Parallel Universes and Disciplinary Space: The Bifurcation of Managerialism and Social Science in Marketing Studies

Chris Hackley, Royal Holloway University of London

Draft version of paper published in Journal of Marketing Management, special issue on critical marketing ( !!"# $ %&' ()*&($"+

Abstract

,he field of marketing studies embraces a striking contradiction+ -n the one hand, it originated in a spirit of criti.ue and dissent which has since been manifest in a rich, diverse and fiercely contested outpouring of marketing scholarship and research+ -n the other, it is a highly packaged brand with a remarkably uniform identity as a set of universal managerial problem&solving techni.ues+ ,his paper e/plores this deep contradiction, positing the notion of parallel universes of disciplinary space, the one characterised by a critical social scientific orientation, the other by a na0ve managerial orientation+ 1hile such a dialectical figure may lead to some blurring of important distinctions, this paper suggests that an investigation of some of its historical, political and ideological undercurrents can contribute significantly to a re&orientation of the disciplinary space of marketing studies+

Parallel Universes and Disciplinary Space: Tracing the Bifurcation of Managerialism and Social Science in Marketing Studies

Abstract

,he field of marketing studies embraces a striking contradiction+ -n the one hand, it originated in a spirit of criti.ue and dissent which has since been manifest in a rich, diverse and fiercely contested outpouring of marketing scholarship and research+ -n the other, it is a highly packaged brand with a remarkably uniform identity as a set of universal managerial problem&solving techni.ues+ ,his paper e/plores this deep contradiction, positing the notion of parallel universes of disciplinary space, the one characterised by a critical social scientific orientation, the other by a na0ve managerial orientation+ 1hile such a dialectical figure may lead to some blurring of important distinctions, this paper suggests that an investigation of some of its historical, political and ideological undercurrents can contribute significantly to a re&orientation of the disciplinary space of marketing studies+

ntroduction

3fter more than 2!! years as a university teaching sub4ect, originally in 5orth 3merica and 6ermany (7ones and 8onieson, 2""!9 :artels, 2"$2# and some %! years later in ;urope, 3sia and 3frica, marketing studies remains an enigma+ <t has attained a degree of global success and influence which have been much commented upon (1illmott, 2"""9

=irat and Dholakia, !!(#+ 8arketing has boomed with the rise of popular management studies in the 2"%!>s, the perceived triumph of capitalism over state planning in the 2""!s and the global ascent of university business and management education, and not forgetting the prodigious literary, rhetorical and advocacy skills of gurus such as ?eter Drucker, ?hilip @otler and ,ed Levitt (3herne, !!(9 :rown, !!$#+ ,oday, marketing studies en4oys continued success and its web of professional associations, academic research 4ournals and university courses seems to be on a perpetual growth tra4ectory+ ,he field has been characterised by tension and contest with regard to its aims, values, predominant theories and methods (Levy, !!*#, given its status as an ideological and cultural phenomenon (1ilkie and 8oore, !!*9 8arion, !!(#+ ,his tension has been regularly aired in its leading 4ournals, as befits a vibrant and politically and intellectually engaged disciplinary sub4ect+

:ut, in spite of the scale of its reach and popularity, marketing studies occupies an unenviable position as the butt of the most coruscating criticism to be levelled at any management field, and indeed at any academic discipline, not e/cluding golf studies and homeopathy+ 3 perusal of its published research papers supports its claims to be a plural and cross&disciplinary enterprise (1ilkie and 8oore, !!*# which is engaged with management practice but informed by a critical social scientific spirit of in.uiry+ 3t the same time, it stands accused of being an instrument of cultural domination, and of lacking the critical intellectual elements which would render it fit for purpose as a field of thought, and of practice (Lowe et al, !!$9 Acott, !!%9 Aheth and Aisodia, !!$9 8organ 2"" 9 !!*#+

Auch diametrically opposing viewpoints can only be e/plained if marketing studies is two .uite different things+ ,his paper posits a putative bifurcation of marketing along a/iological and methodological lines+ <t suggests that marketing studies operates as two parallel universes of disciplinary space, the one social scientific, the other managerial, each mutually dependent but also a mutual challenge to each other>s legitimacy+ ,he paper e/plores the historical, thematic and political influences in this bifurcation with the aim of illuminating some of the many contradictions which define marketing>s disciplinary space, and which will inform its orientation in the future+

,he paper will firstly reprise some of the key criticisms levelled at marketing studies+ <t will then review some points in the field>s development as a sub4ect of academic study, drawing on historical accounts and thematic analyses+ ?articular interest falls on accounts of the institutional and political influence over the spread of marketing studies and the development of the marketing concept+ =ollowing from this analysis, the paper e/plores in more detail the charge that marketing is a vehicle of managerial ideology which promotes the individualistic and libertarian values of neo&liberalism+ =inally, the paper concludes with implications for the future of marketing>s disciplinary space+ ,he aim, overall, is not to reinvigorate a moribund managerial agenda, nor to move towards a manifesto for critical marketing studies but, rather, to try to pick apart some of the influences which have given rise to the disciplinary schiBophrenia of social science and managerialism in marketing studies, and to gain a sense of the kind of intellectual space which might emerge if these are acknowledged and picked apart+

!riticisms of marketing studies

,he crimes of which marketing studies stands accused might surprise even some of its fiercer critics from outside the academy+ Lowe et al ( !!$#, for e/ample, argue that marketing studies are deeply implicated in Cthe material enslavement of modern societiesD (no less# because the sub4ect legitimiBes Eamoral scientism> as the guiding principle of marketing practice (p+2"'#+ =or these authors, the failures of marketing practice can be traced to failures of marketing research and education+ ,hey suggest that a solution lies in formal marketing management and administrative education which is Cre&focussed& away from a heavy, positivist, technical orientation and more toward a value refle/ive and processual dialectic orientationD (p+2""#+

3mong other charges are that marketing legitimiBes self&serving corporatism (@lein, !!!#, that it wilfully neglects or marginalises ethical issues and environmental concerns in marketing training, education and practice (Amith, 2""$9 Crane, !!!#, and that it negatively affects children>s moral and social development by treating them as marketing means and not as human ends (5ichols and Cullen, !!(#+ ,he intellectual standards of academic marketing studies have attracted e.ually forceful criticism, for, e/ample, failing to develop viable theory (:urton, !!29 !!$#, for promoting an ahistorical worldview which suppresses important strains of influence in marketing thought (=ullerton, 2"'%9 ,ada4ewski, !!(a9 ,ada4ewski and :rownlie, !!'a#, for pursuing managerial values at the e/pense of social, intellectual and ethical values (,homas, 2""), 2""(#, for failing to address the gap between academic marketing research and marketing practice (1ensley,

2""$9 :olton, !!$9 @atsikeas et al, !!)9 ?iercy, !! 9 6ummesson, !! a9 :rownlie et al, !!%#, and for pursuing a research agenda which is Eautistic> and Eegotistical> (AkFlen et al, !!', p+2()#+ <n sum, marketing studies stands accused of being part of a relatively Ehomogenous> and Euncritical> business school agenda which is incapable of Cmeeting the challenges of either practice or ethicsD (Acott, !!%, p+%#+ 3s a result, as Acott ( !!%# notes, it is roundly mocked by academicians of other disciplines+ 8arketing practitioners have been no less damning in their 4udgment on the contribution of marketing academics to the field+ C?eople resent 8arketing+ 8arketing has no seat at the table at board levelG 3cademics aren>t relevant+ 3nd we have an ethical and moral crisis+D (Aheth and Aisodia, !!$, p+2!#+

