The Dynamics of Narrative and Ante Narrative and Their Relation to Story

The dynamics of narrative andantenarrative and their relation

to storyMaurice Yolles

Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK

Abstract

Purpose – The nature of narrative is important, and with the development of awareness ofknowledge processes, it becoming more important. In particular its notions can be enhanced byexamining it in terms of antenarrative. Ultimately the paper aims to explore the relationship betweennarrative and antenarrative.

Design/methodology/approach – The objectives of the paper are achieved by seating the notionsof narrative and antenarrative into the models of knowledge cybernetics (in particular social viablesystems – SVS and social cybernetics) to enable an exploration of the consequences of theirinteraction. If narrative and antenarrative are seen as together forming an autonomous system, thentheir relationship may be explored in terms of SVS. This is effectively a social geometry that enablescomplex conceptual relationships to be explored graphically.

Findings – While normally one might think that narrative and antenarrative are incommensurable,the theory explains how through enantiomer dynamics, patterns of narrative can be related toun-patterned arbitrary antenarratives. Under the right circumstances narrative and antenarrative canform a joint alliance that enables the two forms to merge into a story. This means that a story is told ina way that enables narrative structures to be intermingled with antenarrative thereby forming athematic story event that has potential to engage more dynamically with the listener.

Research limitations/implications – The paper is fundamentally theoretical, and a usefuldevelopment would be to apply this to real case scenarios, thereby exploring quantitively theinterconnection between narrative and antenarrative, and some of its implications.

Practical implications – It must be realised that there is a tacit knowledge dimension that connectsthe narrative/antenarrative situation with a story acquirer. The ability of the acquirer to recognisewhether a situation has narrative or antenarrative is a function of that acquirer’s own pattern ofknowledge, and this embodies subjectivity. This is bound up within the notion of third cybernetics.The interconnectedness of narrative and antenarrative is relevant to actual processes of socialcommunication, and demonstrates a parallel coexistence of modernist and postmodernist paradigms.

Originality/value – The paper applies a new theory, that of knowledge cybernetics, to a difficultconceptual area of study. While this results in the need to understand the conceptual basis ofknowledge cybernetics, it does provide a frame of reference that enables relatively simple approachesin knowledge and knowledge processes to be graphically represented, thereby providing the potentialfor new insights. The value of the paper is that these graphical techniques are illustrated, and theywould likely be useful to those who work in the knowledge or knowledge management field.

Keywords Narratives, Knowledge management, Knowledge processes, Cybernetics,Communication processes, Storytelling

Paper type Conceptual paper

1. IntroductionStory is defined as an account or recital of an event or a series of events or incidentsthat is either true or fictitious. For Boje (2000) it can be seen as plot comprising causally

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0953-4814.htm

JOCM20,1

74

Received December 2005Revised March 2006Accepted March 2006

Journal of Organizational ChangeManagementVol. 20 No. 1, 2007pp. 74-94q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0953-4814DOI 10.1108/09534810710715298

related episodes that culminate in a solution to a problem. It was written or imaginedperspectivistically, from the viewpoint of a theoretical or participant observer, and itincorporates a coherence that is constructed from a chair of particulars. It isresponsible for the creation of knowledge generation forming a powerfulself-reinforcing feedback loop that motivates and directs (Baskin, 2004).

In contrast to story, an anti-story (Boje, 2000) is another story that arises inopposition to the earlier one. Thus, a story that has a significant impact in a group ororganization will give rise to related stories as well as anti-stories. Anti-stories aim atundermining the original story that can arise to negate of counter stories of officialgoodness, or to undermine the original story. The relationship between story andanti-story constitute an internal dynamic the output of which, nevertheless, emergessystemically as story.

When stories move to enter the culture of a social collective like an organisation,they can become dismantled into what Boje (2005b) calls a living-story. Here stories arefragmented and its shreds are collected together with those from other stories, perhapsdisparately, arbitrarily and spontaneously over time by uncoordinated individuals inthe collective. These shards can become dynamically transformed indirectly throughmetaphor[1], or directly as local patterns of knowledge or myth (whether or not falseknowledge), both of which can underpin new perceptions in the social collective. AsBaskin (2004) tells us, mythic knowledge tends to be the deepest most powerful form ofknowledge. It is the paradigms that are bedded on such re-assembled shards thatdefine the social trajectories, can reinforce perception and misperception, and forgeunderstandings and misunderstandings. Indeed, explicated messages have a socialimpact since they are collected and transformed through the worldviews of theacquirers that Churchman (1979) calls Weltanschaung. These personal worldviews arethemselves built on the tacit knowledge that come from individual experience, andsometimes through the knowledge and myth that accumulates through theinterpretation or misinterpretation of other forms of explicit knowledge that havenot been integrated with experience.

Story is related to narrative. The term narrative derives from Latin, but came to theEnglish language through the French[2]. Its original conception was as or part of aspoken story, however, as is the want in science the term narrative has more recentlybeen generalised to take on a meaning that distinguishes it from story. Thisgeneralisation has provided us with a capacity to project the concept of narrative abouta particular subject onto even inanimate objects. As such today narrative provides thevehicle for story, so that narratology provide for the study by which thinking processescan be structured to permit stories to emerge. Narratives may occur through textually,in which a narrative agent tells a story (Bal, 1997, p. 18). Narratives have clear formaldefinitions and create causal connections between events that the deliver as story.Hence, they may be seen as coherent, bounded and self-contained, creating a unity ofspace-time-action. Obversely they may be distributed (Walker, 2004) acrossspace-time-action into fragmentation, suggesting an intimate connection betweendistributed narrative and living-story.

The idea of distributed narrative is different from notion of the term antenarretive.Ante is a prefix that derives from the Latin word exante meaning “beforehand” andwhen related to value refers to expectation[3]. While narrative provides a vehicle forstory, for Boje it also comes after and ads “plot” and “coherence” to the story line.

The dynamics ofnarrative andantenarrative

75

Hence, used as an adverb, antenarrative is prior to narrative. The other implication ofantenarrative by Boje relates to expectation or betting in terms of card game or pokerbet, something to do with gambling and speculation. Hence, for Boje (2001)antenarrative is a speculation that is fragmented, nonlinear, incoherent, collective,non-deterministic, and pre-narrative. Further, according to Boje (2005a)“antenarratives are (or can be) collective co-construction of multiple participants,each with a fragment, none with the overarching conception of the story that isbecoming, ravelling and unravelling, picking up contextual elements in some quarters,dropping some in performances in other areas. It is the picking up and dropping ofcontext, that makes the in situ performances of antenarrative trajectoriestransformative, as well as giving them their endemic role in complexity”.

Antenarrative is what Boje calls improper storytelling, a wager from which a propernarrative can be constituted. Narrative can be seen as a modern concept that isconstituted deterministically rather like story, while at the same time standing aboveor beyond beyond, as metastory. The introduction of the notion of antenarrative byBoje is a way of dealing with the perceived crisis of narrative method, since it isconstituted as a nonlinear, almost living-storytelling that is fragmented, polyphonic(many voiced) and collectively produced. The focus of antenarrative methods is on theanalysis of stories that are too unconstructed and fragmented to be analysed intraditional approaches.

