ANTENARRATIVE

compiled by David M. Boje - copyright 2002 - Please cite accordingly

How do I cite the Enron is Metatheatre Study Guides?

TO REFERENCE THIS WEB DOCUMENT, TITLE IS: 

ANTENARRATIVE TRAJECTORY DYNAMICS (ATD) theory by David M. Boje, Ph.D. July, 2002.

 

WHAT IS ANTENARRATIVE?

Antenarrative is defined as a bet that a pre-story can be told and theatrically performed that will enroll stakeholders in intertextual ways that transform the world of action into theatrics; at the same time the antenarratives never quite get there. The antenarrative theory was originally developed in Boje (2001)a Narrative Methods of Organizational and Communication Research.  For on line, Introduction to Antenarrative, please read this first http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/papers/what_is_antenarrative.htm 

WHAT IS ANTENARRATIVE TRAJECTORY DYNAMICS (ATD)?

How do Antenarratives take flight? There is a good intro study guide. Flight of Antenarrative. The following papers extend the concept.

  1. Boje, D. M. (2001g). Flight of Antenarrative in Phenomenal Complexity Theory, Tamara, Storytelling Organization Theory. 

  2. Boje, D. M. (2001h). Before the Story Can be Told: An Antenarrative of the World Trade Center and Pentagon Disaster; also see Hybridity Visuals Presentation in Netherlands.

  3. Boje, D. M. (2002a). Critical Dramaturgical Analysis of Enron Antenarratives and Metatheatre. Plenary presentation to 5th International Conference on Organizational Discourse: From Micro-Utterances to Macro-Inferences, Wednesday 24th - Friday 26th July (London).
    http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/papers/ENRON_critical_dramaturgical_analysis.htm

  4. Boje, D. M. (2002b) Enron Metatheatre: A Critical Dramaturgy Analysis of Enron’s Quasi-Objects. Paper presented at the Networks, Quasi-Objects, and Identity: Reintegrating Humans, Technology, and Nature session of Denver Academy of Management Meetings. Tuesday August 13, 2002.
      http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/papers/enron_theatre_LJM.htm

DIFFUSION VERSUS WHIRLWIND MODELS - Antenarrative is the obverse of the diffusion model of narrative. Bruno Latour (1996: 118) argues there is a difference between the linear narrative diffusion model (narratives that erupt fully formed in the mind of Zeus) and the non-linear whirlwind model of narrative, in my terms, the antenarrative rhizomatic ensembles that want to change the world, but not as coherent narratives of diffusion. Enron (see below) is definitely the diffusion model of antenarrative; as such, studying Enron with linear narrative models of diffusion will lead you to erroneous conclusions. 

EXAMPLE OF ANTENARRATING

In Michael Connelly's (1995: 349-351) novel, The Last Coyote (NY: St. Martin's Press), there is a good example of the relation between antenarrative and narrative.  Harry Bosch has just confronted the murderers, who died. Since Bosch is a detective, he is being interviewed by Assistant Chief of Police, Irwin S. Irving. The scene takes place in Bosch's hospital room, shortly after he regains consciousness for a blow to the head with a tire iron. 

IRWIN, "So, the crew working the scene up on the hill already told me what happened. At least, the early version based on the physicals [NOTE: This is a forensic pre-story or antenarrative]. What I'm not clear about is what got you up there. You know, how all of this figures. You want to run it down for me or wait until maybe tomorrow?" 

THIS NEXT BIT IS BOSCH ANTENARRATING

Bosch nodded once and waited for his mind to clear. He hadn't tried to collect the story into one collective thought yet. He thought about it some more and finally gave it a shot. 

"I'm ready."

[Bosch waves his rights. Irwin reads him is rights)

BOSCH, "You want me to tell the story?"

IRWIN, "Yes, I want you to tell the story."

But then he stopped as he tried to put it into word [PREGNANT PAUSES ARE GOOD LOCATORS OF ANTENARRATING].

IRWIN, "Harry?"

BOSCH, "Okay, here it is. In 1961 Arno Conklin met Marjorie Lowe [Bosch's Mother]. He was introduced by local scumbucket Johnny Fox, who made his living off making such introductions and arrangements. Usually for money..." 

In the above example, Irwin and Bosch are both antenarrating, and they go on in subsequent text to con-construct and co-negotiate their antenarrative. Each adds bits and pieces to expand the others' account. 

For more examples see, ANTENARRATIVE INTRO. and Book Chapter (Intro to narrative Methods and Antenarrative) from Boje (2001a). 

How does ANTENARRATIVE relate to FRAMES? 

Antenarrative is a building block to Narrative Frames? (Review Frames definitions).


