Deconstructive Reflexivity in the Business School without Conditions
Type
conference paper
Date Issued
2005-09-17
Author(s)
Abstract (De)
INTRODUCTION
The present contribution comprises, most generally expressed, an interest in the concept of ‘reflexivity' and its potential to radicalize the business school. Departing from the observation that notions of ‘reflexivity' and ‘reflection' in their ubiquitous use have taken on variegated shadings, I will begin this paper by highlighting those interpretations which envision (and thereby prescribe) reflexivity as the kind of practice that seeks to disclose the author's intentions, assumptions, ideologies, etc., so as to make a particular piece of writing, respectively its meaning, more accessible. Illustrating this argument on behalf of qualitative research, I will delineate that this exegesis of reflexivity operates to portray the author as a purposeful persona who exhibits a linear, agentic and hierarchical relationship with the respective text, and who is thus envisaged as being in charge of its meaning. The aim of this paper then is to scrutinize this image of reflexivity by calling into question if such ‘confessional tales' make (qualitative) research more authentic, not to say credible. To this end, I will pinpoint some of the basic root assumptions of this stream of arguing in order then to suggest an alternative meaning of reflexivity, that is, one that takes reading and text, and not the author, as its center of gravity. In so doing, I will first introduce excerpts of Derrida's work on literature as well as Barthes' and Foucault's investigations of the author (function) in order to problematize the idea whereby the intelligibility of a particular utterance or text presupposes laying bare the (ideological) grounding and/or intentional state of its author. Hence, whereas seeking to dissociate the link between text and author as reproduced by proponents of qualitative research, and by accentuating both the significance of the text's context and its reader, I will then get to endorse seeing "reflexivity' as a deconstructive practice. In trying to work out the potential tenets of deconstruction for the business school to come, a brief detour will be taken to display the kind of criticism deconstruction has been subjected to. It will be shown, for instance, that Derrida's deconstructive work has elicited suspicion and severe opposition both in- and outside the context of academic philosophy. In discussing some of the best established and most infamous misperceptions of Derrida and his deconstructive work, it will further be discussed that the matter has often been displayed as a purely theoretical or private endeavor which has no stake in public or "real-life' issues, or as a condemnable since disinterested, nihilistic intellectual exercise. Given the often ignorant, or at least obscure treatment of deconstruction (Critchley, 1999), I will point out, among other things, that deconstruction and (antagonistic) criticism, read: destruction, embody different objectives (Patton & Protevi, 2003) wherefore the two spheres of textual analysis must be apprehended in terms of their dissimilarity. With this in mind, I will "revitalize' deconstruction as an affirmative gesture that acknowledges and respects the work being subjected to analysis. Furthermore, I will depict some of the ethical "aspirations' (Jones, 2003) and yet neglected (political) potentials of deconstruction (Patton, 2003) in order to construe the subject matter as a radical means for "deschooling' (Illich, 1973) the contemporary business school (from within). Proclaiming that the "age of deconstruction' has already dawned in the humanities (Nealon, 2003) but only marginally influenced the realm of business schools, this treatise will then climax in the formulation of the business school without conditions in which deconstruction gets to tower as the epitome of free expression and responsible reflection. By the same token, claiming a space for deconstruction in the business school of the future, I will get to elaborate on the (possible) position and function of deconstruction in educational curricula and on its respective relationship with and merit for prevailing, that is, mainstream theory.
The present contribution comprises, most generally expressed, an interest in the concept of ‘reflexivity' and its potential to radicalize the business school. Departing from the observation that notions of ‘reflexivity' and ‘reflection' in their ubiquitous use have taken on variegated shadings, I will begin this paper by highlighting those interpretations which envision (and thereby prescribe) reflexivity as the kind of practice that seeks to disclose the author's intentions, assumptions, ideologies, etc., so as to make a particular piece of writing, respectively its meaning, more accessible. Illustrating this argument on behalf of qualitative research, I will delineate that this exegesis of reflexivity operates to portray the author as a purposeful persona who exhibits a linear, agentic and hierarchical relationship with the respective text, and who is thus envisaged as being in charge of its meaning. The aim of this paper then is to scrutinize this image of reflexivity by calling into question if such ‘confessional tales' make (qualitative) research more authentic, not to say credible. To this end, I will pinpoint some of the basic root assumptions of this stream of arguing in order then to suggest an alternative meaning of reflexivity, that is, one that takes reading and text, and not the author, as its center of gravity. In so doing, I will first introduce excerpts of Derrida's work on literature as well as Barthes' and Foucault's investigations of the author (function) in order to problematize the idea whereby the intelligibility of a particular utterance or text presupposes laying bare the (ideological) grounding and/or intentional state of its author. Hence, whereas seeking to dissociate the link between text and author as reproduced by proponents of qualitative research, and by accentuating both the significance of the text's context and its reader, I will then get to endorse seeing "reflexivity' as a deconstructive practice. In trying to work out the potential tenets of deconstruction for the business school to come, a brief detour will be taken to display the kind of criticism deconstruction has been subjected to. It will be shown, for instance, that Derrida's deconstructive work has elicited suspicion and severe opposition both in- and outside the context of academic philosophy. In discussing some of the best established and most infamous misperceptions of Derrida and his deconstructive work, it will further be discussed that the matter has often been displayed as a purely theoretical or private endeavor which has no stake in public or "real-life' issues, or as a condemnable since disinterested, nihilistic intellectual exercise. Given the often ignorant, or at least obscure treatment of deconstruction (Critchley, 1999), I will point out, among other things, that deconstruction and (antagonistic) criticism, read: destruction, embody different objectives (Patton & Protevi, 2003) wherefore the two spheres of textual analysis must be apprehended in terms of their dissimilarity. With this in mind, I will "revitalize' deconstruction as an affirmative gesture that acknowledges and respects the work being subjected to analysis. Furthermore, I will depict some of the ethical "aspirations' (Jones, 2003) and yet neglected (political) potentials of deconstruction (Patton, 2003) in order to construe the subject matter as a radical means for "deschooling' (Illich, 1973) the contemporary business school (from within). Proclaiming that the "age of deconstruction' has already dawned in the humanities (Nealon, 2003) but only marginally influenced the realm of business schools, this treatise will then climax in the formulation of the business school without conditions in which deconstruction gets to tower as the epitome of free expression and responsible reflection. By the same token, claiming a space for deconstruction in the business school of the future, I will get to elaborate on the (possible) position and function of deconstruction in educational curricula and on its respective relationship with and merit for prevailing, that is, mainstream theory.
Language
German
HSG Classification
contribution to practical use / society
Refereed
No
Event Title
Critical Management Studies PhD Forum: "Radical Practice in the Academy: Confessions of Dangerous (Business) Minds'
Event Location
Leicester
Event Date
17.-18.09.2005
Subject(s)
Division(s)
Eprints ID
19897