Boje (2005a) is also interested in the “improper” aspects to story, as Gabriel (2000,pp. 20-5) posits them. Gabriel maintains the notion that proper stories are coherent,which for Boje creates a narrative-prison – a way to avoid studying stories narrativetheory says are improper. It is the improper stories that are caught up in complexitydynamics of organizations. Boje continues by referring to Bakhtin’s heteroglossia, inwhich there are two opposing storying forces. One is centrifugal operating with anoutward directed force of story delivery (e.g. antenarration or improper storying) andthe other is centripetal with an inward directed force of story delivery (properstorying). These can be related, according to Boje (2005a) to Maruyama’s (1968) workin second cybernetics concerned with “observing systems” and their subjectivity, andin particular which discusses processes of deviation and amplification by mutualcausality.

There is another way of describing the connection between narrative andantenarrative. Narrative may be seen as a deterministically constituted structuredexpression of a thematic story about an event or set of connected events. Ifantenarrative is pre-narrative, then it may develop into narrative through the use ofpatterning processes given that a set of events can be conceptualised and related. Inthis case the patterning process is concerned with the creation of relationships andconnections between conceived entities that constitute patterns. A development on thisidea comes from Dubois’s constructivist notion third cybernetics (Yolles and Dubois,2001) that come from the notion that the observed system and the observing systemstogether form another system from which a new relativistic interactive worldviewarises that is arises from self-observing viewers that have self-observed worldviews. Itis this idea of third cybernetics that will be used to formulate a deeper connectionbetween narrative and antenarrative in due course and that will become a central tenetin this paper.

JOCM20,1

76

A further distinction between narrative and antenarrative is that the former can bethought of as a “predefined patterned structure” that relates to story and which we canrefer to as a pre-pattern, while the latter has some “arbitrary structure”. By arbitrary ismeant: uncertain; random; accidental; discretionary; outside of central relevance to themethodology, law or principle, therefore, accepting of individual choice andsubjectivity. We can say that antenarrative is, therefore, un-patterned, and obverseto the pre-pattern. However, it may not only be pre-narrative for some (subjective)listeners. There may be an unexpressed or hidden narrative source from which anyarbitrariness appears to arise as a “pattern of chaos” that is constituted as deepstructure at some focus of examination away from the local detail, but this structureneeds to be seen, recognised and understood – which is a function of an inquirersknowledge and perspective. Boje (2005a) points to Czarniawska (2004) as positing a“petrification process” to narrative, which means that it becomes more petrified overtime, thereby inducing more dispersive antenarration.

In this way antenarrative may be post-narrative too, with deep structure constitutedthrough narrative metastory defined at some inaccessible horizon of meanings notpossessed by the viewer of the story. For Boje (2005a) the deterministic element is thelinear cohesion necessity put on by narrative as well as by people’s need for narrativecoherence, to see a fragment embedded into a whole storyline.

The relationship between narrative and antenarrative can be tied to developmentsin philosophy, in particular the rise or modernism and its eventual replacement bypost-modernism. Modernism is connected to the end of a cultural period in the Westthat many refer to as “enlightenment”. It was this was a widespread intellectual,cultural, scientific and technological movement that began in the early seventeenthcentury in England, and ended at the close of the eighteenth century in France andGermany (Munslow, 1997). It was characterized by its acceptance of new concepts likepositivism, experimentation in science, and reason and rationality. It was also theperiod in which the notion of the progress and the capacity for human perfectibilitywere defined. Notably, it coincided with mechanistic thinking that was the cornerstoneof the industrial revolution, so much criticised by systems thinkers over recent decades(Koestler, 1967). Modernism followed enlightenment as a nineteenth and twentiethcentury Western phenomenon that marked an entry into post-industrial society.Following Lyotard (1984), modernists are interested in all-encompassing worldviewsmodernists are interested in all-encompassing worldviews (liberal democracy,capitalism, Marxism, feminism, humanism) and maintain an absolute faith inscience. The modernist sees that language interprets, reflects and represents someobjective external reality. They classify, and in so doing make attempts at creatingmeta-narratives that in some cases may be associated with typological reductionism(and its association with the dominant role of neopositivism as a professional ideologyof academic communities). Having said this, it should be realised that today there is aninstitutionally dominant role for neopositivism as a professional ideology of academiccommunities.

Foucault has rejected[4] such narratives because he found that modernism does notprovide the possibility of uncovering within history what is deemed to be essential.This view is also embedded in that of Lyotard (1984) who rejects totalising grandnarratives and is skeptical of theories that speak in grand generalities withuniversalised conclusions, and so we have the postmodernists, who reject the


77

ideologies of modernity as totalising meta-narratives that anticipate all questions andprovide pre-determined answers (Pepa, 2004). They further assume that the knowledgerequired to formulate such meta-narratives is impossible to attain and thus do not seekto establish any alternative epistemologies of their own. The postmodernists alsorather seek to delegitimate mastercodes, exclude grand narratives, and bring about anew era of epistemological relativism. In rejecting the philosophy of modernity, thepostmodernists also reject the idea that objective truth can exist outside of humanunderstanding and interpretation. Many postmodern critics see the humancomprehension of reality only within linguistic structures. Postmodernists believethat the lifeworld is entirely dependent upon language and that all experience andcomprehension of social reality is a product of linguistic and textual practices.Postmodernists also seek paralogy (Rathbone, 2004), in which the paradigmaticpluralist looks for patterns of relationships (through epistemological relativity) thatoccur across the plurality of paradigms being associated together.

This brings us to the realisation that the distinction between narrative andantenarrative is closely tied to the relationship between modernism andpostmodernism. We shall return to this shortly. In addition, for Boje (2000) thenarrative-antenarrative interaction is consistent with the basic opposition betweencoherence and incoherence that results in living-story. This basic and direct interactiverelationship (as opposed to indirect interactions from other aspects of story) canbe modelled as an autonomous system, and will in due course provide the basis for thedevelopment of a dynamic that can be constituted systemically.

There is a distinction between systematics and systemics. Boje (2000), when hequotes Pondy and Mitroff (1979), Pondy (1978), refers to the incapacity of systems asdefined by Boulding of attending to “self-awareness” or “use of language”. It is becauseof this lack of access to self-awarenss that for Boje the trajectory of a living-story arisesfrom an antenarrative social systematicity that is defined according to particularcollective dynamics. Interestingly, the notion of systematicity is consistent with positivemodernity, where events were seen as linearly causal have an expectation that could beassociated with the progression of systematic events. This adoption of systematicity is,however, unnecessary. This is because a much broader-based approach to systems hasdeveloped since the time of Pondy which we shall explain now.

