Lessons from Postcolonial Theory: Collaborative Meaning-Making & the Third Space
of P.S. 1 for the exhibition, “Out of Site” (December 16, 1990 — June 9, 1991); MoMa Archives
Martin Heidegger has said, “A boundary is not that at which something stops, but as the Greeks recognized, the boundary is that from which something begins, its presencing” (Bhabha, 1994, p.1). In seeking to understand how to humanize leaders and organizations, make them more inclusive, and define success as valuing and elevating human dignity and well-being, one of the most transformative lessons I found in my research is the notion of the “third space” and “collaborative meaning-making.” Many of us in the Western, Eurocentric world navigate life with a fundamental binary understanding of the way things are. We are male or female, educated or uneducated, pro-life or pro-choice, gay or straight, feel safe or unsafe, profitable or not. I’ve loathed rigid categorizations for as long as I can remember, and while I was in graduate school researching why inclusion and diversity programs most often failed, I met postcolonial theory. The simplest, most profound definition of postcolonial theory is best articulated by Anshuman Prasaad as “a persistent interrogation of Eurocentrism” (p. 123). Colonialism has defined identity by the hierarchical binaries of the West, making anything and everything else “other.” Homi K. Bhabha, arguably one of the most notable authors on postcolonial theory, remarkably composes expansive concepts that have both rattled and inspired me. After reading his work, I was both satiated and left with unascertainable questions.
Before I get into Bhabha’s third space and collaborative meaning-making, I’d like to bring to light the significance of representationalism, not just in organizations, but in our understanding of others and how embedded it is, often becoming “common sense.” The philosophy of representationalism dates back to Aristotle, and essentially means we take things we see, interpret them, and understand them as truth; what we see is reality. Representationalism can be dangerous because it is dependent on who is in power, defining concepts through the perception of the majority and often silencing others. Dr. Dennis Kwek suggests “the presentation of an objective ‘fact’ about the world is the product of contestation where strength has prevailed” (p. 125). Stereotypes are an example of representationalism. Another example is epistemology, what is belief vs. opinion. Richard Rorty, a recognized American philosopher, suggests that epistemology, “the study of mental representations was a distinctly European development that rapidly became the ‘quest for certainty over the quest for reason’” (p. 124). But, what does this look like in practice and how does it affect organizations? Let’s consider Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory as an example. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory is so widely accepted, that it appeared in the first few weeks of my organizational behavior class during my first semester of graduate school. When assessing our skill in the across cultures competency, we learned of Hofstede’s dimensions of national cultures. The dimensions many use to navigate global organizations include power distance, individualism vs. collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity/femininity, long term vs. short term orientation, and indulgence vs. restraint — perhaps you have heard of them. Hofstede arrived at these conclusions after a six-year, attitude survey in the early 1970s, inclusive of some 117,000 IBM employees across different countries. At this time, there was very little quantifiable research, and Hofstede’s theory became foundational. Because Hofstede used a scientific method, it was accepted as truth. Numerous scholars have used the basis of Hofstede’s findings and built on it, including Hofstede himself. Starting with four dimensions, he added a sixth in 2010. A common understanding derived from these findings includes the notion that Western countries value individualism and their Eastern counterparts value collectivism. The challenge here is because Hofstede’s work has become foundational due to its wide acceptance of the scientific method and qualitative data, there is very little work that is done outside of it, cementing its “truth.”
Ok, that was a long-winded description of how we understand the things we see as truth and how that evolves to inform subsequent knowledge. To introduce Bhabha’s collaborative meaning-making, I’d like to start with William Lloyd Garrison’s question, “are right and wrong convertible terms, dependent on popular opinion?” If you were to sit on this question and reckon with what you know to be true, you may uncover some fallacies in your truth — as I did. Outside of the binary, the rigid categories we have constructed in an effort to understand the world around us, is there a space where perception and reality meet? Yes. The third space, the liminal space at the boundary of definitions, is where we can start! A beautiful metaphor of the third space that Bhabha highlights in his book The Location of Culture is artist Renée Green’s use of architecture, particularly stairs. The top and bottom of Green’s work represented blackness and whiteness, and the stairs were quite literally the passage between the two. “The stairwell became a liminal space, a pathway between the upper and lower areas” (p. 5). Bhabha explains the stairs as the liminal space to “entertain difference without an assumed or imposed hierarchy” (p. 5).
While we question definitions of concepts and truth, perhaps it is time to extend the invite to who the decision-makers are. Many organizations over the last six months have been reviewing their policies, assessing what can be changed in an effort to be more inclusive. Who is a part of these meetings? Are there everyday essential and frontline employees included in the decision making process as they are most often the most impacted? Collaborative meaning-making must take place in the third space because we are connected by it, conscious or unconscious, it is a place where the binaries dissolve and ambiguity allows for collaboration and equity. In Bhabha’s words, “the intervention of the third space of enunciation, which makes the structure of meaning and reference an ambivalent process, destroys the mirror of representation in which cultural knowledge is customarily revealed as an integrated, open, expanding code (p. 54). Allowing space for contradiction reveals nothing is or can be pure, and here we can build new meaning together and hybridity can exist.
I would be remiss if I didn’t include the concept of transparadox and public reflection as part of how organizations can incorporate collaborative meaning-making and the third space into their strategies and work. Ming-Jer Chen coined the term “The Middle Way,” where self and other integration becomes a new whole, and its central principle is just that, holism. Remember when you were young and drew yin yangs all over your notebooks? That is a visual representation of how two seeming opposites combine to form a new entity, in fact, the two need each other. The new “dynamic unity” is referred to as transparadox, transcending paradox to create something anew. That is precisely what I propose we do in organizations. We can use the liminal space, the third space, the boundaries of positions, teams, priorities, and goals as a place where we can redefine what success is. Incorporating public reflection would allow for collaborative meaning-making to be transparent and inclusive, opening up new, inventive spaces. I am reminded of Raelin’s call to public reflection, “it is through public reflection that we may create a collective identity as a community of inquiry” (2001). Working in the third space and using collaborative meaning-making to redefine business practices can shift what is prioritized and instill human dignity as the raison d’être.
This article has emerged out of the “Humanizing Initiative,” which seeks to humanize leaders and organizations to cultivate leadership. For more information, please refer to https://www.humanizinginitiative.com
References
Bhabha, H. K. (2007). The Location of Culture. New York: Routledge.
Chen, M-J. (2008). Reconceptualizing the competition-cooperation relationship: A transparadox perspective. Journal of Management Inquiry, 17, 288–304.
Cooper, C.D., Hellriegel, D. & Slocum, J. (2017). Mastering Organizational Behavior (14th ed.). St. Paul, MN: South Western College Publishing.
Kwek, D. (2003) Decolonizing and Re-presenting Culture’s Consequences: A Postcolonial Critique of Cross-Cultural Studies in Management. In A. Prasad (ed.) Postcolonial Theory and Organizational Analysis: A Critical Engagement. New York: Palgrave Macmillan 121–46.
Prasad, A. (2006). The Jewel in the Crown: Postcolonial Theory and Workplace Diversity. In A.M. Konrad, P. Prasad, and J.K. Pringle (eds.), Handbook of Workplace Diversity. London: Sage, 121–44.
