If I read Michael correctly, he seeks transcedence of ideology. This has a
Mannheimian perspective. Mannheim advocated in the thirties a value free
analysis on the basis that value judgements can lead to normative positions.
Others such as Morgan, Mészáros, and Alvesson argued in the 1980s & 90s that
that value-free research is impossible and that methodological or
theoretical neutrality is illusory, a view I suspect most on the list would
support. In my view, the purpose of a critical management group would be
precisely to challenge, as Deetz put it, the value-free notion in managerial
and organisational studies. He argued that this notion is frequently
grounded "in a conception of corporations and management as a kind of
value-neutral tool which scientific study can improve without direct
attention to the uses to which this tool has been applied." Michael Chumer
does raise the issue concerning what the perspective might be from which one
might challenge the ontology and epistemology of management and
organisational studies. Some argue that there are unresolvable conflicts in
the different perspectives. I certainly feel comfortable with Paul Adler's
view just articulated. Indeed, I would go further and agree with Alvesson
who argues that better quality knowledge can come from our recognition and
awareness of the paradigm-bounded nature and ideological dimension of our
own work, and I believe that goes to the very ethic of criticism,
scholarship and research. If the purpose of this list is to challenge
managerial and organisational orthodoxy, it may even imply particular
normative characteristics for management and organisations. However, that is
not to say that everyone one this discussion list must subscribe to a
particular perspective: there will be no going forward without dialogue and
argument. I have personally learned much from discussion on this list,
including Michael's contributions this past couple of weeks and from an
earlier "critters" list.
Jim McDonald
Senior Lecturer in Industrial Relations
Department of HRM & Employment Relations
University of Southern Queensland
Toowoomba Qld 4350
AUSTRALIA
+61 7 4631 2634; fax +61 7 4631 1533
[log in to unmask]
<http://www.usq.edu.au/users/jmac>
-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Land [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 6:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: On being critical
Mike wrote:
> What drew me to critical scholarship in general and critical
management in
> particular was not any specific ideological position or affinity but
> rather what appeared to be an approach to inquiry that
transcended
> ideological alignment. After all inquiry and research into the basic
> assumptions underlying the beliefs of individuals and collectives
suggest
> that the scholar remains both neutral and reflexive.
I think that Mike's post really takes us to the heart of what is 'critical',
though I have to confess doubts about the distiction between his
accout of 'critical' scholarship and more traditionally 'scientific'
modes of enquiry.
example 1 - reflexivity
Mike suggests that reflexivity involves "scholars as instruments in
the research process" being aware of, and articulating, their biases
so that their research can be evaluated accurately.
This is simply a claim for greater scientific objectivity - not a
problem in itself but it does imply that the scientist can step back
from, and be objective about, himself. The possibility of doing this
is not universally accepted and for many, myself included, the
impossibility of realising this act of separation is a defining
problematic for 'critical' approaches. Mike's resolution of this
problem in neo-cartesian terms (separating objective/neutral mind
from subjective, embodied experience and belief) seems
premature at the very least.
This raises point 2 - neutrality
Connected to the discussion above, there have been a number of
theoretical interventions featuring prominently in 'critical
management' scholarship that have problematised the idea that
knowledge can ever be neutral. Recent exchanges on this list have
illuminated this point far more eloquently than I could.
Mike - I was unsure about your big 'CM' little 'cm' point. For myself
the capitalised 'Critical' connects to the European 'Critical Theory'
tradition of the Frankfurt School etc. which is a strong current in
CMS in the UK. 'critical', on the other hand, is an imprecise and
much contested term that, to misquote Humpty Dumpty in Alice In
Wonderland, seems to mean 'exactly what people want it to mean'.
This is a serious point. 'critcal' is being contested right now on this
group and in numerous conferences, books and papers. Central to
this contestation is the concept of 'ideology'. Which brings me
back to the starting point of Mike's post, and his desire to
'transcend' ideology. In 1931, Adorno distinguished between
'transcendent' and 'immanent' critiques. Whilst Mike's approach
follows the transcendent line and seeks to expose ideology from a
position outside that ideology (a transcendent critique of critical
management so to speak), an immanent critique would start to
expose internal contradictions from within a specific position,
without assuming that we can ever entirely escape ideology and
subject position. It seems that this latter might be a more useful
point from which to pursue Mike's stated aim of making critical
management "critical about its own criticalness" without necessarily
assuming a priori the possibility of neutral knowledge.
If we go for the latter and claim privileged access to objectivity and
neutrality by following scientific principles of, e.g. falsifiability, then
what distiguishes 'critical management' from 'management
science'?
My apologies for the simultaneous length and simplicity of this post,
chris
-----------------------
Christopher Land
Teaching Fellow
Industrial Relations and Organizational Behaviour
Warwick Business School
CV4 7AL
024 76524658
|