Abstract
The effort of this chapter is to translate into the context of organizations Levinas’s train of thought as it is discussed in Chapter 4. These Levinassian ideas include the elements of the deficiency of rationality, radical resistance, rationality shame and possibilities for change. The question is how these ideas can be meaningfully understood in the context of organizing and managing. In Section 1 with that focus the organization studies literature is investigated. Its conclusion is that some elements of Levinas’s line of thought are reflected in that literature indeed, some other elements are partially so and some others not at all. By joining together what could be found in the literature and by supplementing it with the author’s own proposals for translation, a scheme of propositions is constructed which, as a sketch, describes what Levinas’s story in organizational practice could look like. Simultaneously it is concluded that that scheme in its entirety is not to be found within the organizational literature. Section 2 then undertakes the translation effort in an entirely different way. Namely by, starting from quotations from Levinas and the scheme of propositions, through interviews with organizers, collecting stories that could confirm the scheme. This yielded a dozen of cases, each one of which in its own way shows what Levinas’s story, translated to organizations, might look like, and this in its entirety. This means, in the author’s view, that Levinas’s ideas can be related to the practice of management and organization. And that the the scheme of propositions can serve to translate those ideas to that practice.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
As Munro (2000: 405) indicates, Cooper himself also has pointed to the oppressive effects of rationality and representation, and to the need to counterbalance that.
- 2.
Orlans and Bentrom for instance expressed the following statements:
Then, you need to be convincing, with the team, together with this guy [coordinator of production], and say, listen, this is extremely disappointing and by now nobody believes that it will come to anything, but believe me, we’ve had this experience before and things will turn out right in the end. And that’s how it went with the [gemmase] project (…). So, again, it wasn’t the first time. That helps you to go on. (Deuten and Rip 2000: 84)
What we emphatically tried to do was to create this ‘sense of urgency’ with the team members, so that they would put in just a bit more effort than they were used to. When stories appeared in the media about environmental problems due to phosphate in manure, I brought these up in the project meetings, as a message that our customers were really desperate for this enzyme. And, of course, we had committed ourselves to bring it on the market before a certain date. So people accept this bit of additional effort, if you have a clear product concept, so that everyone knows what should be done. My experience is that people then have no problem at all to work an hour longer each day, or come back during the weekend more often. The enthusiasm, the idea that we can really achieve it, is so great that everyone puts up with all that. (Deuten and Rip 2000: 84)
- 3.
In their extensive discussion of Bartleby Ten Bos and Rhodes (2003: 406) point out that this story stems from the early days of American industrial capitalism, when the robber barons built their empires. The new, more rationalized, labour relationships that go with them and that will dominate the next century and a half, are characterized here by Melville in a concise manner in the stage of their emergence.
- 4.
These “established attitudes and cognitive outlooks” of the organization-Other might as well be regarded as forms of rationality as is the rationality of the organizer. They embody for the organization-Other the hypostasis-stage of representation. Therefore, the injury here originates partly from a conflict between rationalities, each of which generates its own blindness.
- 5.
It is possible to hear in the phrase “it just happens” the resonance of a theme that since Kierkegaard appears frequently in continental philosophy. Namely what Kierkegaard calls “the decisive moment”, Heidegger “Ereignis” and Lyotard “événement”, to mention only three names from a range of thinkers that is far longer. Obviously, each of those thinkers has his own interpretation of the notion which sometimes is labelled as “event” (e.g. Van Riessen 1995: 83) but that does not preclude that a common feature can be identified. This shared characteristic according to Safranski (1995: 219) lies in the fact that “the event” in all these thinkers refers to the occurrence of the “completely different”, whereby the “horizontal time is cut by a vertical one.” These associations to “it just happens” in the context of a study of Levinas are not unjustified, because the impact of the Face can be seen as Levinas’ interpretation of “the event”. However, in this study when I say that “it just happens”, I use the verb “to happen” in less loaded sense. What I mean to say is simply that “it” (that is: the impact of the Face and everything that goes with it) appears in an observable way in our reality. My intention is thus to contradict that such phenomena would be unlikely. Or that they would be desirable indeed, but (as for instance Bauman 1993: 125 says) systematically and successfully neutralized.
- 6.
The statement that it “simply occurs” therefore does not mean that the confrontation with the Other occurs in everyone and continuously. This raises the question whether some a priori sensitivity or certain conditions, apart from the presence of others, are required for the confrontation to take place. I will, within the framework of this book, not deal with this question. For beginnings of discussion of this issue, see Visker 2005: 22, Van Riessen 1995: 83 and Bernasconi 2002: 246.
References
Bernasconi, R. 2002. What is the question to which ‘substitution’ is the answer? In The Cambridge companion to Levinas, eds. S. Critchley and R. Bernasconi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Collinson, D. 2003. Identities and insecurities: Selves at work. Organization 10 (3): 527–547.
Deuten, J., and A. Rip. 2000. Narrative infrastructure in product creation processes. Organization 7 (1): 69–93.
Ten Bos, R., and C. Rhodes. 2003. The game of exemplarity: Subjectivity, work and the impossible politics of purity. Scandinavian Journal of Management 19: 403–423.
