CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 305Management and Organizational StudiesFoucault, Power, and EthicsCommunication Studies and Media

Fracturing the Real-Self?Fake-Self Dichotomy: Moving Toward "Crystallized" Organizational Discourses and Identities

Tracy, Sarah J., Trethewey, Angela·2005·Communication Theory
DOI 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2005.tb00331.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article begins with the following question: Why, even with the proliferation of poststructuralist theoretical understandings of identity, do people routinely talk in terms of “real” and “fake” selves? Through an analysis of critical empirical studies of identity-construction processes at work, this article makes the case that the real-self↔fake-self dichotomy is created and maintained through organizational talk and practices and, in turn, serves as a constitutive discourse that produces four subject positions with both symbolic and material consequences: strategized self-subordination, perpetually deferred identities, “auto-dressage,” and the production of “good little copers.” The article challenges scholars to reflexively consider the ways they may perpetuate the dichotomy in their own academic practices. Furthermore, the authors present the metaphor of the “crystallized self” as an alternative to the real-self↔fake-self dichotomy and suggest that communication scholars are well-poised to develop alternative vocabularies, theories, and understandings of identity within the popular imagination.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2005.tb00331.x

Cites

142 of 142 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Hochschild's framework reintroduces an essentialist ontology of the self via the 'real/false' dichotomy.

    “However, the way she combines these sources is problematic, and we reach the same conclusion as Wouters (1989): her framework reintroduces an essentialist ontology of the self via the 'real/false' dichotomy, a point later echoed by Tracy and Trethewey (2005) and Addison (2017).”

    From The inner stage: resituating Hochschild’s surface/deep binary from action to interaction (2025) · cites this paper as Tracy and Trethewey, 2005

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Tracy, S. J., & Trethewey, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
  • Arizona State University (US)
Corresponding author
Tracy, Sarah J.
ORCID
Tracy, Sarah J.
Venue
Communication Theory
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2005-05
Volume
15
Issue
2
Pages
168-195
ISSN
  • 1050-3293 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-2885
DOI
10.1111/j.1468-2885.2005.tb00331.x
OpenAlex
W2069921434
Cited by
305
References
142
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 13
FWCI
20.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1 (tdm, 3775 d)
Locations
Communication Theory (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Foucault, Power, and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Communication Studies and Media
Keywords
organizational identity, organizational discourse, subject positions, workplace communication

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review