The trajectories of linear and whirlwind antenarratives are quite different. In the linear trajectory, the organizational story is formed in the brilliant mind of a founding entrepreneur, like Walt Disney. However, a TAMARA-esque analysis of Walt and Disney storytelling reveals, this linear Zeus founding story to be a convenient and profitable Disney official fiction (Boje, 1995). In a whirlwind narrative, the exact origin of sacred icons like Mickey Mouse are in doubt. Disney tidies up its founding story by marginalizing the contributions of Ub Iwerks, the founding partner, and actual cartoon artist, behind the signature of Walt Disney. Disney organization erects an official founding story, Disneyfies its new recruits, and celebrates the tale in books, TV, movies, and theme parks. It is a linear diffusion tale, but one that denigrates the whirlwind antenarrating that resists the official version of the founding of Disney Studios and who crafted Mickey Mouse.

How does Antenarrative apply to Enron?

Enron is a network of rhizomes, what I call antenarrative trajectories. Through antenarrating, bits and pieces of real events were inserted in the Enron executive's dialogs, along with Star Wars and Jurassic metaphors, and blanket assurances of increasing profitability. The antenarratives flirted between fiction and reality in ways that seduced spectators and stakeholders into willingly suspending disbelief.  The following articles discuss and theorize antenarrative trajectories at Enron:

Figure 1 (below)  provides a graphic depiction of the intertextuality among the antenarrative clusters. The idea is the antenarratives of one cluster migrate and interpenetrate with those of other clusters.  The Key at the bottom of Figure 1 gives examples of antenarratives that move in-between the clusters listed in Table 1.   

The following Figure is Interactive - Wave Mouse over the Labels or Red Stars and Click on one you want to go to...

Figure 1: 8 Antenarrative Trajectories in Four Types of Enron Spectacles NOTE: THE FIGURE IS INTERACTIVE - WAVE MOUSE OVER TITLES AND CLICK.

Enteron Antenarrative Ensemble Vader\'s Gas Bank morphs into Trading Floors Greenmail is Enron\'s first near death experience Rebecca Mark AKA Mark the Shark Cowboy Capitalism Antenarrative Ensemble Masters of the Universe antenarrative ensemble Enron\'s Ensemble of Greek Mega Tragedies Valhalla Rogue Traders antenarrative ensemble

NOTE: THE FIGURE IS INTERACTIVE - WAVE MOUSE OVER TITLES AND CLICK.

KEY:

 

A:H Renaming game recommences after collapse of Enron.

E:(D:F) Cowboy Capitalism combines with Mark the Shark globe hopping strategy

E:H Houston galas play & morph into White House scandals

B:H Offshore accounts, fake records, and Arthur Andersen  of B repeat in H.

B:D  Skilling’s 10 year war to oust Rebecca Mark (‘the Shark’)

F:H Bonfire of the Vanities interpenetrates with White House, Congress, & UK elite appointments to Enron boards and committees

C:H As in C, shareholders in H seek control and liquidation of Enron

G:B Valhalla Rogues resurfaces in Gas Bank

G:E Valhalla Rogues merges with Cowboy Capitalism

G:H  Off-balance-sheet accounts and offshore banking & Arthur Andersen repeat from G to H

D:H Oppressive tales of villagers in India do not play on center stage until collapse

D:F Mark’s global capitalism plays into Masters of the Universe

H  Each of the antenarrative clusters reemerges in post-collapse inquiries

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are antenarrative relations before the megaspectacle “H” became a ground zero and it became fashionable for reporters to research trials of campaign contributions. Each of the antenarrative clusters in Figure 1 is part of rhizomatic relations between the clusters. The structure of the presentation is, to use critical dramaturgy theory to analyze eight antenarrative clusters. I present and order them by their type of spectacle, rather than trap them in a linear chronology (See Appendix B for definitions). The point is not the chronology, but the intertextual weave across the antenarrative clusters, how early ones seems to go dormant and achieve resolve, only to re-appear again as ghostly characters, themes, and frames thought to be dead and buried. We begin with two concentrated spectacles (weaving them to others as we go).  The following is more advanced material.

How does ANTENARRATIVE relate to RHYTHMS at ENRON? 

Enron constructed 3,500 special purpose vehicles, known as "raptors." This allowed Enron to partner with speculators (people betting the Enron stock would keep going up). in ways that made its accounting work difficult to trace. It was no longer a situation of accountants coming up with an accounting story by checking how assets and liabilities corresponded to various charts of accounts. The lines of correspondence were blurred and severered by the shifting, opening and closing, on and off shore partnerships. As long as Enron stock kept rising, no problems (press here for flow chart).

Figure 2: How SPE Raptors broke the correspondence relationships. Source

Review RHYTHMS definitions, QUASI-OBJECT antenarratives, and ENRON RHYTHMS study guides before proceeding. Next we look at the relation of Rhythms to Antenarrating of the Raptors. 

Rhythms are temporally emergent patterns. In the case of Enron, we can trace the antenarrating of the off-the-balance-sheet partnerships known as the raptors (raptors is Enron's name for "hedging vehicles" set up to protect Enron gains & losses on certain assets). The practice is quite legal in the U.S.  The first partnership was called Cactus, a way to complete the Gas Bank antenarrative ensemble. The raptors proliferated between 1991 and 2001. Enron had 3500 subsidiaries and partnerships, and paid no income taxes in four of the past five years because it was able to transfer assets among 881 subsidiaries that were set up abroad in tax-sheltered countries. 