Beer (1979) was interested in how social communities were able to survive, realisingthat regulation was central to this. Prior to Habermas (1987) and Luhmann (1995), herecognised the need for social communications. He was guided by Whitehead andRussell’s (1910) formal logic of systems and Godel’s (1931) incompleteness theoremthat illustrated the limitations of language within a given system. His interest in thislimitation led him to the development of a new cybernetic paradigm with clearpractical application for the management of coherent social communities, seen asoperational systems serviced through control and communications. The controlemanated from a metasystem that communicated internally through a metalanguage.While the logical systems theory that Beer admired explored systems through the useof metasystems, his interests were very much centred on applied science. The paradigmthat he developed created an ontological dichotomy defined in terms of the system andmetasystem. The term dichotomy was not one normally used by Beer, but in fact it israther harmless because it means a “division into two”[5] that can be argued here torepresent two ontological species of a given generic entity. The generic entity may be

JOCM20,1

78

seen as a self-organising body and its ontological species are the system andmetasystem that interact as an intimate ontological couple. That is, they each havevalidity claims about reality that operate in a way that mutually relate: one validityclaim to reality is manifested in the other relative to its validity claim to reality. Hence,a thought in the metasystem may be manifested differently in different systems.

An elaboration of this approach resulted in the development of a new Viablesystems theory by Schwarz (1997), in which autonomous systems, which had ametasystem and were viable in that they could be sustained in one way or another,could be considered to self-aware, self-directing, self-organising, and self producing. Aconsequence of this theory was the development by Yolles (2006) of SVS theory. In thispaper our intention is to develop the basis for this theory, and explain how it can beused to explore the dynamics between narrative and antenarrative.

2. Social viable systemsPhilosophic perspectives operate at the bottom of all paradigms, and are best exploredthrough an examination of ontology and epistemology. In the philosophy of sciencethere is a concern with questions of how scientific research should be conducted, givenan understanding of the nature of knowledge. As such those involved in philosophicaltasks and issues seek to explore the relation between ontology, epistemology andmethodology. Ontology is the study of being or existence that according to Weber(2003) (who appears to be referring to Cocchiarella, 1991) may also be defined as amatter of argumented systematisation about the nature of reality. There is another wayof seeing ontology (inferred from Poli, 2001), as a form of geometry, rather after thenotions developed by Reiman. Here we consider that one function of ontology is todefine a frame of reference that topologically distinguishes between arbitrarily defineddistinct modes of being through the creation of a referencing system. This can providefor the creation of a geometry through which component properties and relationshipscan be relatively simply expressed through the creation of a common referencingsystem. As such geometry can arise through which component properties andrelationships can be expressed.

In contrast to ontology, epistemology is the branch of philosophy that is concernedwith the nature, structure, origin, limitations of knowledge. It deals with a number ofrelated problems, like sense perception, the relation between the knower and the objectknown, the possible kinds of knowledge and the degrees of certainty for each kind ofknowledge, the nature of truth, and the nature of and justification for inferences. It alsorefers to the assumptions about knowledge and how it can be obtained (Hirschheim,1992). Knowledge is intimately connected with meaning, and so epistemology can alsocover considerations of the semantic fields that result from patterns of knowledge.Methodology is concerned with ways by which reality and knowledge in givensituations can be studied, and it is interactive with ontology and epistemology. This isbecause the assumptions that underpin ontology and epistemology determineassumptions about methodology[6].

It is therefore, useful to explore both the ontology and epistemology of any inquiryapproach, and this is particularly the case where philosophically distinct paradigms aeto be related. Our approach is to adopt viable systems as one cornerstone approach indoing this. A viable system is a notion identified by Beer (1979) as one that can be seento be self-dependent, and thus take on an independent existence. For him a system can


79

be viewed as a set of hierarchies that together form a complex whole. The viability ofsuch a whole can be defined in terms of the viability of each hierarchical focus within itthat constitutes the system as a whole. These hierarchies may be most aptly seen assubsidiary wholes that are embedded recursively or fractally (using the notion ofcomplexity theory – see Yolles, 1999) within the whole. The notion is consistent withthe idea of the Russian doll with its reducing inner duplicates, or the Chinese notion ofthe magic box-within-box.

Viable systems theory as proposed originally by Schwarz (1997) is an ontologicalapproach that proposes that adaptive autonomous systems have associated with themnot only a phenomenal domain in which structures and behaviours occur, but also avirtual and existential domain. An example of the formal cybernetic ontologicalrelationship between the three domains is provided in Figure 1 (Yolles, 2004). Itsmetaphor differentiates between three domains of reality, that of phenomena (thething), noumena (the mind) and existence (being), and we shall come back to these

Figure 1.Symbolic ontologicalrelationship between thethree domains of viablesystem theory

Thinking and being: whole, knowledge

self-reference

Existential Domain

(Strategic management)self-creation

(autogenesis)

Logical networks: relations, information

self-regulation andhomeostasis/morphostasis

Noumenal Domain

(Operativemanagement) (autopoiesis)

self-production

System structures: objects, energy

self-organisationMorphogenesis/automorphosis

Phenomenal Domain

ontological relation

Source: Yolles (1999)

JOCM20,1

80

notions shortly. The idea of operative management derives from Schwaninger (2001). Itis also a form of operative politics, and can be directly related to the autopoieticprocesses. Autopoiesis enables images held in the virtual domain by an autonomousactor to phenomenally self-produce, i.e. give their images a structured relatedbehavioural status. Autogenesis is a second order form of autopoiesis, and gives thelatter guidance through the creation of principles. These ideas are explored moredeeply in Yolles (1999) and Yolles and Guo (2003).

Schwarz (2001) provides a modelling approach that can explain why chaotic eventsshould not just be seen as temporary accidental fluctuations that occur in our complexsocial systems, but are rather caused by the inadequacy of our worldview and ourmethods to manage complex situations. He argues that explicative frameworks likereligious or political ideologies are not pertinent tools to understand thesedevelopments, and mono-disciplines like economic science, sociology, psychology,anthropology, etc. are unable to apprehend hybrid systems. A linguistic frameworkthat comes from a suitable coherent model is needed that is able to describe andinterpret complex situations that are part of more or less autonomous complexsystems. He argues that various theoretical developments have occurred to addresssuch approaches, including general systems theory, nonlinear dynamics (chaostheory), complex adaptive systems research, cellular autonomata, recursive andhyperincursive systems, and artificial life. The frame of reference developed bySchwarz is intended to interpret complex systems with more or less autonomy oroperational closure (like self-organisation), and possessed of other related facets asself-regulation, self-production, and self-reference.

