Critical Management Studies: some reflections.
| Autor | McLean, Christine |
INTRODUCTION
Within CMS certain positions have been viewed as oppositional, in fact, the tensions among the different ontological and epistemological positions are seen by some as a crucial characteristic associated with the constitution of critique in MOS itself (Fournier & Grey, 2000; Parker, 2002; Alvesson & Willmott, 1992b). Thus, for Adler, there is no surprise that "too few of us would ever be able to agree on anything much" (Adler, 2002, p. 388), and for some, even the idea of Critical Management is perceived as an oxymoron (Zald, 2002). The constant clashes around what is a critical position in MOS (Fournier & Grey, 2000; Thompson, 2004; Parker, 2002; Boje et al., 2001) has also raised questions concerning instances of inclusion and exclusion of some critical voices in the drawing of boundaries (Parker, 2002; Ackroyd, 2004).
In this way, critical analysis in MOS has been involved in a constant state of tension either when fighting against other non-critical positions or when facing arguments in critically inspired debates at academic meetings and in journals and special issues. Concerns raised include: the need to produce a continual stream of papers which reinforces certain positions (Hassard, Hogan, & Rowilinson, 2001; Alvesson & Willmott, 1992a), and sometimes a lack of in-depth empirical work (Collinson, 2002; Parker, 2002) Within this paper we are not seeking to engage in the debate of what constitutes critical studies in Management or to advocate one tradition over another, but rather to explore a range of important issues concerning certain assumptions that are more or less related to the CMS endeavour. In contrast, the main focus of the paper is to explore certain assumptions underlying the ideas that can be seen as unifying CMS, including how we account for the nature of existence. For instance, rather than advocating a stance that there is one single reality existing out there that can be more or less known or that can have different meanings inside the mind of different actors, the underlying idea here is that realities are constantly achieved, fabricated, enacted, and produced (Latour, 1997, 2005; Law, 2004). Gabriel Tarde addresses this issue in part by viewing everything as a society (Latour, 2001), and through his work on repetition and difference (i.e. to exist is to differ(1)).
For example, enacting CMS relies on main chains of associations relating to conferences, the division in the Academy of Management (AoM), special issues in journals, books, debates in the field, fieldwork, lectures, etc. Through these various enactments, different versions of CMS may be produced through a process of repetition and difference. However, how do you account for this process in terms of the specific ways in which we may refer to something (e.g. CMS) which is seen to extend in space and time, but which exists through many chains of associations which rely on multiplicity and alterity (otherness and difference)? CMS as all things (which always exist in some partial sense, as they are neither out-there or in the mind of humans) needs to be done, undone, redone and continually performed, and this creates and relies not only instances of homogeneity, but also heterogeneity. The next section seeks to commence this review by exploring a particular set of assumptions that might be more or less present in different CMS works, but could be seen as problematic in terms of engaging in a critical study. These are partly inspired by insights form the sociology of translation (Latour, 1982, 2002, 2004, 2005; Law, 1999a, b; Callon, 1986; Lee & Hassard, 1999; McLean & Hassard, 2004).
In so doing, this paper seeks to focus on exploring specific assumptions within the field of CMS. Certainly we intend to avoid falling into the trap of target homogenisation (Collinson, 2002) by evoking supposed typical and universal characteristics of what is to be critical in MOS or possible stances from which it would be possible to draw clear boundaries that discriminate the critical from the uncritical. This is particularly problematic in a field as complex and heterogeneous as critique in MOS. As we have implied above, we wish to avoid a view of MOS critique as a more or less stable object existing out there that has inherent a priori characteristics, or a reliance on some form of abstract notions that seem to exist inside minds. Rather, this paper advocates a view of CMS as outcomes of different enactments that must be understood in their full complexity, heterogeneity and diversity. As such, critique in MOS is done, redone, undone, maintained, performed and produced during such a process. In accordance with what we have stated above, existence is related to imitation and difference. Therefore, we do not defend that the underlining assumptions we discuss below are necessarily present in every single CMS account. Instead of that, what it might be possible to say is that they are more or less present in CMS enactments as the critiques themselves do not only rely on difference, but also rely on imitation. According to Gabriel Tarde, imitation is a key process when it comes to understanding societies. Rather than seeing imitation as a simple mechanical copy, it is perceived as an adaptation of one idea or action. As a result, every adaptation is different from another. Thus, imitation also implies transformation (Czarniawska, 2004). In the remainder of this section, we will explore and discuss what can be seen as the underlining assumptions of CMS.
