MODERNISM, POSTMODERNISM, MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION THEORY

Clegg, SR; Kornberger, M

MODERNISM, POSTMODERNISM, MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION THEORY

Clegg, SR

Kornberger, M

Permalink

Publication Type:: Chapter
Citation:: 2003, 21 pp. 57 - 88
Issue Date:: 2003-12-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	2003000698.pdf		1.66 MB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Clegg, SR https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6083-4283	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Kornberger, M	en_US
dc.date.issued	2003-12-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	2003, 21 pp. 57 - 88	en_US
dc.identifier.isbn	0762310049	en_US
dc.identifier.isbn	9780762310043	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/1182
dc.description.abstract	Modernism and postmodernism may be thought of as either moments or movements. We argue for thinking of them as moments, essentially related to each other, rather than movements that literally have historical specificity. From this perspective what is modern and what is postmodern is always shifting, such that their nature is problematic, essentially contested and shifting. Rather than use contemporary examples to make these points, we prefer to refer to quite historical examples, because the modalities become much sharper and can be seen in clearer focus. Hence, we discuss Machiavelli and Caravaggio as precursors of the postmodern and Hobbes and Boyle as precursors of the modern. Obviously, there is an irony in our intent: given the claims to currency of the debates with which we frame the paper then reference to some classical sources serves to hose down debate and fix it in a sharper, cleaner form. While it will become evident that our sympathies are not with "modernism", it should become equally clear that we hold much of the representation of "postmodernism" to be as much at error as we do the fixing of the modern in the frame of the empiricist, the positivist, and the scientific. For us, all these terms are equally problematic, and have been so ever since we began to first think we might be modern - whether in art, social science or science. We conclude by addressing why, in the present, these classical debates should have migrated to the study of organizations. © 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1016/S0733-558X(03)21003-X	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Business & Management	en_US
dc.title	MODERNISM, POSTMODERNISM, MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION THEORY	en_US
dc.type	Chapter
utslib.citation.volume	21	en_US
utslib.for	150310 Organisation and Management Theory	en_US
utslib.for	1503 Business and Management	en_US
utslib.for	1608 Sociology	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business/Management Discipline
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	21	en_US

Abstract:

Modernism and postmodernism may be thought of as either moments or movements. We argue for thinking of them as moments, essentially related to each other, rather than movements that literally have historical specificity. From this perspective what is modern and what is postmodern is always shifting, such that their nature is problematic, essentially contested and shifting. Rather than use contemporary examples to make these points, we prefer to refer to quite historical examples, because the modalities become much sharper and can be seen in clearer focus. Hence, we discuss Machiavelli and Caravaggio as precursors of the postmodern and Hobbes and Boyle as precursors of the modern. Obviously, there is an irony in our intent: given the claims to currency of the debates with which we frame the paper then reference to some classical sources serves to hose down debate and fix it in a sharper, cleaner form. While it will become evident that our sympathies are not with "modernism", it should become equally clear that we hold much of the representation of "postmodernism" to be as much at error as we do the fixing of the modern in the frame of the empiricist, the positivist, and the scientific. For us, all these terms are equally problematic, and have been so ever since we began to first think we might be modern - whether in art, social science or science. We conclude by addressing why, in the present, these classical debates should have migrated to the study of organizations. © 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/1182