Why Reinvent the Wheel? Materializing multiplicity to resist reification in alternative organizations

• Published in: Organization studies Vol. 45; no. 6; pp. 855 - 879
• Main Authors: Shanahan, Genevieve, Jaumier, Stéphane, Daudigeos, Thibault, Ouahab, Alban
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London, England SAGE Publications 01.06.2024; Sage Publications Ltd
• Subjects: Alternatives; Business administration; Case studies; Constraints; Disparaging; Humanities and Social Sciences; Organization studies; Organizations; Reification; Social order; Social systems; alternative organizations; open-source software; open organizing; materialization; concretization; critical theory of technology; sociomateriality; revisability; reification; relational ontology
• DOI: 10.1177/01708406241244522
• ISSN: 0170-8406

Often we unconsciously take for granted that there is not really an alternative to how we currently organize society – we tend to reify existing social order, misperceiving the way things are now as the way things must be. Such reification constrains our agency by discouraging the thought that we could do better. Alternative organizations undermine this reification by manifesting the real possibility of organizing differently. Such dereification is valuable in itself insofar as it lifts constraints on agency, facilitating intentional choice regarding the social systems we (re)produce. A case study of this dereification is offered by the Réseau Alimentaire Local (RAL), a network of French ‘solidarity groceries’ unified by the pursuit of more just and sustainable alternatives to the dominant model. Groups within the RAL develop their own software to manage these novel alternatives. We were struck, however, by some groups’ efforts to reify their own solutions, disparaging other approaches as mere attempts to ‘reinvent the wheel’. The case thus raised a tricky question: can alternative organizations dereify existing social order without at the same time reifying their proposal, thereby reimposing constraints on agency? Our exploration through the RAL case grounds two contributions. First, conceptualizing reification in terms of materializing abstract ideas, we demonstrate how any given organizational configuration contributes to the materialization of multiple ideas simultaneously. We identify two forms of such multiplicity: vertical multiplicity, where nested relational networks materialize coherent ideas that differ only in their degree of specificity; and horizontal multiplicity, where intersecting relational networks materialize divergent ideas of the same degree of specificity. We argue that failure to recognize this multiplicity accounts for a great deal of materiality’s reifying capacity, while its recognition can facilitate new ways of approaching the dereification challenge. Our second contribution is therefore a strategy for resisting reification: materializing multiplicity.