Whistle-blowers acts: recasting whistle-blowing through readings of Antigone

Dr. Alessia Contu, Warwick Business School, The University of Warwick, UK

alessia.contu@wbs.ac.uk

Please do not circulate or cite without permission

Introduction

Blowing the whistle in organizational and public life is akin to speaking out and

denouncing wrongdoings. In its broad sense whistle-blowing is not limited to the

corporate world. Politics (Lampert, 1985; Van Buitenen and Dale, 2000), the military

(Dahel, 2003) and even genocide (Medoff, 2008) are all touched by such practices.

The increasing power of corporations and its associated problems, such as the

complexity and opacity of organizational structures of ownership and activities

(Miethe, 1999) and the fragmented, de-unionized workforce of information-based

economies (Rotchild and Miethe, 1999), have brought whistle-blowing into the

management research arena (Vinten, 1994). Changes over the past 30 years in the

corporate landscape and the legislative framework were also induced by the

denouncements of whistle-blowers, as it has been the case for the Enron scandal

which favored organizational and institutional change, such as the US rules for

companies financial reporting, i.e. the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. In the UK the PIDA

(1998), the Public Interest Disclosure Act, was also linked to various scandals

involving whistle-blowers, or more precisely, the perceived lack of them.

Many contributions to management and organizational research on whistle-blowers

1
follow Habermass instrumental knowledge, which is designed to ascertain situational

and personal predictors of whistle-blowers (see Miceli et al. 2008). Miceli et al.

suggest that we now know much about whistle-blowing, such as the importance of

personal and situational variables, yet no much progress has been made in this arena

of studies since 1996 and more research is needed (ibid.345). Wolfe Morrison (2009)

speculates that perhaps existing models for conceptualizing the whistle-blowing

process have gotten a bit stale and that it may be time for some new theoretical

models or perspectives that will inspire scholars to think about whistle-blowing in

new ways and thereby help to generate the added research energy that seems needed

to push this area further (ibid. 345). This paper answers Wolfe Morrisons call to

provide a new perspective on whistle-blowing. There are many paths to choose from

to develop new ideas on whistle-blowing. Here we follow the path of a critical

knowledge, which fosters reflection and self-reflection (Habermas, 2005: 316). This

could be generated in multiple ways, e.g. Feminist, Aristotelian or Habermasian ones.

Our present work, however, chooses the literary path and investigates the analogy

between Antigone, the Sophoclean heroine, and whistle-blowing. We wish to explore

what the philosophical and psychoanalytic readings on Antigone offer to the

understanding of whistle-blowing.

After all Antigone is probably the best known example (Taylor and Vintges,

2004:89) of the political parrhesiastes, which is defined as the one who exercises free

speech speaking the truth to power (Tindemans, 2010:817; Foucault, 2001), just like

whistle-blowers whom, as Mansbach (2009;2011) suggest, speak the truth about

malpractices and frauds. But the problem with whistle-blowers and whistle-blowing is

that truth itself has been seen as an enemy and those who carry it are likewise

2
perceived as troublemakers (Arszulowicz and Gasparski, 2011:4). In this paper we

explore why whistle-blowers and their acts are seen as disturbing and perturbing. In

other words, why is something like parrhesia, free speech, that is a strongly-held

value in western societies, so problematic and unsettling when is manifested in

organization and labeled as whistle-blowing? Our answer, and, therefore, the first

contribution of this paper is that whistle-blowing is an unsettling practice because it is

an act of singularity. As such whistle-blowing is out of joint with the smooth

functioning of routine actions, the taken-for-granted modus operandi reproducing

social relations. This indicates - and this is our second contribution - why empiricist

research finds it so difficult to build a complete picture of the predicting factors of

whistle-blowing and specifically what motivates someone to blow the whistle. Our

suggestion is that whistle-blowing acts can be qualified as ethical and political ones.

One needs to specify such terms. Whistle-blowing is a political act in as far as, by

shaking the taken-for-granted, impresses upon those witnessing it the contingency of

the modus operandi of the organizational (hence social) order. Whistle-blowing is an

ethical event but not one which is necessarily pro-social. Paradoxically this might be

considered an act of no good in as far as it goes against what we call the ethics of

maintenance, which is pervasive in organizations (see Jones et al. 2005). We unravel

and specify these issues in the final part of the paper.

In what follows we highlight the instrumental knowledge infusing the leading

management research agenda and explore the figure of the whistle-blower to ascertain

its ambivalent and ambiguous character as depicted in the literature. We introduce our

methodology and then move on to Antigone. A discussion follows on implications

and final considerations.

3
Whistle-blowing in management research

Given the public significance of whistle-blowing, one might be excused for thinking

that this has been a hot topic in management research. It has not. Specialized

journals (e.g. the Journal of Business Ethics) have shown keen interest carrying

numerous articles on this issue. But an online survey (via Business Source Premier

see Appendix 1) of the journals publishing internationally-recognized research (e.g. 4

& 4* journals, ABS 2010 list) shows a lackluster interest with few publications on

this subject. However, in such publications, Marcia Miceli and Janet Near and their

co-authors, can be considered the leading management scholars shaping this field of

studies.

Their research and, more broadly, the 4 and 4* grade journal articles spanning 30

years, have participated in constituting whistle-blowing as a unitary phenomenon to

be studied according to the rules of positivist management and organization science

(Donaldson, 1996). This knowledge is instrumental as it attempts to explain whistle-

blowing (Near and Miceli, 1996; Near et al. 1993) by predicting and controlling the

variables that favor it and the dispositional and situational factors associated with it

(Gundlach, Douglas and Martinko, 2003; Miceli and Near, 2002); what consequences

there are and why (Regh et al. 2008; Miceli and Near, 1994; Parmelee et al. 1982;

Jeon-Yeon et al. 2004; Hunton and Rose, 2011); and what makes whistle-blowing

successful (Near and Miceli, 1995; Miceli and Near, 2002; Skivenes and Trygstad

2010).

4
Miceli et al. (2008)s explanation of whistle-blowing is that it is a pro-social behavior

enhancing the welfare of those whom it affects. This book sifts through years of data,

tests models and their predictive power. This knowledge is extremely important. By

studying the phenomenon as a construct operationalized in a specific set of behaviors,

it has normalized it so helping organizations to manage it and legal institutions to

evaluate and protect it. As in other treatments of the subject (Elliston et al. 1984;

Westin, 1981; Lewis, 2001; Johnson, 2003), the final section of Miceli et al.s book is

dedicated to advice for senior managers, the legislator and whistle-blowers

themselves.

But as Wolfe Morrison (2009:344) suggests this book shows that much is still not

known about whistle-blowing. She amplifies the frustration of Miceli et al. who say

that from 1996 their conclusions are largely the same and that more research is

needed (ibid.345). The reasons are mostly based on methodology. The phenomenon

does not easily lend itself to be molded into the requirements of predictive science. As

Miceli et al. put it: obviously access to data that would meet rigorous standards of

experimental design is a major issue, but also conducting this research is challenging

because top-academic journals demand a theoretical basis for predictions (ibid. 186).

Between the Scylla of empiricism and the Charybdis of post-empiricism this type of

research is straddled and unable to proceed. To avoid becoming stale and instead push

this area further Wolfe Morrison (2009) invites the elaboration of new theoretical

models or perspectives that will inspire scholars to think about whistle-blowing in

new ways (ibid. 345). In responding to this call we suggest that the literary

exploration of Antigone, in the philosophical and psychoanalytic reflections produced

by thinkers such as Hegel and Lacan, may provide interesting new ways to think

5
about whistle-blowing. Two research questions guide our thinking: why are whistle-

blowers seen as such ambivalent figures? Why do their motives appear so ambiguous

to those witnessing/studying the practice of whistle-blowing? Below we explore

these two issues in relation to the figure of the whistle-blower in the media and extant

literature.

The figure of the whistle-blower

Whistle-blowers have increasingly been featured in the media. They are present in the

cultural domain and have become some of the heroes and heroines of our time. As

Verschoor (2003) reminds us, Times Magazine in 2002 named three whistle-blowers,

Enrons Watkins, WorldComs Cooper and FBIs Rowley as Person of the Year.