3 further criticism has focused on the cultural fit of the marketing management model and the way it allegedly universaliBes 5orth 3merican values in general (Dholakia et al, 2"'!# and neo&liberalism in particular (1itkowski, !!$#+ ,his charge seems especially parado/ical given the success marketing has en4oyed in non&capitalist, and collective societies+ ,he first marketing te/t to be adopted in the former Aoviet Union was ?hilip @otler>s (2"(%# classic (=o/ et al, !!$#+ <n 8editerranean ;urope (Cova, !!$# and Acandinavia (6ronroos, 2"")9 !!)9 6ummesson, !! b# there have been calls for a regional adaptation of marketing theory and practice away from the traditional transaction, 8i/&focused approach and toward a more relational and service&based orientation+ <n 3sia, a reaction of Etechno&orientalism> (7ack, !!'# has been observed, with 3sian cultures adapting the 1estern managerial model to their own ends, divested of its strains of liberal individualism and tailored to profoundly relational cultural values+

5ot only that, but 3sian countries have even adapted the conspicuous consumption lifestyle to fit the norms of group&oriented rather than individualistic values (Chadha and Husband, !!(#+

Ao, criticisms of marketing studies seem to e/pose some serious contradictions in the light of its global success as a field of academic research and university courses+ ,herefore it might be useful to re&e/amine some historical and thematic analyses of the development of the sub4ect to try to e/plain the presence of such resonant parado/ in the discipline+

The history and spread of influence of marketing studies

-ne important criticism of marketing studies is that it has forgotten its own history+ ,his has, according to some, (e+g+ ,ada4ewski and :rownlie, !!'b# condemned the sub4ect to endless repetitions and reassertions of the same ideas (=ullerton, 2"'%#+ =or e/ample, the idea that marketing practice evolved through three clearly demarcated eras from product, to sales and, finally, marketing orientation (@eith, 2"(!# has been thoroughly debunked (e+g+, =ullerton, 2"''9 Hollander, 2"'(# yet is still often repeated as fact in mainstream marketing te/t books+ Contested as historical accounts are (Hollander et al, !!$# they do nonetheless shade current ideas by elucidating something of the forces which gave rise to them+ <n particular, some historical accounts suggest that marking>s bifurcation has come about because the discipline took a wrong turn somewhere in its history+

8odern marketing studies is often dated to the 2"(!s but it did in fact en4oy a university presence long before+ ,he collegiate School of Business at Wharton, University of Pennsylvania, was established in 2''2 and was offering its first courses in product 8arketing by 2"!)i, though ;+D+ 7ones of the University of Wisconsin is credited with teaching the first university course in 8arketing (7ones and 8onieson, 2""!9 :artels, 2"$2#+ 7ones and 8onieson (2""!# concede that there may have been earlier university courses in 8arketing distribution in 6ermany+ ,he rest of the world was much slower to take up the marketing challenge+ =or e/ample, the first professorial university Chairs in 8arketing in U@ universities were instituted in the early 2"(!s, at the universities of Atrathclyde and Lancaster, but many other leading U@ universities did not institute their first business schools with marketing courses for another *! years+ ,he Said Business School at Oxford University was established in 2""( while The Judge Management School at am!ridge University was established in 2""$, though at both institutions management studies was taught for a few years before+

3s marketing studies and management education became well&established in the universities of 1isconsin, ?ennsylvania and Harvard, a constellation of professional bodies and academic 4ournals began to emerge, wielding varied influence over the way the field evolved+ ,he number of academic 4ournals publishing research and comment on marketing studies has since grown to well over 2!!+ 3ccording to some, the top ten in rank e/ercise considerable influence over the field>s agenda (Aividas and 7ohnson, !!$9 :aumgartner and ?ieters, !!*# although for others (1ilkie and 8oore, !!*# this influence is uneven and fragmented+ 3nother important source of influence was created

'

in 2"*$ when the key professional body for the discipline, the "cademy of Marketing, published the first of its authoritative definitions of marketing+ ,hese are periodically updated, ostensibly to reflect the broadening scope and changing emphasis of the field+ =or ,ada4ewski and :rownlie ( !!'b# though, they act to close down disciplinary space rather than broaden it, anchoring marketing to its managerial and positivistic themes and progressively eliminating marketing and society issues (p+), citing 1ilkie and 8oore, !!(#+

<t has been argued that the character of modern marketing studies is very different to the way the sub4ect was originally conceived by its pioneers in at the turn of the century+ 7ones and 8onieson (2""!# suggest that early 8arketing education aimed to place a secure foundation of well&founded knowledge under marketing management practice+ ;arly courses drew on the 6erman Historicist Achool of social science and adapted its method of inductive fact& gathering (about consumption and distribution patterns# supported by descriptive statistics+ ,he aspiration was to create a positivistic 8arketing management science rather than to create formulaic management prescriptions+ ,his inductive scientific model was, through management education and research, intended to make the activities of market Emiddlemen> more efficient+ =orty years later, ?aul Converse (2")$# published a well&known paper which reiterated the managerial and scientific aims of marketing science+ However, 1itkowski ( !!$# argues that the academics who first established marketing management university education were concerned not only with profit and managerial efficiency but also with ways in which

"

more efficient marketing activity could increase social welfare in general+ Auccessful marketing activity was seen as a means to an end, not as an end in itself+

,ada4ewski ( !!(a# argues that there have been political influences framing the way marketing research and education is conceived, specifically the Cold 1ar and 8cCarthyism which elevated marketing to a matter of ideological as well as academic importance+ -ne implication of this is that those marketing scholars who e/pressed concerns for social welfare risked being tainted with a pinkish hue+ :rown (2""$# has noted the influence of the =ord and Carnegie reports into marketing management education in the UA3 in the 2"$!s (6ordon and Howell 2"$", ?ierson, 2"$"# over the style of research in the field, pushing it toward a natural science model in response to criticisms of its rigour and relevance+ ,his emphasis was renewed in 2"'' with the "merican Marketing "ssociationii ,ask =orce report on the continued lack of the relevance of research in marketing for practitioners (Aaren, !!!9 @niffin, 2"((9 383, 2"''#+ 3ll in all, there was a need to legitimiBe market capitalism, and one discourse which seemed to support this legitimacy was the discourse of science+

Under such political and cultural influences, 1itkowski ( !!$# argues that marketing studies lost its intellectual, and, by implication, its moral, compass+ ,he social welfare and historical perspectives which once lay at the heart of the discipline have, he argues, been abandoned in favour of an uncritical managerialism+ 3s Contardo and 1ensley ( !!)# point out, the #arvard Business School case method which remains so influential in management education divorced theory from practice and led to a sense that

2!

management skill could be taught in the classroom+ ,his classroom&orientation for teaching has remained even as the research enterprise for marketing continued to seek scientific legitimacy+ 1itkowski ( !!$# suggests that, as a result, Cmarketing educators should lead a movement toward a more balanced discipline+D (p+ '# with a change of

emphasis away from teaching the simplistic managerial techni.ues with which the discipline is so closely identified and toward a renewed emphasis on intellectual rigour (especially through a historical perspective# and issues of social welfare and public policy and 8arketing+

Aocial issues and historical perspectives are un.uestionably still a ma4or part of academic marketing>s remit, as evidenced by many specialist 4ournals (for e/ample, the Journal of Macromarketing and the Journal of Marketing and Pu!lic Policy# and countless contributions on marketing and society, marketing ethics and consumer policy in other 4ournals+ :ut there is a perception that these contributions have been pushed to the margins by the impetus for managerial solutions which prioritise shareholder value over other concerns+