There are inter-rhythms (intersecting rhythms), such as between Enron Pawns (see Enron Pawns Report, 2002, PDF). and the temporal pattern of the raptor partnership formation over time (.e.g. see Powers Report, 2002, PDF).  LJM1, for example, formed the 3rd quarter of 1991, just when the aptly named, RhythmsNet partnership closed on June 30, 1999. Murrell (2002) argues in Enron Disclosure Issues that, "Overall, Enron failed to disclose facts that were important for an understanding of the substance of the transactions." The Powers Report (2002) and subsequent reporting gives you some idea of the complexity of the the rhythms of partnerships opening and closing, and Enron's loans, unwindings, and buys. 

Several of the partnerships, such as RADR and Southampton Place were secretive, behind-the-scenes partnership, that few people in Enron apparently knew about. RADR means Risk Adjusted Discount Rate. Southampton Place is the suburb where wealthy Enron executives bought homes. In the RADR partnership, for example Chief Financial Officer Andrew Fastow and  Michael Kopper (his lieutenant) and a "few of their close friends and colleagues raked in about $4.5 million in profits without disclosing the deal to Enron or its investors" (Fowler, 2002).  

Here is a summary of some of the critical events that have antenarrative aspects. 

In antenarrative terms, the story of the specifics of the partnership relationships was left a pre-story, with significant details strategically unnarrated by the cast of characters (see below, including the Powers report team). This strategic control over 'interpretive ambiguity' (Eisenberg, 1984) in antenarrating is often manipulated to support the interests of management (Boje, 1995).Enron's raptor partnerships, are "site [s] of multiple meanings" where the partners and the regulators are  "engaged in a constant struggle for interpretive control" (Eisenberg & Goodall1993: 137). The Enron partnerships are contextualized and sustained in interpretive ambiguity in an ensemble of competing antenarratives. For example, Murrell (2002) describes the distortions of communication in the relationship between the timing of disclosures of RhythmsNet and LJM partnerships, and what was disclosed and withheld:

The 2000 proxy statement discussed the Rhythms transaction with LJM1 by describing the details of the "effect" of "a series of transactions involving a third party and LJM Cayman, L.P." The disclosures identified the number of shares of Enron stock and other instruments that changed hands, but did not describe any purpose behind the transactions. The disclosures said that, "[i]n connection with the transactions, LJM1 agreed that Mr. Fastow would have no pecuniary interest in such Enron Common Stock and would be restricted from voting on matters related to such shares." The proxy statement next disclosed that, "[i]n the second half of 1999, Enron entered into eight transactions with LJM1 and LJM2," and then described them in general terms.

Enron did disclose that Andrew Stuart Fastow was CFO, and did have a financial interest in the raptors. But, Enron did not disclose Fastow's actual (or likely) economic benefits from these transactions (Murrell, 2002).  In a 2000 proxy statement filling, "concerning LJM1, Enron stated that "[m]anagement believes that the terms of the transactions were reasonable and no less favorable than the terms of similar arrangements with unrelated third parties" (Murrell, 2002). 

The cast of characters that sustains this strategic ambiguity through antenarrating includes Enron Management (Fastow, Skilling, & Lay who signed off), Fastow's lieutenant (Michael Kopper), the Audit and Compliance Committee of the Enron Board (who approved the transactions), Enron's in-house counsel (i.e., Kristina Mordaunt & Associate General Counsel Rogers), Enron's Treasurer (Ben Glisan who advised and invested in the partnerships), Enron's Chief Accounting Officer (Richard Causey who signed off), Chief Risk Officer (Richard Buy who agreed), Other Enron employees (Kathy Lynn & Anne Yeager who invested in Southampton), Enron's law firm Vinson & Elkins, and Enron's auditors Arthur Andersen (e.g. partner Duncan).  In the Southampton Place raptor, Mr. Fastow signed for Southampton. Mr. Causey, the Enron chief accounting officer, signed for the company.. Each cast member used strategically ambiguous antenarrative dialog to keep the other players in the dark, and to allow the Ponzi Scheme to keep going. For example, in 2001, Andrew Fastow attached an addendum approved by in-house and outside counsel saying only that "the nature of my relationship between LJM1 and LJM2 (including payments made, or proposed to be made, between such entities and Enron) are [sic] described in the Company's 1999 and 2000 Proxy Disclosure under 'Certain Transactions'" (Murrell, 2002). We do not know if the cast of characters "did not know" what this meant, or chose "not to know." 

