Introduction Anthropology Organisations Pre Print

7/28/2019 Introduction Anthropology Organisations Pre Print

1/54

ANTHROPOLOGYOFORGANISATIONSREADER

INTRODUCTION:REINSTITUTIONALISATIONS

AlbertoCorsnJimnez

UniversityofManchester

Everysomanyyearsanthropologistsbecomeselfconsciousabout theworldof

organisations. It seems as if the discipline needs to catch itsbreath and gain

reassuranceaboutitsintellectualusefulnessinandforthecontemporaryworld.

Thehistory of thediscipline is full of such reflexive gestures and epochal re

awakenings.Theyareoftenreminiscentofolderdebates,aboutanthropologys

colonial heritage (Asad 1973) or its service to industry and capitalism (Baritz

1960;Burawoy1979).They takedifferentshapesand forms,mostly todowith

theusesofanthropology(Tax1964;e.g.Gildschmidt1979;HillandBaba1998).

The

pragmatism

underlying

the

exercise

tends

to

circumscribe

also

the

scope

of

theselfevaluation,withtheinstitutionalworldsofpolicymakingandbusiness

close to defining the very spirit of the project (Hinshaw 1980;Holzberg and

Giovannini1981;Bate1997;Linstead1997;Lewis1999;OkongwuandMencher

1


2/54

2000). All in all, in their differentways, such periodical reexaminations are

indicativeofanthropologys largeruneasinesswith theapplicationsof its trade

(Eddy and Partridge 1978). Power and its institutions, itwould seem,make

anthropologistsuncomfortable(Wright1994:20).

Perhaps this helps explainswhy the institutionalisation of power hasbeen a

centralconcernoftheanthropologyoforganisationsfrom itsearliestdays.One

couldalmostrebrandthedisciplineastheinstitutionalethnographyofpolitical

philosophy.Anthropologys first incursion in industry, from thehandofElton

Mayo, was motivated and inspired by the latters conservative political

philosophy. Solidarity, cooperation, spontaneous association, were all

categories of social analysis appliedbyMayo to thedescription of shop floor

sociality as counterpoint to his dissatisfactionwith the politics of democratic

governance (see Bendix and Fisher, this volume). The consequences of this

surreptitiousslidingofpoliticalphilosophyintotheanthropologicalvocabulary

have been farfetched and not always noted. Today, the entanglement of

organisationallifeinthebureaucratisationofdemocraticprocesshascaughtthe

attentionofscholarsundertheheadingofgovernmentality(Burchell,Gordonet

al. 1991; see alsoHeyman, this volume). But the study of theways inwhich

politicalanddistributivejusticegetsinstitutionalisedhasalwaysbeenaconcern

2


3/54

oforganisationalethnographers,indeed,adrivingmotivationoftheirwork,and

it hasbeen one ofmy aims in putting together this volume to resurrect this

tradition.

This introduction thusaims toprovidean introduction to thevolume through

the lensofatheoryofsocialandpoliticalreinstitutionalisationsofdistributive

justice (cf. Douglas 1986). I do not provide an account of the history of the

development of the anthropology of organisations for there are already good

accountsathand(Schwartzman1993;Wright1994),andbecauseIfeelthetimeis

right for a political rereading of organisational ethnography in institutional

terms.Twofurtheraims,relatedtoandderivedfrommymainaim,aretostress

theanalyticalpurchaseofcomparativeethnography (HolzbergandGiovannini

1981) and to bring attention to the ongoing displacements and re

institutionalisationsofknowledgeinorganisations.

Myuseof the terms redistributionand reinstitutionalisation isunusualyet

centraltothetheoreticalperspectivethatIaimtodevelop.Thoughmuchofwhat

follows is dedicated to the task of fleshingout these terms, it is important to

provideaworkingdefinitionattheoutset.Iusetheterm redistributionasan

alternativetosocialrelationshipsandtherelationalanalyticatlarge.Iexplainin

3


4/54

detail my scepticism towards the relational analytic below. Briefly, re

distributionpointstotheway inwhichsocial lifeandknowledgegetsshuffled

aroundplacesandpersonsindifferentdistributiveguises:anattempttodescribe

analytically theway inwhichmorality flowsasa social fund.Redistributions

mark the way society appears to itself at differentjunctures and points of

inflection:how itaggregates into specific forms toprovideprovisional (moral)

accounts of itself. Social relationships are in this sensebut one, perhaps the

preferred,mode of social selfconsciousness among anthropologists: the form

thatsociallifetakestoananthropologicaleye.

Redistribution has a ring of political philosophy to the term, and this is

deliberate. Redistributions aremoralmoments,where political values, social

idiomsandquestionsofjusticefoldontooneanother,makingspaceforequity

to appear. This can happen in various guises.A current example are ethical

forms,where society holds out amirror to itself and looks at its own image

through the refracted lens of ethical idioms, such as transparency or trust,

exampleswhichIelucidatelateronintheintroduction.

Thetermreinstitutionalisation,ontheotherhand,aimstocapturetheworkof

thisredistributive flow inanorganisationalcontext. Ihavecoined the term to

4


5/54

move away from the structural vocabulary and constraints of much

organisational sociology. Reinstitutionalisations are ethnographic moments,

informedby the redistributive flows (of affect,morality, power, knowledge)

within any one particular organisational context. Insofar as they have an

institutionaldimension,however, these are alsopoliticaldistributivemoments

(in itsclassicalpoliticalphilosophysense),becauseofall institutionspower to

becomemoraladjudicators.TheexamplewhichIdeveloptowardstheendofthe

introduction deals with the recent rise of institutional ethics (transparency,

participation, corporate social responsibility, governance) as an idiom of

organisationalreflexivity.Mypointisthattheriseoftheethicalmarkstheway

our ethnographic contemporary describes itself: ethics is the name our re

distributivejustificationstakewhendeployedininstitutionalcontexts.Thereare

someunsettlingsideeffectstothisinstitutionaluseoftheethical,whichInotein

theconclusion.

Theintellectualremitoftheanthropologyoforganisationsisofcoursefarfrom

being exhausted by the redistributive approach to institutional polities.

Organisations are available for all kinds of study; and an ethnography of an

organisation renders all kinds of practices, artefacts, subjects and situations

worthy of analysis. This book is full of examples. Aesthetics, aid and

5


6/54

development, work, bureaucracy, friendship, immigration, rationality,

technology,secrecy,law;thesearebutamodestsampleofthetypesofcategories

that take an ethnographic lifeof theirown in someof thearticles that follow.

Andthereareyetothersthatarenotcoveredinthisvolume,ifonlybecausethe

catalogue ofpossibilities is as rich and everexpanding as the anthropological

enterpriseitself.Forthesamereason,ifoneistomakesomesenseofthewealth

ofmaterialsthatthecomparativestudyoforganisationsyields,itisimportantto

keep a theoretical perspective in mind. The rest of this opening chapter is

concernedwithbuildingsuchaperspective.

