What usually goes unaddressed in the consultancy literature is an exploration of how consultants make sense of their contributions in particular when they come to work in politically laden contexts. Resulting conflictual debates with clients and colleagues severely influence how their advice is responded to. Against this background, consultants’ ability to determine and predict future outcomes of their work is hardly problematized. Additionally, consultants are mutually dependent on both colleagues and clients. This dependency underpins power differentials and the struggle which arises when these are contested can often take violent forms, such as misrecognition, humiliation or public shaming. The central argument put forward in this thesis is that tolerating (the potential for) misrecognition and/or for violence when goals are not met or when power fluctuates is an important, yet rarely mentioned, aspect for being recognized as a consultant. These aspects deserve as much attention as the often ideal-typical forms management consulting is said to take in the mainstream management literature because they speak to the irremediably incomplete and rather probabilistic nature of consultants’ advice, and the multiplicity of (often not anticipated or undesired) meanings their work evokes. In order to make sense of the flux and flow of organizational activity, the plethora of responses such activity calls out and its attendant ambiguities are considered and critically reflected upon. The theory of complex responsive processes of relating (Stacey, 2007, 2010; Griffin, 2002; Shaw, 2002), theories of recognition, (Honneth, 1994, 2008; Kearney, 2003; Ricoeur, 2005), Hegelian dialectics and neo-pragmatist thought (Bernstein, 1983, 1991) are provided as non-orthodox views on human organizing. A perspective is proffered which pays attention to the inchoate, ambivalent and indeterminate dimensions of organizing as a way to make sense of how these simultaneously and paradoxically order, regularize, and normalize human activity. Particular attention will be paid to negotiations which take place in microinteractions to exemplify that it is not pre-planned human cooperation but the intermingling of intentions of people who are mutually dependent on one another which paradoxically gives rise to regular population-wide patterns and spontaneous change. To make sense of what these insights mean for a practising consultant a view is offered where our reflections (thought) on our interactions (practice) at once form and are being formed by one another. An attempt is made to move beyond the practice/theory dualism by taking a pragmatist view which claims that thought and action only ever arise together, thus rendering an understanding of consultative intervention in which thought comes before action idealized and rather dubious. It will be argued that the most important contribution consultants can make is to try to stay radically open, and to try to keep on exploring as long as possible the multiplicity of narratives which constitute the differing perspectives of organizational reality.

Depuis qu’en 1977, en quatrième de couverture de Fils, Serge Doubrovsky employa le mot « autofiction » pour décrire son roman, les études doubrovskiennes ont eu tendance à se focaliser sur les questions génériques que sous-tendait ce néologisme. Ainsi on a écarté un autre aspect, tout aussi important, de l’œuvre de l’auteur : celui du lien avec le lecteur qui, en plus d’être mis en scène dans chacune des autofictions doubrovskiennes, est associé dès Fils au rapport complexe, inextricable et conflictuel entre les sexes. « J’écris mâle, me lis femelle », dit le narrateur-écrivain ‘Serge Doubrovsky’ – lui qui vivra sous nos yeux une série d’histoires passionnelles avec des compagnes qui sont également ses lectrices. Repris d’épisode en épisode, le rapport entre le héros doubrovskien et sa compagne du moment rappelle les hypothèses de Doubrovsky dans Corneille ou la dialectique du héros (1963), inspirées de la dialectique hégélienne du Maître et de l’Esclave. Cette thèse s’attache donc à analyser la relation dialectique auteur-lectrice telle que mise en scène et approfondie dans l’ensemble de l’édifice autofictionnel. Après présentation et étude des mécanismes dont se sert l’auteur pour construire son Lecteur Modèle (Première partie), les trois autres sections principales de la thèse sont consacrées à l’analyse de Fils et Un amour de soi (1977 et 1982 ; Deuxième partie) ; du Livre brisé et de l’Après-vivre (1989 et 1994 ; Troisième partie) ; et enfin de Laissé pour conte (1999 ; Quatrième partie). Il s’agira enfin de montrer la portée non seulement littéraire, mais également sociale (la réflexion s’élargit à chaque épisode pour aborder les questions de la réception contemporaine de l’œuvre littéraire) et historique (le motif Maître-Esclave s’inscrit dans l’Histoire de l’Europe du XXe siècle, plus précisément la Seconde Guerre mondiale et la Shoah) du thème dialectique doubrovskien. / Since Serge Doubrovsky coined the term « autofiction » to describe his own novel on the back cover blurb of Fils (1977), doubrovskian studies have tended to focus on the literary genres issues implied by his neologism. Consequently, another aspect of the writer’s work, and a quite crucial one, was somewhat neglected: the relationship with the reader, which is not only represented and acted out by the characters in doubrovskian autofictions but also linked to a another complex, tempestuous and inextricable relationship, that of man and woman. “I write male, read myself female”, says the doubrovskian narrator, who happens to take part, under our very eyes, in a series of passionate relationships with mates that are also readers of his works. Repeated from novel to novel, the mise en scène of the rapport between the doubrovskian hero and his lady companion of the moment reminds us of Doubrovsky’s hypotheses in Corneille ou la dialectique du héros (1963), which were inspired by the Hegelian master-slave Dialectics. This study thus concentrates on the representation of the dialectical relation between male author and female reader in Doubrovsky’s autofictions. After a brief survey and description of the tools used by the author in order to construct his own Model Reader (First section), our three other principal sections will focus on the analysis of Fils and Un amour de soi (1977 and 1982; Section Two); Le livre brisé and l’Après-vivre (1989 and 1994; Section Three); and finally Laissé pour conte (1999; Section Four). We will ultimately attempt to demonstrate the doubrovskian dialectal theme’s literary richness as well as its social and historical implications – the author’s reflexion widens with each episode, touching on questions of reader-response and reception of the literary work, while the master-slave motif resonates in the History of twentieth century Europe, mainly the Second World War and the Holocaust.