The cast of characters is expanded on October 28 2001 by Ken Lay, when he adds former SEC enforcement chief William R. McLucas and Williams C. Powers Jr., dean of the University of Texas School of Law, to Enron's board. They are charged with coming up with a report that will take the sting out of the escalating SEC investigation of the raptors. The result is the Powers Jr. report (see Powers Report, 2002, PDF). Powers testified before the Congressional, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on February 7, 2002. Powers, blames Arthur Andersen, and a few Enron executives (e.g. Fastow) and associates (e.g. Michael Kopper),  and then absolved the Board of responsibility for the main raptor that violated the most rules, Chewco: "The Board had no reason to question the accounting for the Chewco transaction because, as far as the Board knew, Chewco was entirely unaffiliated with Enron, and Enron’s internal and external auditors would ensure that it was properly accounted for." One interesting antenarrative is how Powers defends the board, saying, for example, the "Board did not waive Enron’s Code of Business Conduct when it approved Mr. Fastow’s participation in LJM... That Code of Conduct allows a senior officer to participate in a transaction in which he has a conflict of interest with Enron if the Office of the Chairman determines that this would not adversely affect the interests of the Company."  A very strange Code of Conduct.

In sum, the antenarrating is in oral meeting and in written texts such as proxy statements, SEC filings, and annual report footnotes (e.g. Enron Annual Report, 2000), and in the testimony, now transcribed before 10 Congress and Senate hearings.   This is an inter-institutional dialog between corporation, Congress, SEC, GAPP, and corporation. There are SEC (e.g. Item 404 of SEC Regulation S-K; Item 404 A) and GAPP (e.g. Financial Accounting Standards No. 57) rules that govern the game of disclosing Enron employee and executive's relations in their partnership transactions. There was resistance to this strategically ambiguous dialog, such as Jordan Mintz, the General Counsel of Enron Global Finance, who kept blowing the whistle to upper management, but to no avail. 

How are Enron, Rhizome, Antenarrative, and Fraud Related? 

Through antenarrative trajectory dynamics, the ground moved, and cracks began appearing in the Enron facade. There came a time, when stakeholders, one by one, no longer were willing to suspend disbelief, and began to see cracks in Enron's financial reality.  Figure 1 presents eight antenarrative trajectories. The trajectories are each antenarrative ensembles, pre-narrative strands, and the ensembles are intertextual to one another. The antenarrative trajectories can be thought of as strands that take rhizomatic paths. A rhizome (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987, p. 6- 7) is defined as a network of subterranean trajectories (with root stem strands, radicles, bulbs and tubers). The alleged fraud at Enron, its 3,500 off-the-balance-sheet partnership is an example of rhizomatic network The raptor partnerships burrowed beneath the surface images of Enron from 1991 (with Cactus) on through 1997 (with Chewco, LJM1, LJM2) and deeper still with the secretive Southampton Place and RADR partnerships. The partnership strands fused and separated, stopped and re-started, encountering and absorbing blocks in rhizomatic fashion (See Rhythm of SEPTET: Section on blocks, fusing in Contextualism).  The causal texture of the Enron environment (in chronology and region) was a dynamic multiplicity of causal textures, with contextualizing processes and references; the strands formed combinations that were (a) linear, (b) convergent fusion, (c) blocked, or (d) instrumental strands (Pepper, 1943), what Deleuze & Guattari term rhizomes. The raptor rhizomes sheltered fraud, kept fraud in movement, allowed evasion through disguise and morphing. The rhizome of fraud assumed many diverse partnership forms, while sustaining surface faciality (public image) of risk management. The Faciality of Enron (i.e. public image) comes through in its press releases, slogans, speeches, reports and web pages. The partnerships burrowed in all directions from banks, to Wall street investment houses, to State pension funds. Many wanted to be Enron bulbs and tubers, to spin a rigged Wheel of Fortune. 

Work by Bougen and Young (2000) in rhizomatic studies of auditing and bank fraud is directly relevant to the alleged Enron raptor rhizomatic networks. Enron's partnerships are assemblages, becomings that pass between Enron and others. The raptor assemblages were "heterogeneous collections of people becoming connected in different ways and at different times to" fraud (Bougen & Young, 2000: 2).  In the bank and Enron frauds is a familiar refrain, "how could this have happened?"  There were so many regulators, auditors, government agencies, and administrators who are supposed to protect investors and employees from fraud. Yet the rhizomatic lines of partnerships kept on the move, intersecting with one another (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987: 203). The strands would connect and disconnect, form and dissolve, then reassemble. It is the movement that makes fraud so hard to trace; it just will not stand still. The partnership characters keep changing, the pattern will not remain stable. The intersecting strands that get blocked by inquiry, find ways to move around the rules and the gaze. Form 1890 to 1892 41 national banks failed. Twenty six failures were the result of fraud. Like Enron, we know something happened. We know the players involved. And we can trace the money movements, but it could not be traced by the average Enron investor nor by the average employee. 

The congressional hearings, the Powers (2002) report, the Houston federal case, they all want to freeze the antenarrative assemblage, and get a look at the fraud.  But fraud passes undetected, at the time when it goes down.  Earlier in the Valhalla period of Enron (1985 - 1987) a banker in New York discovered an Enron fraud.  Fraud was always part of Enron, since 1985. It kept moving, circulating, assembling. The cast of characters changed, by the character "fraud" kept playing at the Wheel of Fortune. And fraud made money for lots of players. So many did not want to really detect fraud. They did not want to closely follow the rhizomatic lines, the strands were there, who who was complaining.  