Reasonsandpersons

Derkek Parfit opens his admirablebook,Reasons andpersons,with a questionwhichisemblematicofthetheoreticalitchesthatinformedtheearlyincursionsof

anthropologists intotheworldoforganisations: Whatdowehavemostreason

todo?,asksParfit (1986:3).The reasons forouractionsare sometimesmoral,

sometimesnot.Theymaybe explainedby resorting tomoral theoryormoral

arguments,or theymaybeexplainedwith reasons thatare selfjustifying, that

pride themselves for their rationality.Different theories and different reasons

createdifferent imagesof thekindsofpersonsweare, indeed,of themodelof

personhood thatwe are dealingwith (Douglas andNey 1998), including the

6


7/54


8/54

efficiency (Roethlisberger and Dickson 1939). The results of the tests were

contradictory and confusing.Mayo andhis colleagueswere called to setup a

number of different experiments aimed at controlling andmeasuring the co

variationsbetweenhumanand technologicalvariables. Itwaseventuallynoted

that productivity appeared to oscillate independently of the changesmade to

working conditions. Researchers then became intrigued about the extent to

which workers might be reacting to changes in the organisation of social

relations (say, new supervisory arrangements, or even interactions with

sympathetic researchers) rather than to technological variables.This led to an

increaseawarenessofandinterestinhumanrelationsinindustry,thatis,inthe

socalledqualityof the social relationships thatworkershadat theworkplace,

withMayoeventuallyadvocatingtheestablishmentofpersonnelcounsellingand

therapeutic programmes to help workers unburden from the boredom of

industrialwork.TheHumanRelationsSchool thus signalleda reorientationof

research in industry towards shop floor sociality, including the favouring ofethnography as preferred research methodology (Gardner & Whyte, this

volume).

Thenatureandconsequencesof theHawthorneexperimentshavebeenamply

documented in the literature (see also, Parsons 1974; e.g. Jones 1992;

8


9/54

Schwartzman 1993: 518). They set amilestone for social science research in

industry.WilliamFootWhyte,forinstance,traces thebeginningsofbehavioral

science research in industrial relations to the work ofMayo in Hawthorne

(Whyte1987:487).HelenSchwartzman,on theotherhand,hascommentedon

themethodologicalrobustnessofaresearchprogrammebasedonthevirtuesof

openended exploration: themost significant contribution of [theHawthorne

Studies]isitsdemonstrationofthevalueofallowingbothresearchquestionsand

methods to evolve and change during the course of an investigation.

(Schwartzman 1993: 15)What interestsmehere,however, is the ideology and

social theory that those involved in the experiments brought to their

explanations and models. I have noted above how Mayos views on the

predicamentofcontemporarytechnologicalsocietyledhimtoendorseatheory

of spontaneous association that felt contempt for all forms of labour and

industrial organisation. Thesehe feltwerebut an artificial substitute for (the

spontaneous growth of) human cooperation. (cited in Bendix & Fisher, this

volume)His idealization of social life in terms reminiscent of a pristine and

romanticvisionof traditionalpreindustrial lifemade itsway intohisandhis

pupils theoreticalmodels.Notonlydid theHumanRelationsSchool imported

systemequilibriumconceptsandastructuralfunctionalparadigm to industrial

research(seeWhytesarticleonthesocialstructureofrestaurants,thisvolume),

9


10/54

butitdidsounderthewingofatheoryofpoliticalrelationsthatwasblindtothe

redistributivechoicesplayingoutat the institutional level.Socialrelationships

were explained as contributing to either conflict or consensus,whichwere

taken for archetypicalmodels of sociality (Buchsbaum,Laderman et al. 1946).

Workers responses tomanagerial incentivesweredeemed either rational and

hence consensual, or irrational and therefore antagonistic. At one point, the

disciplinescanonwasevendefinedbywhatbecameknownasthe restrictions

ofoutputliterature:thestudyofthebehaviourofworkerssometimesresistant,

sometimes consentient strategic responses to managements incentives to

increase output (Collins,Dalton et al. 1946).Michael Burawoy has called the

structureofthisarchetypicalconfrontationtheparadoxoforganisationtheory,

whereorganisationswereimaginedtobebuiltaroundtwodivergentpremises,

namely, the assumption of underlying harmony and the necessity of social

control. (Burawoy 1979: 7, emphasis removed)Hispoint is an importantone.

Theparadoxshowstheextenttowhichwhathappensinsideanorganisationisa

refraction of larger political developments. Consent and consensus are only

meaningful categories if some larger process is kept stable. They are not

primordial conditions but products of the particular organisation of work

(Burawoy1979:12),one,inBurawoysanalysis,definedbythecapitalistlabour

process.

10


11/54

Relationsanddistributions

Thequestionofwhat iskeptstablebringsusbacktothe reasonsandpersons

analytic.Itisaquestionthataffectstheredistributivetemplateweusetomake

oursocialtheorywork.Buraworysownchoicethecapitalistlabourprocess

entails already a redistributive choice,where social relationships are viewed

through the lens of a productionist paradigm (cf.Campbell 1987), andwhere

peopleseethemselvesandtheirhumancapacitiesinacontributiveidiom(Corsn

Jimnez,thisvolume).WithMayo,theearlyHumanRelationsscholarsfavoured

aviewofindustrialrelationsorganizedaroundanindividualisticpointofview

(Whyte 1951: 185). If workers did not respond positively to appropriate

incentives,theywereseenasirrational,incapableofmakingadequatechoices.

Reasonandrationalitywerethusboundedtotheindividual;individualsrelated

to other individuals by exercising rational choices; and a model of rational

relationality,notmorality,informedsuchchoices.Thisisapowerfulmodelofre

distributive socialpolitics, although ithas rarelybeendescribe in these terms.

Criticswerequicktopointout its limitations.The individual, itwas insistently

noted,madeaverypoorbasicunitofanalysis.Oneneededtoexpandthetypes

ofrelationstowhichindividualsresponded,toinclude,forexample,individual

casehistories,racialandethnicfactors,statushierarchies,cliqueandfriendship

11


12/54

groups,orprocessesofunionization;andtoexpand,also,thekindsofrelations

thatwerebundledtogetherasrationalactions,toaccount,forinstance,forgroup

quotas, thepresenceof ratebustersor incomegenerated in the informalsector

outside theworkplace (Mollonas article, this volume,makes for awonderful

contemporary example). This is what eventually brought industrial

ethnographerstoincorporateeverexpandinglayersofcontexttotheiranalyses.

From having originally focused on the social system of the workplace (e.g.

Gardner1946;RichardsonandWalker1948;Whyte1948),researchersmovedto

studyingthelargercommunitywhereintheworkplacewaslocated(e.g.Warner

andLow1946;WarnerandLow1947).Fromhere, itwasonlyasmalljump to

includethelocaleconomy,thenationstate,theworldsystem,orthestructurally

uneven forces of capitalist development (e.g. Lupton 1963;Wolfe 1977;Nash

1993;Yanagisako2002).Themove to studywidewasparalleledbyamoveto

studyup(Nader1972),toincludeanalysesofdecisionmakingprocessesamong

elitesandpowerholders.

Curiously,throughoutthistimenoonequeriedthecentralplaceoftherelation

in the theoretical imaginationofall suchexpansively individualcumsocial re

distributive(i.e.rationalandmoral)choices.Thecallstostudyupandwidehad

indexedadisplacementof theanalyticalgaze,agrowingoutandexpansionof

12


13/54

thenumberofperspectivestobeconsidered.Fewattendedtothepossiblestrains

arisingfromthisconstantzoominginandoutofsocialsituations,thisperpetual

oscillationbetweendifferentordersofcomplexity(cf.LawandMol2002).Forit

wasthecasethatrelationswherebeingputtoworkacrossallordersofreality.