The approach adopted here is one that comes out of the “complexity systems” stablefor which cybernetic principles, as discussed for instance by Beer (1959, 1966), areimportant. In complex systems there is a special feature that Beer uses centrally to hiswork: recursion. Following Espejo (1997) autonomous organisations handle thecomplexity they create by establishing a social space within which socialsubsystems exist autonomously and thrive. He refers to this as recursion, where anautonomous organisation may be expressed in terms of recursively embeddedautonomous organisations. However, this may equivalently[8] be expressed in terms offractal patterns: where a self-similar system looks approximately like itself at differentlevels of inspection (Mandelbrot, 1982). The organisation then has the potential to fulfilthe purposes of the whole system through those of its fractal parts, and this contributesto the development of cohesion. Espejo goes on to explain that organisationalcomplexity cannot be managed by assuming there is a unitary purpose. Language andmethodology are required that enable people to understand how cohesion can beproduced around the very different purposes existing among individuals and groupswithin the organisation. These need to offer a means of creating structures withinwhich organisational actors can self-construct behavioural processes that allow themto perform their own actions, while at the same time creating cohesion betweenautonomous units in working towards an agreed purpose for the larger organisation.

Recursion is a fundamental feature of both of the two formal theories that we shallintroduce here. SVS theory is an approach that is able to graphically explain howsystems survive and change. It is based on the theory of self-determining autonomoussystems devised by Schwarz (1997). This form of viable systems theory explored themechanisms and opportunities by which autonomous systems were able to survive


81

and change. The metaphor of this approach not only distinguishes between being(existence), mind (noumenon) and thing (phenomenon), but it also considered that thething has a particular nature that is fundamentally systemic. The system is an ideathat enables a collection of related things to be seen as an integrated assembly, as awhole, that is more than the separate things that compose the phenomenal domain ofinterest.

The autonomous system that we are talking about can be more simply shown as inFigure 2, referred to as the SVS model. We can briefly explore the three domains thatcan be related to ontological contexts. Normally, people talk only of existential andphenomenal context. A historical view of the existent comes from Kant, for whomknowledge was seen to arise through a dualism that derives from the interrelationshipbetween a knower and an object. While these are separated from each other, a partialfusion or synthesis develops between them. When it arrived, the supporters ofphenomenology dropped the notion of knowledge fusion or synthesis. Rather, it wasseen that the parts of knowledge come together through intentionality[9] to create awhole. The whole is constituted within the field of shared human existence orDasein[10]. It is also maintained in phenomenology that access to reality is mediatedthrough consciousness and its attendant capacity for understanding. For many,understanding comes from knowledge, and knowledge is acquired from the experienceof phenomenal reality. There is an inferred relationship between the existent and thephenomenal that has importance to modern systems. Consider that a globalphenomenon is defined by a set of local objects of attention in durable interaction,and perceived through an existent conscious conceptualisation. If the assembly can beassigned an existential identity that can also be associated with a global intentionality,and that makes it distinct from the local objects that compose it, then the globalphenomenon has been identified as an emergent whole.

In addition to the existential and phenomenal contexts holon that we have referredto, we can identify another, the noumenal. Its antecedent is the notion that truth aboutreality can be deduced with absolute certainty from our innate ideas, a notion prevalentin the seventeenth century through thinkers like Frances Bacon and Rene Descartes.Kant in the eighteenth century considered that these innate ideas were constructed byminds in what he called the noumenal realm. Within these contexts, the notion of thenoumenon can seen as a consummate universal visualization of reality. Such absoluteidealism provided entry into the constructivist frame of reference, and enables us hereto propose the notion of global (or as a logical subset of this, local) noumena.

Figure 2.An autonomous holonexpressed as the SVSmodel

Autopoiesis(self-production through a

network of processes, such asoperative processes)

Phenomenal domainPhenomenal structures

and operations

Noumenal domainImages and

models

Autopoiesis: feedbackadjusting network of

processes

Existential /Cognitive domain

Paradigm(s) and knowledge(s)

Autogenesis(self-production of

principles that derivefrom knowledge)

Autogenesis: feedback adjusting the guiding principles for autopoiesis

JOCM20,1

82

Global noumena are constituted by virtual ideates. An ideate is constituted as a systemof thought expressible as logical or rational structures that may be formulated as, orassociated with, sets of often relatable but not necessarily coordinated images. Ideatesare formulated demiurgically by social collectives, which construct them with intentionover time and through the influence of social factors (like culture, politics, ideology,ethics, social structures and economics), in an attempt to “overcome chaos” and createconceptual order. Since, each social collective produces its own global noumenonwhich, like the collectives with their relatively distinct cultures and ways of thinking,they are necessarily inconsummate relative to each other.

Each domain may host a singular system or plurality of related type system.Behavioural systems are hosted in the phenomenal domain, virtual systems in thenoumenal domain, and metasystems in the existential domain. The three domains intheir pattern of interaction are together referred to as an autonomous holon thatmetaphorically describe social agents (Yolles and Guo, 2003). The holon is recursive innature, and where the phenomenal domain applies to individual and social behaviour,the three domains can be assigned properties. Autopoiesis fundamentally enablesimages of a virtual domain to be manifested phenomenally through self-producingnetworks of processes. Autogenesis enables principles to be generated that guide thedevelopment of the system.

The formulation in Figure 3 constitutes the ontological basis for SVS theory, and itcan be used recursively. An illustration of this plurality can be created if we explore aconstructivist approach to scientific enquiry (though there is no space to show thishere), using Frieden’s (1998, 2004) idea of the creative observer, the inquirer whoseworldview influences the way that information is acquired. It can also be related to thenotion of structural coupling that occurs for structure-determined/determiningengagement in an interactive family of systems. According to Maturana and Varela(1987, p. 75) the engagement creates a history of recurrent interactions that leads to thestructural congruence between the systems, and leads to a spatio-temporal coincidencebetween the changes that occur (Maturana, 1975, p. 321).

3. Enantiomer dynamics in social viable systemsIn developing the ontological principles to be used and its epistemological trappings,SVS was applied to a number of areas, all of which contributed towards thedevelopment of a frame of reference the epistemological dimensions (Table I) of which

Figure 3.Ontological distribution of

the enantiomic oppositesin SVS

Autopoiesis and manifestationof task-related behaviourthrough a network of self-

produced processes

Phenomenal domainStorytelling through

Fundamentalist/Pragmatist enantiomers

Noumenal domainSystem of thought to create

story delivery throughAntenarrative/Narrative(Patterner/Dramatist)

enatiomers

Autopoiesis and impactof phenomenal

experience on systemof thinking

Existential domainKnowledge thatunderpins story

throughIdeational/Sensate

enantiomers

Autogenesis and thematicprinciples of governanceguiding self-production

Autogenesis andregeneration of evaluative

perceived experienceType 22 Type 12

Type 21Type 11


83

constitute knowledge cybernetics. The first development towards this came byexploring Sorokin’s (1942) theory of socio-cultural dynamics. This creates anenantiomer dynamic in which two cultural forces are perceived to exist that intimatelyinteract and affect each other in a way similar to the interconnection between theChinese notions of yin and yang, and they lie in the existential domain and are referredto as identifier forces. The details of this dichotomous relationship for the existentialdomain can be found in Yolles and Frieden (2005), and in Yolles (2006). Anotherexplanation for a set of dichotomous “elaborator” forces that are concerned with virtualstructures like image and story was developed Shotwell et al. (1980). Their interest layin exploring how children imagine and play, and they created an enantiomic theory toexplain this. Their empirically validated classifications of dramatists and patternersprovide a useful elaborator dimension for SVS. Finally, the executor attribute wasdistinguished into the attributes of fundamentalism and pragmatism. The celebrationof pragmatism arises from the ideas of James (1904, 1907). Like pragmatism,fundamentalism defines an agent’s behavioural direction, and can be defined aspractises based on a rigid adherence to some traditional doctrine[7], or an adherence toa prescriptive idea or set of principles, and being motivated by theory to which itadheres strictly. For Graham (2004, 2005) the fundamentalist’s direction (which herefers to as proper aim) is called intuitionism – a condition in which there is conformityto a priori knowledge that enables truth to emerge when engaged with epistemicprinciples. The relationship between the three sets of dichotomous forces is provided inFigure 3. This relationship also distinguishes between the knowledge in the existential