The parado" of plurality and criticism in marketing studies

Criticisms of marketing>s scope and methods can, apparently, be dismissed by a cursory review of published studies by marketing academics+ ,he discipline has attracted negative attention for its perceived methodological and a/iological myopia for some years+ 3rndt (2"'$#, for e/ample, called for paradigmatic pluralism in the intellectual

22

traditions and research methods academic use, arguing that it should not remain a Cone& dimensionalD science concerned only with Ctechnology and problem&solvingD (p+ 2H in ,ada4ewski, !!(bH p+ 2('#+

Aince 3rndt>s (2"'$# call, marketing academics have produced a veritable torrent of studies from practically every intellectual purview+ 8arketing and consumption phenomena have been investigated using theoretical approaches drawn from postmodernism and poststructuralism (:rown, 2""$H Ahankar et al, !!(9 AkFlIn at al, !!(# literary studies (Atern, 2""!H ,onks, !! #, art history (Achroeder, !! #, neo& 8ar/ist critical theory (8urray and -Banne, 2""29 3lvessson, 2""*#, anthropology (:elk et al 2"''9 ?enaloBa, !!!# and feminism (Caterall et al, !!$9 =ischer, and :ritor, 2"")# among many others+ 8arketing studies have investigated topics as eclectic as the psychoanalysis of kleptomania (=ullerton, !!%#, 5estle>s 8arketing strategies in the -ttoman ;mpire (@Jse, !!%#, the inversion of the male gaBe in advertising (?atterson and ;lliott, !! # and the tragic life and death of 4aBB legend Chet :aker (:radshaw and Holbrook, !!%#+ Aome of these studies, admittedly, are deliberately distanced from the managerial marketing approach and positioned as pure human or social scientific in.uiry, but that does not necessarily mean that they lack relevance to managerial practice, as evidenced by, for e/ample, socio&cultural research in branding (e+g+ Achroeder and AalBer&8Jrling (;ds#, !!(9 Holt, !!)#+

Ket, thirty&one years after 3rndt>s (2"'$# paper :rownlie ( !!(# makes the same appeal, writing of the possibilities for a critical 8arketing which is not narrow or prescriptive but

draws on Cthe wider social sciencesD (p+$!(#+ ,rue, the two calls have a somewhat different emphasis+ 3rndt (2"'$# responded to a certain order of solipsism in the kinds of research topics and methods deployed in the field>s top 4ournals+ :rownlie ( !!(#, on the other hand, wrote of a change in the a/iology of the discipline, seeing marketing studies as a social scientific pursuit, with all the intellectual ideals that entails, rather than merely an accessory to organiBation management+

Aome other calls for change seem self&contradictory+ =or e/ample, in one of the occasional critical self&reflection issues of the Journal of Marketing :olton ( !!$# hints at the perceived failures of the discipline, calling for creative advances in Cthe science and practice of marketingD (p+ 2#+ Ket this is couched in terms of an e/ample from medical research in&keeping with the Journal of Marketing$s stated aim to Ccontribute generaliBable, validated findingsD for Cnew techni.ues for solutions to marketing problemsDiii+ ,he implication is that research in the field should remain guided by managerial values and a positivistic, natural science model of research+ -ther, similar calls for change are couched in terms of a re&iteration of marketing>s goals as a managerial science (e+g+ Hunt, 2""29 Day and 8ontgomery, 2"""#, each ignoring the possibility that marketing may be more art than science (:rown, 2""(9 2""%#+

8any assertions about marketing studies seem to treat the discipline as a relatively uncontested and stable thing+ Ket there is evidence in its development that there have been fundamental disagreements over key issues which have reached only a tentative

2*

resolution+ -ne of the most important surrounds the character of the marketing concept itself+

The role of the marketing conce%t in marketing$s tradition of dissent

=irat and Dholakia ( !!(# suggest that C8arketing has emerged as the principle mode ofGall relationships that all institutions have with their constituencies (or Emarkets>, as now widely used#G<n part, this success is due to the fact that the marketing concept captured the essence of modern culture and of democracyGwith institutions serving citiBens> wishesD (p+2 )#+ Ket the marketing concept itself embodies the perpetual tension in the field+ <t is, at once, a taken&for&granted ma/im about the customer focus of the (managerial# discipline and, at the same time, a profoundly contested and unresolved .uestion at the core of the field+

,he nature of the consumer as sub4ect and ob4ect of the marketing concept embodies the very essence of the discipline+ 1roe 3lderson (2"$%9 2"($# wrote of the limitations of classical economics in e/plaining how markets Ecleared>+ He looked at 8arketing as an economic system driven by heterogeneous, and not homogeneous, consumers+ 3lderson>s (2"$%# work positioned marketing as the discipline which articulated the variegated voices of consumers and translated them into diversified strategies of market management+ ,his work, idiosyncratic in style though resolutely managerial in focus (:rown, !! 9 1ooliscroft et al !!(# is not acknowledged in typical marketing management te/ts and courses today yet remains influential, at least according to some

2)

authors (e+g+ 1ooliscroft et al, !!*9 HulthIn and 6adde, !!%#+ <n particular, it e/pressed a spirit of dissent in marketing studies by opposing the economic model of the consumer as an entity driven by rational evaluations of product utility+

AkFlIn et al ( !!'# argue that, while many histories of the marketing concept refer to 1roe 3lderson (2"$%# and earlier authors, most reiterate the view that Cthe marketing concept became the nodal point of marketing management discourse at the beginning of the 2"(!sD (AkFlIn et al, !!', p+''#+ ,his may have been an important dynamic in the popular acceptance of marketing discourse but, according to some critics, the popularity came at an intellectual cost as it pushed social and Emacroscopic> aspects of marketing to the margins (citing Hollander, 2"'(, p+ *#+

-ne way of interpreting the marketing concept is to see it as the management mentality which articulates the voice of the consumer in the organiBation (1ensley, 2""!9 following Drucker, 2"$"H Levitt, 2"(!#+ 3ssumptions about the consumer are the key dynamic in the discipline, given that marketing is privileged over other management disciplines because of its supposed access to consumer needs and wants and social and cultural trends in the marketplace+ Aidney Levy>s (2"$"# work, drawing on influences from anthropology e/tended the idea that consumers are heterogeneous in their needs and wants and emphasised the non&rational, symbolic and identity&forming aspects of consumption+ ,his position challenged the philosophical basis of conventional marketing thought at that time (Heath, !!%#+ ,oday, Levy>s (2"$"# notion of Ebrand image> is part of the le/icon of business management, even though the full implications of thinking

2$

about marketing management through a consumer cultural lense remains under& developed in mainstream marketing thought (Holt, !!)#+ Ket Levy (2""(, in ,ada4ewski, !!'# bemoans the way that many mainstream marketing academics still cleave to the idea of a rational, utility&seeking consumer, the very idea to which marketing evolved as a counterpoint+

Levy>s (2"$"# anthropological idea that the consumer generates meaning from the symbolic practices of marketing was at odds with the drive to place marketing on the level of physical science (see also 6ardner and Levy, 2"$$#+ Aymbolism does not easily lend itself to measurement+ ,oday, one aspect of marketing>s bifurcation is seen in the different model of the consumer which prevails in the parallel universes of marketing and consumer research+ ,hat they are, or should be, one and the same thing might seem obvious to the lay person+ 8arketing is nothing if it is not grounded in the consumer e/perience+ Ket marketing and consumer research have somehow become separated academic enterprises+ ,he anthropological and social scientific investigation of consumers and consumption has become identified with the consumer culture theory movement (3rnould and ,hompson, !!(H see also Holbrook and Hirschman, 2"' #+ ,his research has investigated the nature of the consumer e/perience with regard, for e/ample, to its hedonistic, e/istential and se/ual motivations (Hirschman and Holbrook, 2"' 9 ;lliott, 2""%9 6ould, 2""2#+ ,ada4ewski ( !!(b# has argued that this Einterpretive> tradition of research can actually be traced back much further, to the work of motivational researcher ;rnest Dichter (e+g+ 2")%, 2")"# who incorporated influences from the disciplines of economic geography, political science, psychoanalysis and

