The social sciences have recently exhibited renewed interest in ethnography while traditional anthropology has been struggling with the challenges of postmodernism. This paper considers the theoretical implications of the potential convergence of these strands, with particular reference to the ethnography of organizations. Postmodernism is seen to affect ethnography by problematizing the processes of description, reference, and the establishment of authority in ethnographic texts. It offers, rather than a "scientific" model, a "literary" model of such texts in which description is an active construction rather than a neutral recording of the other's world. Ostensive reference becomes displaced by evocation, the single authorial voice by the "heteroglossia" of many contributing voices. Unfortunately, there is a tendency for the processes of interpretation to be abandoned to a free play of unlimited signification in which any and all meanings are possible, which jettisons rigor and with it critical acerbity. This paper argues for the development of deconstructive ethnography grounded in the work of Jacques Derrida. This ethnographic praxis would demystify social and organizational actions by revealing their inevitable and ever-present internal contradictions without resorting to an externally contrived theoretical or moral standard. It would realize its emancipatory potential through "self-deconstruction."
ALVESSON, M.On the Idea of Organizational Culture. Paper presented to 1st International Conference on Organizational Symbolism and Corporate Culture. University of Lund, Sweden, June 1984.
BAUDRILLARD, J.Selected writings. M. Poster (Ed.), Cambridge: Polity, 1988.
5.
BAUMAN, Z.Intimations of post-modernity. London: Routledge, 1991.
6.
BENNINGTON, G.Demanding history. In D. Attridge, G. Bennington, and R. Young (Eds.), Post-structuralism and the question of history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989, pp. 15-29.
7.
BEYNON, H.Working for Ford. London: Penguin, 1973.
8.
BIRTH, K. K.Reading and the righting of writing ethnographies. American Ethnologist, 1990, pp. 549-557.
9.
BURAWOY, M.Manufacturing consent. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.
10.
BURRELL, G.Fragmented labours. In D. Knights and H. Willmott (Eds.), Labour process theory. London: Macmillan, 1990.
11.
CLIFFORD, J.On ethnographic authority. Representations, Spring 1983, 2, 132-143.
12.
CLIFFORD, J.Introduction: Partial truths. In J. Clifford and G. Marcus (Eds.), Writing culture. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986, pp. 1-26.
13.
CLIFFORD, J.The predicament of culture. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988.
14.
CLIFFORD, J., & MARCUS, G. (eds.). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986.
15.
COOPER, R.The other: A principle of human structuring. In G. Morgan (Ed.), Beyond method. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1983.
16.
COOPER, R.Modernism, postmodernism, and organizational analysis 3: The contribution of Jacques Derrida. Organization Studies, 1989, 10(4), 479-502.
17.
COOPER, R.Organizationdisorganization. In J. Hassard and D. Pym (Eds.), The theory and philosophy of organizations. London: Routledge, 1990, pp. 167-197.
18.
COOPER, R., & BURRELL, G.Modernism, postmodernism, and organizational analysis 1: An introduction. Organization Studies, 1988, 9(1), 91-112.
19.
DALTON, M.Men who manage, New York: Wiley, 1959.
20.
DAUDI, P.Con-versing in management's public place. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 1990, 6(4), pp. 285-307.
21.
DE MAN, P.Phenomenality and materiality in Kant. In G. Shapiro and A. Sica (Eds.), Hermeneutics: Questions and prospects. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1984, pp. 121-144.
HAMMERSLEY, M.What's wrong with ethnography? The myth of theoretical description. Sociology, 1990, 24(4), 597-615.
42.
HARVEY, D.The condition of post-modernity. Oxford: Blackwell, 1989.
43.
HASSARD, J.An alternative to paradigm incommensurability in organization theory. In J. Hassard, and D. Pym (Eds.), The theory and philosophy of organizations. London: Routledge, 1990, pp. 219-230.
JACKSON, N., & WILLMOTT, H.Beyond epistemology and reflective conversation: Towards human relations. Human Relations, 1987, 40(6), 361-380.
47.
JEFFCUTT, P. S.From Interpretation to Representation in Organizational Analysis: Postmodernism, Ethnography, and Organizational Culture. Paper presented to the Conference on The Anthropology of Organizations, University of Swansea, January 1991.
48.
KUHN, T. S.The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1962.
NORRIS, C.The contest of faculties: Philosophy and theory after deconstruction. London: Methuen, 1985.
62.
NORRIS, C.What's wrong with post-modernism: Critical theory and the ends of philosophy. London: Harvester/Wheatsheaf, 1990.
63.