Van Riessen, R. 1995. Ethiek zonder grond: de representatiecrisis bij Lyotard en Levinas. In Als woorden niets meer zeggen…De crisis rond woord en beeld in de huidige cultuur, eds. I. Bulhof and R. van Riessen. Kampen: Kok Agora.
Visker, R. 2005. Vreemd gaan en vreemd blijven. Amsterdam: SUN.
Willmott, H. 1993. Strength is ignorance; Slavery is freedom: Managing culture in modern organizations. Journal of Management Studies 30 (4): 515–552.
Witteveen, A. 2004. Van de redactie. Filosofie in Bedrijf 16 (4): 2.
Organization, the interdiscipliary journal of organization, theory and society. (1999). Special on HRM. 6 (2).
Safranski, R. 1995. Heidegger en zijn tijd. Amsterdam: Atlas. Heidegger und seine Zeit (trans: Wildschut, M.). Originally: (1994): Ein Meister aus Deutschland.
Ten Bos, R. 2004b. Spookrijders: Een reflectie over de onschuld van desorganisatie. Filosofie in Bedrijf 16 (1): 3–20.
Jacques, R. 1996. Manufacturing the employee. London: Sage.
Smith, D. 2001. Organizations and humiliation: Looking beyond Elias. Organization 8 (3): 537–560.
Argyris, C. 2003. A life full of learning. Organization Studies 24 (7): 1178–1192.
Bauman, Z. 1976. Towards a critical sociology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bauman, Z. 1993. Postmodern ethics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Cooper, R. 1992. Formal organization as representation: Remote control, displacement and abbreviation. In Rethinking organization, ed. M. Reed. London: Sage.
Critchley, S. 2002. Introduction. In The Cambridge companion to Levinas, eds. S. Critchley and R. Bernasconi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Munro, R. 2000. Organized worlds: Explorations in technology and organization with Robert Cooper. Work, Employment & Society 14 (2): 404–406. Review of Chia, R. (1998).
Reason, P., and W. Torbert. 2001. The action turn. Toward a transformational social science. Concepts and Transformations 6 (1): 1–37.
Mintzberg, H. 2004. Managers, not MBA’s. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
Gustavsen, B. 1998. Enterprise development 2000. In Development coalitions in working lives; The ‘Enterprise Development 2000’ program in Norway, ed. B. Gustavsen. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Mayo, E. 1933. The human problems of an industrial civilization. London: Routledge.
Peters, T., and R. Waterman. 1982. Search of excellence; Lessons from America’s best-run companies. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Grit, K., and P. Meurs. 2004. Stilstaan; Over de gevaren van verandermanagement. In Arbeid, tijd en flexibiliteit, eds. A. Witteveen, T. Korver, and H. Achterhuis. Schiedam: Scriptum.
Townley, B., D. Cooper, and L. Oakes. 2003. Performance measures and the rationalization of organizations. Organization Studies 24 (7): 1045–1071.
Parker, M. 2003. Introduction: Ethics, politics and organizing. Organization 10 (2): 187–203.
Pålshaugen, Ø. 1998. The end of organization theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Jacobs, D. 2003. Innovatie en irritatie. Filosofie in Bedrijf 15 (4): 53–58.
Maas, A. 2004. OS: elkaar uit de weg gaan als nieuwe communicatiestrategie? Filosofie in Bedrijf 16 (2,3): 108–117.
Gustavsen, B., H. Finne, and B. Oscarsson. 2001b. Innovation: Working together to achieve the unique. In Creating connectedness. The role of social research in innovation policy, eds. B. Gustavsen, H. Finne, and B. Oscarsson. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Giddens, A. 1991. Modernity and self-identity. Cambridge: Polity.
Kaulingfreks, R. 1999. Gunstige vooruitzichten. Filosofische reflecties over organisaties en management. Kampen: Kok Agora.
Ten Bos, R., and R. Kaulingfreks. 2001. De hygiënemachine. Kampen: Agora.
Rhodes, C. 2000. Reading and writing organizational lives. Organization 7 (1): 7–29.
Czarniawska, B. 1997. Narrating the organization: Dramas of institutional identity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Case, P. 1995. Representations of talk at work: Performatives and “Performability”. Management Learning 26 (2): 423–443.
Davies, P. 2002. Sincerity and the end of theodicy: Three remarks on Levinas and Kant. In The Cambridge companion to Levinas, eds. S. Critchley and R. Bernasconi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinas, E. 1998c. Collected philosophical papers (trans: Lingis, A.). Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.
Parker, M., M. Higgins, G. Lightfoot, and W. Smith (eds.) 1999. Special issue: Amazing tales: Organization studies as science fiction. Organization 6 (4): 579–692.
Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Koene, B. 2001. Sensemaking in organizations. Management & Organisatie Juli/Augustus 2001 (4): 88–96.
Van Riessen, R. 1991. Erotiek en dood met het oog op transcendentie in de filosofie van Levinas. Kampen: Kok Agora.
De Boer, Th. 1997. The rationality of transcendence. Amsterdam: Gieben.
Waldenfels, B. 2002. Levinas and the face of the other. In The Cambridge companion to Levinas, eds. S. Critchley and R. Bernasconi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Van der Ven, N. (2011). Levinas Translated to Organizations. In: The Shame of Reason in Organizational Change. Issues in Business Ethics, vol 32. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9373-8_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9373-8_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-9372-1
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-9373-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)