Real-life whistle-blowers have also been immortalized in Hollywood films. One of

many is the Insider where Russell Crowe depicts the real-life story of Dr. Jeffrey

Wigand who spoke out about the practices in the tobacco industry of adding

substances with carcinogenic properties to the tobacco mix (e.g. Armenakis, 2004).

Dr. Wigands act was instrumental to the lawsuits that eventually lead Big Tobacco

to pay over $368 billion worth of settlements in 40 US states. More broadly, his case

and the debate it spurred participated in changing the discourse on tobacco products

manufacturing, marketing and usage. Yet, as Bradley Manning, the alleged Wikileaks

whistle-blower on US intelligence, is discovering whistle-blowers are not always seen

as heroes. He has spent 10 months of his imprisonment in solitary confinement, under

conditions that Amnesty International has questioned, and 250 eminent American

intellectual and constitutional scholars have described as degrading and inhumane

conditions and are illegal, unconstitutional and could even amount to torture (The

Guardian, 2011).

6
The above-mentioned Dr. Wigand of the Insider is now seen as a hero. But because

he blew the whistle he lost his job, had to fight a lawsuit and was subjected to a

vicious smear campaign as reported in the Wall Street Journal in 1997.

The literature on whistle-blowing is no less dramatic in its ambivalent assessment of

the figure of the whistle-blower. Mansbach (2011) indicate that in the private sector

whistle-blowers often end up unemployed, having been fired or having left because

their work environment became unbearable (ibid.14). As Nam and Lemak (2007) put

it whistle-blowers are black listed and often treated as corporate pariah, unemployed

and persona non grata within their industries (ibid.34). They are seen as traitors,

disloyal dissenters who bring about conflict and disharmony (George, 1986; Wee,

2002). They are considered predatory or disgruntled employees with an opportunity to

exploit or hit back at their employer (Edward and Willmott, 2008:630).

As Perry (2008) put it there is an ambiguous status of whistle-blowing and

contradictory responses associated with instances of such behavior (ibid.240).

Empirical research has consistently shown that typical organizational responses to

whistle-blowers involve intimidations and various forms of retaliation (Glaser and

Glaser, 1989; Jos, Tompkins and Hayes, 1989; Soeken and Soeken, 1987; Miceli et

al, 2008) which produce, with few exceptions, a downward spiral akin to

occupational suicide (Perry, 2008). Some authors argue that since whistle-blowers

engage in an act of self-sacrifice (Alford, 2002; Bouville, 2008) they become figures

analogous to secular saints (Grant, 2002). Subversive rats or heroic saints - this is the

ambivalent portrayal of whistle-blowers.

7
The reactions to whistle-blowers are, in short, highly emotive. They are seen as a

problem, as troublemakers (Elliston et al 1985:14). It is interesting to note the twirling

questions their acts generate. Since whistle-blowing has been depicted as an ethical

dilemma between loyalty to society and public good and loyalty to the organization

(Randall, 1987;Walters, 1975; Vandekerckhove, 2006) much of the questions are

about the motives of whistle-blowers and their ability to act on behalf of an interest

higher than their own, i.e. the public interest. Are their motives pure? Can we trust

them, Koehn (2002) asks? How do we know that they understand and have evaluated

correctly the nature of public interest (Koehn, 2002; Westin, 1981: 134-136)? Where

is their professional responsibility? asks Bok (1980). What about their real motives?

Their acts may be guided by an attempt to save their own skin after all in the

moment of disclosure they assign responsibility to others (Koehn, 2002:472). As

Jackson (1992) suggests it may seem that whistle-blowers never deserve our respect:

they either act irresponsibly or maliciously (ibid, cited in Vinten 1994:13). Their

motives are ambiguous and, as Miceli et al (2008) conclude, they can have mixed

motives at the time of deciding to act and it is often difficult empirically to ascertain

motives (ibid.36).

In the face of such perturbing ambivalence and ambiguity a consistent part of the

debate on whistle-blowing has been on normative aspects detailing when, and how,

whistle-blowing is morally justified and when it is a moral duty (Bowie, 1982; De

George, 1986; Duska, 2004). Hoffman and McNulty (2011), for example, establish

the conditions for a rightful act but also specify when one is morally exempted from

such duty, i.e. when one has a credible ground of putting oneself or others at risk of

8
serious retaliation (ibid.51). This supererogation spurs the legislator to protect

whistle-blowers as in such a way the whistle-blower would typically not be putting

him or herself at substantial risk (ibid. 55). Yet much protective legislation, is too

often, as Alford (2002) suggests, practically irrelevant (ibid. 31). The example of the

National Health Service (NHS), the UKs state healthcare provider, is emblematic in

briefly illustrating the complexity of whistle-blowing. While the General Medical

Council and the PIDA indicate that the duty of a doctor is to report malpractice and

that s/he is protected from confidentiality clauses, an investigative feature published

in Private Eye (2011a), tellingly titled Shoot the Messenger, shows how NHS

whistle-blowers are still routinely silenced and sacked.

Having established the ambivalent reactions to whistle-blowing and the ambiguity

ascribed to whistle-blowers motives we move on to explain our methodology.

Methodology: literary text, reading and writing

Methodologically this paper draws its inspiration from a long-standing debate on the

contamination and inbreeding between literature and organization studies, evident in

the wide use of literature and narratives for pedagogical purposes (Phillips, 1995).

William Whyte the Organization Man, Dwight Waldo The Novelist on

Organization and Administration and David Knights and Hugh Willmott

Management Lives are some examples of the use of literature to educate students

and managers in grasping the multi-faceted experience and complexity of

organizational life (Czarniawska-Joerges and Guilttet de Monthoux, 1994). As

Garaventa (1994) suggests in his discussion of Ibsens An Enemy of the People to

understand whistle-blowing the use of drama and literature on current business

9
problems can provide novel insights for managers and researchers (ibid.374). In

management studies and business ethics the parallel is drawn between Antigone and

contemporary whistle-blowers (e.g. Drascek and Maticic, 2007:3). Antigone is

considered the parrhesiastes who, according to OToole (2008), like the celebrated

whistle-blowers Enrons Watkins, WorldComs Cooper and FBIs Rowley, had the

courage to speak truth to power (ibid.57). Antigone was staged at the 2009 European

Business Ethics Network and her disobedience indicated as a paradigm of whistle-

blowing (Papadopoulos, 2009). In this paper we invite the readers on a journey where

we explore the parallel scholars have drawn between Antigone and whistle-blowers

by considering what eminent thinkers such as Hegel, Lacan and Heidegger have

written about Antigone and what such readings of the tragedy can offer to our

understanding of whistle-blowing.

Specifically, we read what Hegel has written on Antigone and we re-think whistle-

blowing with/through him. We also bring in some of Goethe, Heidegger and Butlers

writings on Antigone. We also examine at length the work of Lacan because he has

addressed directly the complexity of Antigone and her unsettling, disturbing stance

that, as we have seen, is important also for whistle-blowers. Our intent, to be clear, is

not primarily pedagogical. By focusing on reading writings on Antigone we are

sensitive to the literature turn (De Cock and Land, 2006) in organization studies

(e.g. Linstead, 2003; Zald, 1996; Cunliffe et al. 2004; Sliwa and Cairns, 2007) which

has shown how inter-textuality, narrative and fiction open the space for new

knowledge on organization and organizing, including, we suggest, that on whistle-

blowing. Rhodes (2009), following Taussigs suggestions, has considered the poietic

aspect of writing, i.e. the making and the performance of a text, where issues of

10
reflection, and reflexive responsibility are bounded up with the text. Antigone is a

text that brings this to the fore in a powerful way, as argued below.

Management scholars are relative latecomers to Antigone as philosophers, play-

writers and artists have studied, appropriated and repeated Antigone for centuries.