Relationswere tracedout to elucidatenew contexts and situations; to include

newpoliticaloreconomicactors;toarticulatenewtheoreticalperspectives,about

modesandrelationsofproduction,oremergingpatternsandstructuresofsocial

relationships,orresituatetheoriesandtheoristsinrelationtotheirwork.Marilyn

Strathern has noted the central role that relationshave consistently played in

anthropology as both terms of ethnographic description and categories of

anthropological analysis (Strathern 1995), and nowherewas this somuch the

caseasintheurbanandindustrialcasestudiesofthepostHawthorneparadigm.

A number of consequences followed. From a formalist point of view, the

limitationsof the relationalmodel share in theoftcited critiquesof structural

functionalism. It is difficult to make relations take stock of change and

temporality, to make them move, to see them developing new forms and

shapes.Relationality,inthiscontext,producestheorieswhosesellbydatecomes

aboutveryquickly.Fromasubstantivistangle,ontheotherhand,therearealso

importantconstraintstothetypeandextentofmoralworkthatrelationscando

13


14/54

forsocialtheory.AnexamplecanbefoundinHaroldWilenskysearlyappraisal

ofresearchintohumanrelationsinindustry,whoobserved

that size of immediate work group is negatively correlated with

productivity,orjobsatisfaction,orregularattendance,orindustrialpeace

other factorsbeingequal.This isdue inpart to thegreater likelihood that

primaryrelations(relationsthatareintimate,personal,inclusive,andexperiencedas spontaneous) aremore likely to develop in small groups that in largegroups.(Wilensky1957:28,emphasisadded)

ForWilensky, relations carry amoralburden, the scale ofwhich varieswith

factorssuchas thesizeofagroupor the internalmomentof therelation itself,

whathecallstheirinclusiveness.Thenotionofscalehereisimportant.Itpoints

tohowwidely the social imaginary is cast:whether sociality ismade towork

inside relations (inclusively), or whether it is carried forward through

externalisations,suchasBurawoyscapitalistlabourprocess.Whatisinternalor

externaltoarelation,insideoroutsideanethnographicdescription,isofcourse

alwaysamatterofdispute.Wilenskyappreciated thishimself, thoughdidnot

articulateintheseterms.Contrastingagroupofarmyandindustrialshopfloor

buddies,heobservedhowthelattermighthavelessofasenseofthemanagers

14


15/54

righttocommandandmoreofasensethatthemanagerisplayingonadifferent

team.(Wilensky1957:30).Whatismeantbyinclusivennesinthearmyandthe

shop floor is not, therefore, interchangeable: in the army, relations internalize

theirexternalities,theybecomedeeperwithintoaccountforthepressuresoutside

(cf.Strathern2002).Saiddifferently,ifwefollowWilenskyoneismorelikelyto

havebuddiesinthearmythatintheshopfloor.

Inbothitsinternalandexternalmomentstherelationalanalyticthusdictatesthe

waywegettoseemoralitytowork,whenandwhereourvaluesandprinciples

aremadetokick in,andtowhateffect: insideoroutside,privatelyorpublicly,

inclusivelyorexclusively, in thearmyor in the shop floor.Thisaffectswhat I

referredtoaboveasourmodelofsocialredistributivechoices.Relationsalways

carrywith them a particular scale ofmoral and equity possibilities, a field of

politicaljustice (Strathern 1991;Strathern 1999;on thenotionof scale, see e.g.

CorsnJimnez2005;Green2005:128158).Inotherwords,relationsalwaysneed

torelatetosomethingtobeplacedwithinsomesortofscaleiftheyaretomap

out forus the terrainofmoralandpolitical reasons and choiceswherein they

havetomakesense.

Culture

15


16/54


17/54

differentways,idiomsandcategoriesthroughwhichpower,raceandgenderthemselvesemergedasfactorsenablingorconstrainingsociallife.

The cultural turn in ethnographic description and analysis had a series of

consequences that are wellknown and have been amply documented (e.g.

Wright1994).Myinteresthereisonthewayinwhichcultureitselfbecamean

adjudicative category, an analytical currency throughwhich social andmoral

redistributivechoiceswereallocatedandexplained(away).Theway,that is, in

whichculturebecameascaleofsortsitself.Forthetermlevelledofftheplaying

field of institutional politics, rescaling the moral template of social re

distributiveprocesses.Thiswas soparticularly amongorganisational scholars,

who turned eagerly to the anthropological concept of culture for use as an

objectifyingtool.AsophisticatedexampleisThompsonandWildavskyscultural

theoryof informationbias (thisvolume),where the availabilityof information

and the processes of decisionmaking are themselves the organisation in the

making.

The appropriation of the culture concept by organisational scholars took a

peculiarturn(see,e.g.Pettigrew1979).Ithadtwomoments:anexplanatoryand

amethodologicalone.Broadlyspeaking, the initiativemaybecaricaturedthus:

17


18/54


19/54

There are at least two elements in this culturalcumethnographic approach to

theanthropologicalstudyoforganisations that lame thediscipline ifcompared

tomoreclassicaldefinitions.One isanabsenceofreferences toanthropologys

traditional comparative method and analytic (though see Thompson and

Wildavsky,andDouglasandMarsessaysinthisvolume);theother,related,isa

hollowingoutofthedisciplinescriticalinterrogationofsocialtheory.Combined,

theytellthestoryofanthropologyshistoricalcritiqueofsocialtheorythroughits

descriptive rendering of indigenous and folkmodels of social life, a sense of

intellectualpurchaseforwhichanthropologyisrarelycreditedinorganisational

ethnographiesofculture(Schwartzman1993;GellnerandHirsch2001).

An appreciationof the comparative and criticaldimensionsof anthropological

analysiswouldshownotonly theextent towhich culture itself isaculturally

situatedcategory,doublefaceted,asSusanWrighthasputit(1994:27),atonce

analyticalandethnographic;butitwouldshowalsowhatthingsculturedoesnot

gettoexplain,andthusthemorallyweightedreliefofthosethingsthatculture

does in factexplain tothoseforwhom it isameaningfulcategory.This figure

groundreversal(explainedvs.obviated)ofthecultural imagerybringsusback

to the question of redistribution and scale (cf.Wagner 1975). Explained in

figurative language,one could say that the resort tocultural idiomsprojectsa

19


20/54


21/54


22/54

policeworkbecomesapublicaffair(reportedinnewspapers,ortalkedaboutin

the family or the neighbourhood). In the aftermath of a shooting, individual

police officers need to reconstruct their own personal identity in a sea of

administrativeandinstitutionaljustifications,tyingandtidingupthemessiness

oftheaffair,includingtheneedtocoinor inventnewsocialobjects,personsor

places ontowhich to pass thebuck of original responsibility (cf. Frankenberg

1972). The world of indeterminacy is thus carefully resculpted into images,

wordsandformsthathavefirstbeenapprovedforpublicconsumption.This is

themomentwereshadowsarecastandmoralconstituenciesilluminated.Thisis

howscaleworks,andhowreasonsandpersonsredistributethemselvesacross

the organisation, reassembling in the process the integrity of what is

indigenouslytakenforpoliticalandmoraljustice.

