In this article we develop the analysis and the conceptualization of the relationship between play and work within the increasingly aestheticized working life, drawing on the scholarship of Jacques Rancière and using images of playful office interiors as our empirical case. In doing so, we are able to add to the theorization of the uneasy relationship between the subordination of employee imagination and self to the agendas of the employer, typical of wage labor, and the strive for heteronomy and refiguring of the social order, characteristic of play.
AhmedS. (2006). Queer phenomenology: Orientations, objects, others. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
2.
AlferoffC.KnightsD. (2003). We’re all partying here: Targets and games, or targets as games in call centre management. In CarrA.HancockP. (Eds.), Art and aesthetics at work (pp. 70–92). Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
3.
AndersenN. Å. (2013). Managing intensity and play at work: Transient relationships. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
4.
BurkeR. (1971). ‘Work’ and ‘play’. Ethics: An International Journal of Social, Political, and Legal Philosophy, 82, 33–47.
5.
ButlerJ.SpivakG. C. (2007). Who sings the nation-state? Language, politics, belonging. New York, NY: Seagull Books.
ButlerN.OlaisonL.SliwaM.SørensenB. M.SpoelstraS. (2011). Work, play and boredom, Editorial. Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, 11, 329–335.
8.
CailloisR. (2001). Man, play and games. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
9.
CampoD. (2013). The accidental playground: Brooklyn waterfront narratives of the undesigned and unplanned. New York, NY: Fordham University Press.
10.
ChatfieldT. (2010). Fun Inc.: Why gaming will dominate the twenty-first century. New York, NY: Pegasus Books LLC.
11.
ContuA. (2008). Decaf resistance: On misbehavior, cynicism, and desire in liberal workplaces. Management Communication Quarterly, 21, 364–379.
12.
CosteaB.CrumpN.HolmJ. (2005). Dionsysus at work? The ethos of play and the ethos of management. Culture & Organization, 11, 139–151.
13.
CrossaV. (2012). Play for protest, protest for play: Artisan and vendors’ resistance to displacement in Mexico City. Antipode, 45, 826–843.
14.
CsíkszentmihályiM. (2000). Beyond boredom and anxiety: San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
15.
CsíkszentmihályiM. (2008). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
16.
DaleK.BurrellG. (2010).‘ All together, altogether better’: The ideal of ‘community’ in spatial reorganization of the workplace. In van MarrewijkA.YanowD. (Eds.), Organizational spaces: Rematerializing the workaday world (pp. 19–40). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
17.
DodgsonM.GannD.SalterA. (2005). Think, play, do: Technology, innovation, and organization. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
18.
DoughertyD.TakacsC. H. (2004). Team play: Heedful interrelating as the boundary for innovation. Long Range Planning, 37, 569–590.
19.
EllerbrokA. (2011). Playful biometrics. The Sociological Quarterly, 52, 528–547.
20.
FlanaganM. (2009). Critical play: Radical game design. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
21.
FlemingP. (2005). Workers’ playtime? Boundaries and cynicism in a ‘culture of fun’ program. The Journal Of Applied Behavioral Science, 41, 285–303.
22.
FlemingP.SturdyA. (2009). ‘Just be yourself!’. Employee Relations, 31, 569–583.
23.
GlynnM. A.AbzugR. (2002). Institutionalizing identity: Symbolic isomorphism and organizational names. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 267–280.
24.
HatchM. J. (1997). Irony and the social construction of contradiction in the humor of a management team. Organization Science, 8, 275–288.
25.
HjorthD. (2004). Creating space for play/invention: Concepts of space and organizational entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 16, 413–432.
26.
HjorthD. (2005). Organizational entrepreneurship: With de Certeau on creating heterotopias (or spaces for play). Journal of Management Inquiry, 14, 386–398.
27.
HuizingaJ. (1971). Homo ludens: A study of the play-element in culture. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
28.
JamesonF. (2009). Valences of the dialectic. London, UK: Verso.
29.
KaneP. (2004). The play ethic: A manifesto for a different way of living. London, UK: Macmillan.
30.