Hegel considered Antigone the most accomplished of tragedies. She has been

subjected to a myriad of interpretations (Leonard, 2005; Sderbck, 2010; Steiner,

1984; Wilmer and ukauskait, 2010) having been taken as an emblem of anti-

authoritarianism, resistance against oppression and a feminist heroine; used to

forward anti-fascism, anti-apartheid in cultural productions of various natures but also

to justify the most pernicious element of Nazism, the ideology of racial purity and

superiority (Fleming, 2006:165). Interestingly then it is not only in content that

Antigone works as an analogy for a whistle-blowers act (its mimetic aspect) but also,

importantly, in the obvious fascination yet ambivalence and ambiguity her figure has

exercised on Western thinking for the past 2000 years. As we have seen, whistle-

blowers engender the same ambivalence and ambiguity. This poietic aspect, we argue,

opens up ethical dilemmas in as far as Antigone (and whistle-blowers)s act directly

questions our ethics and our subjectivity. In other words, rather than showing a way

to understand the world (De Cock and Land, 2006), it is its undecidability and

indeterminacy that is suddenly and disturbingly made visible by the acts of Antigone

(and that of whistle-blowing). Now Antigone.

Antigone

Antigone is the protagonist of a tragedy bearing her name, written by Sophocles and

first performed in Greece circa 2500 years ago. Given that the story of Antigone has

11
captured the imagination of countless writers, filmmakers, philosophers and

psychoanalysts - what is the story about? Below is a synopsis:

The play takes place in Thebe, a city-state in ancient Greece. Thebe was the kingdom of Oedipus but
after his death his two sons Polyneices and Eteocles struggle to accommodate who should rule.
Polyneices went into exile and Eteocles ruled Thebe. However, Polyneices makes an alliance with a
rival state and wages war against his brother to take possession of the city. In a fatal battle they perish
under each others arms. Here is where the story actually begins.

Creon, the closest male relation to the deceased brothers, takes possession of Thebe and orders Honor
for one, dishonor for the other. While Eteocles is buried with all rites, for Polyneices he decrees that:

None shall bury him or mourn for him; he must be left to lie unwept, unburied. For unhry birds of prey
to swoop and feast (verses 27-28)

Those infringing the edict must die. But Antigone, sister of Eteocles and Polyneices, does not obey his
orders. After a heated discussion with her sister Ismene, who decides not to follow her, Antigone goes
not once, but twice to bury her brother. She does so in front of witnesses; and when brought to Creons
audience she is, in the Chorus words, fierce, defiant: she will not yield to any storm.

She admits she did the deed. When Creon asks her if she knew that this act was forbidden, so giving
her another chance to recoil and change her story, she simply says Of course I knew. There was a
proclamation. Creon is almost incredulous and so you dared to disobey the law? Antigone launches
into a long response. She questions Creons authority as his decree was only that of a man and she
would not disobey the laws of heaven - not for fear of a man or death; and if you think it folly, then
perhaps I am accused of folly by the fool.

Creon is incensed.

This girl already had fully learned the art of insolence when she transgressed the laws I established;
and now to that she adds a second outrage. To boast what she did, and laugh at us. Now she would be
the man, not I if she defeated me and did not pay for it (verses 479-84)

Creon sentenced Antigone to be buried alive in a cave. Eventually, Creon, after dissenting discussions
with his son Hemon (fianc of Antigone) and Theresia (the seer), going against everything he had said,
changes his mind. But when he reaches the cave to free Antigone, she has already hanged herself.
Hemon, Antigones fianc and Creons son, is also at the scene and with anger in his eyes attempts to
sword his father but misses him and in remorse kills himself. Creon is completely broken as he also
loses his wife who curses him for the death of her son as she put a dagger to her heart and drove it
home.

These are the key points of the analogy between the parrhesiastes, Antigone and
whistle-blowers:

Someone less powerful than the one s/he speaks to (e.g.Foucault, 2001:18)
who dares disobedience by deeds and by words.
There is an unsettling nature of such an act and such a figure. Free speech, as
Foucault puts it acts on peoples mind (ibid.12).
The steadiness and stubbornness of Antigone is relentless. She speaks what
she believes and knows is true (ibid.14). She is ready to die rather than
avoiding doing what in her eyes she must.
Someone who meets danger by speaking out (ibid.16). This act costs Antigone
everything.

12
 Someone whose act has to do, at once, with freedom and moral duty (ibid.19)
and clashes with other moral imperatives.

Reading Antigone with G.W.F. Hegel

The analysis of management and business studies on Antigone pivots around the clash

of two moral imperatives - moral divine law versus human law (Drascek and

Maticic, 2007). Sucher calls it the challenge of right versus right: two competing

rights or moral positions (2007:26). One the one hand, Creon represents the rule of

law, the state and the authority keeping the social bond intact (ibid.26). On the other

hand, Antigone stands for the deep bond of family loyalties (ibid.43). This binary

opposition reverberates in the traditional Hegelian reading - two rights coming head

to head (Hegel, 1821/2000:206-7; Hegel, 1807/1977: 266- 279). However, for Hegel

we do not witness a comical situation of a collision of duties (1807/1977:279) but the

real and necessary moment when in self-conscience the two elements of the ethical

realm are actualized for-themselves: the ethical conscience knows what it has to do,

and already has decided whether to belong to the divine law or to the human law

(ibid.280). What one sees is the pathos of two individuals representing and expressing

the necessity of the movement of the human law and the divine law (ibid.287). But

from where they stand each others acts are criminal. The conscience that belongs to

the divine law, i.e. Antigone, finds in the other, Creon, an accidental human violence;

while the conscience subject to the human law, i.e. Creon, sees only the self-will and

disobedience of an individual who insists on being his (sic) own authority (ibid. 280).

What appears as the will of an isolated individual (ibid. 280) is the spirit of feminine

singularity (ibid.288-9). This singularity of the feminine (the household, the family,

the divine, subterranean law) offending, subverting and, in Creons view, deriding the

masculine (the polity, the public community, the human law) is not accidental but a

13
necessary moment of transformation of the ethical substance. The tragic act of

Antigone is what makes possible for the subterranean divine law of kinship to come

to the fore in the final instance as the enemy of the community. As such, Antigones

act is what keeps the community together through the attitude of oppression against

this inner enemy (ibid.288), which is, finally, externalized in war. Through

Antigones act towards her brother the family circle is dissolved and the ethical

significance of the two sexes can appear (ibid.275-78). The feminine is constitutively

excluded, body and soul, the masculine is fully established as the realm of polity, law

and order (Derrida, 1989; Irigaray, 1985; Cavarero; 2010; Soderback, 2010). For

Hegel, the community becomes itself only through this suppression of the spirit of

singularity (ibid.287-89) whose very act was inscribed into the necessary movement

of the ethical realm. Arguably then, Antigone, the feminine, the whistle-blower, saves

the order by threatening the system of power holding the community together.

As indicated earlier the common idea that whistle-blowers act in the name of the

public good is largely ascribed to them by scholars and commentators; and so is the

interpretation of their act as a conflict of duties. Reading Hegel suggests a more

complex interpretation. Antigone never said that her act was for societys betterment.

Whistle-blowers stories also tell us that they rarely call to what should be done. As

Alford (2002) indicates they simply speak about what the organization (including the

whistle-blower) is doing (ibid.21-22). Miceli et al. (2008:59) also specify that

statistical evidence is scant that employees have actually blown the whistle because

of moral reasoning or values (including religious ones). What Hegels writing

suggests is that the public good, the strengthening of law and order, results from

facing the threats that whistle-blowers pose in as far as they appear qua enemies to

14
such an order. With Hegel one can add that it is the emergence and recognition of the

enemy that enables the transformation into a more accomplished and fully-actualized

ethical social order.

Can the whistle-blower be considered the enemy within? Garaventa (1994) has indeed

elaborated the view of the whistle-blower who is labeled by those witnessing the act

as an enemy of the people. Moreover, some comments on whistle-blowers from

distinguished management scholars offer support to such a paradoxical Hegelian

reading where the appearance of the enemy strengthens the very order she is deemed

to threaten. Prof. Koehn, for example, specifies that whistle-blowing creates a

whirlwind of suspicions and the impression that corruption is everywhere (2002:472)

thereby stirring an unhealthy doubt that threatens organizational order. More

famously the management guru Peter Drucker was so worried about whistle-blowing

that for him even encouraging such acts corrodes the bond of trust that ties the

superior to the subordinate as doubts are cast on the willingness and ability of the

superior to protect his (sic) people (1981:33). The very social bond, and with it the

authority and legitimacy that grant subordination, is seen as threatened by such acts

(Mansbach, 2009:367). However, it is not only a synchronic closing of ranks against

the will of singularity that whistle-blowing generates. But it is also its working at a

diachronic level that Hegel invites us to consider.