Knowledge type Knowledge type enantiomer

Executors Fundamentalism PragmatismSupports the ability to carry outor perform activities

Behaviour conforms to somefundamental prescriptionindependent of circumstance. Itis useful where conformity isessential

Behaviour reflects the demandsof circumstance. They createmeaning through context, to thedetriment of rules andregularities

Elaborators Patterner DramatistSupports both elaborators (whounderstand how to deal with therelationships between culturalattributes) and planners (whothrough their understanding ofcultural attributes and itspatterns of knowledge are ableto determine possibletrajectories for action)

Persistent curiosity about theobject world and how it works, isconstructed, and is named,varied or explored. It isconnected to problems ofsymmetry, pattern, balance, andthe dynamics of physicalrelationships between entities,and is likely to indicate relativeconnection

Interested in sequences ofinterpersonal events, havingdramatic or narrative structuresthat are likely to involvedistinction (e.g. the distinction ofscenes or chapters), andundertaking effectivecommunications

Identifiers Ideationalist SensatistSupports the creation ortranslation of ideas andconcepts; its members are able toaccommodate the knowledge

Centres on conceptual imagingconstituting knowledge. Good atacquiring or creatingknowledge. No know-how todevelop them for materialimplementation

To do with the senses. Able todevelop or engineer existingideas for materialimplementation. Good concepttranslator. Cannot generate newideas or concepts

Table I.Adaptation of thetheories of Sorokin (1942)and Shotwell et al. (1980),defining generic domainsfor SVS

JOCM20,1

84

domain (that enables story to be created), the virtual ideate structured visualizationthat enables story to be created and delivered, and the whole phenomenal process ofstorytelling. The ideateational/sensate enantiomer determines whether he knowledgebased fabric of a story is conceptually rich (ideational), or just well defined in it issensate utility. This is consistent with, for instance, the distinction between a story thatis rich in human detail and events with a meandering but full content, and an actionadventure that has little substance. The structured visualization can be expressed aseither antenarrative or narrative, depending whether a modernistic or post-modernisticperspective is being embraced. The connection between this and storytelling is veryclose, and requires a set of self-produced processes that enables ante/narrative to beexpressed as storytelling. In the case that it is antenarrative that drives the storytellingprocess, then the storytelling itself is constituted as a post-modern life story. However,when the virtual process is narrative, then the set of autopoietic processes enables amodernistic storytelling communication to arise. The relationship between the virtualand phenomenal domains is constrained by autogenesis, in which the knowledge thatdrives the story and its ante/narration conditions the way in which it is manifested asstorytelling. Problems can occur in this manifestation process between the differentdomains in the autonomous storytelling system. Connection breaks can occur betweenthe various domains which can lead to pathologies in storytelling capacity that candisengage it from the story and the ante/narrative.

Before we explore this further, it may be said that the theses that underpins ourmodel is to perceive the storytelling process as a system that is driven autonomousthough those involved. It involves the subjective story teller, but at this stage we arenot interested in complicating the model to this extent. The autonomous system arisesthrough knowledge, is formulated through the interconnection between antenarrativeand narrative, and results in delivered structures of (storytelling) socialcommunication. The specific connection between antenarrative and narrative occursthrough a set of processes called autopoiesis. In this the virtual systemtakes antenarrative and self-produces narrative through a set of processes thateliminates doubt, establishes firm structure, and formulates a deterministic trajectory.While narrative may or may not result in a cohesive formulation, it is much more solidthan the prior antenarrative, and constitutes a vision that may or may not be moreconnected with the imagination of the story teller than the information from which itarises. It may, therefore, be as much associated with myth as with knowledge.

The figure shows the enantiomic interactions that are possible in any autonomoushuman activity system. Fundamentally, this schema provides the generic frame ofreference from which the exploration of a whole variety of complex human and socialsituations can occur, and which can enable the possibility of relational connectionsbetween varieties of apparently disparate models. In the next section we shall brieflyoutline some of the applications of this SVS metamodel. In particular, it should berecalled that each of the domains maintain their cognitive properties at the social levelof interaction, for which Table I was constructed. While the basic epistemologicaldomain properties are always maintained, when the SVS model is recursively appliedthe content nature of the must be re-interpreted to provide adjusted meanings. Thenature of this re-interpretation occurs because the domains are now seen assub-contexts of the (supra-domain) context in which it resides. The basic theory thatoutlines this is provided in Yolles (2006).


85

Let us now move on to the exploration of story telling system pathology. The first ofthe types of pathology (type 11 and 12) that we shall refer to occur when autopoiesis isblocked, and this can result in disassociative behaviour that has little reference toante/narrative. When this occurs, storytelling behaviour may be influenced directly bythe living-story or story knowledge and unconstrained by ante/narrative. The secondtype of pathology (including type 21 and 22) that can occur is when autogenesis isblocked, so that normative story coherence cannot develop within the cultural fabric ofthe social actor, in part because learning to improve the telling of the story is notpossible. This has major implication for the way in which patterns of storytellingbehaviour become manifested. When type 1 and 2 pathologies occur together,storytelling behaviour is purely responsive and determined from structural capacitiesrather than knowledge or ante/narrative. Table II suggests the composite possibilitiesthat can arise with the combination of different ontological pathology.