2(

psychology+ <t is, perhaps, significant that Dichter>s work, like much of Levy>s, seems to be relatively ignored in the research agenda of the top marketing 4ournals+

<t can only be speculation as to whether such selectivity is unconscious or not, but it is a feature of ideology that certain truths become regarded as so self&evident that oppositional views are rendered illegitimate+ 8arion ( !!(# argues that marketing>s ideological character is evident in its reliance on a set of relatively un.uestioned beliefs+ ,hese include, for e/ample, the operation of markets, the virtues of consumer orientated organiBation, consumer sovereignty, and the distributive efficiency of placing the satisfaction of consumer needs and wants at the ape/ of organiBational activity+ ,hese a/iomatic truths provide legitimacy for marketing professionals and for the market economy+ 3gain, such a view is predicated on a bifurcated discipline in which managerial and social scientific values respectively inform two .uite opposed yet mutually dependent research and teaching agenda+ <t is clear by now that there are significant social scientific traditions within marketing studies giving the field a plural and intellectually liberal character+ ,his leads to the possibility that, while the bifurcation of marketing studies may have historical and political elements, ideological issues should also be considered+

,he charge that marketing studies is a vehicle for neo&liberal ideology needs to be taken seriously by the discipline because of what it implies about the intellectual integrity of university academics and business schools+ =or Acott ( !!%# there is no debate to be had& according to academics of other disciplines, we don>t have any integrity+ ?articular te/ts

2%

in any intellectual field discipline will have their ideological undercurrents+ ,wo things stand out about marketing studies+ -ne is that discussion of the ideological influences in the field does not generally occur in the top managerially and scientifically focused 4ournals, nor in its typical te/t books+ ,he other is that the discipline has become globally popular because one particular set of truths and assumptions about marketing studies has come to represent the entire discipline with a striking degree of uniformity+

Marketing studies# managerial ideology and neo$liberalism

=or 1itkowski ( !!$#, marketing studies has, from its origins, embodied the neo&liberal values of individualism, freedom and choice+ 3s such, it carries strong ideological undercurrents, making its success in other cultures all the more notable+ He argues that that modern marketing>s theoretical foundations in classical and neo&classical economics link it ineluctably with deep assumptions about Cthe e/istence of private enterprise, competitive firms, the rule of law, and the free international movement of goods, services and capitalG+individualism and utilitarianism+D (1itkowski, !!$, p+ , citing :artels,

2"'', and 1ilkie and 8oore, !!*#+ ,his neo&liberal spirit is e/pressed in the managerialism which connects academic marketing with values which have become pre& eminent in public and commercial life in the 1estern world (AkFlIn at al, !!(#+ 3s a conduit for managerial ideology, marketing is said to wield influence as a discourse of organiBational control (1illmott, 2"""9 :rownlie and Aaren, 2""%H 8organ, 2"" # and a force marketiBing not only non&profit and charitable areas but even relationships, e/periences and emotions (Reuter and LitBiwitB, !!(#+

2'

<n marketing studies, the notion of ideology is rarely engaged with in depth (->Reilly, !!(#+ ?artly as a result, where it is discussed there has sometimes been confusion between the concept and specific ideologies+ <n some cases it is identified naively with neo&8ar/ism, echoing the politically charged Cold 1ar ideas about free markets as oppositional positions to Eideology>+ ,his misconstrues the concept, as 8arion ( !!(# points out, alluding to Dumont>s (2"%%# distinction between ideology as a distortion of truth, and ideology as beliefs which are un.uestioned and taken&for&granted+ ,he second version is not a distortion of an absolute reality but, rather, one manifestation of a socially constructed reality+

Hirschman (2""*# cites ;agleton (2""2# on ideology as the ways in which a particular Cworld&view or value and&belief system of a particular class or group of peopleD is reproduced through various strategies (p+ $*'#+ <deological strategies include representing particular norms as if they are taken&for&granted as being good for all groups (EnormaliBation> and EuniversaliBation>#+ 3nother, instrumentalism (;agleton, 2""2#, defines the character of relationships so, for e/ample in typical marketing te/t books, the greater good is e.uated with consumption+ 8arketing is referred to as an ideology not only because, as a management philosophy, its values are a matter of faith rather than reason (1hittington and 1hipp, 2"" # but also because it demonstrates ;agleton>s (2""2# ideological strategies in its te/ts and courses (Hackley, !!*#+

,he suggestion that marketing studies can be seen as an ideological vehicle carrying the values of neo&liberalism and managerialism might seem far&fetched, given that marketing

2"

studies are typically understood in terms of a politically and ethically neutral discipline made up of a patchwork of managerial problem&solving concepts and techni.ues+ 1hat is more, as we have seen, the discipline is characterised by enormous vitality and divergence, at least if its full range of research 4ournals, encompassing consumer research, public policy and marketing theory are considered+ :ut the marketing studies which attracts such vilification is the other half of a bifurcated discipline, one identified strongly with the tools and concepts managerial approach+ 8arketing is marketed as an applied and technical discipline in hundreds of stylised and almost identical te/t books (Holbrook, 2""$9 Hackley, !!*# which generally ignore the critically social scientific strains of research in the field+

8anagerialism, as manifestation of neo&liberal ideology, does not refer only to the practical processes of organiBing resources and people but also to a discourse of power and domination+ AkFlen et al ( !!(# argue that marketing has been a fundamentally managerial discipline since its earliest origins and this gives marketing a Egovernmental> character (=oucault, !!!# which frames human sub4ectivity in terms of the values and priorities of marketing+ Ao workers as well as consumers orient their thinking around a neo&liberal set of values about the primacy of markets and marketiBed relationships+ 8arketing discourse acts to impose the values of managerialism as ideology, so that they are internalised (3lvesson, 2""*9 8organ, 2"" #+

=or ;nteman (2""*#, managerialism replaced socialism and capitalism as the pre&eminent ideology of our time+ <t acts to 4ustify business activity at the e/pense of all other forms

of relationship and economic organisation+ <ts dangers lie in the displacement of public debate through elected representatives, with technocratic decision&making, by&passing the needs and interests of individual citiBens+ ,here can be little doubt that marketing discourse has indeed reached into every form of organiBation+ @otler and Levy (2"("# and @otler and Laltman (2"%2# argued that marketing management principles could and should be applied to any form of organiBation+ ,his is reflected in the wide use in the public and non&profit sectors of marketing discourse and managerial values, sometimes referred to as the 5ew ?ublic 8anagement (Cousins, 2""!9 Laing, !!*#+

8arion ( !!(# refers to ideology as the third level in three inter&acting elements in marketing studies, the other two of which are practice and (codified# knowledge+ ?ractice refers to the almost pre&historical character of marketing activity, given that it could be said to have originated with the earliest forms of trade and barter and may even have been the reason why writing was developed (:rown and 7ensen&Achau, !!'#+ Layer two, the knowledge of marketing, performs the discipline, both CconceptualiBing and enacting market economyD (8arion, !!(, p+ )%#+ <n drawing on marketing>s codified knowledge, its normative Etools and concepts>, (Hackley, 2""'#, marketing practitioners enact and legitimise both the practitioner and the practice of marketing (Avensson, !!%#+ 8arketing>s ideological component lies, according to 8arion ( !!(#, in its attempts to legitimise itself by spreading its values and ideas so that they are shared by many+