The Hegelian reading sheds lights on what Vandekerckhove (2006) identifies as the

evolution in the discourse of whistle-blowing from a conflict between society and

organization (the collision of duties) into a discourse of full legitimization offered by

burgeoning global protective legislations (ibid.3). This normative assurgency, it could

15
be argued, works as the dialectical synthesis that resolves the long-standing conflict

between society and organization and, in such a synthesis, western capitalist societies

reach their highest ethical development. The legislative framework suppresses the

spirit of singularity by institutionalizing whistle-blowing in rules and regulations.

Tsahuridu and Vandekerckhove (2008) call this operation the institutionalization of

the individual, which transforms employees into centaurs part human, part

organizational being (ibid. 115). On similar lines, Alford (2002) in an assessment of

whistle-blowers stories goes as far as to suggest that it is the sacrifice of whistle-

blowers that keeps organizational autonomy alive by containing any dangerous

individuality (ibid: 127-130). Antigone is entombed and dies. She is not preserved in,

and does not belong to, the new ethical order. Likewise, it would seem for whistle-

blowers, who do not belong to the current normative order. They are transformed into

dutiful and loyal employees doing their jobs; more organization man (sic) than ever

was thought possible by management commentators who in the 70s and 80s raised the

issue of whistle-blowers in the US (Walters, 1975; Nader et al, 1972; Randall, 1987).

But, we argue, the spirit of the singularity is not completely suppressed. It always

returns as an inhuman perturbing image. Antigone, in her tragic splendor, keeps on

provoking philosophers, artists and poets; whistle-blowers keep on haunting

organizations. This is despite all of the protection afforded by the normative

assurgency as empiricists like Miceli et al (2008:34) have ascertained, and the cases

of the whistle-blowers in the NHS mentioned earlier exemplify. Now we move on to

explore singularity further.

Reading Antigone with Jacques Lacan

16
One of the most intriguing aspects of whistle-blowers is that it is difficult to decipher

their motives. In the same way, Antigone is ambiguous in motivating her act. She

refers to her family and to the unwritten laws of the gods; all high motives, if with

alarming consequences. But then, at a certain point, she says:

For never, if I had been the mother of children, or if my husband had been moldering in death, would I
have taken on this task in defiance of the citizens. To what law do I defer in saying this? My husband
being dead, I could have taken another, and a child by another man if I had lost a child; but as my
mother and father are hidden in the house of Hades, no brother could have been born again. Such was
the law by which I singled you out for honor; but to Creon I seemed to be doing wrong in this and
acting as a reckless criminal

Antigone singles out her brother as motive for her act, the love for her brother in its

uniqueness. The above-cited passage of the tragedy is important because it is

frequently overlooked and its authenticity often questioned. Goethe, for example,

looks at it as a blemish, quite unworthy after her noble motives. He is so provoked

by it that he would wish for a philologist to prove that it is interpolated and spurious

(Goethe et al. 1850:371). Alas that was not to be. Lacan insists on this passage

exactly because the reaction it generates, even for someone like Goethe, points at the

ambivalence and ambiguity of the act. This act is not as much, Antigone insists, about

family or god(s). This is about her brother and her brother only. She hears no reasons

about the rights or wrongs Polynices would have committed (towards his family, his

city, his honor, etc) or the perils for herself in burying him. As Lacan writes

Antigones position represents the radical limit that affirms the unique value of his

being without reference to any content, to whatever good or evil Polynices may have

done (1996: 344). Her act is a moment of singularity. This is defined as something

that is beyond universalizing, rationalizing norms, habits and wishes. In this sense she

is at the limit of what makes sense to others. Her act is senseless and meaningless to

17
those witnessing it, as it regards something that is only, precisely, particularly and

singularly about her her pure desire (ibid.348).

Pure desire

Antigone comes to embody what Lacan calls pure desire, i.e. a desire that, as Van

Haute clarifies, is purified from every calculus, and every attachment that would

make her anything other than a sister (1998:113). In her pure desire there is no

utilitarian calculus, or universal goodness she is acting in conformity with or for. Hers

is a choice that, as Lacan suggests, is literally motivated by no good (Lacan, 1996:

296). As Copjec indicates, Antigone is the guarantor of her own act in as far as she

does not seek validation from any other authority (2002:42). This writing suggests

that whistle-blowers be considered, like Antigone, as subjects acting in conformity

with the pure desire inhabiting them. In this sense, theirs is an act of freedom from

the consensual order they are situated in. For those around her Antigone is at the limit

of what makes sense, is understandable, is human. Crazy, is how the Chorus

(Theban elders, the citizens) describes Antigones act; impossible is how Ismene

describes her sisters act. This is nothing unusual. As Mansbach (2009) puts it the

practice of discrediting truth-tellers in the workplace by maligning their mental health

is not atypical (ibid.366). While statistical evidence is lacking there are plenty of

investigative reports, news and qualitative data suggesting that this is a familiar

reaction to whistle-blowers. In the NHS cases on whistle-blowing, for example, Dr

David Drew, who spoke out against malpractices in the hospital where he led the

pediatric department, was sent to an urgent psychiatric appointment by his boss

(Private Eye, 2011b).

18
In recasting whistle-blowing qua act of singularity it becomes possible to appreciate

why motives are so impure i.e. empirically they are confused, ambiguous and

difficult to study, as Miceli et al. have also discovered. What are normally called

motives stand for this thing that we cannot understand/ascertain that puzzles us. This

is, we propose, nothing other than the disturbing emergence of pure desire. This

seizes the subject who, often after years of witnessing questionable practices, has had

enough and cannot be silent any more and acts what Alford characterizes as a

choiceless choice (2002:40). For whistle-blowers, remaining silent is simply not an

option (Mansbach, 2009:369). Noticeably pure desire is uncountable and

unaccountable. Lacan calls it an incommensurable measure (1996:388) because it

does not follow the law of repetition and therefore cannot be forced into categories

and their variation counted. If whistle-blowing is the assurgency of pure desire then

one can see why motives are so slippery and ambiguous and are so difficult to

classify and measure empirically.

Interestingly, in the debate on whistle-blowing one notices a progressive

dsintressement from motives and a simultaneous growing interest in whistle-

blowing as a way to access and control organizational information. Motives tend to

lose their importance particularly in the efficiency thesis bounded up to the

legitimization discourse (Lewis, 2001;Vandekerckhove, 2006). This thesis affirms

that the dominant process of institutionalization and legitimization of whistle-blowing

has been mostly performed and rationalized through calls to efficiency. It is argued

that at current levels of complexity it is more efficient for organizations to facilitate

whistle-blowing acts as this reduces wastage and costs, i.e. possible lawsuits, damages

to reputation and brand power. If organizations are more efficient also in this ethical

19
sense then everyone is better off; the ideal is realized as the triple bottom line

(economic, social and environmental) is actualized. In this discourse public good and

organizational good are the same. All permutations between public good,

organizational good, individual good, environmental good and consumers good are

possible as they are all punctuated by the efficient organization as the guarantor which

produces a wealthier and happier world. Such process of dsintressement performs a

cleansing of singularity in as far as it (attempts to) transform(s) whistle-blowers into

dutiful informers, guaranteeing an organizational betterment which all (employees,

customers, the public) can enjoy.

This attempt to sanitize the singularity of pure desire from social relations was

identified by Lacan as the post-revolutionary perspective (Lacan, 1996:391).

Traditional ethics, Lacan suggests, attempts in all of its forms the cleaning up of

desire (ibid. 386) in order to reinstate/posit subjects at what he calls the service of

good(s), i.e. private goods, family goods, domestic goods, other goods that solicit us,

the goods of our trade or profession and the goods of the city (ibid.303). Being at the

service of good(s) for Lacan coincides with the morality of power. While this may

have diverse versions/forms it has a common exhortation: lets keep on working and

as far as desire is concerned come back later! (ibid. 391). We submit that this is what

one finds in the process of dsintressement performed by the legitimization

discourse. It does not matter why one blows the whistle. What matters is that the

information reaches official channels (King in Lewis, 2001:152; Lewis, 2001:3),

because, as Lacan writes, what counts is that work must go on (1996: 387). The

NHS cases reported in Private Eye (2011a) follow this logic in as far as the

information is gathered and hence all is working appropriately; but, then, whistle-

20
blowers are routinely gagged. Research on the operations of the legislative protection

such as the PIDA in the UK has shown that even this is subject to an effective gag

(James, 2011: 119). Work must go on. No further disruption is wanted.