We have discussed the relationship between story and narrative, and living-storyand antenarrative. The relationship can be made much more graphic using SVSrecursion capabilities. Figure 4 shows the relationship between living-story and

Pathologytype Nature

1 (11 and12)

Can result in disassociative storytelling behaviour that has little reference to ideateante/narrative images. When this occurs, behaviour may be influenced directly byknowledge but this may not be useful to the story telling process. Type 11 relates tophenomenal image projection, while type 12 to an ability to have a feedback affect

2 (21 and22)

No changes in the normative coherence can develop within the cultural fabric of the socialactor. In type 21 existing knowledge cannot have an impact on the autopoietic loop, whilein type 22 learning to improve the storytelling is not possible. This has major implicationfor the way in which patterns of behaviour become manifested

Associative type combinationsT11 T12 T21

T12 No phenomenal imageprojection or feedbackresulting in direct link toexistential domain. Hence,storytelling occurs withoutreference to ante/narrative

T21 No knowledgedevelopment/learning andno phenomenal imageprojection for ante/narration.Feedback from an audiencecannot be responded to inconnection with the storytelling process

No feedback resulting inregeneration of ideate image,and no learning processdevelopment inante/narration

T22 No phenomenal imageprojection fromante/narration, and nopossibility of coherencethrough learning capacity

No regeneration of ideateimage from ante/narrationthrough experience, and noevaluative process derivingfrom experience

No influence of knowledgeor knowledge development(i.e. no learning or reflection).Image and phenomenalimage projection cannotdevelop

Table II.Types of ontologicalpathology, and possibleassociative relationshipsbetween typecombinations

JOCM20,1

86

antenarrative, while in Figure 5 the connection between story and narrative is alsoprovided. Both story and living-story are predicated on the social knowledge that isheld by a story telling system.

The specific connection between antenarrative and narrative is expressed inFigure 6. Here, antenarrative is a virtual component of the systems in which apatterned un-integrated system of thought and/or images and logically structuredideas exists, and it uses incomplete information within a fragmented knowledgeprocess created through living-story. Narrative, on the other hand, consists of dramaticpre-structured visualisations of event sequences or systems that can perhaps createunfulfilled expectations. These expectations can be constituted as story by projectingthe narrative phenomenally through storytelling. Since, ante/narrative are both virtual

Figure 4.Distinguishing

living-story fromantenarrative

Existential domainElaborationknowledge

Noumenal domain Living story as perhapsuintegrated system of

thought and/or images &logically structured

ideas.Residence of patterning

Phenomenal domainResidence of antenarrativemodels that structure living

story.

Autogenesis andproduction ofmeaningful

principles for theideate

Autopoiesis and productionof processes to manifest

coordinated images and/orsystem of thought

Autogenesis and creation of newelaboration knowledge

Autopoiesis and regeneration ofcoordinated images and/or

system of thought

Nounemal DomainThe ideate

Figure 5.Distinguishing story from

narrative

Existential domainElaborationknowledge

Noumenal domainStory as perhaps

integrated system ofthought and/or images &

logically structuredideas.

Residence ofdramatising

Phenomenal domainResidence of narrative models

that structures story.



Autopoiesis and productionof processes to manifest

coordinated images and/orsystem of thought


Autopoiesis and regeneration ofcoordinated images and/or

system of thought



87

structures, they constitute part of the virtual domain. As enantiomers they constitute adichotomous interactive forces associated with the dynamic of storytelling, then it isfeasible that they can be associated with patterning and dramatising in some way.Actually, all the arguments to do this are already in place, and we shall just elaboratebriefly about the connection between ante/narrative and the SVS enantiomer forces.The virtual or noumenal domain is constituted by a pair of enantiomers calledpatterning and dramatising. These can be expressed principally as the distinctionbetween relationships (that occur as antenarrative) and narrative. Patterning isprimarily concerned with patterning processes and relationships that enablephenomenal (storytelling) structures to develop and change dynamically, with anorientation towards connections and interconnections. Dramatising, however, isconcerned with dramatic and/or narrative structures, with an orientation to distinctionwithin the components of the storytelling process.

Under certain circumstance it is possible for narrative and antenarrative to becomeinteractive when an appropriate storytelling system materializes, causing conflict.This can be a problem, for instance, when a living story comes into conflict with andanti-story. This situation is represented in Figure 7, and is expressed in terms of therelationship between patterning and dramatic storytelling processes.

Under very special circumstances, this relationship can be balanced (Figure 8), thusenabling a storytelling process to emerge that links both modernistic andpost-modernistic knowledge. This may be best exemplified when a storytellingprocess gets partitioned into blocks of process, enabling it to jump from one form toanother. This is equivalent to modernism and postmodernism coming together in ajoint alliance, which one might think constitutes a contradiction in terms. Thus,storytelling is either narrative or it is antenarrative in nature depending upon whetherone is dealing with story or living-story.

Earlier it was noted that antenarrative may be either pre-narrative or post-narrative,with deep structure constituted through narrative metastory defined at someinaccessible horizon of meanings. There is an explanation for this that connects with

Figure 6.Adverbial relationshipbetween narrative andantenarrative, the formerconstituting storytellingand the latter “improperstorytelling”

Existential domainStorybookelaborationknowledge

Noumenal domainPatterned unintegrated systemof thought and/or images &

logically structured ideasusing incomplete information

constituted as living story.Residence of antenarrative

Phenomenal domainDramatic pre-structured

visualisations of event sequencesthat create perhaps unfulfilled

expectations constituted as storyand which can be phenomenally

projected as storytelling, andfacilitate communications.

Residence of narrative



Autopoiesis and production of processes to manifest

coordinated images and/or pattern/system of thought


Autopoiesis and regeneration ofcoordinated images and/orpattern/system of thought


JOCM20,1

88

Figure 7. The very existence of this formulation of this figure is a result of a thirdcybernetics process (introduced earlier) that fits with a constructivist perspective, andis thereby is constituted by a variety of perspectives that each derive from worldviewknowledge. Following Yolles (2006), in third cybernetics one should to discuss three

Figure 7.Interaction between a

patterning storytellingprocess and a dramatic

one

MetasystemModernist knowledge

of story

Virtual systemUnintegrated images or

system of thoughtantenarrative

Autogenesis:individual principlesof governance from

post-modern storyline

Autopoiesis: network of political process toproduce autonomous patterns of storytellingbehaviour; it may involve the elaboration ofcontested difference with other agents like

anti-story

AutogenesisEvolving principles of

governance

Autopoiesis and regeneration ofnetworks of rational/

appreciative system processes

Patterningstorytelling

Dramatisingstorytelling

Structural coupling with common interests that override conflict behaviour between patterning and dramtisning storytelling,having past and future history. These interest may facilitate or constrain the conflict

MetasystemPost-modernist

knowledge in living-story

Virtual systemNormally integratedsystem of thought

Phenomenal domain

Interactive suprasystem

Existential domain

Noumenal domain

Structural coupling between living-story andstory.

Structural coupling between narrative andantenarrative

Autogenesis principlesof governance from

modern storyline

Figure 8.Formation of joint alliance

in storytelling process

MetasystemPartitioned balancebetween modernism& post-moderninism

Virtual systemUnintegrated images or

system of thoughtantenarrative

Autogenesis:individual principlesof governance from

storyline

Autopoiesis: network of political process toproduce autonomous patterns of storytellingbehaviour; it may involve the elaboration ofcontested difference with other agents, due

to distinct images

AutogenesisEvolving principles of

governance

Autopoiesis and regeneration of networks of rational/

appreciative system processes

Patterningstorytelling

Partitionedstory tellingthat

links patterning &dramatising

Structural coupling with common interests that override conflict behaviour between patterning and dramtisning storytelling, having past and future history. These interest may facilitate or constrain the conflict

MetasystemPost-modernist

knowledge in living-story

Virtual systemPartitions of integrated& unintegrated system

of thought

Phenomenal domain

Interactivesuprasystem

Existential domain

Noumenal domain

Structural coupling between balanced livingstory and common balance between story andliving-story.

