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
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|