On accepting that whistle-blowing is an act of singularity, of pure desire that seizes

the subject, then what one witnesses in this mushrooming normative and cultural

transformation is the attempt to vanquish individuality not only as a particularity but

also as an actual singularity. Copjec (2002) proposes a difference between the two

that is instructive. She indicates that particularity is something that is ephemeral and

does not endure. But, she notes, singularity has something more in that it gives rise

to a sense of immortality, something that has the features of what must be and

cannot die (Copjec, 2002:24). This is what forever returns/establishes the poignancy,

fascination and insistence of Antigones pure desire. Such consideration

presupposes someone witnessing such an act and feeling the poignancy, insistence

and fascination. So it is these witnesses we now discuss.

The limit

Antigone is ruthless, unflinching in her decision, unlike Creon who eventually

changes his mind. Antigone is inflexible. For Lacan, Antigone has a beautiful

unbearable splendor in the moment when she is already inhuman even if she is still

among humans. Her decision and her act is inhuman in the sense of it being, as her

sister Ismene put it, impossible, i.e. incomprehensible and alien. Antigone is already

symbolically dead as with her act she no longer occupies the social familiar place

where she used to belong. Antigone does what is deemed impossible for a woman and

breaks with the community bonds, with the expectations of her gender role, with the

21
only familial ties she has left. She is living as if she was already dead, a position

Alford (2007:240) finds many whistle-blowers to be in. Eagleton calls it a twilight

region beyond conventional mores (2010:101). Antigone is, and here Lacan meets

Heidegger (1985/1996), uncanny and un-homely in the sense of what is not at home

and is a frightening and alienating place (ibid.71). In her trajectory to the cave

where she will be entombed alive she is on unchartered territory, at the limit-zone

between life and death. In such a limit-zone the tragedys Chorus witnesses her and

sees her in her beautiful splendor Antigone has an unbearable splendor; a quality that

both attracts us and startles us, in the sense that intimidates us: this terrible self-willed

victim disturbs us (Lacan, 1996: 305). Similarly, Heidegger tells us that the reaction

to the uncanny gives rise to anxiety (1985/1996:71). In summary, the encounter with

such a beautiful image of the limit has the most strange and most profound of effects

(Lacan, 1996: 306). These effects are not only at the level of knowledge in that

confusion ensues and critical judgments vacillate [and] analysis stops (ibid.346).

But the effects are also an affective shaking, a state of excitement that Lacan

indicates, is involved in the sphere of power relations; it is notably something that

makes you lose them (ibid.307).

This Lacanian reading of Antigone indicates, firstly, why whistle-blowers afford the

ambivalent perturbing and even fascinated reactions indicated so far. This is because

whistle-blowers with their act are in the position of the limit of the possible. They no

longer respond to what makes sense i.e. the web of expectations, the modus operandi,

the organizational common sense, the rules of the game, where they are embedded

and situated (which involves also ignoring certain rules, values, etc). Their act

22
disturbs the tranquillity and smooth functioning of what is normal, intelligible and

homely.

Lacans reading of Antigone also suggests that witnessing such an act throws

everything into confusion. Nobody stays indifferent as parrhesia acts on peoples

mind (Foucault, 2001:12). One is affected not only at the level of knowledge because

everything becomes confused; but also one is affected with what could be called a

bodily reaction, i.e. a state of excitement that seizes those witnessing whistle-blowing.

What one relied on for solidity and stability vacillates and suddenly the web of power

relations that guarantees ones position (ones moves) is unbalanced. Measurable,

accountable moves are suddenly lost and therefore new possibilities open up for a

decision on where one stands and what one wants. For example, Hemon suggests that

in the city support is growing for Antigone and even Creon (if too late) changes his

mind. In other words, in the encounter with whistle-blowers as those inhabiting their

pure desire what happens is that we are confronted and interrogated on the desire

that we are, as De Kiesel (2009: 263) puts it. Such acts disturb all the moves

(including ours) that keep the servicing of the good(s) going. The smooth running of

work suddenly glitches. In witnessing such an act one cannot just keep on working

as pure desire is made, for a moment, visible and its power affects us unaccountably.

Discussion

On reading writings on Antigone and relating this to whistle-blowers we suggest that

whistle-blowing cannot be predicted and controlled because it is a moment of

singularity. This recasting opens up new research avenues. One can stop pining over

the little new advancement of the empiricist agenda and instead creatively engage

23
with new research on whistle-blowing. For example, we may research further the

legitimization discourse. This regards the normative solidification (at the legal and

cultural level) aimed at protecting, supporting and favoring whistle-blowing, which is

designed to make it acceptable and even desirable. We submit that research is needed

to explore empirically the legitimization thesis (Lewis, 2001; Artszulowicz and

Gasparski, 2011;Vandekerckhove, 2006). For example, to what extent this is

widespread; what favors it and impedes it. Further research is also needed to evaluate

more thoroughly (including empirically) the consequences this legitimization

discourse has at the ethico-political level.

Our current view on the impact and consequences of this legitimization discourse can

be traced throughout this paper. But it is worth elucidating it here. Prima facie this

discourse is an extremely positive development. It reduces the negative connotations

of whistle-blowing and it aims to protect whistle-blowers. One cannot but welcome

this as a progressive advancement. The discourse invites/produces the highest ethical

organizational development and provides a win-win for all in our current western

social order. Whistle-blowing is solidified as a duty of disclosure in the name of

information gathering that increases efficiency, problem solving and quality.

Additional reflections are, however, worth considering even if they may be slightly

disconcerting.

In such a legitimization discourse whistle-blowers are indeed cast as informers. Peter

Drucker (in)famously equated whistle-blowing with informing but, as he dramatically

hinted, perhaps it is not quite irrelevant that the only societies in Western history that

encouraged informers were bloody and infamous tyrannies (Drucker, 1981:33).

24
Pace Drucker, in a full reversal informers are not seen as a negative feature of

totalitarian regimes but rather as a positive feature to be actively encouraged, even

demanded by company codes, industry and professional charters and legal codes. But,

could it be that rather than changing the way we perceive informers we have instead

introjected the features of authoritarian regimes? It is worth leaving this question open

as a stimulus to readers and as another avenue for further research. Certainly, readings

of Antigone caution us on taking the progressive nature of the legitimization

discourse at face value. It has a silenced political undertone, which repeats a

conservative stance by predicating what good is. In other words, it gives good a full

content and normalizes it as something good-for-all. Specifically, what is good is that

which delivers efficiency and quality so serving the continuation of the current socio-

economic and political system with the efficient organization at its centre. However,

given the inequalities and injustices our global system perpetuates, something that is

designed to perpetuate it may not be such a desirable thing after all. Moreover, as

Miceli et al (2008) have noticed, and the NHS cases exemplified, this does not work.

Whistle-blowers are not more protected/controlled despite years of legislation

designed to achieve the opposite (ibid: 34). As Mansbach (2009) also puts it existing

legislation to protect whistle-blowers from consequent harassment and job loss has

proven, in the great majority of cases, to be ineffectual (ibid.367).

Our reading of Antigones pure desire has suggested why this maybe the case. It is

not accidental that this legitimization discourse aims to erase the singularity of the

whistle-blowing act, as discussed so far, given that the emergence of singularity - of

pure desire - terribly perturbs the normal functioning of the service of the good(s) on

25
which the socio-politico-economic system relies for its continuation. As Lacan puts it,

the morality of power is clear, as far as pure desire is concerned come back later!

The other implication we draw from readings on Antigone is that whistle-blowing can

be recast as a political act (Mansbach, 2009,2011; Rothschild and Miethe, 1994). But,

as mentioned in the introduction, this must be precisely explained.