Structural coupling between a common balanced ante/narrative and antenarrative

Autogenesis: balanced principles of

governance from storyline


89

dimensions of normative perspective that will be needed for a view in storying to beagreed on and accepted. Within the constructivist appreciation of storing an analyticprocess of examination and apprehension is required that we shall call method, andthat permits narrative and antenarrative to be seen as having come together in a jointalliance. Two other worldviews are possible, one that is inherent within a story, andone that extrinsic and the property of the viewers. These three dimensions can beformalized as in Table III.

As an example of the relationship between narrative and antenarrative representedhere, the Bruce Willis film Sixth Sense might be classed as an “alliance” betweennarrative and antenarrative for a new viewer. Firstly there is a distinction between the“storyline” as perceived by the author and that as perceived by the viewer. From theperspective of the viewer, the time sections appear to be arbitrary; it is only historicallyand through reflection that the sequences make narrative sense. Reflection oftenprovides a means by which semantic profile can be assigned to a situations (a story orliving-story), even where this was not intended by an author. Many viewers of suchfilms take a heuristic view of what is being observed, but with more complex situationsit may be necessary to apply pre-defined methods or methodologies or opendevelopmental approaches (life action research) to explore a given situation and itsstory/living-story. This coupling illustrates the third cybernetic nature of therelationship between narrative and antenarrative.

Modern reality TV shows might also classify as antenarrative where a group ofpeople have been thrown together and the viewers are simply voyeurs. However, the

Worldview Nature

Extrinsic worldview of theviewer

This worldview and its associated knowledgederives from tacit experiences of the viewer. If theviewer exists as a plural group of individuals, thenthe group will be coherent when the plurality ofindividual worldviews have been made explicit(thematised) and normative (objectivated), and thusformalised into a commonly agreed perspective thatindicates how the group of viewers shouldapprehend what has been identified

Intrinsic worldview embedded ofthe story

It cannot be said that a story has no inbuiltworldview. More, there is the possibility of aplurality of worldviews that provide an internal orimplicit storying perspective about what ishappening. The situation may be a coherent one withnarrative formulation in a defined group, and inwhich a thematised and objectivated perspective hasarisen that is formalised to result in a normativegroup process. Mostly there will be a strongconnection between the individual worldviews ofthose involved in the situation and the objectivatedperspective that underpins it, but this is not essential

Worldview that emanates frommethods for examination andanalysis of storying

The methods by which storying is examined andanalysed through the worldviews of its stakeholders,which have been thematised, objectivated and thusformalised into an objectivated perspective

Table III.Formalized dimensions ofworldview connectedwith narrative andantenarrative

JOCM20,1

90

type of reality shown which has a contrived treasure hunt involved might be a jointalliance between narrative and antenarrative since the treasure hunt processesoverarches the arbitrary interactions. Applying the concept to an object, a shoe mayhave narrative since it is pre-patterned. However, a shoe that has been used in the rainand is covered with white patches from that process may be thought of as an alliancebetween narrative and antenarrative, if one supposes that the white patches arearbitrary over the designed shoe. Again similar three way constructions can beattributed to this that constitute third cybernetics.

There may of course be other situations that do not necessarily have an implicitmeaning, but through the use of methods of exploration and analysis that involvesforms of associative projection (Yolles, 2006), narrative or antenarrativeassignments can be made. Thus, scientific theories that arise from observations mayfall into this bracket, from which stories and ante/narratives develop.

4. ConclusionThe development of a theory of narrative that includes the idea of antenarrative hasbeen created through the use of SVS. While normally one might think that narrativeand antenarrative are incommensurable, the theory explains how through enantiomerdynamics, patterns of narrative can be related to un-patterned arbitraryantenarratives. Under the right circumstances narrative and antenarrative can forma joint alliance that enables the two forms to merge into a story. This means that astory is told in a way that that enables narrative structures to be intermingled withantenarrative thereby forming a thematic story event that has potential to engage moredynamically with the listener.

It must also be realised that there is a tacit knowledge dimension that connects thenarrative/antenarrative situation with a story acquirer. The ability of the acquirer torecognise whether a situation has narrative or antenarrative is a function of thatacquirer’s own pattern of knowledge, and this embodies subjectivity. This is bound upwithin the notion of third cybernetics.

Notes

1. It should be recognised here, following Brown (2003) that metaphor actually plays a veryimportant role the in creation of knowledge that underpins paradigm.

2. According to http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Narrative accessed September 2005.

3. As defined in http://economics.about.com/cs/economicsglossary/g/ex_ante.htm

4. See for instance http://home.mira.net/ , andy/works/ entitled “Post-Structuralism” andwww.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/foucault.htm

5. Webster on-line dictionary

6. According to Joseph (1946) method is any set of rules for dealing with inquiry that instructshow to set about the task of discovering knowledge. The consideration of such rules, asdistinct from the use of them, is methodology. Methodology however, appears to be used intwo ways: (i) in the abstract as the study of the rules within method that enable the discoveryof knowledge, and (ii) in generalised practical terms of logic applied to a given situation.Myers (1999) is interested in ontology and epistemology in association with types of method.By method he means a strategy of inquiry which moves from the underlying philosophicalassumptions to research design and data collection.

7. see http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/fundamentalism


91

8. By this we are recognising that the concepts of recursion and fractal structures are closelyrelated.

9. Husserl is responsible for this. See for instance www.husserlpage.com/

10. This is Heidegger philosophy. See for instance www.webcom.com/paf/ereignis.html

References

Bal, M. (1997), Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative, University of Toronto Press,Toronto.

Baskin, K. (2004), “Complexity, stories, and knowing”, International Workshop on Complexityand Philosophy 18-19 November, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, available at: http://isce.edu/ISCE_Group_Site/web-content/ISCE%20Events/Rio_2005/Rio_2005_Papers/Baskin.pdf(accessed July 2005).

Beer, S. (1959), Cybernetics and Management, English U. Press, London.

Beer, S. (1966), Decision and Control, Wiley, Chichester.

Beer, S. (1979), The Heart of Enterprise, Wiley, Chichester.

Boje, D.M. (2000), “Nike corporate writing of academic, business, and cultural practices”,Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 4 No. 3, issue on Essays for the PopularManagement Forum, pp. 507-16.

Boje, D.M. (2001), Narrative Methods for Organizational and Communication Research, Sage,London, available at http://cbae.nmsu.edu/ , dboje/papers/narrative_methods_intro.htm

Boje, D.M. (2005a), Personal communication, available at: http://cbae.nmsu.edu/ , dboje/690/

Boje, D.M. (2005b), “From Wilda to Disney: living stories in family and organization research”, inClandinin, J. (Ed.), Handbook of Narrative Inquiry, Sage, London.

