In the contexts of organization studies or fashion studies, it is not self-evident how bricolage differs ontologically from other closely related concepts such as organizing, montage, improvisation, pastiche27 or retro. Organizing is,
unsurprisingly, utterly central to the field of organization studies, and it is possible to generally think of organizing as a way of establishing structures (e.g. Burrell, 2013), introducing routines or ‘arranging and ordering things’ to achieve different forms of order (Stokes, 2011, 106), meaning and value. Here, I view ‘organizing’ as a notion even broader and more encompassing than bricolage. Specifically, I see bricolage as a non-linear, non-planned, mobile and sometimes controversial form of organizing. Therefore, bricolage is not necessarily about establishing or introducing order in a given context – it could also be about
introducing disorder, breaking with existing orders, or simply ‘giving it a go’ without any well-articulated, explicit purposes in mind. Equally, bricolage is not only about creating something or stitching things together, but it could also be about unfolding or picking things apart.
If the focus of much of the mainstream bricolage literature, surprisingly obsessed with functionality, has tended see the bricoleur as a skilled individual actor acting in a ‘black box’, I approach bricolage as a ‘messier’, more uncertain, mobile, dynamic and embodied-material project with an important spatial
dimension. Bricolage evidently depends on practice, epistemology, and metaphysics (Duymedjian and Rüling, 2010), but there is perhaps more to it. As bricolage has traditionally not been linked to (physical, social and imagined) space, I intend to empirically illustrate how bricolage is enacted and co-performed throughout organizational spaces. Recognizing space is important for developing more a critical understanding of bricolage, particularly because space influences, enables and constrains all organized actions (Cutcher et al., 2016), including the performance of bricolage. Here, I regard space as ‘an excessive composition of multiple forces’ (Beyes and Steyaert, 2011, 4) not easy to grasp, ‘box’ or pin down. Following Beyes and Steyaert (2011, 3) the embodied, generative ‘everyday spatial becoming’ of organization is actually relevant here, as such a processual and performative approach to spacing considers complex dimensions and multiple forces of material, affective, embodied apprehensions as already intertwined, when it comes to the continuous performance of space (e.g. Cadman, 2009; Thrift, 2007; Anderson and Harrison, 2010; Beyes and Steyaert, 2011). Specifically, I acknowledge the potential of this aesthetically, affectively and bodily sensitive approach also in terms of understanding bricolage, a form of organizing in action, in novel, more dynamic and relational ways. If we wish to move towards more flexible understandings of bricolage embracing ambiguity, flux and multiple dimensions intertwined, this approach is worthy of our consideration.
The body always plays a fundamental role in action (e.g. Michel, 2011; Satama and Huopalainen, 2016; Young, 1980), and this evidently goes for bricolage action, too. Our bodies are fundamental to us; they are temporal sites and biological forces where agency, body fluids, experiences and social meanings are constantly co-created, negotiated and processed (e.g. Borgerson, 2005). Bodies constitute our material ‘vehicles for journeying’ in the world (e.g. Meriläinen et al., 2015), and we feel joy, pain, anger, exhaustion, excitement, love and passion
in and through our moving bodies. Likewise, our lived embodied experiences are
inter-connected with the wider social context (Adamson and Johansson, 2016). The same goes for embodied agency. ‘Action and the body’s role in it are structured by culture’, Michel (2011, 330) emphasizes. Embodied experiences as well as bodily actions are dynamically shaped by a variety of social expectations, norms and ideals around us (e.g. Csordas, 1999; Dale, 2001; Satama and Huopalainen, 2016). Furthermore, both active bodies and mobile things ‘incorporate and reproduce beliefs, values and culture(s)’ (Stokes, 2011, 12).
Existing theorizations have largely ignored the embodiment28 and the day-
to-day affective encounters (e.g. Stewart, 2007) of the bricoleur, as well as the significance of micro bodily actions to bricolage. Paradoxically, the active body has often remained unproblematized in the field of organization studies more broadly (e.g. Joas, 1997; Strauss, 2008). This is neglect is equally apparent in the mainstream bricolage literature. Since Lévi-Strauss originally portrayed the bricoleur primarily as ‘someone who works with his [sic] hands’, it is somewhat ironic to find these fundamental and physical acts of the hands largely absent from existing theorizations. To perform any organizing activities, bricoleurs must often get their hands dirty, touch (Rippin, 2012c) and grasp various objects, move their bodies and things around in meaningful ways, touch various surfaces, and present themselves physically. The ‘orthodox’ bricolage field has rarely considered how meaningful and valuable embodied actions are carried out, but bricolage does not emerge without the diverse acts of embodied subjects involved in a particular socio-cultural context. Here, it appears vital to emphasize that bricolage always intertwines sociomateriality and embodied action, and this is something I will address empirically. By so doing, I challenge conventional representations of bricolage as disembodied actions.
Situated bricolage both shapes and is shaped by the context in which it
occurs. Although bricolage is always a context-dependent action of a myriad of tensions and movements, the literature largely engages with bricolage ‘by pragmatic, utilitarian considerations’ (Perkmann and Spicer, 2014, 34). As emphasized previously, bricolage actions emerge through the ad hoc interface of both fleshy, corporeal human beings as well as non-human material things. Furthermore, I assume that bricolage, like any organizational action ‘in flight’, is often based upon uncertainty, serendipity and luck (see also Rehn and Lennerfors, 2014) rather than in-detail planned, ‘rational’ and intentional action. As such, bricolage might sufficiently problematize any fixed, formal and typically ‘masculine’ understandings of organizing and work (Rhodes and Westwood,
28 Here, embodiment is understood as the experience of possessing a body that moves and feels (Noland, 2009: 105) and captures lived, subjective experiences of inhabiting a body that is capable of engaging in various activities of organizing in motion. Coaten and Newman-Bluestein (2013, 677) view embodiment as ‘the experience and awareness of the lived body’. Moreover, I view the body as both material and social, as ‘a culturally fabricated physicality in which matter and meaning are inextricably linked’ (Meriläinen et al., 2013, 6).
2008). If we construct bricolage as a linear opportunistic activity of resource utilization, treating both resources and their environment as fixed, ‘given’ and stable, then we ignore multiple realities, ambiguous and uncertain ‘real life’ trial-and-error occurring over performative spaces in flux − the movements in-between ideas and actions, felt bodily pains and struggles − and face the future no one knows anything about. Whereas straightforward and disembodied treatments of bricolage have rarely considered the significance of embodiment, affect, spaces, movements and temporalities, or eclectic entanglements between embodiment, materiality, affects and emotions, this is where I see a potential and relevant theoretical contribution. In what follows, I turn to discussing bricolage within the field of organization studies.