This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (7) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Willmott, H. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Theorizing Contemporary Control: Some Post-structuralist Responses to Some Critical Realist Questions

University of Cambridge, UK, h.willmott{at}jims.cam.ac.uk

The paper explores how control in organizations is analysed by counterposing a poststructuralist reading and critique against what is identified as a critical realist account of its nature and significance. Drawing primarily upon Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory, it argues that critical realist analysis exemplifies a position in which science is privileged and dualism is defended, in contrast to Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory where dualism is refused and there is a stronger commitment to emancipation. These differences between these versions of critical analysis are related to the more familiar terrain of organizational analysis examined in Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis; and, more specifically, in their discussion of the challenge posed by ethnomethodology to more established, commonsensical forms of analysis. The problematizing of commonsense found in ethnomethodological studies, it is suggested, has affinities with the deconstructive impulse of Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory but, crucially, the former lacks the latter’s politicoemancipatory intent (see also Pollner, 1991). In Burrell and Morgan’s terms, Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory is more radical than radical humanism (e.g. Critical Theory) in rejecting the latter’s ontology as well as refusing the sociological regulationism attributed to interpretivist analysis. The paper closes with a series of reflections upon the relevance of discourse theory for theorizing contemporary control.

Key Words: control • critical realism • discourse • post-structuralism

Organization, Vol. 12, No. 5, 747-780 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/1350508405055947


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Bohm and V. Brei Marketing the hegemony of development: of pulp fictions and green deserts Marketing Theory, December 1, 2008; 8(4): 339 - 366. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Merilainen, J. Tienari, R. Thomas, and A. Davies Hegemonic Academic Practices: Experiences of Publishing from the Periphery Organization, July 1, 2008; 15(4): 584 - 597. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Spicer and S. Bohm Moving Management: Theorizing Struggles against the Hegemony of Management Organization Studies, November 1, 2007; 28(11): 1667 - 1698. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. Bridgman Reconstituting Relevance: Exploring Possibilities for Management Educators' Critical Engagement with the Public Management Learning, September 1, 2007; 38(4): 425 - 439. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. Knights and H. Willmott Socialization, Yes. Skill Upgrading, Probably. Robust Theory of the Capitalist Labour Process, No Organization Studies, September 1, 2007; 28(9): 1369 - 1378. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. Collinson Dialectics of leadership Human Relations, November 1, 2005; 58(11): 1419 - 1442. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Mutch Discussion of Willmott: Critical Realism, Agency and Discourse: Moving the Debate Forward Organization, September 1, 2005; 12(5): 781 - 786. [PDF]