Brown, T.L. (2003), Making Truth: Metaphor in Science, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.

Churchman, C.W. (1979), The Systems Approach, 2nd ed., Dell, New York, NY.

Cocchiarella, N.B. (1991), “Formal ontology”, in Burkhardt, H. and Smith, B. (Eds), Handbook ofMetaphysics and Ontology, Philosophia Verlag, Munich, pp. 640-7.

Czarniawska, B. (2004), Narratives in Social Science Research, Sage, London.

Espejo, R. (1997), “Giving requisite variety to strategic and implementation processes: theory andpractice”, The London School of Economics Strategy & Complexity Seminar, http://bprc.warwick.ac.uk/LSEraul.html

Frieden, R. (1998), Physics from Fisher Information: A Unification, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Frieden, B.R. (2004), Science from Fisher Information, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Gabriel, Y. (2000), “Storytelling in Organizations: Facts”, Fictions, and Fantasies, OxfordUniversity Press, London.

Godel, K. (1931), Kurt Godel: Collected Works, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Graham, P.J. (2004), “Theorizing justification”, in Michael O’Rourke, M., Campbell, J. andSilverstein, H. (Eds), Contemporary Topics in Philosophy 5: Knowledge and Skepticism,MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, available at: www.csun.edu/ , philos33/Theorizing_Just_Graham.pdf (accessed May 2005).

Graham, P.J. (2005), “Liberal fundamentalism and its rivals”, in Lackey, J. and Sosa, E. (Eds), TheEpistemology of Testimony, Oxford UP, Oxford, available at: www.philosophy.ucr.edu/people/graham/Liberal_Fundamentalism.pdf (accessed May 2005).

Habermas, J. (1987), Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 2, Polity Press, Cambridge.

JOCM20,1

92

Hirschheim, R.A. (1992), “Information systems epistemology: an historical perspective”, inGalliers, R. (Ed.), Information Systems Research, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 28-60.

James, W. (1904), “Does consciousness exist?”, Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and ScientificMethods, Vol. 1, pp. 477-91.

James, W. (1907), Pragmatism, Meridian Books, New York, NY.

Joseph, H.W.R. (1946), An Introduction to Logic, Clarendon Press, Oxford, Reprint of 1916 edition.

Koestler, A. (1967), Ghost in the Machine, Picador, London.

Luhmann, N. (1995), Social Systems, Stanford University Press, Stanford CA, translated from theGerman edition on 1984.

Lyotard, J.F. (1984), The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, Manchester UniversityPress, Manchester, available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism; www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/lyotard.htm

Mandelbrot, B. (1982), The Fractile Geometry of Nature, Feeman, New York, NY.

Maruyama, M. (1968), “Mutual causality in general systems”, in Milsum, J.H. (Ed.), PositiveFeedback, Pergamon Press, London, pp. 80-100.

Maturana, H.R. (1975), “The organization of the living: a theory of the living organization”,International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, Vol. 7, pp. 313-32.

Maturana, H.R. and Varela, F.J. (1987), Tree of Knowledge, Shambhala, London.

Munslow, A. (1997), Deconstructing History, Routledge, London.

Myers, M.D. (1999), “Qualitative research in information systems”, available at: www.auckland.ac.nz /msis/isworld/index.html (accessed 2001).

Pepa, R.F. (2004), “Nurturing the imagination of resistance: some important views fromcontemporary philosophers”, text of the 2004 Martin Heidegger Memorial Lecture, TrinityCollege of Quezon City (TCQC), available at: www.philosophos.com/philosophy_article_85.html (accessed June 2005).

Poli, R. (2001), “The basic problem of the theory of levels of reality”, Axiomathes, 12, pp. 261-83.

Pondy, L. (1978), “Leadership as a language game”, in McCall, M.W. and Lombardo, M.M. (Eds),Leadership: Where else Can We Go?, Duke University Press, Durham, NC, pp. 87-99.

Pondy, L.R. and Mitroff, I. (1979), “Beyond open system models of organization”, in Staw, B.(Ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior,Vol. 1, JAI, Greenwich, CT, pp. 3-39.

Rathbone, Y. (2004), accessed at: www.california.com/ , rathbone/lyotard2.htm and www.humbul.ac.uk/output/full3.php?id ¼ 8156 (accessed November 2005).

Schwaninger, M. (2001), “Intelligent organisations: an integrative framework”, Sys. Res. & Beh.Sci., Vol. 18, pp. 137-58.

Schwarz, E. (1997), “Towards a holistic cybernetics: from science through epistemology tobeing”, Cybernetics and Human Knowing, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 17-50.

Schwarz, E. (2001), “Anticipating systems: an application to the possible futures of contemporarysociety”, paper presented at: CAYS’2001, Fifth International Conference on ComputingAnticipatory Systems, Liege, Belgium, August 13-18.

Shotwell, J.M., Wolf, D. and Gardner, H. (1980), “Styles of achievement in early symbol use”, inBrandes, F. (Ed.), Language, Thought, and Culture, Academic Press, New York, NY,175, 199.

Sorokin, P.A. (1942), Social and Cultural Dynamics,Vol.4, Amer. Book. Co., New York, NY.


93

Walker, J. (2004), “Distributed narrative: telling stories across networks”, AoIR 5.0 Conference,Brighton, 21 September, available at: http://huminf.uib.no/ , jill/txt/AoIR-distributednarrative.pdf (accessed on September 2005).

Weber, M. (2003), Private Communication.

Whitehead, A.N. and Russell, B. (1910), Principia Mathematica, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Yolles, M.I. (1999), Managment Systems: A Viable Approach, Financial Times Pitman, London.

Yolles, M.I. (2004), “Implications for Beer’s ontological system/metasystem dichotomy”,Kybernetes, Vol. 33 No. 3, p. 726, 764.

Yolles, M.I. (2006), Organisations as Complex Systems: An Introduction to KnowledgeCybernetics, Information Age Publishing, Inc., Greenwich, CT.

Yolles, M.I. and Dubois, D. (2001), “Anticipatory viable systems”, International Journal ofComputing Anticipatory Systems., Vol. 9, pp. 3-20.

Yolles, M.I. and Frieden, B.R. (2005), “A metahistorical information theory of social change:the theory”, Organisational Transformation and Social Change, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 103, 136.

Yolles, M.I. and Guo, K. (2003), “Paradigmatic metamorphosis and organisational development”,Sys. Res., Vol. 20, pp. 177-99.

Further reading

Beer, S. (1972), Brain of the Firm, Wiley, Chichester.

Czarniawska, B. (1997), Narrating the Organization: Dramas of Institutional Identity, Universityof Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Czarniawska, B. (1998), “A narrative approach to organization studies”, Qualitative Researchmethods Series, Vol. 43, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Corresponding authorMaurice Yolles can be contacted at: [email protected]

JOCM20,1

94

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Documents

The Dynamics of Narrative and Ante Narrative and Their Relation to Story