PARKER, M.Post-modern organizations or postmodern organization theory?Organization Studies, 1992, 13(1).
64.
PEARCE, W. B., & CHEN, V.Ethnography as sermonic: The rhetorics of Clifford Geertz and James Clifford. In H. W. Simons (Ed.), Rhetoric in the human sciences. London: Sage, 1989, pp. 119-132.
65.
POWER, M.Modernism, postmodernism, and organization. In J. Hassard and D. Pym (Eds.), The theory and philosophy of organizations. London: Routledge, 1990, pp. 109-124.
66.
RABINOW, P.Representations are social facts: Modernity and post-modernity in anthropology. In J. Clifford and G. Marcus (Eds.), Writing culture. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986, pp. 234-261.
67.
REED, M.Organizations and modernity: Continuity and discontinuity in organization theory. In J. Hassard and M. Parker (Eds.), Postmodernity and organization theory. London: Sage, 1992. Forthcoming
68.
RORTY, R.Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979.
69.
RORTY, R.Consequences of pragmatism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982.
70.
ROSE, M. A.The postmodern and the post-industrial: A critical analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
71.
ROSEN, M.Breakfast at Spiro's: Dramaturgy and dominance. Journal of Management Studies, 1985, 11(2), 31-84.
72.
ROSEN, M.You asked for it: Christmas at the bosses' expense. Journal of Management Studies, 1988, 25(5), 463-480.
73.
ROSEN, M.Crashing in eighty-seven: Power and symbolism in the Dow. In B. A. Turner (Ed.), Organizational symbolism. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990, pp. 115-135.
74.
ROSEN, M.Coming to terms with the field: Understanding and doing organization ethnography. Journal of Management Studies, 1991, 28(1), 1-24. (a)
75.
ROSEN, M.Scholars, travellers and thieves: On concept, cunning and method in organizational ethnography. In. P. Frost, L. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. Lundberg, and J. Martin (Eds.), Reframing organizational culture. London and Newbury Park: Sage, 1991. (b)
76.
ROY, D.Making out: A counter-system of workers control of work situation and relationships. In T. Burns (Ed.), Industrial man. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1969, pp. 359-379.
77.
ROY, D.Banana time: Job satisfaction and informal interaction. In G. Salaman and K. Thompson (Eds.), People and organizations. London: Longmans, 1973, pp. 205ff-250ff.
78.
RUBY, J. (Ed.). A crack in the mirror. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982.
79.
RYAN, M.Marxism and deconstruction: A critical articulation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1982.
80.
SAMPSON, E.The deconstruction of the self. In J. Shotter and K. Gergen (Eds.), Texts of identity. London and Newbury Park: Sage, 1989, pp. 1-19.
SANGREN, P. S.Rhetoric and the authority of ethnography: "Postmodernism" and the social reproduction of texts. Current Anthropology, 1988, 29(3): 405-424.
83.
SHANKMAN, P.The thick and the thin: On the interpretative paradigm of Clifford Geertz. Current Anthropology, 1984, 225(3): 261-279 (including comments and a response on pp. 270-279).
84.
SOTTO, R.Man without knowledge: Actors and spectators in organizations. Stockholm: University of Stockholm, 1990.
85.
SPERBER, D.Rethinking symbolism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975.
TURNER, B. A.The rise of organizational symbolism. In J. Hassard and D. Pym (Eds.), The theory and philosophy of organizations. Routledge, London, 1990, pp. 83-96.
88.
TURNER, S.Studying organization through Levi-Strauss's structuralism. In G. Morgan (Ed.), Beyond method. London: Sage, 1983, pp. 189-201.
89.
TYLER, S. A.Post-modern ethnography-From document of the occult to occult document. In J. Clifford and G. E. Marcus (Eds.), Writing culture. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986, pp. 122-140.
90.
ULIN, R. C.Critical anthropology twenty years later: Modernism and postmodernism in anthropology. Critique of Anthropology, 1991, 11(1), 63-69.
91.
VAN MAANEN, J., & BARLEY, S. R.Cultural organization: Fragments of a theory. In Frost et al. (Eds.), Organizational Culture, 1985, pp. 31-54.
92.
WAX, R. H.Doing fieldwork. London: University of Chicago Press, 1971.
93.
WEBSTER, S.Dialogue and fiction in ethnographic truth. Dialectical Anthropology, 1982, 7, 91-114.
94.
WEBSTER, S.Ethnography as storytelling. Dialectical Anthropology, 1983, 8, 185-206.
95.
WHYTE, W. F.Street corner society: The social structure of an Italian slum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955/1981.