Depuis qu’en 1977, en quatrième de couverture de Fils, Serge Doubrovsky employa le mot « autofiction » pour décrire son roman, les études doubrovskiennes ont eu tendance à se focaliser sur les questions génériques que sous-tendait ce néologisme. Ainsi on a écarté un autre aspect, tout aussi important, de l’œuvre de l’auteur : celui du lien avec le lecteur qui, en plus d’être mis en scène dans chacune des autofictions doubrovskiennes, est associé dès Fils au rapport complexe, inextricable et conflictuel entre les sexes. « J’écris mâle, me lis femelle », dit le narrateur-écrivain ‘Serge Doubrovsky’ – lui qui vivra sous nos yeux une série d’histoires passionnelles avec des compagnes qui sont également ses lectrices. Repris d’épisode en épisode, le rapport entre le héros doubrovskien et sa compagne du moment rappelle les hypothèses de Doubrovsky dans Corneille ou la dialectique du héros (1963), inspirées de la dialectique hégélienne du Maître et de l’Esclave. Cette thèse s’attache donc à analyser la relation dialectique auteur-lectrice telle que mise en scène et approfondie dans l’ensemble de l’édifice autofictionnel. Après présentation et étude des mécanismes dont se sert l’auteur pour construire son Lecteur Modèle (Première partie), les trois autres sections principales de la thèse sont consacrées à l’analyse de Fils et Un amour de soi (1977 et 1982 ; Deuxième partie) ; du Livre brisé et de l’Après-vivre (1989 et 1994 ; Troisième partie) ; et enfin de Laissé pour conte (1999 ; Quatrième partie). Il s’agira enfin de montrer la portée non seulement littéraire, mais également sociale (la réflexion s’élargit à chaque épisode pour aborder les questions de la réception contemporaine de l’œuvre littéraire) et historique (le motif Maître-Esclave s’inscrit dans l’Histoire de l’Europe du XXe siècle, plus précisément la Seconde Guerre mondiale et la Shoah) du thème dialectique doubrovskien. / Since Serge Doubrovsky coined the term « autofiction » to describe his own novel on the back cover blurb of Fils (1977), doubrovskian studies have tended to focus on the literary genres issues implied by his neologism. Consequently, another aspect of the writer’s work, and a quite crucial one, was somewhat neglected: the relationship with the reader, which is not only represented and acted out by the characters in doubrovskian autofictions but also linked to a another complex, tempestuous and inextricable relationship, that of man and woman. “I write male, read myself female”, says the doubrovskian narrator, who happens to take part, under our very eyes, in a series of passionate relationships with mates that are also readers of his works. Repeated from novel to novel, the mise en scène of the rapport between the doubrovskian hero and his lady companion of the moment reminds us of Doubrovsky’s hypotheses in Corneille ou la dialectique du héros (1963), which were inspired by the Hegelian master-slave Dialectics. This study thus concentrates on the representation of the dialectical relation between male author and female reader in Doubrovsky’s autofictions. After a brief survey and description of the tools used by the author in order to construct his own Model Reader (First section), our three other principal sections will focus on the analysis of Fils and Un amour de soi (1977 and 1982; Section Two); Le livre brisé and l’Après-vivre (1989 and 1994; Section Three); and finally Laissé pour conte (1999; Section Four). We will ultimately attempt to demonstrate the doubrovskian dialectal theme’s literary richness as well as its social and historical implications – the author’s reflexion widens with each episode, touching on questions of reader-response and reception of the literary work, while the master-slave motif resonates in the History of twentieth century Europe, mainly the Second World War and the Holocaust.