4.1 Article

Organizing as Tong ((sic)): Decolonizing Organizational Communication from the Roots

Journal

MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/08933189231223424

Keywords

de/postcolonial theorizing; organizational communication; Chinese language; women entrepreneurs; dialogical unlearning; critical ethnography; organizing from the margin

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study offers a decolonial intervention in organizational communication by foregrounding nonwestern languages, cultures, and philosophies. Through ethnographic research on two marginalized women organizing actors in China, the study proposes the theoretical framework of Tong to privilege subaltern knowledge and organizing praxes.
We offer a critical intervention to decolonize organizational communication from the roots by interrogating the basic assumptions of organizing and foregrounding alternatives that draw on nonwestern languages, cultures, and philosophies. Centering language and the lived experiences of two marginalized women organizing actors in China through 10-year consecutive ethnographies, we propose Tong as a theoretical framework that offers three branches to privilege subaltern knowledge and organizing praxes: (1) Bian Tong: approaching organizing as constant form-shaping whereby organizing essence/goals emerge through changes; (2) Hui Tong: understanding organizing knowledge as relational, and achieved through a confluence of the agentic interplay of time, place, and people; and (3) He Tong: highlighting organizing as the creation of possible pathways against opposing forces by remaining still and nurturing. Grounded in local languages and indigenous philosophies, our work serves as a decolonial intervention to disrupt deep-seated Eurocentric assumptions and to stimulate theoretical imagination to foreground organizing from the margin.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available