The social marketing movement

,he social marketing movement (6ordon et al, !!%H Hastings and Heywood, 2"")#, alluded to above, serves to highlight some of the issues surrounding managerialism and neo&liberalism in marketing studies+ -n the face of it, social marketing is an enterprise which opposes and resists the values of managerialism and individualistic, economic neo& liberalism+ :ut some critics suggest that, in fact, social marketing is 4ust as ideologically loaded as managerial marketing studies (->Ahaughnessy, 2""(#+ Charities, public sector organiBations seek socially responsible ends but, like commercial organisations, they also use marketing concepts to 4ustify many kinds of change (1illmott, 2""*H 8organ, 2"" #+ Atate&sponsored promotional campaigns for energy&saving, environmental protection, anti&cigarette smoking, safer levels of alcohol consumption and so forth seem to be e/pressing the voices of citiBenship and social responsibility in opposition to the e/cessive Beal of marketing+ Ket the use of marketing techni.ues, especially advertising, to address the negative e/ternalities of marketing activity carries a potential contradiction+ Aocial marketing can be seen to reassert the values and power of the prevailing state authority (1itkowski, !!$9 :renkert, !! #+ Aocial marketing messages may be well&meaning but they are cast in the same pro&marketing ideological hue as the pro&marketing messages which they are ostensibly designed to counter, since they potentially carry the same neo&liberal undertones as other forms of marketing activity+

!oncluding comments

-ne could argue that the idea of a bifurcated discipline, occupying two parallel universes, is an over&elaboration+ Ao what if managerial marketing, with its physical science model of research and aphoristic teaching style is one discipline, with the critical social science aspects of the discipline conducted under the interpretive consumer culture research bannerM =or many commentators there are serious intellectual, social and by implication moral implications of having a discipline in which ideology is disengaged from social science+ 1itkowski ( !!$# and Lowe et al ( !!$# suggest that marketing studies needs to be reconnected to its original ethos focused on social welfare+ <t can achieve this through a more historically informed and intellectually engaged approach, which, they argue, can enable it to rediscover its integrity as a branch of management education+ =or :rownlie ( !!(# it is an intellectual imperative that marketing studies 4ustifies itself not only as a managerial discipline but as a field of social scientific study conducted in universities, with the purist and disinterested intellectual values that implies+ :radshaw and =irat ( !!%# offer the view that marketing studies re.uires a reappraisal from the neo&8ar/ist intellectual tradition of the =rankfurt Achool and Critical ,heory+ 3s a Cunifying pillarD (p+)2# in the field drawing on the capitalist criti.ue of social Horkeimer and 3dorno (2"))# this perspective can confer insights into the taken&for&granted power relations implicit in marketing discourse+ ,ada4ewski ( !!'#, on the other hand, offers the pessimistic view that the ideological character and institutional infrastructure of the field is unlikely to change, and critical, revisionist or interpretive work in marketing studies is likely to remain outside the ideologically&driven mainstream+

Holt ( !!)# has written of iconic brands which resolve dilemmas of identity+ 8arketing studies, as a commodity marketed and sold in itself (Holbrook, 2""$# has, arguably, assumed a .uasi&branded character, perhaps resolving dilemmas of identity for individuals and cultures faced with the task of reconciling some of the contradictions of neo&liberalism+ <t serves the purposes of those who engage with it, including academics+ ,he historical, political, institutional and ideological influences which inform the bifurcation of the marketing studies discipline have an enduring influence on the field and what this paper has characterised as putative parallel universes of social science and managerial marketing+ 1orking through this influence and engaging with the contradictions it generates would seem to be a central task for a critical reorientation of disciplinary space in marketing studies+

%eferences

3herne, 3+ ( !!(# C;/ploit the Levitt 1rite CycleD, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Nol 2),+ 5o 2, pp %%&'% (with A+ :rown#

3lderson, 1+ (2"$%# Marketing Behavior and &xecutive "ction' " (unctionalist "%%roach to Marketing, Homewood, <ll+Richard D+ <rwin+

3lderson, 1+ (2"($# )ynamic Marketing Behaviour* " (unctionalist Theory of Marketing, Homewood, <ll+ Richard D+ <rwin+

3lvesson, 8+ (2""*# Critical ,heory and Consumer 8arketing, Scandinavian Journal of Marketing, "9 pp+ "2&*2*+

3merican 8arketing 3ssociation (383# (2"''# ,ask =orce on the Development of 8arketing ,hought, ODeveloping, disseminating and utilising marketing knowledgeO, Journal of Marketing, $ (-ct+# pp+ 2& $

3rndt, 7+ (2"'$# O,he tyranny of paradigmsH the case for paradigmatic pluralism in marketingO, in Dholakia, 5+ and 3rndt, 7+ (eds+ hanging the ourse of Marketing' "lternative Paradigms for Widening Marketing Theory, Research in 8arketing, Aupplement , 6reenwich, C,+, 73< ?ress+

3rnould, ;+ and ,hompson, C+7+ ( !!$# Consumer Culture ,heoryH ! years of research, Journal of onsumer ,esearch, *2 (8arch# pp+'('&'' +

:artels, R+ (2"$2# E<nfluences on the Development of 8arketing ,hought& 2"!!&2" *>, Journal of Marketing, 2(P2 pp+2&2%+

:artels, R+ (2"''# The #istory of Marketing Thought, Columbus, -H+, ?ublishing HoriBons <nc+

:aumgartner, H+ and ?ieters, R+ ( !!*# E,he Atructural <nfluence of 8arketing 7ournalsH 3 Citation 3nalysis of the Discipline and its Aubareas -ver ,ime, Journal of Marketing, (% (3pril# pp+ 2 *&2*"+

:elk, R+ 1+, Aherry, 7+, =+ and 1allendorf (2"''# E3 naturalistic en.uiry into buyer and seller behaviour at a swap meet>, Journal of onsumer ,esearch, 2), )H (8arch#H pp+))"& %!+

:olton, R+ ( !!$# E8arketing RenaissanceH -pportunities and <mperatives for <mproving 8arketing ,hought, ?ractice and <nfrastructure>, Journal of Marketing, Nol+ (" (-ctober#, pp+2& $+

:radshaw, 3+ and =uat =irat, 3+ ( !!%# ERethinking Critical 8arketing>, in Aaren, 8+, 8aclaran, ?+, 6oulding, C+, ;lliott, R+, Ahankar, 3+ and Catterall, 8+ ( !!%# (;ds# ritical Marketing- )efining the (ield, -/ford, :utterworth&Heinemann pp+*!&)*+

:radshaw, 3+ and Holbrook, 8+:+ ( !!%# Remembering ChetH theoriBing the mythology of the self&destructive bohemian artist as self&producer and self&consumer in the market for romanticism Marketing Theory !!% %H 22$&2*(

:renkert, 6+6+ ( !! # E;thical Challenges of Aocial 8arketing>, Journal of Pu!lic Policy . Marketing, 2 (Apring# pp+ 2)& $+

:rown, A+ (2""$# Postmodern Marketing, London, <,:?+

:rown, A+ (2""(# 3rt or AcienceM =ifty years of marketing debate, Journal of Marketing Management, 2 ,)H pp+ )*& (%+