Reinstitutionalisations

Not every police shooting is treated equally, or has the same effects. Some

officers,VanMaanentellsus,reactbyexpressing[g]uilt,embarrasment,stigma,

incapacity,andprofound insecurity.Anofficers senseofself thusbecomesa

sticking point of wider moral judgements, a locus for the negotiation of

personal,family,communityandpublicvalues.Thesegetcaughtupinmoments

ofreinstitutionalisations,where thesurplusofviolent indeterminacy looks for

22


23/54

itsown stillpoint,anew restingplaceof temporarily redistributed (personal,

moralandpolitical)equity.OneofVanMaanensinformantsputsitthus:

IfithadntbeenforParksandWhiteIdontknowwhatIdofdone.Iwas

reallymessedup,confused,ready topull thepin. Icouldntreally talk to

Maryaboutitsinceshedneverreallybeeninfavorofmypolicecareerand

all.Besidesshewasgoingthroughenoughshitofherownwithmebeing

on the sixoclocknewseverynight. Itgot sobad thatwehad tojerk the

kids out of school for a while. The department was good though and

nobodyeversuggestedthatitwouldntallblowovereventually.Butitwas

ParksandWhitewhogotmethroughit.Theycamearoundeverydayand

listenedtomemoanandbitch.Ireallylovethoseguys.

VanMaanensinformantshuffledandredistributedhisownnotionandsenseof

self (via Parks andWhite, hiswife, the police department, his kids and their

school)untilheobtainedorproduced forhimselfan integratedandjustifiable

sense of moral coherence. We are here witnesses to the mobilization and

reassembling of reasons and persons to produce a stable fund of social and

personalwellbeing.

23


24/54

Theredistributionsofinstitutionalpublics

Inhisrecentbiographicalapproachtothequestionofegalitarianisminpolitical

philosophy, G. A. Cohen identifies three views on what he calls the site of

distributivejustice about, that is, the sorts of items towhich principles of

distributivejusticeapply.(Cohen2000:3,emphasisintheoriginal).Theseviews

consist in three different pickandmix formulas,made up of either rules of

publicorderormorallyinformedpersonalchoice,oramixtureinbetween.This

threecase scenario is a wellknown point of departure for intellectual

disquisitionsinpoliticalphilosophy.IhavecitedCohensformulation,however,

becauseIaminterestedinhischoiceofvocabulary,whichhehimselfemphasises

inthequoteabove:whathetermsthesitesofdistributivejustice.Myinterestin

the topology(fromtopos, site inGreek)ofdistributivejusticegoesbacktomy

descriptionofsocietysreinstitutionalisations,whatIhavecalledthroughoutits

moments of redistribution. This concern for the places or moments of re

distribution echoes Bruno Latours recent call for an objectoriented or

Dingpolikic (Latour 2005), a mattersofconcern politics that looks out for the

assembliesthroughwhichthesocialreinventsthepolitical;thatis,themoment

atwhichsocietyemergesasanobjectofpublicconcerntoitself(ontheopening

upof assemblages aspolitical spaces seealsoOngandCollier2005).Avivid

example of this assembling of the political through the reinstitutional is

24


25/54


26/54

Whenshecamein,shegaveaQ&Athatincriminatedher.Shesaidshewas

going to take care of the horse and get room andboard for doing that.

Wheredoyoudrawtheline?Shewastotakecareofthehorseandshedbe

able to ride. But he [the suspected employer] had enough financial

resources to show thathehadotherpeople to takecareof the stableand

thatshedidnotneed towork.Hedoes travelandmayhavejustmether

andinvitedher.(Gilboy,thisvolume)

Suddenly, the incident isno longerbureaucratic,oradministrative. Itbecomes

political. Not because of the way in which it expresses particular power

dynamicsandclashes,butbecauseofthewayinwhichcertainexternalpublics

becomeinternaltothesocialmomentoftheincidentitself:thewaysinwhichthe

incident goespublic atdifferentpointsof inflection; for instance, theway in

whichideasabout(structuralinequalitiesof)classandwealth,powerandsex,or

even intimations about the aristocratic flare of thejudicial system,make their

sudden(public)appearanceinsidetheorganisationasconsequentialidiomsand

instrumentsofadministration.Herewehaveagain,then,theilluminations(the

idiomsgonepublic)andtheshadows(thewordsspokeningossipandsecrecy).

For these ideasbecome part and parcel of the institution itself. This iswhy

Gilboyplacessomuchemphasisonwhatshecalls foreseeableorganisational

26


27/54

futures; that is, officials use of organisational background and embedded

knowledge to anticipate the possible futures of particular actions, and to

manoeuvre accordingly. In the above case,officials later recognized toGilboy

that they should have anticipated thejudges use of his connections of class,

statusandpoliticalpatronagetobringaboutcaseworkintervention,andshould

have therefore taken preemptive action by, for example, deferring without

detentiontheyoungwomansinspectiontoalaterdate.Itisatthispointthatthe

incidentsignalsitsredistributivemoment,whenofficialsreasontoreadjustand

reallocate their distributed capacities (Gell 1998; Corsn Jimnez 2003) by

internalizing and externalizing, in a double movement, the organisations

societalorientation.Thisisbestcapturedinthequestionwithwhichtheofficial

summeduphisliterallydistributed(andthusbedazzled)agency: Wheredowe

drawtheline?

Reinstitutionalisationsofthecontemporary

So where are the lines of contemporary institutional redistributions being

drawn?Therearemanyanswers to thisquestionand thearticles thatmakeup

Section VIIIbelow offer some selective glimpses. I want to focus here on a

particularemergingassemblage,thatoftheethical,whichposescrucialanalytical

challenges toourunderstandingofsocial formsbecauseof itscentrality toany

27


28/54

model of distributive social theory. The rise of the ethical is particularly

problematic for the social sciences because of the language and imagery of

redistribution that already populates our analytical vocabularies (e.g.

proportionality,balance,equality,justice).Themattertakesgreaterpoignancyif

giventheformofaquestion:howcanwetheorizetheethical,iftheethicalitself

becomesthemodeofarticulationof(EuroAmerican)society(cf.Strathern2000)?

Anthropology,and theanthropologyoforganisations inparticular,providesa

simple,yetIbelievecompellinganswer:ethnography.Ethnographygivesusthe

comparativeandcriticaledge thatweneed torevitalize fromwithinoursocial

theory.Inhisethnographicstudyofaidpolicyandpractice,forexample,David

Mosse (this volume, see alsoMosse 2004) alerts us to the transinstitutional

purchase of allegedly selfevident policy categories, such as participation,

evidencebasedpolicyorgovernance,whichinhisethnographyfolduntoone

another to produce a particular regime of ethically accountable development.

These categories create amodel of policy that subverts andbends the actual

formsthatconcretedevelopmentpracticestake.Theymakepolicytakealifeof

its own, away from the fractured and contradictory terrain of professional

practice,selfvalidatingaworldofsystemicrepresentationsthathas littletodo

withhow thingsareon theground.Thepoint isnotsimplythatsuchabstract,

28


29/54


30/54

transparencyputs it.Sheobserves thatvisibilityoften conceals something else

anddrawsaparallelwithHagenpublicceremonials,wheredisplaysofwealth

and goods conceal the efforts and negotiations that take place over time and

modulate Hageners power and gender relationships. It is at this juncture,

therefore,thatwecanseetheperniciouseffectsofthenewinstitutionalisationof

ethics.Forwhenprescriptive categories aredeployed in adescriptive fashion,

something isdeliberatelyconcealed.Strathernmakesthepointeloquently: The

rhetoricoftransparencyappearstoconcealthatveryprocessofconcealment,yet

in so far as everyoneknows this, itwouldbehard to say it reallydoes so.

