FROM MODERN TO POSTMODERN ORGANIZATIONAL ANALYSIS

被引:179
作者
CHIA, R
机构
[1] Department of Management and Organization, The School of Management, University of Stirling
关键词
ONTOLOGY OF BEING; THOUGHT STYLE; FALLACY OF MISPLACED CONCRETENESS; HETEROGENEOUS ENGINEERING; MICRO-LOGICS OF ORGANIZING;
D O I
10.1177/017084069501600406
中图分类号
C93 [管理学];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要
The terms 'modern' and 'postmodern' have become common currency in intellectual debates within organization studies. The postmodern is variously interpreted as an 'epoch', a 'perspective', or a new 'paradigm' of thought. In this paper the author argues that what distinguishes the postmodern from the modern is a 'style of thinking' which eschews the uncritical use of common organizational terms such as 'organizations', 'individuals', 'environment', 'structure', and 'culture', etc. These terms refer to the existence of social entities and attributes within a modernist problematic. This is because a modernist thought style relies on a 'strong' ontology (the study of the nature and essence of things) of being which privileges thinking in terms of discrete phenomenal 'states', static 'attributes' and sequential 'events'. Postmodern thinking, on the other hand, privileges a 'weak' ontology of becoming which emphasizes a transient, ephemeral and emergent reality. From this thought style, reality is deemed to be continuously in flux and transformation and hence unrepresentable in any static sense. Debates about modernism and postmodernism which do not address this ontological distinction miss critical insights which postmodernism brings to the study of organization. Adopting a postmodern mode of thinking implies radical consequences for rethinking organization studies. Instead of the traditional emphasis on organizations, organizational forms and organizational attributes, what is accentuated is the importance of examining local assemblages of 'organizings' which collectively make up social reality. A postmodern style of thought, therefore, brings with it a different set of ontological commitments, intellectual priorities and theoretical preoccupations to bear on the study of organization.
引用
收藏
页码:579 / 604
页数:26
相关论文
共 65 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1987, POSTMODERN TURN ESSA
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1926, SCI MODERN WORLD
[3]  
Bateson G., 1972, STEPS ECOLOGY MIND E, DOI DOI 10.3390/e16042161
[4]   SOCIOLOGY AND POSTMODERNITY [J].
BAUMAN, Z .
SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, 1988, 36 (04) :790-813
[5]  
Bohm D., 1980, WHOLENESS IMPLICATE
[6]  
Brown G. S., 1969, LAWS FORM
[7]  
CALLON M, 1980, SOCIAL PROCESS SCI I, V4, P197
[8]  
Chan Wing-Tsit, 1963, SOURCE BOOK CHINESE
[9]   A TAOIST INTERPRETATION OF DIFFERANCE IN DERRIDA [J].
CHENG, CY .
JOURNAL OF CHINESE PHILOSOPHY, 1990, 17 (01) :19-30
[10]   THEFTS WAY, A COMPARATIVE-STUDY OF CHUANG-TZU TAO AND DERRIDEAN TRACE [J].
CHIEN, CH .
JOURNAL OF CHINESE PHILOSOPHY, 1990, 17 (01) :31-49