No one feels sorry for Andrew Fastow. He was at the center of the undetected network of fraud assemblages.  What is at issue, is how many other in and out of Enron did fraud seduce?  People want to know why the regulators and politicians did not regulate and contain fraud?  People want to know why the checks and balances of the system of capitalism failed to capture fraud?  And when fraud was detected and stopped in 1987, why did fraud burrow in deeper and come back stronger than before?  And how could deregulation to form a free market, be such a fraud-ridden enterprise? 

Enron treasurers, risk managers, comptroller's, audit committees, auditors, investors, banks were part of the Enron fraud assemblages.  The root structure is so prolific, variable, and unstable - it is so hard to trace the fraud. The rhizomatic lines seem to run from the Whitehouse to the UK Parliament, to India's Parliament, and on to several dictators. People are beginning to panic. So many corporations are falling, and Arthur Andersen seems mired in them all.  Investors no longer trust the U.S. markets. The refrain of fraud assemblages is dampening confidence. But fraud will seduce anew. Arresting a couple of WorldCom executives and a lieutenant to Fastow will not stop fraud.

Change the rules and fraud will find a way around them. Change the cast of characters and fraud will recruit another cast. Collective memories of Enron's raptors will fade.  The new rules will not bottle up fraud. The rhizomatic lines will crack the surface, and fraud will be disguised as Free Market capitalism once again. "Fraud will push right into the capital" one more time (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987: 353). 

The Theatre of Capitalism is schizophrenic. The characters wear benevolent, gentlemanly masks. Beneath the masks is the gentleman crooks, the fraud pretending to be accountable, honest, and fiduciary. The tangle of antenarrative fraud trajectories will assemble and wave new lines and connections. 

Antenarrative trajectories form rhizomatic assemblages that can ensnare fraud. It works both ways. The assemblages will reach back to the memories of the Seven Sisters, and see the Seventh Sister is Enron. This is the Theatre of Capitalism, a dialectic battle between fraud rhizomes and detective rhizomes. It is like the battle on the Internet between virus and virus detection. Without fraud detection, fraud would become endemic to Capitalism. We would never be rid of it. GAAP and GAAS tries to set the rules and practices to audit fraud. 

I like Bougen and Young's (2000: 35) connection of fraud to Theatre of the Absurd. Certainly those Congressional Hearings were Theatre of the Absurd. We all anticipated something absurd.  It seemed like all those accused of fraud refused to testify. And those that did, seemed to confuse the questioners. Skilling did turn the table on them. 

Fraud leaves its trail. We are tracing thousands of people to blame. But blame-finding is as Gephart (1992) argues a re-legitimation ritual. See Gephart's Analysis of Public Inquiry Legitimation and how Gephart's analysis applies to Enron. Spectacle is a "discursive, ceremonial production of state legitimation.

Quasi-object theory explains this all too well. There is a paper on Enron's Quasi-Objects, all about the LJMs and the raptors (Boje, 2002b), and another about the antenarrative assemblages in Enron Metatheatre (Boje, 2002a). 

And even an entire book Theatres of Capitalism (Boje, 2002c) where Aristotle's Poetics is taken on a postmodern turn. 

Now the purge is on. The College of Business needs to regain its institutional legitimacy. The Academy in Denver (August 2002) already conducted a session, and permitted its spokesmen to speak for all. Some called for a task force, others said Ethic courses were a waste of time; others opposed task forces; one saw this as an issue of corporate governance. I say it it about how capitalism is taught in the Business College. Without consensus, the Colleges of Business are still re-asserting their commitment to teaching ethics to MBAs. And the Academy wants to publish lots of journal articles about the crisis in confidence in capitalism.  We are no longer allowing students to sleep through our ethics lectures. Enrononomics needs to stop; that is what you hear said in the halls of Academy and Business College. 

But to stop fraud, will take more than a conference session. It will take an understanding of a set of critical postmodern dramaturgical terms; all are quite new to the Business College.

I teach undergraduates, MBAs and Ph.D. students the SEPTET elements of late postmodern capitalism. Capitalism is Theatre. Enron failed only because it could no longer convince employees and spectators to willingly suspend disbelief. Now the purge is on. 

  1. Plots are being un-plotted and re-plotted. There are inter-plots to disentangle and replace with new plots.
  2. Characters are being enrolled and disenrolled to create a new character of capitalism. The fraud character is being purged. But rhizomes never die. 
  3. Themes of oppression and their resistance are co-generative in a self-organizing and emergent pattern.
  4. Dialogs from Star Wars and Jurassic Park, the raptors and Chewco partnerships, all that lack of transparency has to be undone with reliable and valid communicative acts.  
  5. Rhythms improvise, recur, and keep on the move. 
  6. Frames are dialectic, with those who accept tragedy of fraud as endemic and those how resist the grotesque and burlesque aspects of the Theatres of Capitalism. Enron is a dialectic of opposed ideologies.
  7. Spectacles - "Politicians have always know that the spectacle of the mighty brought low, can appease an angry public"  (Gearan, 2002: D1).  The first six Septet elements are fused into the Seventh. 