One needs to come to terms with the fact that whistle-blowing acts cannot be

completely eliminated by regulation/legislation. Empiricists like Miceli et al. have

noticed as much. Philosophically this indicates what makes humans specifically

humans. Humanity, we specify with Copjec (2002) earlier and now with Badiou

(2001), is that which makes us something other than a mortal being (Badiou, 2001).

Humanity is the immortal singularity we have seen emerging in Antigones act, the

uncompromising stance of not giving ground relative on ones desire as Lacan

(1996:319) puts it. In the most unpredictable of situations everyone can be immortal

and be seen to speak the truth to power shaking the modus operandi reproducing the

organizational reality one is embedded in. Empirical research has been unable to

show that there are inherent differences between those who blow the whistle and

those who do not (Miceli et al, 2008:98). Whistle-blowers have not been found to be

especially moral people, religious people, political people or socially-

responsible people. Indeed most truth-tellers in the workplace are ordinary people

(Mansbach, 2009:366). Anyone can in a particular situation speak out regardless of

what everyone else thinks and regardless of their own good. Witnessing this shakes

and moves the system of power where work goes on. This, as Mansbach (2011;2009)

put it, is an individual micro-political act. Specifically, we suggest this act is to be

26
understood as political because it becomes the condition of possibility for something

that does not exist yet. What does it mean? To explain this one needs to consider the

process of what happens when one speaks truth to power, i.e. what is engendered by

the confrontation with the act as, in that moment of singularity, the smooth

functioning of work and the motions and knowledge(s) supporting it quiver. In such

conditions a reconfiguration and transformation of the existing modus operandi is

possible. This is consistent with the understanding of the political (and of politics) as

what is primary to the constitution and creation of social relations (e.g. Laclau and

Mouffe, 1985) and not only their reproduction where politics is under the principle of

consistency. Pari passu one should clarify that we are not saying that such acts

provide a model for progressive ethico-political action (Stavrakakis, 2008:114).

Antigone, like most (if not all) whistle-blowers does not do that. Whistle-blowing is

not a model as it is not a representation; or, better, as a representation is always

impure, ambiguous and ambivalent to those witnessing it. As Butler put it:

as a figure of politics [Antigone] points somewhere else, not to politics as a question of representation
but to the political possibility that emerges when the limits to representation and representability are
exposed (2000:2).

For those witnessing whistle-blowing the act is often shocking and shakes the smooth

routine, and often tacit, modus operandi of work. Such witnessing bears

consequences. The main consequence is the decisions those encountering whistle-

blowing take in the moment in which they are profoundly shaken. The things they do,

how they do them and why they do them suddenly dither - so how do they respond?

In other words, and this is another implication and hence our third contribution,

whistle-blowing is never only about them, the whistle-blowers. Instead it is also

quite obviously about those witnessing it and their responses to what they see and

27
feel. Antigones (and we argue whistle-blowers) act touches the void inherent in any

normative order, a void revealing the contingent character of its working and the

contingent character of any law that is universalizable (Sjholm, 2004:108). When

contingency comes into sight, a new subject may emerge, or the old one is re-

booted but maybe with new features.

Whistle-blowing, in other words, is not only a matter on which one expresses an

academic and/or legal judgment but just like Antigone has a poietic aspect that

questions those coming into contact with it. This act directs a question to what regards

unswervingly our very being subjects. By this we imply both meanings of the

word subject. The first is subjects to a specific order, authority and system of

power relations. The second is subjects as what exactly escapes such a system. Here

the latter was equated with the subject of the pure desire that inhabits each of us,

which we do not know until it seizes us in a particular situation. It is what we cannot

articulate but that nevertheless catches us as the track of something that is

specifically our business (Lacan, 1996:319). When one is blinded by the splendor

of the image of this subject then in re-opening the eyes, the former notion - that of

being subject to shakes and a response on where one stands is called for. This

opens up the possibility of what Eagleton (2010), for example, calls a metanoia, i.e. a

shift of mind. A new subjectivity is possible; one that may politicize the particular

situation transforming it into a political cause (Rothschild and Miethe, 1994). In short,

as Mansbach (2009) suggests, whistle-blowing has a political value that should not

be underestimated as it has the potential to radicalize democracies and influences

how subjectivities are produced (ibid. 21-22).

28
The actuality of what is then articulated after witnessing whistle-blowing becomes

evident in the response given to the act of whistle-blowing, specifically, in the

decision that retroactively enables an answer to the following questions: do I support

the whistle-blower? What is now to be done? What actions do I actually take? To

clarify, the momentary blindness, the vacillation of what we know-of and take for

granted, and the state of excitement therein generated, do not necessarily bring a

radical or even progressive change. It is also possible that the responses (and therefore

the subjectivity therein articulated) are ideological (Howarth and Glynos, 2007) i.e.

they close down the radical contingency opened up by the singular whistle-blowing

act. These theoretical considerations offer new ground for exciting empirical

investigations on the emergence (or not) of new subjectivities and social (and

organizational) change spurred (or not) by act of whistle blowing and its conditions.

The final proposed implication of our readings on Antigone points towards the ethical

dimension of such an act. Exploring in full this ethical dimension (that Critchley,

1998 calls ethics of singularity and Zizek, 1992 links to the Real) is, however, far

beyond the scope of this paper. Here we content ourselves with having offered

glimpses of an ethics that is paradoxically for no good. We have gestured towards

the contours of such ethical dimension, minimally proposing that this regards a

fidelity to the possibilities opened up by an encounter with the contingency of the

social, where possibilities of being are multiplied. What is significant for this paper,

however, is to consider how this ethics is different from business ethics that is

mostly an ethics of maintenance where change (when even deemed possible) is

designed for continuity and for the smooth functioning of organizational operations

(see also Jones et al. 2005). This maintenance requires constant communication on

29
what good is and how to promote it and achieve it. The good comes under the

diverse forms of duty, virtue, self-interest and all the models on how to implement it.

The discussion in business ethics, which attempts to establish when whistle-blowing

is a duty, is exactly of this kind.

The process of dsintressement we have highlighted facilitates the ethics of

maintenance as it enacts a detachment from pure desire by attempting to pre-empt

sudden bursts of immortality. As in one of the signifying traces of the term

dsintressement, individuals are literally paid off to keep at bay the pure desire

that inhabits them, so maintaining them as subjects to the system they belong to. In

being paid off, individuals are entangled into their self-interest and into the market

where everything, including ones words and deeds, can be counted, bought and sold.

The ethics we glimpse at through the acts of whistle-blowers is an ethics where one

does not accept payments and instead pays the price for accessing ones pure desire.

In the NHS cases Dr David Drew refused a pay out of 250,000 to keep quiet. As we

noted he is still fighting his case. So, it is granted, this is a rather disturbing ethics.

Conclusions

Philosophical and psychoanalytic readings of Antigone may not be the most obvious

place for a discussion on whistle-blowing. One could simply accept that whistle-

blowers are indeed acting out of a pro-social desire. But, as we have seen, this line of

research has stumbled across various obstacles. Parrhesia, free speech, when it comes

to whistle-blowers, is a problematic value and its control, prediction and protection

has proven to be extremely difficult. Difficulties include the complexity and

paradoxes whistle-blowers engender in those witnessing (and studying) their acts; and

30
the organizational complexities that, regardless of legislations/codes and procedures,

have not been able to control and protect them. In answering Wolfe Morrisons call

we intended to replenish this research arena proposing novel ways of thinking about

whistle-blowing by utilizing readings of a literary text - Antigone. There are some

precedents of using literature and narratives in studying whistle-blowing (e.g

Garaventa, 1994). We have also considered throughout the findings of Alfords

explorations of the narrative structures of whistle-blowers stories (Alford, 2002).

Given the number of writings on Antigone we have had to piece together the most

poignant in relation to our two research questions on the ambivalent reactions that

whistle-blowers engender and the ambiguity of their motives. In this sense the

Hegelian and Lacanian readings of Antigone have been central. Noticeably, Lacans

discussion on desire, pure or otherwise, moved on from the way discussed in Seminar

VII, and it is hugely debated. And there are different interpretations of Hegels work.