:rown, A+ (2""%# 8arketing science in a postmodern worldH introduction to the special issue, &uro%ean Journal of Marketing, *2, *,) pp+

:rown, A+ ( !! # Reading 1roeH on the biopoetics of 3lderson>s functionalism, Marketing Theory, Nol+ , 5o+*, pp+ )*& %2+

:rown, A+ ( !!$# Writing Marketing- /iterary /essons from "cademic "uthorities , London, Aage+

:rown, A+ and 7ensen&Achau ( !!'# 1riting Russell :elkH e/cess all areas, Marketing Theory, 'P pp+ 2)*&2($+

:rownlie, D+ ( !!(# ;mancipation, ;piphany and Resistance, on the Underimagined and -verdetermined in Critical 8arketing, Journal of Marketing Management, $!'+ , pp+$!$&

:rownlie, D+, Hewer, ?+ and =erguson, ?+ ( !!%# ,heory into practiceH meditations on cultures of accountability and interdisciplinarity in marketing research, Journal of Marketing Management, *+$&(, pp *"$&)!"+

:rownlie, D+ and Aaren, 8+ (2""%# E:eyond the one&dimensional marketing managerH the discourse of theory, practice and relevance>, 0nternational Journal of ,esearch in Marketing, 2), H pp+2)(&(2+

:urton, D+ ( !!2# Critical 8arketing ,heory& the blueprintM &uro%ean Journal of Marketing, Nol+ *$, $P(, pp+% &%)*+

:urton, D+ ( !!$# 8arketing ,heory 8atters, British Journal of Management, 2(P2 pp+$& 2'+

'

Catterall, 8+, 8aclaran, ?+ and Atevens, L+ ( !!$#, ?ostmodern paralysisH the critical impasse in feminist perspectives on consumers, Journal of Marketing Management, Nol+ 2($&(#, pp+ )'"&$!)

Chadha, R+ and Husband, ?+ ( !!(# The ult of the /uxury Brand' inside "sia$s love affair 1ith luxury, 5icholas :realy, London+

Contardo, R+ and 7RC 1ensley ( !!)#, The #arvard Business School Story' "voiding 2no1ledge !y !eing ,elevant, -rganiBation, 22 22& *2+

Converse, ?+ (2")$# E,he Development of the Acience of 8arketing>, Journal of Marketing 2! (7uly# pp+ 2)& *+

Cousins, L+ (2""!# 8arketing ?lanning in the ?ublic and 5on&profit Aectors, &uro%ean Journal of Marketing, )P% pp+ $&*!+

Cova, :+ ( !!$# ,hinking of 8arketing in 8eridian ,erms, Marketing Theory, $P pp+ !$& 2)+

Crane, 3+ ( !!!# Marketing, Morality and the 3atural &nvironment, London, Routledge+

"

Day, 6+A+ and 8ontgomery, D+:+ (2"""# Charting 5ew Directions for marketing, Journal of Marketing, Apecial <ssue, (*, pp+ *&2*+

Dholakia, 5+, =irat, 3+=+ and :agoBBi, R+?+ (2"'!# E,he De&3mericaniBation of 8arketing ,houghtH <n Aearch of a Universal :asis>, in C+1+ Lamb and ?+8+ Dunne (eds# Theoretical )evelo%ments in Marketing, pp+ $& ", Chicago9 3merican 8arketing 3ssociation+

Dichter, ;+ (2")%# ?sychology in 8arket Research, #arvard Business ,evie1, $()# pp+)* &))*+

Dichter, ;+ (2")"# 3 psychological view of advertising effectiveness, Journal of Marketing, 2)(2# pp+ (2&(%+

Drucker, ?+ (2"$"# The Practice of Management, -/ford, :utterworth Heinemann, 2""* reprint+

Dumont, L+ (2"%%# (rom Mandeville to Marx, Chicago <ll+, University of Chicago ?ress+

;agleton, ,+ (2""2#+ 0deology, LondonH Nerso+

;lliott, R+ (2""%# E;/istential consumption and irrational desire>, &uro%ean Journal of Marketing, *), )H pp+ '$& "(+

*!

;nterman, 1+ =+ (2""*# Managerialism- the emergence of a ne1 ideology, 1isconsin, 8adison, University of 1isconsin ?ress+

=irat, 3+ =uat, and Dholakia, 5+ ( !!(# ,heoretical and philosophical implications of postmodern debatesH some challenges to modern marketing, Marketing Theory, (P , pp+2 *&2( +

=ischer, ;+ and :ritor, 7+ (2"")#+ O3 feminist poststructuralist analysis of the rhetoric of marketing OrelationshipsO+ 0nternational Journal of ,esearch in Marketing, 22,), pp *2%& *2+

=oucault, 8+ ( !!!# ,he sub4ect and power, in 7+D+=aubion (ed# Po1er' The &ssential Works of (oucault, Nol+ * (pp+ * (&*)'# 5ew Kork9 ,he =ree ?ress+

=o/, @+=+, Akorobogatykh, <+<+ and Aaginova, -+N+ ( !!$# E,he Aoviet ;volution of 8arketing ,hought 2"(2&2""2, =rom 8ar/ to 8arketing>, Marketing Theory, Nol $(*# Aep !!$, '*&*!%+

=ullerton, R+ (2"''# How modern is modern marketing thoughtM 8arketing>s evolution and the myth of the production era, Journal of Marketing, $ , 7anuary, pp+2!'&2 $+

=ullerton, R+ (2"'%# E,he ?overty of 3historical 3nalaysis9 ?resent 1eakness and =uture Cure on UA 8arketing ,hought>, in Philoso%hical and ,adical Thought in Marketing, =+

*2

=irat, 5+Dholakia and R+:agoBBi (eds# Le/ington, 83, Le/ington :ooks+ =ullerton, R+3+ ( !!%# ?sychoanalyBing kleptomania Marketing Theory %H **$&*$ 6ardner, :+ and Levy, A+, (2"$$#, E,he ?roduct and the :rand>, #arvard Business ,evie1, 8arch&3pril, pp+ **&*"

6ordon, R+ and Howell, 7+ ;+ (2"$"# #igher &ducation for Business, 5ew Kork, Columbia University ?ress+

6ordon, R+, Hastings, 6+, 8cDermott, L+ and Ai.ier, ?+ ( !!%# E,he Critical Role of Aocial 8arketing>, in 8+ Aaren, ?+ 8aclaran, C+ 6oulding, R+ ;lliott, 3+ Ahankar and 8+ Catterall (eds# !!%# ritical Marketing' defining the field, London, ;lsevier and

:urtterworth&Heinemann, pp+ 2$"&2%%+

6ould, A+ 7+ (2""2# E,he Aelf&8anipulation of my ?ervasive, ?erceived Nital ;nergy ,hrough product Use& an introspective&pra/is perspective>, Journal of onsumer ,esearch, 2'P pp+2")&

6ronroos, C+ (2"")# E=rom 8arketing 8i/ to Relationship 8arketingH towards a paradigm shift in marketing>, "sia-"ustralia Marketing Journal, , 2H pp+"& "+

6ronroos, C+ ( !!(# E-n defining marketingH finding a new roadmap for marketing> Marketing Theory, (, DecemberH pp+*"$&)2%

6ummesson, ;+ ( !! a# ?ractical value of 3de.uate 8arketing 8anagement ,heory, &uro%ean Journal of Marketing, *(P* pp+ * $&*)"+

6ummesson, ;+ ( !! b#, Total ,elationshi% Marketing -/ford,+ :utterworth HeinemannP;lsevier (revised second edition#+