The way in which fraud masquerades as benevolent and enterprising corporate identity is the purpose of my essay. Capitalism has become better at producing, distributing and consuming spectacles than at detecting its more fraudulent patterns. Enron, rhizome, antenarrative, and fraud are closely related in the postmodern turn in late postmodern capitalism. This is not a new story. Fetter (1931) wrote about the way monopoly masquerades as benevolent. Lay, Fastow, Skilling et al are the new alleged modern day gentleman crooks that Fetter wrote about. Except now it is not about monopolistic competition, it is about a rhizome of secretive quasi-object partnerships that form rhizomatic networks and change them so fast that detection is even harder to do.  This is also the modern story of the dark side of charisma. How a group of charismatic superleaders (Lay, Skilling & mark) could disguise mess after mess. Just as with Standard Oil of New Jersey, there were laws broken, fraudulent conspiracies, cash-for-political-access, we find those patterns repeated.  And we still "find it hard to sympathize with the slow-witted and blundering officials" adn seems to "admire the ingenious way in which the hunted lawbreakers, apparently [remain] calm in the midst of every danger: (Fetter, 1931: 3).  The rhizomatic fraud networks wear a theatrical disguise to successfully conceal its dramatic personae, its identity, its faciality.  There were shady practices in hte century past, and shadier ones now.

The impersonal rhizomatic and secretive partnerships schemes veil the interests of the perpetrators. It is a detective's task to trace the rhizomatic antenarrative trajectory patterns. Nietzsche reminds us the public likes a simple story, to find a couple of culprits and prosecute them; that will take attention off the virus infecting the entire system of modern capitalism.  But "a clearer understanding of the subject would require patient and prolonged study" and "the public is likely to be merely bored" (Fetter, 1931: 4). Lay and Skilling and Mark gave capitalism a personal and romantic charm that investors and regulators and politicians could identify with. Rooting out the tubers is just way to impersonal and tragic to capture much prolonged public attention. There will be a brief purge, then back to business as usual. Capitalism will once again put on its magic mask and use the strange hypnotic power of spectacle to delude the "spectator" (Fetter, 1931: 4).  Once again we shall be as Shakespeare's character Titania in Midsummer Night's Dream, and fondle the ass's head (p. 4). The courts will glimpse momentarily the grotesque and burlesque face of capitalism, then be intoxicated by the spectacle and see only romantic surfaces. 

It is interesting that politicians did not know that Enron's gains came from deceiving the public through masquerade. Who can watch a political convention and not see the masquerade? Yet the public willing suspends their disbelief.

We have apprehended a few masqueraders, who worked off stage (Fastow and his lieutenants), but will the public be satisfied with their spectacle prosecution? Will they want to unmask others, more higher up?  And when Fastow, then Skilling, and Lay do testify in a court of law, what secrets will they trade?

The spirit of American capitalism, and the ghosts of dead robber barons will be watching the spectacles. They will watch the executives use magic phrase such as "supply and demand" and free market and government interference with market mechanisms (Fetter, 1931: 7).  What lines of inquiry will trace the rhizomatic paths?  Will the inquiries and hearings be able to disentangle the roots and tubers? For the politicians, ignorance is bliss; they do not want the probes and traces to go too far.  The purge will be over soon. And the legitimacy of all our institutions will be restored. For capitalism is a prestidigitator, and Lay was its chief magician (p. 10). 

Here is a comparison to be made. Compare President George Bush's administration in the congressional hearings and investigations of February 2002 with that of Teddy Roosevelt's administration and the hearing of February 1901 (Teddy held office 1901-1909).  Both are corporate executive crime fighters, are they not?  But, did not they both single out a few scapegoats so that the system of institutions could end the purge and return to business? (Ida  M. Tarbell's History of Standard Oil Company in 1904 gives one answer). I think Tarbell would say, 'Enron is the new trust, but one with a completely different configuration.'  Both Enron and Standard Oil of New Jersey destroyed the potential of competition, within a masquerade, a Theatre o f Capitalism. SONJ was unfair in its completion against competitors. Enron was unfair in its competition against investors. Then their is the matter of unfair rates, and manipulations of energy supply and demand to create shortages and windfalls. Both SONJ and Enron had they secretive systemic collusions. 

The purpose of this analysis has been to unmask the dramaturgy of postmodern capitalism. In the unmasking it is not that different from the masquerade of a century ago. And the spectacles of re-legitimation for our public institutions are not that different. 

HOW DOES THIS APPLY TO ME AND YOU?