But our literary exercise, furnished with real-life examples from the NHS, has thrown

up a myriad of considerations and reflections to think about whistle-blowing in a

different way from the traditional pro-social behavioral model, just as Wolfe

Morrison invited us to. Fundamental to our new way of thinking about whistle-

blowers is that whistle-blowing is pro-social but in a paradoxical and impure way.

This is because whistle-blowers with their acts are at the limit of the social fabric

where they are situated and embedded in. Their acts exercise an ethics that is

paradoxically for no good, at least of good as we know it, i.e. the good(s) we

serve. Based on the critical reflections produced here we have highlighted a number

of avenues for empirical research which can be useful to scholars who want to engage

with this subject but found unappealing its lack of progress or its empiricist agenda. In

31
conclusion, we reiterate with Brown (and replacing the word Antigone with

whistle-blowers) what the big idea of this paper (Kilduff, 2006) is:

what matters about whistle-blowers [is] not that we should respond to them in a particular way but that
they compel such serious attention, forcing us, as we respond, to confront some of our most
fundamental ethical assumptions. You may love whistle-blowers or hate them, what no thinking person
has ever managed to do is to ignore them. (Brown, 1986:10)

This paper has examined this poietic aspect of the practice of whistle-blowing by

investigating why their acts are seen as so ambivalent and ambiguous. We have also

addressed why they still haunt organizations, regardless of the fact that

organizations, the legislator and management researchers eagerly attempt to control

and protect them. Whistle-blowing, by showing us the unsettling contingency of

works modus operandi, calls us to decisions that have a political valence in that they

reiterates or re-frame/reshape our values and practices. This act offers us glimpses of

an ethics that is only potentially and paradoxically pro-social, but is not necessarily

for the social as we know it.

Acknowledgements. I wish to thank the participants and the organizers of the two

events in 2009, where I presented some of the key ideas of this paper, for graciously

inviting me and for offering many insightful comments. The first was the keynote for

the Researching Work and Learning 6th International Conference in Denmark in July,

the other a seminar at Cardiff Business School, UK, in November. I also thank

Martyna Sliwa for the useful references she suggested. This paper has benefitted from

the generous comments on earlier drafts from Adam James, Andre Spicer, Andrew

Brown, Campbell Jones, Guglielmo Meardi, Hugh Willmott, Iain Munro and Martin

32
Parker. Their help has been invaluable in improving this paper. The responsibility of

what is written here, however, is all mine.

References
Alford, C.F. (2007) Whistle-Blower Narratives: The Experience of Choiceless Choice
Social Research Spring 74: 223-48
Alford, C.F. (2002) Whistle-blowers: broken lives and organizational power Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press
Armenakis, A. (2004) Making a Difference by Speaking Out Journal of
Management Inquiry, 13(4):355-62
Arsuzulowicz, M. and Gasparski, W.W. (2011) Whistle-blowing in defense of proper
action, New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers
Badiou, A. (2001) Ethics London: Verso
Bennis, W. Goleman, D and OToole, J. (2008) Transparency: how to create a
culture of candor
San Francisco:Jossey-Bass
Bok, S. (1980) `Whistle-blowing and Professional Responsibilities' Ethics Teaching
in Higher Education 11: 277-95.
Bowie, (1982) Business Ethics Englewood Cliff: Prentice-Hall
Bouville, M. (2008) Whistle-Blowing and Morality Journal of Business Ethics
81:579585
Brown, (1993) Sophocles: Antigone Warminster: Aris & Phillips
Butler, J. (2000) Antigones claim: kinship between life and death NY: Columbia
University Press
Cavarero, A. (2010) On the body of Antigone In F. Sderbck Feminist readings of
Antigone Albany: SUNY Press
Critchley, S. (1998) A commentary upon Derridas reading of Hegel in S. Barret ed.
Hegel after Derrida London: Routledge
Czarniawska-Joerges, B. and Guillet de Monthoux, P. (1994) Good novels, better
management: reading organizational realities, Chur: Harwood Academic Publishers.
Copjec, J. (2002) Imagine there is no woman: ethics and sublimation Cambridge,
Mass: MIT Press
Cunliffe, A, Luhmann, J. and Boje, D. (2004) Narrative temporality: Implications

33
for organizational research. Organization Studies 25(2): 26186.
Daehl, A. E. (2003) Silent Knights: Blowing the Whistle on Military Accidents and
Their Cover-ups Brassey, New Edition
Davis, M. (2004) Some paradoxes of whistle blowing in T. L. Beauchamp and N.
Bowie (eds) Ethical Theory and Business, 7th edn, 305-9. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
De Cock, C. and Land, C. (2006) Organization/Literature: Exploring the Seam
Organization Studies 27(4): 517535
De George, R.T. (1986) Business Ethics NY: MacMillan
De Kesel, M. (2009) Eros and Ethics Albany:SUNY
Derrida, J. (1986) Glas Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press
Donaldson, L. (1996) For positivist organization theory London:Sage
Drascek, M. and Maticic, S. (2007) What managers could see in the philosophical
block of free will? Journal of Business Ethics 81:1-14
Drucker, P. (1981) What is business ethics The Public Interest 63: 18-36
Duska, R. (2004) `Whistle-blowing and Employee Loyalty', in T. L. Beauchamp and
N. Bowie (eds) Ethical Theory and Business, 7th edn, pp. 305-9. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Eagleton, T. (2010) Lacans Antigone in S.E. Wilmer A. ukauskait Eds
Interrogating Antigone in postmodern philosophy and criticism Oxford:OUP
Edward, P., & Willmott, H. (2008) Structures, identities and politics: Bringing
corporate citizenship into the corporation. In A. G. Scherer, & G. Palazzo Eds.
Handbook of research on Corporate Citizenship Aldershot: Elgar.
Elliston, F. Keenan, J. Lockhart, P. Van Schaick, J. (1985) Whistleblowing
NY:Praeger
Fleming, K. (2008) Fascism on stage: Jean Anouilhs Antigone in V. Zajko and M.
Leonard Laughing with Medusa: classical myth and feminist thought, 163-88
NY:OUP
Garaventa, E. (1994) An Enemy of the People by Henrik Ibsen Journal of
Management Inquiry 3(4):369-74
Glaser, M.P. and Glaser, P.M. (1989) The whistle-blower NY: Basic books
Goethe, von J.W. Eckermann, J.P. and Soret, F.J. (1850) Conversations of Goethe
with Eckermann and Soret 1 London: Smith, Elder and Co.

34
Grant, C. (2002) Whistle-blowers: Saints of secular culture Journal of Business
Ethics 39 (4):91-99
Gundlach, M. Douglas, S. and Martinko, M. 2003 The decision to blow the whistle
Academy of Management Review 28(1) 108-23
Guardian, the (2011) Bradley Manning: top US legal scholars voice outrage at
'torture', April 10
Habermas, J. (2005) Knowledge and human interest: a general perspective in Gary
Gutting ed. Continental philosophy of science Malden, MA:Blackwell
Hegel, G.W.F. (1807/1977) Phenomenology of Spirit Trans. A.V. Miller Oxford:OUP
Hegel, G.W.F. (1821/2000) Elements of the Philosophy of Rights A. Wood ed.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Heidegger, M. (1984/1996) Hlderins hyms the Ister Bloomington: Indiana
University Press
Hoffman and McNulty (2011) A business ethics of whistle-blowing In M.
Arsuzulowicz and W. Gasparski Whistle-blowing in defense of proper action, eds.
New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers
Hunton, J. E. and Rose, J. M. (2011) Effects of anonymous whistle-blowing and
perceived reputation threats on investigations of reputation threats by audit
Committee Members Journal of Management Studies 48(1): 7598
Irigaray, l. (1985) Speculum of the other women Ithaca: Cornell University Press
James, C. (2011) Whistleblowing, Risk and Regulation in D. Lewis and W.
Vandekerckhove Whistleblowing and Democratic Values International
Whistleblowing Research Network:115-26
Jeong-Yeon L. Gibson Heilmann, S. and Near, J.P. 2004 Blowing the whistle on
sexual harassment Human Relations 57 (3): 297-322
Johnson, R.A. (2003) Whistle-blowing Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers
Jos, P. Tompkins, M. and Hayes, S. (1989) In praise of difficult people Public
Administration Review Nov/Dec: 552-61
Kilduff, M. (2006) Editors comment; publishing theory Academy of Management
Review, 31(2): 252-55
Koehn, (2002) Whistle blowing and trust in L.P.Hartman (ed.) Perspectives in
Business Ethics 2nd Ed. NY:McGraw-Hill