KavanaghD. (2011). Work and play in management studies: A Kleinian analysis. Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, 11, 336–356.
31.
KremplS. T.BeyesT. (2011). Work = work ≠ work: In defence of play. Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, 11, 466–481.
32.
KristiansenP.RasmussenR. (2014). Building a better business using the LEGO serious play method. New York, NY: Wiley.
33.
MaraveliasC.HanssonJ. (2005). Freedom in the age of postbureaucracy: The example of strategic occupational health. International Critical Management Studies Conference, 4–6July. Judge Institute of Management, University of Cambridge, UK.
34.
McNamaraC. (2016). The other office 2: Creative workplace design. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Frame publishers.
35.
MeyerP. (2010). From workplace to playspace: Innovating, learning, and changing through dynamic engagement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
36.
MillerB.NichollsW. (2013). Social movements in urban society: The city as a space of politicization. Urban Geography, 34, 452–473.
37.
MirzoeffN. (Ed.) (2013). The visual culture reader, 3rd ed.New York, NY: Routledge.
38.
NgaiS. (2012). Our aesthetic categories. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press
39.
OwlerK.MorrisonR.PlesterB. (2010). Does fun work? The complexity of promoting fun at work. Journal of Management & Organization, 16, 338–352.
40.
RancièreJ. (1989). The nights of labor: The worker’s dream in nineteenth century France. Philadelphia, PA: Temple Univesity Press.
41.
RancièreJ. (1998). Disagreement. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
42.
RancièreJ. (2004). The politics of aesthetics. London, UK/New York, NY: Bloomsbury.
43.
RancièreJ. (2009). Aesthetics and its discontents. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
44.
RancièreJ. (2010). Dissensus. On politics and aesthetics. London, UK/New York, NY: Bloomsbury.
45.
RieberL. P.SmithL.NoahD. (1998). The value of serious play. Educational Technology, 38, 29–37.
46.
RoodR. P.MeneleyB. L. (1991). Serious play at work. Personnel Journal, 70, 90–99.
47.
RoosJ.VictorB. (1999). Towards a new model of strategy-making as serious play. European Management Journal, 17, 348–355.
48.
ShepardB. (2010). Queer political performance and protest. New York, NY: Routledge.
49.
ShepardB. (2011). Play, creativity, and social movements: If I can’t dance, it’s not my revolution. New York, NY: Routledge.
50.
SicartM. (2014). Play matters. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
51.
SørensenB. M.SpoelstraS. (2012). Play at work: Continuation, intervention and usurpation. Organization, 19, 81–97.
52.
StatlerM.RoosJ.VictorB. (2009). Ain’t misbehavin’: Taking play seriously in organizations. Journal of Change Management, 9, 87–107.
53.
StevensQ. (2007). The ludic city: Exploring the potential of public spaces. London, UK and New York, NY: Routledge.
54.
StratiA. (1999). Organization and aesthetics. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
55.
StyhreA. (2008). The element of play in innovation work: The case of new drug development. Creativity & Innovation Management, 17, 136–146.
56.
StyhreA. (2013). A social theory of innovation. Stockholm, Sweden: Liber.
57.
Sutton-SmithB. (1997). The ambiguity of play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
58.
WalkerA. (2011). ‘Creativity loves constraints’: The paradox of Google’s twenty percent time. Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, 11, 369–386.
59.
WarrenS. (2009). Visual methods in organizational research. In BuchananD. A.BrymanA. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational research methods (pp. 566–582). London, UK: SAGE Publications.
60.
WatsonT. (2001). In search of management: Culture, chaos and control in managerial work. London, UK: Thomson Learning.
WilliamsJ. (2010). Screw work, let’s play. How to do what you love and get paid for it. Harlow, UK: Prentice Hall.
63.
WinnicottD. W. (1991). Playing and reality. London, UK: Routledge. (Original Publication in 1971.)
64.
YanowD. (2006). Studying physical artifacts: An interprettive approach. In RafaeliA.PrattM. G. (Eds.), Artifacts and organizations (pp. 41–60). London, UK: Lawrence Elrbaum Associates.
