The Bureaucratization, Commodification, and Privatization of Sexual Harassment through Institutional Discourse

TLDR

Sexual harassment is a discursive practice whose enactment, tolerance, and rectification are mediated by communication, and prior work shows that victims’ framing of incidents influences power dynamics. This study investigates how university managerial discourse frames sexual harassment, aiming to reveal how such framing perpetuates its bureaucratization, commodification, and privatization. Using a post‑structuralist critique of Big Ten university policies and brochures, the authors analyze three discourse forms—taken‑for‑granted, strategic ambiguity, and exclusionary—to expose oppressive or emancipatory patterns. The analysis indicates that these discourse forms collectively contribute to the commodification, bureaucratization, and privatization of sexual harassment.

Abstract

The present study extends research of sexual harassment by examining the communicative techniques that are employed in institutional discourse. Sexual harassment is viewed as a discursive practice that can be enacted, tolerated, perpetuated, or rectified through communication. Past studies have examined how the victims of sexual harassment “frame” these events that in turn affect power relations. The current study addresses how universities frame their managerial discourse regarding sexual harassment, which often perpetuates the bureaucratization, commodification, and privatization of sexual harassment. Specifically, a post-structuralist critique and deconstruction of the policies and brochures developed by the Big Ten universities are undertaken to reveal oppressive and/or emancipatory forms of discourse. Three specific forms are addressed. They are taken-for-granted discourse, strategic ambiguity, and exclusionary discourse. A discussion follows that suggests that these forms of discourse contribute to the commodification, bureaucratization, and privatization of sexual harassment in an ironic way.