Motivation and the gift relationship

This thesis proposes a theory of Motivation to Work, as a particular condition of general motivation, using the Maussian concept of the Gift to explain the operation of Lacanian Desire. Specifically, it argues that de-motivation stems from Gift rejection. However, as the arguments are not paradigmatically commensurable with managerialist theories, it has been necessary to establish the epistemological tradition of which this work is representative, namely, Critical Theory and Post-Structuralism/Post- Modernism. In distinction to the managerialist explanations of motivation, management and work, behaviourist theories of motivation are characterised as more properly a concern with psychological incentives, management in its current socio-historic institutionalised form as a process of social domination and work as a social experience of domination, but also as a forum for social life generally. However, as such a view receives little theoretical or empirical confirmation from managerialist literature, it is argued that it is necessary to broaden the catchment area of relevant writing, and that the literary arts have more insight than orthodox science. This is supported by reference to modern literary theory in terms of the Form/Content distinction. Central to this argument is the ontological concept of Difference and its `political' use in maintaining social domination by privileging certain forms over others. Having established the basis on which to articulate this theory of motivation, the Lacanian concept of Desire is explored, together with its relevance to motivation and management/organisation theory. The theory of the Gift Relationship is then explicated and developed, together with some of its popular sociological conceptualisations, and an argument made for an understanding in terms of its psychological signficance in explaining the operationalisation of Lacanian Desire. This is related to the work situation and to its relevance for organisational management. In conclusion, its utility is considered, as are some potential criticisms of the arguments put forward.

Articulating discursive and materialist conceptions of practice in the logics approach to critical policy analysis

In this article it is argued that while Glynos and Howarth’s logics of critical explanation (LCE) offers an important and promising contribution to critical policy analysis, it, along with other approaches that focus on the meaning of social action, faces a growing challenge in the form of a so-called new materialist turn in social and political theory. The article argues that there is much to be gained for the logics approach in paying closer attention to the materiality of practices in terms not only of lending greater clarity to the conception and role of social practices in the logics approach but also in enabling it fully to deliver on its critical ambition. The article explores an alternative materialist approach to the study of social practices, which hails from the post-actor–networktheory tradition and which has ontological affinities with post-structuralism. The article begins with a brief analysis of the new materialist turn in its various guises. It then critically examines the logics approach, and, in particular its conception of practice. It then explores an alternative materialist and ethnographic reading of practice, focusing on medical and care practices. It concludes with an examination of the implications for a more materialist conception of practices for the LCE’s broad deconstructive, psychoanalytic and onto-political ambitions.