Martin Kelly wrote regarding Habermas and Foucault :
"Which one, if any, is the more
influential/useful in ideology critique and in working towards a more lucid
understanding of ideology consensus and workplace democracy, and why?
I think I can appreciate how both theoretical perspectives contribute to the
overall critique and I hope I can reconcile their differences, but I would
love to know what everyone else thinks!"
A useful collection of essays on this subject has just been published :
S. Ashenden and D. Owen, Foucault contra Habermas, London : Sage, 1999
I won't repeat what I think about the question as this can be found in M.
Alvesson and H.Willmott, Making Sense of Management : A Critical
Introduction, Sage, 1996. See especially Chs 3, 7 and 8
Hugh
Hugh Willmott
Home Page : http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/close/hr22/hcwhome
Web site for Critical Management Studies Conference 2001:
http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/town/close/hr22/cms2001
OR
Web site for Learning and Critique Network :
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/close/hr22/lcnsite
Web site for Association for Accountancy and Business Affairs:
http://visar.csustan.edu/aaba/aaba.htm
Hugh Willmott
Professor of Organizational Analysis
Manchester School of Management
UMIST
Manchester M60 1QD
United Kingdom
Tel : 0161 200 3412
Fax : 0161 200 3505
email : [log in to unmask]
Visiting Professor
Department of Business Administration
Lund University
PO Box 7080
S-220 07 LUND, Sweden
Visiting Professor
Strategic Management Division
Cranfield School of Management
Cranfield University
Bedford MK43 OAL
England
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Kelly" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 22 August 2000 02:51
Subject: The basis of the diminishing levels of participatory democracy
within organisational arenas today - a point for debate?
> Hi everyone,
>
> I've got a 'starter for ten', which I'd appreciate a little help with. I'm
> currently investigating the fundamental basis of consensual subscription
to
> (potentially) oppressive and discourse-curtailing workplace ideologies
> within corporate organisations and of the associated ramifications on
> participatory workplace 'democracy'.
>
> In looking at the role of theory and of 'the intellectual' in an analysis
of
> democracy within the 'politics of everyday life', Deetz states in
'Democracy
> In An Age Of Corporate Colonization' (1992): 'I have juxtaposed concepts
> from hermeneutics, critical theory, and Foucault. I hope to have shown a
> common movement within the works, gaining something of the power from each
> without totally losing the tensions among them, a set of tensions I think
we
> have to live with. I see this as more complementary than integrative or
> pluralistic' (p.82).
>
> In my limited reading of Foucault and Habermas, it would seem that they
are
> indeed 'juxtaposed' in relation to the prospects of true, participatory
> democracy within organisations, one free of systematically distorted
> communication. Habermas is obviously more optimistic of such a prospect
when
> he states in 'The Theory of Communicative Action Vol. 1' (1984): 'The
> necessity for coordinated action generates in society a certain need for
> communication, which must be met if it is possible to coordinate actions
> effectively for the purpose of satisfying needs' (p.274). It can be
implied
> from this, at least in my reading of it, that a certain emancipatory
> movement may be achieved through the use of undistorted communication.
>
> However, Foucault seems much more pessimistic of any true emancipation
from
> oppressive ideology and praxis, when he states in 'Discipline and Punish'
> (1977): 'In becoming the target for new mechanisms of power, the body is
> offered up to new forms of knowledge. It is...a body manipulated by
> authority, rather than imbued with animal spirits' (p.155).
>
> My query, and a possible point of debate relates to these two almost
> theoretically opposed (?) perspectives based in critical theory and
> post-structuralism respectively. Which one, if any, is the more
> influential/useful in ideology critique and in working towards a more
lucid
> understanding of ideology consensus and workplace democracy, and why?
>
> I think I can appreciate how both theoretical perspectives contribute to
the
> overall critique and I hope I can reconcile their differences, but I would
> love to know what everyone else thinks!
>
> Thanks for your patience and I hope that you find the time to reply,
>
> Martin Kelly
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|