Hackley, C+ (2"''# 8anagement Learning and 5ormative 8arketing ,heory& Learning from the Life&1orld>, Management /earning Nol+ ", no+2, pp+ "2&2!$ <AA5 2*$! $!%(+

Hackley, C+ ( !!*# 1e 3re 3ll Customers 5owDH Rhetorical Atrategy and <deological Control in 8arketing 8anagement ,e/ts> Journal of Management Studies Nol+ )!, 5o+$, pp+2* $&2*$ 9 7une+

Heath, 6+;+ ( !!%# Aidney LevyH Challenging the ?hilosophical 3ssumptions of 8arketing, Journal of Macromarketing, Nol+ % 5o+ 2+, 8arch, pp+%&2)+

Hastings, 6+, :+ and Haywood, 3+ 7+ (2"")# EAocial marketingH a critical response>, #ealth Promotion 0nternational, (, H pp+ 2*$&)$+

Hirschman ;+ C+ (2"'*# 3esthetics, <deologies and the Limits of the 8arketing Concept, Journal of Marketing, Aumer, Nol+ )%, pp+)$&$$+

**

Hirschman, ;+C+ (2"'(# Humanistic <n.uiry in Consumer ResearchH philosophy, method and criteria, Journal of Marketing ,esearch, *, pp+ *%&)"+

Hirschman, ;+ 6+ (2""*#+ O<deology in consumer research, 2"'! and 2""!H a 8ar/ist and feminist criti.ueO+ Journal of onsumer ,esearch, 2", 8arch, $*%&$$+

Holbrook, 8+ and Hirschman, ;+ (2"' # E,he e/periential aspects of consumptionH consumer feelings, fantasies and fun> Journal of onsumer ,esearch, " (Aeptember# 2* & )!+

Hirschman, ;+C+ and Holbrook, 8+:+ (2"' # Hedonic ConsumptionH emerging concepts, methods and propositions, Journal of Marketing, )(, Aummer, pp+" &2!2+

Hirschman and Holbrook (2"" # Postmodern onsumer ,esearch- the study of consum%tion as text Aage and the 3ssociation for Consumer Research, California+

Holbrook, 8+ :+ (2""$# E,he =our =aces of Commodification in the Development of 8arketing @nowledge>, Journal of Marketing Management, 22H pp+ ()2&$)+

Hollander, A+C+ (2"'(# ,he 8arketing ConceptH 3 DI4Q vu, in 6+ =isk, (ed# Marketing Management as a Technology as a Social Process, pp+ & ", 5ew Kork, ?raeger+

*)

Hollander, A+C+, Rassuli, @+8+, 7ones, D+6+, =arlow Di/, L+ ( !!$# ?eriodiBation in 8arketing History, Journal of Macromarketing, $P2, pp+ * &)2+ Holt, D+ ( !!)# #o1 Brand Become 0cons' the %rinci%les of cultural !randing, Harvard, 8ass+, Harvard :usiness Achool ?ress+ Horkheimer, 8+ and 3dorno, ,+ 1+ (2"))# )ialectic of &nlightenment, 5ew Kork, Continuum+

HulthIn, @+ and 6adde, L&; ( !!%# Understanding the RnewO distribution reality through RoldO conceptsH a renaissance+++ for transvection and sorting Marketing Theory4 !!%9 %H 2')& !%+

Hunt, A+D+ (2""2# Modern Marketing Theory' critical issues in the %hiloso%hy of marketing science, Cincinnati, Aouthwestern ?ublishing Co+

7ack, 6+ ( !!'# ?ostcolonialism and 8arketing, in 8+ ,ada4ewski and D+ :rownlie (eds# ritical Marketing- issues in contem%orary marketing, Chichester, 1iley, pp+ *(*&*'*+

7ones, D+6+:+ and 8onieson, D+D+ (2""!# ;arly Development of the ?hilosophy of 8arketing ,hought, Journal of Marketing, $), 7anuary, pp+2! &22*+

*$

@atsikeas9 C+A+, Robson, 8+7+ and Hulbert, 7+8+ ( !!)# <n search of relevance and rigour for research in marketing, Marketing 0ntelligence and Planning Nolume !!) , pp+ $('&$%'+ , 5umber $,

@eith, R+7+ (2"(!# ,he marketing revolution, Journal of Marketing, ), 7anuary, pp+*$&'+

@lein, 5+ ( !!!# 3o /ogo' Taking "im at the Brand Bullies, London, =lamingo+

@niffin, =+1+ (2"((# E<s 8arketing ;ducation DriftingM> Journal of Marketing, Nol+ *! 5o+ 2 pp+ )&(

@Jse, K+ ( !!%# 5estlIH 3 :rief History of the 8arketing Atrategies of the =irst 8ultinational Company in the -ttoman ;mpire, Journal of Macromarketing, Apecial <ssue on 8arketing History, %P2, pp+%)&'$+

@otler, ?+ (2"(%# Marketing Management' "nalysis, Planning, 0m%lementation and ontrol, ;nglewood Cliffs, 57+

@otler, ?+ and Levy, A+ (2"("# :roadening the Concept of 8arketing, Journal of Marketing, 55, 7anuary, pp+2!&2$4

@otler, ?+ and Laltman, 6+ (2"%2# Aocial 8arketing9 an approach to planned social change, Journal of Marketing, Nol+ *$, 7uly, pp+*&2 +

*(

Laing, 3+ ( !!*# 8arketing in the ?ublic AectorH ,owards a ,ypology of ?ublic Aervices, Marketing Theory, *P), pp+) %&))$+

Levitt, ,+ (2"(!# 8arketing 8yopia, #arvard Business ,evie1, 7uly&3ugust, pp+ )$&$(+

Levy, A+ (2"$"# Aymbols for Aale, #arvard Business ,evie1, Nol+ *% (7uly# pp+ 22%& )+

Levy, A+ ( !!*# Roots of 8arketing and Consumer Research at the University of Chicago, onsum%tion, Markets and ulture Nol+(P pp+""&22!+

Lowe, A+, Carr, 3+5+, ,homas, 8+ and1atkins&8athys, L+ ( !!$# ,he =ourth Hemeneutic in 8arketing ,heory, Marketing Theory, $( # pp+ 2'$& !*+

8arion, 6+ ( !!(# 8arketing <deology and Criticism, Marketing Theory, (P pp+ )$& ( +

8organ, 6+ (2"" # 8arketing Discourse and ?racticeH ,owards a Critical 3nalysis, in 8+ 3lvesson and H+ 1illmott (;ds# (2"" # ritical Management Studies, London, Aage+

8organ, 6+ ( !!*# 8arketing and criti.ueH ?rospects and problems, <n 3lvesson, 8+ and 1illmott, H+ (;ds# ritical Management Studies (pp+222&2*2# London, Aage+

8urray, 7+ :+ and -Banne, 7+ L+ (2""2# E,he Critical <maginationH ;mancipatory <nterests in Consumer Research>, Journal of onsumer ,esearch, 2', H Aeptember, pp+ 2 "&))+

*%

5icholls, 3+7+ and Cullen, ?+ !!)+ E,he childSparent purchase relationshipH Epester power>, human rights and retail ethics>+ Journal of ,etailing and onsumer Services, 22H , %$S'(+

->Reilly, D+ ( !!(# CommentaryH :randing <deology, Marketing Theory, (P , pp+ (*& %2+

-OAhaughnessy, 5+ 7+ (2""(# OAocial ?ropaganda and Aocial 8arketingH 3 Critical DifferenceMO, &uro%ean Journal of Marketing, Nol+ *!, 5o+ 2!P22 pp+ $)&(%+

?atterson, 8 and ;lliott, R+ ( !! # 5egotiating 8asculinitiesH 3dvertising and the <nversion of the 8ale 6aBe, onsum%tion, Markets and ulture, Nol+ $, 5umber *, 2 7anuary !! , pp+ *2& )"+

?eTaloBa, L+ ( !!!# &The !ommodification of the American 'est: Marketer(s production of !ultural Meanings at the Trade Sho)(# Journal of Marketing# *ol +,-, p./0$123.