Realities are knowingly eclipsed. (Strathern, this volume) In other words,

institutional ethics makes (certain dimensions and funds of) knowledge

disappearhardlyanethicalstanceatall.

The reduplicative work (simultaneously descriptive and prescriptive) of

transparency, participatory and all such other idioms of institutional re

distributions is thrown vividly into reliefwhenbrought under a comparative

light.Theplayofethnographiccontrastsandshadowstakesthenacrucialcritical

dimension.Stratherns tyrannyoftransparency,forexample,canbeprofitably

compared to Abner Cohens politics of ritual secrecy (this volume). The

comparisonallowsus to see that transparencyand secrecyarenotselfevident

30


31/54

reversibles to the opposition trustmistrust.Much to the contrary, trust and

transparencyappearthenastheinstitutionalproductsofaparticulardistributive

moment, one that dislodges the ethical from the social and posits it as an

institutionalobjective.Buildingonthismodeofcomparativeanalysis,acritical,

crosssectionalreadingoftheessays inthiscollectionallowsustoseetheforce

andvalueof ethnography as amodelof critical social theory.We can see, for

instance, theanalyticalpurchaseofethnographic termswhenused todescribe

the redistributive effects of institutional practices: when, say, the public

knowledge thatmuseumcuratorsholdof science (Macdonald, thisvolume) is

contrastedwiththepublicstrustofinstitutionaltransparency(Strathern).When

the public, that is, is shuffled out of the benefaction of the state and re

institutionalised against themarket, now an image of the social relevance of

museums for society, now an index of corporate trustworthiness. Or when

productivity is redistributed to fund the individualcreativegeniusofacook

(Fine,thisvolume),thecollectivevaluesandresistanceoffemaleMalayworkers

(Ong, this volume), or even a managers administration of bureaucratic

expediency(JackallandDalton,boththisvolume).

Such contrasts are useful because they illustrate themode of assemblage of

particularinstitutionalredistributivemovements.Publics,tostaywiththeabove

31


32/54

example, takeandoccupydifferent institutionalshapesandspaces: they open

up in response to different pressures,make different concessions to different

parties in the name of different interests, and generate their own internal

differences, theirown endogenous publics, so to speak.Equally crucial, their

moment of public appearance is an institutional moment. Transparency,

participation or public knowledge emerge as institutional idioms, that is,

idiomswithaninstitutionalremit,whoseredistributiveeffectsbearinstitutional

consequences,thoughtheydoofcoursealsotravelthroughandacrosspersons

andplaces,withinandoutsideaninstitution.Hencethesignificanceofscale:the

inclusiveness or externality, to useWilenskys earlier formulation, of such

sociallyredistributivemovements;andhence,too,the importanceofattending

to the reinstitutionalisations of organisational life of developing an

anthropology of organisations that is an anthropology of redistributive

politics/publics. Said differently, an anthropology that carries forth an

intellectualagendaforaninstitutionalanthropology.

Structureofthevolume

Ethnographydocuments thiseverdisplaceablemovementof the fundof social

andpoliticalinterests,andprovides,too,thetermsforitsanalysis.Thisvolume

is therefore organized around the service that ethnography can lend to this

32


33/54

comparativeandcriticaltask.Thehistoryoftheanthropologyoforganisationsis,

of course, little different from the history of the discipline at large, so the

selectionoftextssampledhererunsthroughtheverysamehistoryoftheoretical

preoccupations, interests and challenges that have characterised the

anthropological project over the past eighty years. Debates within the

anthropology of organisations rehearse classic debates in anthropology, about

thevalidityor limitationsofthestructuralfunctionalparadigm(Whyte,Bendix

andFisher,Roy,thisvolume);aboutthe importanceofcontext,andofopening

analysis to the influenceofwiderhistoricalandpolitical forces (Cohen);about

the effects upon organisations of global and transnational changes in the

relationsofcapitalistproduction(Nash,Ong,Mollona,KundaandVanMaanen).

Other concerns include a reflexive attitude and preoccupation towards the

structural and subjectivepositionof the fieldworker in the constructionof the

ethnographic method (Gardner and Whyte, Van Maanen); a critique of

ethnocentricsocialtheoryanditscategories,andaninsistenceontheprivileged

insightsaffordedbyethnography,toencompassrevisionsofourunderstanding

of,amongothers,whatitmeanstobeamoralperson(Jackall,Kondo),howand

wheretolookforthesourcesofhumanagency,creativityandintervention(Ong,

Fine,Suchmanet.al.,CorsnJimnez), thechangingmeaningsofwork (Kunda

and Van Maanen), the qualities of institutional times (Czarniawska), the

33


34/54

pervasiveness and subtleties of bureaucratic power (Gilboy, Heyman), the

perversityofourownsocialdescriptions (Mosse,Strathern),or thequestioning

of social theory asan ethnographicproject itself (Czarniawska,Riles).And,of

course, a critical interrogation, scrutiny andoftenunashameddiscomfortwith

theagenciesandoperationsofpower.

The volume is divided into eight sections. The sections follow roughly a

chronologicalorder,withSection Icontainingessays thatbelong tooraddress

thewritings of the earlyHuman Relations School and SectionVIII including

recent examples of attempts to rethink social theory using insights from

organisational ethnographies. Each section is given a title which broadly

correspondswiththetheoreticalfashionprevalentatitstime.Ihavedeliberately

kept the word relation in the title of the first four sections to show the

dominance of the relational analytic as a vocabulary fordescribing our social

theory. Section I samples contributions from theHuman Relations School. It

includes Gardner and Whytes methodological manifesto on how to do

ethnography in industrialcontexts. Italso includesReinhardBendixandLloyd

FishersearlycritiqueofEltonMayoshumanistsociology,wheretheypointout

thelatterslackofattentiontotheworkofauthorityasanideologicalforce.The

34


35/54

sectionisclosedwithaclassicexampleoforganisationalstructuralfunctionalism

byWilliamFooteWhyte.

SectionIIjumpsoverthecircumscriptionofindustryasaclosedunitofanalysis

to show the importance of studyingwider social and political forces.Abner

Cohensethnography isanexampleofwhatbecameknownas theManchester

school of anthropology, with an emphasis on deep situational (political and

historical) analyses. Donald Roys article, on the other hand, is a classic of

industrial anthropology, where he first signalled the need to thicken our

understandingof the socialmoment itself.Royexpandedourunderstandingof

thesocialnotbylookingouttopoliticsorhistorybutbyenrichingandmaking

the social itselfmore inclusive (cf. Handelman 1976).Hewrote against the

humanrelationsschoolandtherationalizationspiritofscientificmanagementto

bringtoattentionthecomplexityandintricaciesoftheexchangesthroughwhich

workersconstitutedthemselvesaspersons,includingtheirreasonsfordoingthe

things theydid (a lParfit).Last,VanMaanensarticle is includedasanearly

and eloquent exampleof the limitations of the relationalparadigm.HereVan

Maanenanticipatestheculturalistturninanthropology,thatwastocreatesucha

turmoil in thediscipline in the 1980s.Hisdescriptionof the cultureofviolent

indeterminacy inpolicedepartments isexuberant,echoing thesenseofsurplus

35


36/54

and overflow that characterises the corporation. Van Maanens is also a

wonderful ethnographyof organisational culture, a term thatwould laterbe

appropriatedbyorganisational scholars andgiven a lifeof itsown, a topic to

whichSectionVisdedicated.

