4.3 Subjectivity and Agency
49
staff understand and make sense of their own work in an industry where corporate
discourses also direct their work.
The term ‘subjectivity’ denotes how selves are both acting subjects and
constructed within broader discourses that shape their lives and work (Davies, 1990,
1991; Macdonald et al., 2002). Subjectivity carries a dual meaning; the subject is the
doer, the agent of the action, and is also subjected to other people’s actions and/or
discourses (Davies, 1990, 1991). Post-structuralists recognise the fact that people
may occupy multiple positions simultaneously, being able to act agentically while
complying with, or being subject to, dominant discourses.
People’s subject positions may vary depending on the power relations within
which they are situated (Gavey, 1997). From a post-structuralist perspective, the
self is not fixed, but constructed through language and other systems of meaning
(Macdonald et al., 2002). In these terms, ‘subjectivity’ recognises people’s lived
realities as “fragmented, inconsistent and contradictory” (Gavey, 1997, p. 465). This
is because the subject is always embedded in multiple discourses that may promote
different subject positions concurrently (Gavey, 1997).
In this research, I understand social investment experts as making decisions that
are influenced by broader discourses that construct the O&G industry and those
within it in particular ways. For example, workers in the O&G industry are shaped
by the institutional rules of each company; the cultural and political context of the
countries where the O&G company is located, as well as where it is headquartered;
and broader discourses about each company’s goals, including profitability and social
investment (Butler, 2011; Nairn, Higgins, & Sligo, 2012). Participants’ subjectivities
and practices as social investment experts also govern/shape/influence notions of
social investment. Participants’ understandings and practices of social investment
therefore both construct and are constructed via institutional understandings of social
investment.
Social investment experts’ work may be constrained by institutional discourses,
but they may also work “within/against” (Lather, 2006, p. 44) them. This may lead
to new ways of understanding social investment. Lather (2006) argues that dominant discourses become authoritative through multiple repetitions. ‘Ruptures’ in
these repetitions may generate opportunities for new discourses to emerge. When
analysing participants’ narratives of social investment, I pay attention to how participants’ interview discussion reveals both dominant and/or alternative discourses of
social investment, or possibilities for constructing O&G social investment differently
(Jones, 1991).
‘Agency’ is a concept that allows me to consider how social investment personnel
may construct social investment outside dominant discourses, despite their positioning within O&G companies driven by profit. The term agency captures how
individuals can be seen as agents or people who can act within/against specific
constraints, and who are active in the process of constructing themselves (Davies,
1991). For example, the language that O&G staff draws on may reflect ‘what is’, while
also contributing to a shift from “what is to what might be”. This book endeavours
to document such complexity.
49
staff understand and make sense of their own work in an industry where corporate
discourses also direct their work.
The term ‘subjectivity’ denotes how selves are both acting subjects and
constructed within broader discourses that shape their lives and work (Davies, 1990,
1991; Macdonald et al., 2002). Subjectivity carries a dual meaning; the subject is the
doer, the agent of the action, and is also subjected to other people’s actions and/or
discourses (Davies, 1990, 1991). Post-structuralists recognise the fact that people
may occupy multiple positions simultaneously, being able to act agentically while
complying with, or being subject to, dominant discourses.
People’s subject positions may vary depending on the power relations within
which they are situated (Gavey, 1997). From a post-structuralist perspective, the
self is not fixed, but constructed through language and other systems of meaning
(Macdonald et al., 2002). In these terms, ‘subjectivity’ recognises people’s lived
realities as “fragmented, inconsistent and contradictory” (Gavey, 1997, p. 465). This
is because the subject is always embedded in multiple discourses that may promote
different subject positions concurrently (Gavey, 1997).
In this research, I understand social investment experts as making decisions that
are influenced by broader discourses that construct the O&G industry and those
within it in particular ways. For example, workers in the O&G industry are shaped
by the institutional rules of each company; the cultural and political context of the
countries where the O&G company is located, as well as where it is headquartered;
and broader discourses about each company’s goals, including profitability and social
investment (Butler, 2011; Nairn, Higgins, & Sligo, 2012). Participants’ subjectivities
and practices as social investment experts also govern/shape/influence notions of
social investment. Participants’ understandings and practices of social investment
therefore both construct and are constructed via institutional understandings of social
investment.
Social investment experts’ work may be constrained by institutional discourses,
but they may also work “within/against” (Lather, 2006, p. 44) them. This may lead
to new ways of understanding social investment. Lather (2006) argues that dominant discourses become authoritative through multiple repetitions. ‘Ruptures’ in
these repetitions may generate opportunities for new discourses to emerge. When
analysing participants’ narratives of social investment, I pay attention to how participants’ interview discussion reveals both dominant and/or alternative discourses of
social investment, or possibilities for constructing O&G social investment differently
(Jones, 1991).
‘Agency’ is a concept that allows me to consider how social investment personnel
may construct social investment outside dominant discourses, despite their positioning within O&G companies driven by profit. The term agency captures how
individuals can be seen as agents or people who can act within/against specific
constraints, and who are active in the process of constructing themselves (Davies,
1991). For example, the language that O&G staff draws on may reflect ‘what is’, while
also contributing to a shift from “what is to what might be”. This book endeavours
to document such complexity.