Capitalism is Theatre. It is dramaturgy run amuck. We live in Theatres of Capitalism. And we can change this. We can begin to detect rhythms, antenarrative trajectories, raptors of fraud, even rhizomes. It is what Boal (1970) calls Invisible Theatre

Our point is quite simple. Enron is Theatre. Enron accomplishes its theatre to persuade and seduce employees, investors, and students into the willing suspension of disbelief through antenarratives. We live in what Boje (2002c) calls Theatres of Capitalism, in what Guy Debord (1967) calls the Society of the Spectacle and what our friends A. Fuat Firat and Nikhilesh Dholakia call the Political Economy of Theatres of Consumption (1998). 

REFERENCES FOR ANTENARRATIVE TRAJECTORY DYNAMICS (ATD) THEORY AND METHODOLOGY. 

Barry, David & Michael Elmes (1997) "Strategy retold: Toward a narrative view of strategic discourse." Academy of Management Review, 22(2) 429-452. (press here) for download copy of their paper. 

Boal, Augusto (1979). Theatre of the Oppressed. Translation by Charles A. & Maria-Odillia Leal McBride. Originally published in Spanish as Teatro de Oprimido in 1974. NY: Theatre Communications Group.   

Boje, D. M. (1999). Notes on the Strategic Stories fad: Disney and other storytellers. June 29. http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/strategic.html 

Boje, D. M. (1995). Stories of the storytelling organization: A postmodern analysis of Disney as 'Tamara-land.' Academy of Management Journal. 38 (4), 997-1035.

Boje, D. M. (2000a). Global Theatrics and Capitalism. November 12. Web text accessed May 15, 2002 at http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/teaching/338/global_theatrics_and_capitalism.htm 

Boje, D. M. (2000b) "Spectacle and Inter-Spectacle in the Matrix and Organization Theory." Book chapter in Parker, Martin, Geoff Lightfoot, Matthew Higgins and Warren Smith (2001) Science Fiction and Organization, London: Routledge. 

Boje, D. M. (2000c). Theatrics of Leadership?Web text accessed May 15, 2002 at http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/teaching/338/leader_model_boje.htm 

Boje, D. M. (2000c) X,Y,Z model of leadership and Revolutionary Pedagogy. Web text accessed May 15, 2002 at
http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/388/revolutionary_pedagogy_of_leader.htm 

Boje, D. M. (2000d) “Using Narrative and Telling Stories” May 10. To appear in the Book: The Manager as a Practical Author Editors (David Holman and Richard Thorpe) Publisher: Sage. This is a quite practical piece, written for the practicing manager.

Boje, D. M. (2001a). Narrative Methods for Organizational and Communication Research. London Sage.

Boje, D. M. (2001b). Carnivalesque Resistance to Global Spectacle: A Critical Postmodern Theory of Public Administration. Administrative Theory & Praxis. Vol. 23 (3): 431-458.  

Boje, D. M. (2001c) Spectacles and festival of organization: Managing Ahimsa Production and Consumption  [Use ID=Aggie359 PASS=adventure]. Web text accessed May 15, 2002.

Boje, D. M. (2001d). Athletic Apparel Industry is Tamara-land. Tamara: Journal of Critical Postmodern Organization Science. Vol 1 (2), pp. 6-19. Web text accessed May 15, 2002.  

Boje, D. M. (2001e). Festivalism web site http://www.zianet.com/boje/1/ 

Boje, D. M. (2001f). Carnivalesque resistance to global spectacle: A critical postmodern theory of public administration. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 23 (3), 431-458. http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/papers/carnivalesque_resistance_to_glob.htm  

Boje, D. M. (2001g). Flight of Antenarrative in Phenomenal Complexity Theory, Tamara, Storytelling Organization Theory. 

Boje, D. M. (2001h). Before the Story Can be Told: An Antenarrative of the World Trade Center and Pentagon Disaster; also see Hybridity Visuals Presentation in Netherlands.

Boje, D. M. (2001i) "Las Vegas Spectacles: Organization Power over the Body." M@n@gement, 4(3): 201-207. Special issue on Deconstructing Las Vegas. This article looks at spectacle impact on the body, and how women in strip club resist the male disciplinary gaze of the body.

Boje, D. M. (2002a). Critical Dramaturgical Analysis of Enron Antenarratives and Metatheatre. Plenary presentation to 5th International Conference on Organizational Discourse: From Micro-Utterances to Macro-Inferences, Wednesday 24th - Friday 26th July (London).
http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/papers/ENRON_critical_dramaturgical_analysis.htm

Boje, D. M. (2002b) Enron Metatheatre: A Critical Dramaturgy Analysis of Enron’s Quasi-Objects. Paper presented at the Networks, Quasi-Objects, and Identity: Reintegrating Humans, Technology, and Nature session of Denver Academy of Management Meetings. Tuesday August 13, 2002.
  http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/papers/enron_theatre_LJM.htm

Boje, D. M. (2002c) Theatres of Capitalism. Book being published by Hampton Press (San Francisco). Available until publication, on line, at http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/theatrics/index.htm (password is required).