?iercy, 5+ ( !! # Research in marketingH teasing with trivia or risking relevanceM &uro%ean Journal of Marketing, *(P* pp+*$!&*(*+ ?ierson, =+ C+ (2"$"# The &ducation of "merican Businessmen, 5ew Kork, 8c6raw&Hill+

*'

Reuter, 7+ and LitBewitB, ;+ ( !!(# EDo ads influence editorsM 3dvertising and bias in the financial media>+ 6uarterly Journal of &conomics, 2 2H2, 2"%S %+

Aaren, 8+ ( !!!# E8arketing ,heory>, in 8+ 7+ :aker (ed#, <;:8 &ncyclo%aedia of Marketing, London, <nternational ,homson, pp+ %")&'!"+

Achroeder, 7+;+ ( !! # 7isual onsum%tion, London, Routledge+

Achroeder 7+;+ and AalBer&8Jrling, 8+ (;ds# Brand ulture, London, Routledge+

Acott, L+ ( !!%# ECritical Research in 8arketingH 3n 3rmchair Report>, Chapter 2 in 8+ Aaren, ?+ 8aclaran, C+ 6oulding, R+ ;lliott, 3+ Ahankar and 8+ Catterall (;ds# ritical Marketing' )efining the (ield, -/ford, :utterworth HeinemannP;lsevier+

Ahankar, 3+, Cherrier,H+ and Canniford, R+ ( !!(# Consumer empowermentH a =oucauldian interpretation, &uro%ean Journal of Marketing, )!, "P2!, pp+2!2*&22*!+

Aividas, ;+ and 7ohnson, 8+A+ ( !!$# @nowledge =lows in 8arketingH 3n analysis of 4ournal article references and citations, Marketing Theory $()# pp **"&*(2+

Aheth, 7+5+ and Aisodia, R+A+ ( !!$# EDoes 8arketing 5eed ReformM> Journal of Marketing, Nol+ (" (-ctober# pp+2!&2 +

*"

AkFlen, ?+, =ellesson, 8+ and =ougere, 8+ ( !!(# ,he governmentality of 8arketing Discourse>, Scandinavian Journal of Management, , pp+ %$& "2+

AkFlen, ?+, =ougere, 8+ and =ellesson, 8+ ( !!'# Marketing )iscourse- a critical %ers%ective, London Routledge+

Amith, 5+C+ (2""$# E8arketing strategies for the ethics era>+ Sloan Management ,evie1, (H), '$S"%+

Atern, :+ (2""!# ELiterary Criticism and the History of 8arketing ,houghtH 3 5ew ?erspective on EReading> 8arketing ,heory>, Journal of the "cademy of Marketing Science, 2'H p+* "&*(+

Avensson, A+ ( !!%# ?roducing marketingH towards a social&phenomenology of marketing work Marketing Theory %H %2& "!

,ada4ewski, 8+ ( !!(a# ,he ordering of marketing theoryH the influence of 8cCarthyism and the Cold 1ar, Marketing Theory,(P pp+2(*&2""+

,ada4ewski, 8+ ( !!(b# Remembering 8otivation ResearchH Resituating the ;mergence of <nterpretive Research, Marketing Theory (( # pp+2(*&2""+

,ada4ewski, 8+ ( !!'# <ncommensurable paradigms, cognitive bias and the politics of marketing theory, Marketing Theory, 'P* pp+ %*& "%+

)!

,ada4ewski, 8+ and :rownlie, D+ ( !!'a# Rethinking the Development of 8arketing, pp+ "&*2 in ,ada4ewski, 8+ and :rownlie, D+ (;ds# ritical Marketing-0ssues in ontem%orary Marketing, London, 1iley+

,ada4ewski, 8+ and :rownlie, D+ ( !!'b# Critical 8arketing& 3 Limit 3ttitude, Chapter 2 in ,ada4ewski, 8+ and :rownlie, D+ (;ds# ritical Marketing-0ssues in ontem%orary Marketing, London, 1iley pp+2& '+

,homas, 8+ 7+ (2"")#, E8arketing& in Chaos or ,ransitionM>, &uro%ean Journal of Marketing, ', *H pp+ $$&( +

,homas, 8+ 7+ (2""(# E8arketing 3didimus>, Chapter 2! in :rown, A+, :ell, 7+, and Carson, D+ (eds# Marketing "%ocaly%se, Routledge, London, pp+ 2'"& !$+

,onks, D+ ( !! #, O8arketing as cookingH return of the sophistsO, Journal of Marketing Management, vol 2'(%&'#, pp '!*&'

1ensley, R+ (2""!# ,he voice of the consumerM Apeculations on the limits to the marketing analogy, &uro%ean Journal of Marketing, )P%, pp+)"&(!+

1ensley, R+ (2""$# 3 Critical Review of Research in 8arketing, British Journal of Management, (, A(*&A' +

)2

1illmott, H+ (2""*# ?arado/es of 8arketingH some critical reflections, in :rownlie, D+ et al (;ds#, ,ethinking Marketing, Coventry, 1arwick :usiness Achool Research :ureau, !%& 2+

1illmott, H+ (2"""#, U-n the idoliBation of markets and the denigration of marketersH some critical reflections on a professional parado/U, in :rownlie, D+, Aaren, 8+, 1ensley, R+, 1hittington, R+ (;ds#,,ethinking Marketing, Aage, London+,

1ilkie, 1+A+ and 8oore, ;+A+ ( !!*# EAcholarly Research in 8arketing9 ;/ploring the ) ;ras of ,hought Development, Journal of Pu!lic Policy and Marketing, )(+ (=all# pp+ 22(&

1ilkie, 1+A+ and 8oore, ;+A+ ( !!(# 8acromarketing as a ?illar of 8arketing ,hought, Journal of Macromarketing, (P , pp+ )& * +

1itkowski, ,+ H+ ( !!$# Aources of <mmoderation and ?roportion in 8arketing ,hought, Commentary, Marketing Theory, $P pp+ 2& *2+

1hittington, R+ and 1hipp, R+(2"" # 8arketing <deology and <mplementation, Journal of Marketing, (P2, pp+ $ &(*+

1ooliscroft, :+ ( !!*# 1roe 3lderson>s contribution to marketing theory through his te/tbooks, Journal of the "cademy of Marketing Science, *2()#pp+ )'2&)'$+

1ooliscroft, :+, ,amilia, R+ and Ahapiro, A+ (;ds# ( !!$# " T1enty-(irst entury 8uide to "ldersonian Marketing Thought, :erlin, Heidelberg, 5ew Kork, Apringer+

)*

httpHPPwww+wharton+upenn+eduPhuntsmanhallPtimelineP2''2+html httpHPPwww+hbs+eduPaboutPhistory+html httpHPPwww+bus+wisc+eduPstudentsPwhy+asp httpHPPwww+4bs+cam+ac+ukPaboutusPourhistory+html httpHPPwww+sbs+o/+ac+ukP8:3PAchoolP all accessed 7une *rd !!'+
ii iii

httpHPPwww+marketingpower+comP httpHPPwww+marketing4ournals+orgP4mP