35
Lacan, J, (1996) The ethics of psychoanalysis the seminar of Jacques Lacan 1959-
1960 Book VII NY: W.W.Norton & Company
Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C. (1985) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy London:Verso
Lagopoulos, I. (2009) Sophocless Antigone theatrical play at:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:nzfnZolfsaMJ:www.eben.gr/site/PDF/22nd%2520EBEN%2520AC%25202009,%
2520Antigone%2520Implications.pdf+&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiQq40GpPf60ubDlZ18g90qvH5bGAhnqnlQOX
ccBoNmA5j0Hb9gJvoogHcqqJqkGjnTwtq43p2eZG3E_9iCV17XrYmimqXLxXX77Sv2IIrap8O2cPPh35JcpfdjoY49nW-
x9_Bn&sig=AHIEtbTWjej0Pg_AA1H3BL2pxuYF1jlt3A&pli=1
Lampert, N. (1985) Whistle-blowing in the Soviet Union: Complaints and Abuses
Under State Socialism Studies in Russian and East European History and Society,
Palgrave Macmillan
Leonard, M. (2005) Athens in Paris: ancient Greece and the political in post-war
French thought Oxford: OUP
Lewis, D.B. ed. (2001) Whistle-blowing at work, London: The Athlone Press
Linstead, S. ed. (2003) Text/Work: Representing organization and organizing
representation London: Routledge
Mansbach, A. (2011) Whistleblowing as fearless speech in D. Lewis and W.
Vandekerckhove Whistleblowing and Democratic Values International
Whistleblowing Research Network:12-26
Mansbach, A. (2009) Keeping Democracy Vibrant Constellations 16(3): 363-74
Medoff, R ed. (2008) Blowing the Whistle on Genocide: Josiah E. Dubois, Jr. and the
Struggle for a U.S. Response to the Holocaust Shofar Supplements in Jewish Studies,
Purdue University Press
Miceli, M.P., Near, J.P. and Dworkin, T. M (2008) Whistle-blowing in organizations
NY: Routledge
Miceli, M.P. and Near, J.P. (1984) The relationship among beliefs, organizational
position and whistle-blowing status, Academy of Management Journal 27: 687-705
Miceli, M.P. and Near, J.P. (2002) What makes whistle-blowers effective? Human
Relations 55(4):455-79
Miethe, T.D. (1999) Whistle-blowing at work: Touch choices exposing fraud, waste
and abuse on the job Boulder CO:Westview Press
Nader, R. Petkas, P. and Blackwell, K. (1972) Whistle-blowing NY:Bantam Books
Nam, D. and Lemak, D.J. (2007) The whistle-blowing zone: applying Barnards
insights to a modern ethical dilemma Journal of Management History, 13(1), 33-42.
Near, J.P. Dowrkin, T.M. and Miceli, M.P. (1993) Explaining the whistle-blowing
process, Organization Science, 4: 393-411

36
Near, J.P. and Miceli, M.P. (1995) Effective Whistle-blowing Academy of
Management Review, 20:679-708
Near, J.P. and Miceli, M.P. (1996) Whistle-blowing: Myth and Reality, Journal of
Management, 22(3):507-526
OToole, J. (2008) Speaking Truth to Power In W. Bennis, D. Goleman and J.
OToole Transparency: How Leaders Create a Culture of Candor San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass: 45-92
Parmelee, M.A., Near, J.P. and Jensen, T.C. (1982) Correlates of whistle-blowers
perceptions of organizational retaliation Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 17-34
Perry, N. (1998) Indecent exposures: Theorizing whistle-blowing Organization
Studies, 19 (2): 235-57.
Phillips, N. (1995) Telling Organizational Tales Organization Studies 16(4): 625-49
Private Eye (2011a) Shoot the Messenger: How NHS Whistle-blowers are Silenced
and Sacked n.1292
Private Eye (2011b) Another Whistle-blower Refuses to Take the Hush Money n.1293
Randall, D. (1987) Commitment and the Organization: The Organization Man
Revisited The Academy of Management Review 12(3): 460-471
Regh, M.T. Miceli, M.P., Near, J.P. and Van Scotter J.R (2008) Antecedents and
outcomes of retaliations against whistle-blowers Organization Science 19(2): 221-40
Rhodes, C. (2009) After Reflexivity: Ethics, Freedom and the Writing of
Organization Studies Organization Studies 30(6):65372
Rothschild, J. and Miethe, T.D. (1994) Whistle blowing as Resistance in J.M.
Jermier, D. Knights and W.R. Nord eds Resistance and Power in Organizations
London: Routledge
Rothschild, J. and Miethe, T.D. (1999) Whistle-blower disclosure and management
retaliation Work and Occupation 26(1): 107-28
Sjholm, C. (2004) The Antigone Complex Stanford: Stanford University Press
Skivenes, M. and Trygstad, S.C. (2010) When Whistle-blowing Works: The
Norwegian case Human Relations 63(7):1071-97
Sliwa, M. and Cairns, J. (2007) The Novel as a Vehicle for Organizational Inquiry
Ephemera 7(2): 309-25
Sderbck, F. (2010) Why Antigone today? In F. Sderbck Feminist readings of
Antigone 1-14 Albany: SUNY Press

37
Soeken, K. and Soeken, D. (1987) A survey of whistle-blowers Association of Mental
Health Specialties, Laurel, Md, March
Steiner, G. (1984) Antigones NY: OUP
Sucher, S. (2007) The Moral Leader: Challenges, Insights, and Tools Abingdon:
Routledge
Taylor, D. and Vintges, K. (2004) Feminism and the Final Foucault,
Urbana:University of Illinois Press
Tindemans, K. (2010) Antigone and the Law in S.E. Wilmer and A. ukauskait
Eds. Interrogating Antigone in Postmodern Philosophy and Criticism Oxford:OUP
Tsahuridu, E. and Vandekerckhove, W. (2008) Organisational Whistle-blowing
Policies Journal of Business Ethics 82 (1):107 - 118.
Van Buitenen, P. and Dale, L. (2000) Blowing the Whistle: One Man's Fight Against
Fraud in the European Commission
Vandekerckhove, W. (2006) Whistle-blowing and Organizational Social
Responsibility Aldershot: Ashgate
Van Haute, P. (1998) Death and sublimation in Lacans reading of Antigone 102-
120 in S. Harasym ed. Levinas and Lacan: the missed encounter, Albany: SUNY
Verschoor, C.C. (2003) Are "whistle-blowers" heroes or just doing their job?
Strategic Finance March
Vinten, G. (1994) Whistle-blowing: subversion or corporate citizenship NY: St
Martins Press
Walters, K.D. (1975) 'Your Employee's Right to Blow the Whistle', Harvard
Business Review 53 (July-Aug.): 26- 34
Westin, A. ed. (1981) Whistle-blowing NY: McGraw Hill
Wee, H. (2002), The right way to blow the whistle, Business Week, January 30
Wilmer, S.E. and ukauskait, A. (Eds.) (2010) Interrogating Antigone in
postmodern philosophy and criticism Oxford:OUP
Wolfe Morrison, E. (2009) Marcia P. Miceli, Janet P. Near, and Terry Morehead
Dworkin: Whistle-blowing in Organizations Administrative Science Quarterly 54:
344-6
Zald, M. (1996) More fragmentation? Unfinished business in linking the social
sciences and the humanities Administrative Science Quarterly 41(2): 25161.
Zizek, (1992) Enjoy your symptom! NY: Routledge

38
Appendix 1

We conducted an online survey (via Business Source Premier) of the journals

publishing excellent and internationally-recognized articles (see ABS 2010 list of 4 &

4*graded) in the categories of general management and organization studies. This

shows that there are 165 articles and book reviews with whistle blowers/whistle

blowing featuring at least once in the text, only 21 have either or both terms in the

title; 15 of these are full articles and 10 of them have either Janet Near and/or Marcia

Miceli as authors. Of the five book reviews, three are dedicated to Near and Micelis

books published in 1992 and in 2008.

39