Section III takes a particular stance on the political redescription of

organisationalcontexts.TheriseofMarxistscholarshipinthe1970srelocatedthe

Manchester school call for the widening of ethnographic situations within a

particular productionist paradigm, namely, by shifting attention to the

interfoldings between international and national regimes of capital

accumulation, organisational structures and shop floor sociality.June Nashs

analysis of the career paths and movements of managers in multinational

corporations is one of the first of its kind, and one that is still useful for

understanding themicrostructuraleffectsofmacrostructuraloperations.Aihwa

Ongs analysis of spirit possession among Malay female workers in a

multinationalcorporationandGaryFines studyof theproductionofaesthetic

culinary values in the restaurant industry show the value of ethnography for

illuminating general questions regarding the connections between human

agency, cultural values and experiences, and the hegemonic structures and

strictureofcapitalistproductivity.MassimilianoMollonasrecentarticleon the

36


37/54

experienceofformalandinformallabourinanexindustrialdistrictinSheffield,

UK, closes the sectionwith an evocative ethnography of local redefinitionsof

capital and labour,where relations ofproduction escape the factory setting

andaremadetoacquirenewbloodlife insidethefamilyortheneighbourhood,

animated by gender and generational conflicts. It presents a contemporary

resurrectionof thebestManchesterschool tradition,but isattentivealso to the

institutional forces (state welfare, regional economic policies) through which

institutionalidiomsscaleouttoshapeeverydaylives.

Section IV narrows the focus back again from the sociohistorical to the

institutional.Itsfocusistheideology,machineryandoperationsofbureaucracy.

Bureaucracyisindustrialsocietysfavouriteformofadministrativeorganisation.

Itiswithoutdoubttheorganisationalformwhichhasreceivedmostattentionby

scholars.Forthisreason,IhaveincludedarecentpiecebyJosiahMcCHeyman,

whereheprovidesanintroductiontoandanalysisofthebureaucraticformand

its ideological and powerwielding mantle. The rest of the pieces are

ethnographic in character. RobertJackalls study ofmorality and expediency

amongcorporatemanagersprovidesausefulhistoricalcounterpointtoMelville

Daltons classic study ofmanagers, also included. The study ofmanagement

becomes inbothcasesastudyof the fundingofpoliticalpatronagewithin the

37


38/54

organisation,and thusof thestructuralpaths thatmanagersareencouraged to

takeinthedecisionmakingprocess.Managementappearsinthislightasasocial

fund organized around and coerced by the bureaucratic administration of

political credit, and includes the capacity to nominally align oneself with

momentsof change, and to construct and set inmotion social assets such as

responsibility in order tobe seen to adhere to the chain of command and

commitment.Thestudiesshowthatmanagersaretrappedinatypeofthought

work(Heyman1995)thatimposessevererestrictionsontheirabilitytomanage

creatively, a restriction thatJackall calls the bureaucratic ethic.JanetGilboys

ethnographyofpolitical casework in immigration inspections, though focused

ontheworkofimmigrationofficials,notmanagers,presentsasimilarscenario,

whereofficialsenduptraffickinginexpectationsandanticipations(Gilboycalls

themforeseeableorganisationalfutures)inordertocopewithsuddenpolitical

interventions.All threeethnographiespresentvividexamplesofwhatHeyman

callstheanthropologyofpowerwieldingbureaucracies:wherethosewhowork

in institutions redistribute their fundsof social interests (outsideor inside the

organisation)toredefinewhatismorallyandpoliticallyviable.

Sections V and VI dealwith the topic of culture. SectionV, as noted above,

includesarticlesbyLindaSmircich,whosurveystheuseofthecultureconceptin

38


39/54

organisational studies and provides a critical commentary, and Michael

ThompsonandAaronWildavsky,whorecognizetheimportanceofwaysoflife

as an institutionalising force (their focus is theuse of information) inholding

togetherorganisationalcultures.TheirsisanearlytributetoMaryDouglaswork

anditsrelevancefororganisationalstudies,apointwhichItakeupagainbelow.

Section VI, on the other hand, presents an outline of theways inwhich the

conceptofculturehasfiguredinanthropology,aswellasexamplesofthetypes

ofculturalconcepts thatanthropologistshavedeveloped in theirethnographic

writings.JohnVanMaanensmethodologicalpieceprovidesanearlyreflection

on the fictional qualities of ethnographic reportage. Though not a fullblown

interpretative piece, Van Maanens article stands as one of the earliest

contributions to the writing culture debate, onewhich takes the question of

ethnographysmethodologicalconstructionheadonasitsmajortopicofinquiry.

Thisisfollowedbytwoessaysontheculturalconstructionofselfhoodandplace.

DorinneKondosethnographyof the transformationof the selfata corporate

sponsoredethics training seminar inJapanmakes fora fascinatingand richly

textured study in the intricaciesof cultural categories.Kondos analysisof the

selfincludes,forexample,explorationsofitsramificationsintotherealmsofthe

family, a carefuldisentanglingof itsmomentsof coherence and integritywith

Nature,andanelucidationof itshomologicalechoeswith thecorporation.The

39


40/54


41/54

DouglasandMars,Idonotconceptualizetheinstitutionasasystemconstrained

fund of information,but as an assemblage of public (i.e. political) interests,

where theopeningupof the space for the emergenceofpublics (a lLatour)

becomesitselftheinstitutionalmoment.However,myaffinitywithDouglasand

Marsproject lies in that, like them, Isee theredistributionof the institutional

fundofsocialinterestsasfundamentaltothecreationof(local)spacesofjustice.

It is the institutionalmoment that iscruciallypolitical.Last,DouglasandMars

piecemakesalsoforarefreshingreminderofthevirtuesandstrengthsofcross

culturalcomparisonforanthropologicaltheory.

Thelasttwosectionsdealwiththetopicofinstitutionalredistributions.Section

VII, on anthropological institutionalisations, contains Sharon Macdonalds

ethnography of the making of public knowledge at the ScienceMuseum in

London, an example of the institutionalisation of the public as an arena (a

market?) for trafficking in diverse interests. Perhaps a trait of late twentieth

centuryEuropeanpolitics,theethnographicstudyoftherhetoricofinstitutional

engagementwiththepublicmakesamarvellousexampleoftheinstitutionalre

distributionofpoliticaljustice.

41


42/54

Section VIII closes the volume by providing some glimpses into the social

processes that are fashioning contemporary societies. Lucy Suchman,Jeanette

Blomberg,JulianOrr andRandallTriggs articleprovides a summary of their

pioneering and now famous anthropological interventions at Xerox PaloAlto

ResearchCenter(PARC).Asthetitleoftheirarticleindicates,theirworkatPalo

Altoopenedthewayforanunderstandingoftechnologyassituatedpractice,a

theoreticalmove informedby detailed ethnography that anticipatedbymany

yearsthecontributionsofwhatlaterbecameknownasactornetworktheory(e.g.

