality caused by some management techniques, in order to remain human subjects in the workplace, they must find systems and attitudes whereby they can listen to the voice that speaks within the social body and where lively discussion can lend meaning to action. They must combine rationality (the processing of information according to the company’s logic) with reason (a way of opening up to life through the subjects’ words and desire).

Conclusion

Derision closes the most important opening a human being has: the openness to desire from and for the Other and to symbolic speech. By doing so derision severs the close link between the subject and life, the link which creates the social body. Turning away from the derision inherent in technical language and balancing the drive for efficiency and profit-making on the one hand and the human dimension – the subject’s access to truth and expression on the other, puts the question of human rights within hyper-rational organizations in a new light. The most difficult task will be to make the language of management, with its focus on efficiency and control, open up to the desire for the Other and to the voice of the social body. The problems we are addressing here are extremely serious, let’s talk about them now.

Bibliography

Austin J.L., How to do Things with Words, Oxford University Press, New York, 1962, 1990

Bond E., « Ce fragile futur humain qui s’invente sur la scène », Le Monde, 30 mai 2000.

Bouchard S., « Simple symbole - De l’efficacité pratique des systèmes symboliques dans l’organisation », in Chanlat J.F., Dir., L’individu dans les organisations, les dimensions oubliées, Presses de l’Université de Laval, Ed. Eska, Québec / Paris, 1990, pp.589-610.

Bron A., Gauléjac V., La Gourmandise du Tapir, Desclée de Brouwer, Paris, 1995.

Cru D., « La langues de Métier », Lithiques n° 1, p. 110 à 117.

Crozier, M., 1964, Le phénomène Bureaucratique, Paris, Ed. du Seuil.

Déry R., « De l’information à l’argumentation », pp. 101 à 113 in J.F. Chanlat (dir.), L’individu dans l’organisation, les dimensions oubliées, Presses de l’Université de Laval, Ed. Eska, Québec / Paris, 1990, pp. 101-114.

Dejours C., Souffrance en France, Ed. du Seuil, Paris, 1998.

Hirrigoyen M.F., Le Harcèlement Moral, Syros, Paris, 1998.

Lacan J., Ecrits I, Seuil, Points Essais, Paris, 1966, 1970

Pagès M., Bonetti M., de Gaulejac V., Descendre D., L'Emprise de l'Organisation, Puf, Paris, 1979

Simon H., « Rational Decision Making in Business Organisations », The Nobel Foundation, 1978

Vasse D., La Dérision et la Joie, Seuil, Paris, 1999

Wiener N., Cybernetics, Willey, New York, 1948.

[1] EM-Lyon : Ecole de Management de Lyon

[2] These techniques, as far as the subject is concerned, strike me as having a similar structure to that of derision. At first they seek the subject’s subjectivity by asking him/her to speak in order to provide information which will be processed by an administrative procedure. Then they negate this subjectivity by forcing the subject to follow the recommendations of this procedure - a procedure which is devised with the efficient running of the organization in mind (speed, productivity), and not the subjects.

[3] In which, according to Wiener’s cybernetic perspective, the human subject is likened to a signal processing machine.

[4] « We do know how the information processing system called Man, faced with complexity beyond his ken, uses his information processing capacities to seek out alternatives, to calculate consequences, to resolve uncertainties, and thereby - sometimes, not always - to find ways of action that are sufficient unto the day, that satisfice» Simon H., « Rational Decision Making in Business Organisations », The Nobel Foundation, 1978.

[5] And, caught up in the rejection-refusal of himself, he is likely to end up believing that he isn’t good enough.

[6] Here, Denis Vasse uses the concept of pre-occupation to illustrate this conditioning as it is instilled by the parents:

The psychoanalyst notices this pre-occupation with the body in the invading army of words, biscuits, baby’s bottles, and hands. He speaks as best he can, but all the while he is aware that behind the obligatory routines of feeding and caring by the adult lurk the occupying troops. Seized by anxiety, the child, before taking up his bazooka and revolting, will continually use fear as a radar. Pre-occupation cannot be witnessed; or rather, as occupation cannot be witnessed, it is done in the interest of the occupier, and not, as it claims, of the occupied.