Totalitarianism And Shared Values, a Management By The Discourses? The International Olympic Academy as a Totalitarian Experience

This article intends to remind how the Olympic movement comprises the germs of totalitarianism known as the continual project of the command of a common ideal to individuals. The articlewill try toexplain howsuch a logic canbe realized at amicro-organizational scale, meaning at the level of interactionsbetween individuals.This article is also the result of a particularly theoretical thought by researchers who have taken part in the organization and have actively observed and participated to it.Given the importance of micro-powers in totalitarianism and the analysis being developed around the mechanism of knowledge and powerby Michel Foucault, it stands out that the speech logics have a sharp and permanent influence, far from the idea that the power and strength of great speeches would be the main cause for the influence on their addresses.An intra-organizational analysis has indeed made it possible to determine that the importance of the organizational speech is the main aspect both to spread the Olympic ideology, to set the individual in a pre-established cognitive mechanism and to strengthen the bond between the members of the organization essential to ensure its continuity. This article intends to go beyond the macro-social conception of the influence of masses that establishes the aura of the leader or the charisma of an idealized speech and intends to show that the ideology develops in the subtle game of micro-relations and requires to be spread by everyone. The combination of speech and action within the interpersonal relations seems to be the main aspect of the ideological influence on its members.

Agamben G. (2007). Qu’est-ce qu’un dispositif?, Payot & Rivages, Paris.

Alvesson M. & Deetz S. (1999). “Critical Theory and Postmodernism. Approaches to organizational studies” in Clegg S. & Hardy. C. (eds), Studying Organization. Theory and Method, Sage. P.185-211.

Akrich M., Callon M., Latour B. (2006). Sociologie de la traduction. Textes fondateurs. Paris, presses des Mines de Paris.

Arendt H. (1951). The origins of totalitarianism. Shocken books, New York city.

Aristotle (1991). On rethoric. Kennedy G. A. (trans.), Oxford : Oxford University Press.

Austin J.L. (1962). Quand dire, c’est faire. Seuil, Paris, (Ed. 1991).

Barbier J-Y. (2004). “Situations de gestion, formes de complexité et explicitabilité des connaissances tacites, les dimensions de la connaissance tacite”, Colloque International sur les methodes de recherche qualitative et quantitative, Academy of Management/ISEOR, Lyon, Mars 2004.

Berger P. & Luckmann T. (1966). The social construction of reality. London, Penguin.

Bonnafous-Boucher M. (2001). Le libéralisme dans la pensée de Michel Foucault, un libéralisme sans liberté. L’Harmattan. Paris.

Bonnafous-Boucher M (2009). « The Concept of Subjectivation: A Central Issue In Governementality and Governement of the Self” in a Foucault for the 21st Century: Governmentality, Biopolitics and Discipline in the New Millenium, Editors Sam Binkley, Emerson College Boston and Jorge Capetillo-Ponce, University of Massachussets, Boston, Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Bradbury R. (1953). Farenheit 451. Ballantine Books, USA.

Burrel G. (1988). “Modernism, postmodernism and organizational analysis 2 : The contribution of Michel Foucault”, Organizational Studies, 9(2): 211-235.

Clegg S. (1989). Frameworks of power. London: Sage.

Deetz S. (1992). “Disciplinary power in the modern corporation”, in Alvesson M. &

Willmott H. (eds) Critical Management Studies. London: Sage.

Deleuze G. (1990). Pourparlers: 1972-1990, Paris, Les Editions de Minuit.

Deleuze G. (1975). Cours à l’Université de Vincennes 1975-1976 dans Astier F. (2006). Les cours enregistrés de Gilles Deleuze, 1979-1987, Coll. de nouvelles possibilités d’existence, Mons (Belgique) :Editions Sils Maria.

Dijk (Van), T.A. (1993). “Principles of critical discourse analysis” in Discourse and society. Text, 8 :249-283.

Eoyang C. (1983). Symbolic transformation of belief systems. In L. R. Pondy, P.J. Frost, G. Morgan, and T. C. Dandridge (eds.), Organizational Symbolism: 109-121, Greenwich: JAI Press

Fleming P. (2002). “Lines of flight”: a history of resistance and the thematic of ethics, death and animality”, ephemera: critical dialogues on organization, 2(3): 193-208.

Knights D. & Morgan G. (1991). “Corporate Strategy, Organizations and subjectivity: a critique”, Organization Studies. P.251-273.

Gioia, D.A. (1986) « Symbols, scripts and sensemaking : creating meaning in the organizational experience”. In H.P. Sims, Jr, and D.A. Gioia (eds), The thinking organization: 49-74. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.

Gill A. M. & Whedbee K. (1997). “Rhetoric”. In T. A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse studies: a multidisciplinary introduction, vol. 1: 157-183. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Heracleous L. (2006). Discourse, Interpretation, Organization. Presses Universitaires de Cambridge.

__________(2006). “A Tale of three discourses : the dominant, the strategic and the marginalized”. Journal of Management Studies, 43(5): 967-976.

Huxley A. (1932). Brave New World. Chatto & Windus, London.

Hymes D. (1964). Toward ethnographies of communication. American anthropologist, 66 (6), part 2 : 12-25.

Hymes D. (1972). « Models of the interaction of language and social life ». In J. Gumprez and D. Hymes (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistic : The ethnography of communication : 35-71. New York, NY : Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Kant E. (1778). Critique de la raison pratique. Trad. Ferry L., Wisman H., Paris, Gallimard, 1985.

Knights D. & Vurdubakis T. (1994). “Foucault, power, resistance and all that”, in JERNIER J., Knights D. & Nord W. (eds) Resistance and Power in Organizations. London: Thompson.

Knights D & Willmott H. (1989). “Power and subjectivity at work: From degradation to subjugation in social relations”, Sociology, 23(4): 975-995.

Legendre P. (2001). De la société comme Texte, linéaments d’une anthropologie dogmatique. Fayard, Paris.

Le Goff J. (2005). “Naissance et développement de la démocratie post-totalitaire”. Revue du MAUSS, 2005/1, n°25. P. 55-64.

Mc Kinley A & Starkey K. (eds) (1998). Foucault, Management and Organizations: From Panopticon to Technology of Self. London: Sage.

Morin D., (2005). « Genèse des totalitarismes ou les dérives de l’Etat moderne » in Aspects sociologiques, vol. 12, n°1.

Ogien R. (2001). « Le rasoir de Kant » in Philosophiques, vol. 28, n°1, Paris. P.10.

Pezet E. (2004). « Discipliner et gouverner : influence de deux thèmes foucaldiens en sciences de gestion », in Finance, Contrôle, Stratégie-volume 7, n°3, septembre 2004, p.169-189.

Peeters H. Charlier P. (2005) « Contribution à une théorie du dispositif » in Le dispositif entre usage et concept, revue Hermès, n°25, édition 1999, 2005. PP.15-23.

Phillips N. & Brown J.L. (1993). Analysing communication in and around organizations: a critical hermeneutic approach. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 1547-1576.

Piette I., Rouleau L., (2008). “Le courant discursive en theories des organisations: un état des lieux”. Les cahiers de la recherche du GÉPS, vol. 2, n°2, HEC Montréal.

Searle J. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds), syntax and semantics 3: speech acts: 59-82.. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Searle J. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: Free Press.

Scott T. (2010). Organization Philosophy, Gehlen, Foucault, Deleuze. Palgrave Mc Millan, New York.

Taylor S.E. and Crocker, J. (1981). “Schematic bases of social information processing”. In E. T. Higgins, C.P. Herman, and M.P. Zanna (eds), Social cognition: 89-134. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.