LawandHassard1999).Ihavealreadycommentedontheethnographicvalueof

David Mosse and Marilyn Stratherns work on the contemporary

institutionalisationsof ethical regimes;bothprovide exemplary illustrationsof

theperverseeffectsofsocialdescriptivevocabularies thataremade towork in

ethically selfconsciousways.GideonKundaandJohnVanMaanenspieceon

thetransformationofemotionallabourinpostindustrialsocietiesprovidesalso

anilluminatingaccountofhowthedeliberateengineeringofcorporatecultureto

create loyal and committed subjectivities, and its eventual readjustment to

accommodate the transition toanethosofentrepreneurialismanda regimeof

flexible accumulation, produces redistributions in the flow of trust and

autonomywithinandbetweenmanagers (seealsoKunda1992,onwhich their

account isbased).Myownpiecepresents abrief ethnographic analysisof the

42


43/54

way in which the language and imagery of labour has come to inform our

theories of personhood, including our ideas about agency, creativity and the

temporal and contributiveorientationof ourhuman capacities.Thisnotion of

labour, I suggest, is an important force informing new institutionalisations of

distributivejustice: for instance, the equity structures (hardly equitable at all)

thatyoungworkershavetocopewithwhenfirstgainingemployment.

Thelasttwoarticles,byAnneliseRilesandBarbaraCzarniawska,approachthe

delicate question of the failure of ethnographic knowledge, and they both

develop amodeof theorising the slipperinessofknowledge thatbearson the

spatiotemporalqualitiesofour theoreticalconstructs (seealsoMiyazaki2003).

Inherstudyof the technocraticknowledgeofJapanesebankers,Rilesobserves

thatbankers awareness of the limitations of their knowledge (of themarket)

mirrors,and thuspresentsanepistemologicalproblem to,anthropologysown

analytical vocabulary. Bankers see the fragility and limits of their knowledge

waybeforetheanthropologistdoes,atwhichpointethnography failsforbeing

incapable of openingup an epistemological distancebetween indigenous and

anthropologicalexplanation.Towardstheendofherargumentsheobservesthat

itwasanethnographic cueobtained froma situationwherepeople refused to

describetheirsocialityinrelationaltermsthatprovidedhertheanalyticalartefact

43


44/54

(intimacy,ametaphorthatstoodfortheexactoppositeof relations)tocreate

the distance between technocratic and anthropological knowledge. It is the

intimacy between technocratic and anthropological knowledge that suddenly

appearstoprovidetheverypoliticalleverageneededforcriticalenquiry.

Like Riles, Czarniawskas piece is a sophisticated reappraisal of the spatio

temporal qualities of our theoretical descriptive vocabularies.Her piece does

doubleworkfor italsorelocatesthepossibilitiesoftheanthropologicalmethod

within the larger literatureoforganisational studies.She introduces two terms

(kairotictimeanddispersedcalculation)andtwotheoreticalandmethodological

constructs(actionnetsandmobileethnologies)totrytocapturetheneverending

flowofredistributivepracticesandtheirepisodicassemblinginmomentsofre

institutionalisation.These toolsaredesigned tohelpusthinkofcontingency in

institutionalterms:toappreciateandvaluetheweightandeffectsofinstitutional

practices thatmomentarilyconglomerate theirowndispersed,oftenconflicting

reasonsandpersonsorientationsinwhatCzarniawskacallsautonomouskairotic

moments(i.e.proper,thatfeelrightorjusttothepeopleinvolved)oftemporal

organisation.

44


45/54

Riles admonition about the endpoints to which the very movement of

anthropologicalknowledgetends,andCzarniawskascallforreenvisioninghow

we think about theprocessoforganisation,both remindus that ethnographic

knowledgeisselfembeddedandthereforeinherentlyescapist.Thismayrequire

developing, the way Czarniawska invites us to think, a new sociological

vocabulary, with which to bridle ethnographys escapist inclinations in an

already runawayworld.Thatmaybe so.But it is important to rememberalso

thatpartofthecharmofethnographysescapismliesintheverywayinwhichit

redistributes its own categories of description (intimacy, proper time,

participation) tomakemattersofpoliticaljustice, a second and an analytical

moment later, invisible. It is this very quality of selfembedment in the

contemporarythatmakesethnographysoseductivetotheory,thuslendingitits

true analytical leverage. We might therefore hold better chances for

understandingthemakinganddistributionofpoliticaljusticeifwereadjustour

gazeandlookoutforethnographysownmomentsofinstitutionalredescription

instead.

References

Asad,T.,Ed.(1973).Anthropologyandthecolonialencounter.Atlantic

Highlands,NJ,HumanitiesPress.

45


46/54

Baritz,L.(1960).Theservantsofpower:ahistoryoftheuseofsocialsciencein

Americanindustry.Middletown,Conn.,WesleyanUniversityPress.

Barley,S.R.,G.W.Meyer,etal.(1988). Culturesofculture:academics,

practitionersandthepragmaticsofnormativecontrol. AdministrativeScience

Quarterly33:2460.

Bate,S.P.(1997). Whateverhappenedtoorganizationalanthropology?Areview

ofthefieldoforganizationalethnographyandanthropologicalstudies.Human

Relations

50(9):

11471175.

Buchsbaum,H.J.,S.Laderman,etal.(1946). Fromconflicttocooperation:a

studyinunionmanagementrelations. AppliedAnthropology5(4).

Burawoy,M.(1979). Theanthropologyofindustrialwork. AnnualReviewof

Anthropology8:231266.

Burawoy,M.(1979).Manufacturingconsent:changesinthelaborprocessunder

monopolycapitalism.ChicagoandLondon,TheUniversityofChicagoPress.

Burchell,G.,C.Gordon,etal.,Eds.(1991).TheFoucaulteffect:studiesin

governmentality.Chicago,UniversityofChicagoPress.

Campbell,C.(1987).Theromanticethicandthespiritofmodernconsumerism.

Oxford,BasilBlackwell.

46


47/54

Cohen,G.A.(2000).Ifyouareanegalitarian,howcomeyouresorich?

Cambridge,Mass.andLondon,HarvardUniversityPress.

Collins,O.,M.Dalton,etal.(1946). Restrictionofoutputandsocialcleavagein

industry. AppliedAnthropology5(3):114.

CorsnJimnez,A.(2003). Onspaceasacapacity.JournaloftheRoyal

AnthropologicalInstitute(N.S.)9(1):137153.

Corsn

Jimnez,

A.

(2005).

Changing

scales

and

the

scales

of

change:

ethnographyandpoliticaleconomyinAntofagasta,Chile. Critiqueof

Anthropology25(2):157176.

CorsnJimnez,A.andR.Willerslev(forthcoming). Ananthropologicalconcept

oftheconcept:reversibilityamongtheSiberianYukaghir.JournaloftheRoyal

AnthropologicalInstitute.

Douglas,M.(1986).Howinstitutionsthink.Syracuse,NewYork,Syracuse

UniversityPress.

Douglas,M.andS.Ney(1998).Missingpersons:acritiqueofthesocialsciences.

Berkeley,CaliforniaandLondon,UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Douglas,M.andA.Wildavsky(1982).Riskandculture:anessayontheselection

oftechnicalandenvironmentaldangers.BerkeleyandLondon,Universityof

CaliforniaPress.

47


48/54


49/54

Gregory,K.L.(1983). Nativeviewparadigms:multipleculturesandculture

conflictsinorganizations. AdministrativeScienceQuarterly28(3):359376.

Handelman,D.(1976). Rethinking Bananatime:symbolicintegrationina

worksetting. Urbanlife4(4):433448.