PROBLEMATIZING CMS
This section seeks to review the hasty reification of social explanations and parameters which are seen to act upon setting. For example, an excerpt from the CMS division at AOM outlines what is viewed as the underlying basis of CMS: "Our premise is that structural features of contemporary society, such as the profit imperative, patriarchy, racial inequality, and ecological irresponsibility often turn organizations into instruments of domination and exploitation"(2). Furthermore, Adler suggests that critical MOS seeks to use theoretical traditions to "help us understand the oppressive character of the current management and business system" (Adler, 2002, pp. 387-388). In a similar fashion, Grey (2005) points out that
CMS represents the possibility of drawing together those elements within business schools (and cognitive areas) who share some oppositional tendencies. That is: oppositional to established power and ideology; to managerial privilege; to hierarchy and its abuse; to put it at its most generic, not only the established order but the proposition that the established order is immutable (Grey, 2005, p. 12).
Grey highlights that this statement can of course have terms included or deleted, but stresses that to do so "is to fail in the most self-indulgent and irresponsible way, to understand either the possibilities or the frailties of CM" (Grey, 2005, p. 12).
We do not suggest that all those who would view themselves to be CMS scholars would necessarily sign up to all these aspects. However, there are many occasions of accounts (which could be viewed as under the CMS umbrella), which would focus on denouncing the oppressive, and negative characteristics of management, business systems and our world. Are the facts of reality perceived by critique as more or less clear? The focus on what is wrong with this reality often originates in theoretical tools relating to power and/or ideology, oppression, inequality, hierarchy etc. These being perceived as the basis, the panacea, upon which to explain a range of management problems in our society.
In other words, this oppressive and negative character appears to exist in some given and/or constructed form, created by opaque social forces, such as power, domination and ideology. Do we need to attend further to how we view such dominations, oppressions, inequalities, etc., with regards to the various enactments and circulations, and do we limit our understanding by focusing on a specific phenomenon (e.g. inequality, domination, oppression, gender etc.) as the source of the explanation? In this way, what are the problems associated with substituting the complexity and uncertainty of entities and relations with a standardized non-problematic parameter (e.g. capitalism, power, identity etc.), as a form of explanatory device. By focusing on how these social aspects act, do we fail to account for the specificities, heterogeneities and complexities (Latour, 2002, 2005) and, once defined, are these parameters assumed to be present almost everywhere and acting behind the scenes, being able to explain a plethora of other circumstances? For instance, power, ideology, capitalism, etc., are used to explain problems from worker resistance (Thompson, 1983) to issues of global domination (Hardt & Negri, 2000), to name but a few.
Generating the hasty reduction and rarefication of acceptable entities in accounts can be particularly problematic especially as such perspectives often claim to focus on emancipation (Latour, 2005) and seek to give voice to silenced victims. This could be seen as creating sociological accounts as blank figures that fit into different ordering process depending on what is needed to establish an account (Hetherington & Lee, 2000). As a result, the practical means by which events are produced and circulated are not fully explored (e.g. power, domination, ideology, to name but a few) and what must be explained is left unexplained, with all pluralities and complexities associated with them vanishing (Latour, 2002, 2003, 2005).
In seeking to examine how courses of action appear to enter social ties following a critical perspective, Latour highlights three main modes of existence: a material infrastructure that determines social relations (e.g. some Marxist forms of materialism): a mirror that reflects social distinctions (e.g. Bourdieu's analysis); and a frame where human actors play the main roles (e.g...
Para continuar a ler
PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃOCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