Boje, D. M. (2002d). Leadership Theatre Events. Contains guides fo Image, Invisible, and Forum Theatre
http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/388/leadership_theatre_event.htm  

Boje, D. M. (2002e). What is Situation? Feb 19, 2002. http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/388/what_is_situation.htm#septet_table_1  Contains Septet table. 

Boje, D. M. (2002f). Leadership in a Postmodern Age: Notes on Enron  December 3, 2000; revised April 2, 2002 http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/teaching/338/leadership_in_a_postmodern_age.htm 

Boje, D. M. (2002g). Exercises in Games of Power and Leadership.  February 26. http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/388/games_of_power.htm Contains definition of Oppression, examples, and self-survey of oppression. 

Boje, David & Robert Dennehy (1999). Managing in the Postmodern World. Web text accessed on May 15, 2002 at  http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/mpw.html MWP Chap 3 Organizing. 

Boje, D. M. & G. A. Rosile (2002a). The Metatheatre Intervention Manual. To be published by ISEOR Research Institute of University of Lyon 2, France.

Boje, D. M. & G. A. Rosile (2002a). Theatrics of SEAM. Paper to be published in Journal of Organiztional Change Management Special Issue on Socio-Economic Approach to Management (SEAM), guest edited by Henri Saval.

Boje, D. M., Grace Ann Rosile, Rita A. Durant & John T. Luhman (2002). Enron spectacle theatrics: A critical dramaturgical analysis. Under review at Organization Studies, for special issue on organization theatre. 

Boje, D. M. ,G. A. Rosile, and Simon Malbogat (2000) "Festival, Spectacle and Carnival: Theatrics of Organizational Development and Change." Presentation to ODC division of Academy of Management, Toronto, August, 2000. 

Bougen, Philip D. & Joni J. Young (2000). Auditing and bank fraud: Life on rhizomatic lines. Organization. I am working from 1997 draft, revised and published in 2000. 

Debord Guy (1967). Society of the Spectacle. La Société du Spectacle was first published in 1967 by Editions, Buchet-Chastel (Paris); it was reprinted in 1971 by Champ Libre (Paris). The full text is available in English at http://www.nothingness.org/SI/debord/index.html It is customary to refer to paragraph numbers in citing this work. 

Deleuze, Gilles & Felix Guattari (1987). A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Translation by B. Massumi.  Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Connelly, Michael (1995). The Last Coyote. NY: St. Martin's Press.

Eisenberg, E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51: 227-242.

Eisenberg, E. M., & Goodall, H. L., Jr. (1993). Organizational communication: Balancing creativity and constraint. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Fetter, Frank A. (1931). The Masquerade of Monopoly. First edition 1931, NY: Sentry Press. Reprinted 1971 Augustus M. Kelley Publishers (NY). Quotes are from the 1971 reprinted edition. 

Fowler, Tom (2002).  Another secret deal earned $4.5 million: RADR created to sell wind farms. Houston Chronicle August 22. 

Freire, Paulo (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Translated by Myra Bergman Ramos. NY: The Seabury Press (A Continuum Book).  

Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline And Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Translated from the French by Alan Scheridan. NY: Vitage Books (A Division of Random House). 

Gearan, Anne (2002).  Sending a message with 'poster boys': Lawyers say politicians targeted two former WorldCom executives to appease an angry public. Ottawa Citizen. August 2, Pg. D1.

Gephart, Robert P. Jr. (1992). Sensemaking, communicative distortion and the logic of public inquiry legitimation. Industrial Crisis Quarterly. Vol. 6 (2): 115-135. 

Meehan, Michael (1996). Accounting for Postmodernism: State bank bunkum and the four billion dollar blowout. Critical Perspectives on Accounting Symposium paper. April 26-28. City University, New York.

Murrell, Anthony (2002)  Enron Disclosure Issues. Lehman College web page. 

Pepper, Stephen C. (1934). The conceptual framework of Tolman's purposive behaviorism. Psychological Review. Vol. 41: 108-133.  

Savall, Henri (2000). More on Metascripts and SEAM analysis. http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/sbc/pages/structure.html Part of SEAM analysis (Socio Economic Analysis of Management). See http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/sbc/pages/seampage.html for interactive model.

Tarbell, Ida M. (1904). The History of The Standard Oil Company. NY: The Macmillan company. Volumes I and II. 

INSTRUCTIONS

CLICK AND GO TO PAGES in MENU AT TOP or in this BOX

ENRON EXAMPLES DEFINITIONS
1. Characters 1. Characters
2. Plots 2. Plots
3. Themes 3. Themes
4. Dialogs 4. Dialogs
5. Rhythms 5. Rhythms
6. Frames 6. Frames
7. Spectacles 7. Spectacles
OTHER ITEMS

Please contact dboje@nmsu.edu to offer suggestions that will develop the SEPTET of Leadership and Theatrics.

To Navigate this web site there are convenient menus at top (press here to go to top).

  Related Theory, Metascript