Heyman,J.M.(1995). Puttingpowerintheanthropologyofbureaucracy:the

immigrationandnaturalizationserviceattheMexicoUnitedStatesborder.

Current

Anthropology

36(2):

261

287.

Hill,C.andM.L.Baba,Eds.(1998).Theunityoftheoryandpracticein

anthropology:rebuildingafracturedsynthesis.Washington,D.C.,National

AssociationforthePracticeofAnthropology.

Hinshaw,R.E.(1980). Anthropology,admnistrationandpublicpolicy. Annual

ReviewofAnthropology9:497522.

Holzberg,C.S.andM.J.Giovannini(1981). Anthropologyandindustry:

reappraisalandnewdirections. AnnualReviewofAnthropology10:317360.

Jones,S.R.G.(1992). WasthereaHawthorneeffect? AmericanJournalof

Sociology98(3):451468.

Kunda,G.(1992).Engineeringculture:controlandcommitmentinahightech

corporation.Philadelphia,TempleUniversityPress.

49


50/54

Latour,B.(2005).FromRealpolitiktoDingpolitikorhowtomakethingspublic.

Makingthingspublic:atmospheresofdemocracy.B.LatourandP.Weibel.

Boston,Mass.,TheMITPress:1443.

Law,J.andJ.Hassard,Eds.(1999).Actornetworktheoryandafter.Oxford,

BlackwellPublishers/TheSociologicalReview.

Law,J.andA.Mol(2002).Complexities:anintroduction.Complexities:social

studiesofknowledgepractices.J.LawandA.Mol.DurhamandLondon,Duke

University

Press:

1

22.

Lewis,D.(1999). Revealing,widening,deepening?Areviewoftheexistingand

potentialcontributionsofanthropologicalapproachesto thirdsector research.

HumanOrganization58:7381.

Linstead,S.(1985). Breakingthe purityrule:industrialsabotageandthe

symbolicprocess. PersonnelReview14:1219.

Linstead,S.(1997). Thesocialanthropologyofmanagement. BritishJournalof

Management8:8598.

Lupton,T.(1963).Ontheshopfloor:twostudiesofworkshoporganisationand

output.Oxford,PergamonPress.

Mars,G.(1997). Humanfactorfailureandthecomparativestructureofjobs.

Disasterpreventionandmanagement6(5):343348.

50


51/54

Mars,G.,Ed.(2001).Occupationalcrime.TheInternationalLibraryof

Criminology,CriminalJusticeandPenology).Aldershot,Ashgate/Dartmouth.

Miller,D.(2003). Thevirtualmoment.JournaloftheRoyalAnthropological

Institute(N.S.)9(1):5775.

Miyazaki,H.(2003). Thetemporalitiesofthemarket. AmericanAnthropologist

105(2):255265.

Mosse,

D.

(2004).

Cultivating

development:

an

ethnography

of

aid

policy

and

practice.London,PlutoPress.

Nader,L.(1972).Uptheanthropologist perspectivesgainedfromstudyingup.

Reinventinganthropology.D.H.Hymes.NewYork,PantheonBooks:284311.

Nash,J.C.(1993).Weeattheminesandthemineseatus:dependencyand

exploitationinBoliviantinmines.NewYork,ColumbiaUniversityPress.

Okongwu,A.F.andJ.P.Mencher(2000). Theanthropologyofpublicpolicy:

shiftingterrains. AnnualReviewofAnthropology29:107124.

Ong,A.andS.J.Collier(2005).Globalassemblages,anthropologicalproblems.

Globalassemblages:technology,politics,andethicsasanthropologicalproblems.

A.OngandS.J.Collier.Malden,MA,Oxford,andCarlton,BlackwellPublishing:

321.

51


52/54

Ouchi,W.G.andA.L.Wilkins(1985). Organizationalculture. AnnualReview

ofSociology11:457483.

Parfit,D.(1986).Reasonsandpersons.Oxford,OxfordUniversityPress.

Parsons,H.M.(1974). WhathappenedatHawthorne? Science183(4128):922

932.

Pettigrew,A.M.(1979). Onstudyingorganizationalcultures. Administrative

Science

Quarterly

24:

570

581.

Richardson,F.L.W.andC.R.Walker(1948).Humanrelationsinanexpanding

company:astudyofthemanufacturingdepartmentsintheEndicottplantofthe

InternationalBusinessMachinesCorporation.NewHaven,YaleUniversity

LaborManagementCentre.

Roethlisberger,F.J.andW.J.Dickson(1939).Managementandtheworker.

Cambridge,Mass.,HarvardUniversityPress.

Schwartzman,H.B.(1993).Ethnographyinorganizations.NewburyPark,

London,NewDelhi,SagePublications.

Strathern,M.(1991).Partialconnections.Savage,Maryland,Rowman&

LittlefieldPublishers,Inc.

Strathern,M.(1995).Therelation:issuesincomplexityandscale.Cambridge,

PricklyPearPress.

52


53/54

Strathern,M.(1999).Puzzlesofscale.Property,substance,andeffect:

anthropologicalessaysonpersonsandthings.LondonandNewBrunswick,NJ,

TheAthlonePress:204228.

Strathern,M.(2000).Afterword:accountability.andethnography.Auditcultures:

anthropologicalstudiesinaccountability,ethicsandtheacademy.M.Strathern.

London,Routledge:279304.

Strathern,

M.

(2002).

Externalities

in

comparative

guise.

Economy

and

Society

31(2):250267.

Tax,S.(1964).Theusesofanthropology.Horizonsofanthropology.S.Tax.

Chicago,Aldine:248258.

Wagner,R.(1975).Theinventionofculture.EnglewoodCliffs,NewJersey,

PrenticeHall,Inc.

Warner,W.L.andO.J.Low(1946).Thefactoryinthecommunity.Industryand

society.W.F.Whyte.NewYork,McGrawHill:2145.

Warner,W.L.andO.J.Low(1947).Thesocialsystemofthemodernfactory.The

strike:asocialanalysis.NewHaven,YaleUniversityPress.

Weber,M.(1946).Bureaucracy.FromMaxWeber:essaysinsociology.H.H.

GerthandC.W.Mills.NewYork,OxfordUniversityPress:196244.

53


54/54

Whyte,W.F.(1948).Humanrelationsintherestaurantindustry.NewYork,

McGrawHill.

Whyte,W.F.(1951).Patternforindustrialpeace.NewYork,Harper&Row.

Whyte,W.F.(1987). Fromhumanrelationstoorganizationalbehavior:

reflectionsonthechangingscene. IndustrialandLaborRelationsReview40(4):

487500.

Wilensky,

H.

L.

(1957).

Human

relations

in

the

workplace:

an

appraisal

of

some

recentresearch.Researchinhumanrelationsinindustry.C.M.Arensberg,S.

Barkin,W.E.Chalmersetal.NewYork,Harper&BrothersPublishers:2550.

Wolfe,A.W.(1977). Thesupranationalorganizationofproduction:an

evolutionaryperspective. CurrentAnthropology11(2):153164.

Wright,S.(1994). Culture inanthropologyandorganizationalstudies.

Anthropologyoforganizations.S.Wright.LondonandNewYork,Routledge:1

31.

Yanagisako,S.J.(2002).Producingcultureandcapital:familyfirmsinItaly.

PrincetonandOxford,PrincetonUniversityPress.

Documents

Introduction Anthropology Organisations Pre Print