为什么要重新发明轮子?将多重性具体化,抵制另类组织中的重新整合

IF 4.9 1区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT
Genevieve Shanahan, Stephane Jaumier, Thibault Daudigeos, Alban Ouahab
{"title":"为什么要重新发明轮子?将多重性具体化,抵制另类组织中的重新整合","authors":"Genevieve Shanahan, Stephane Jaumier, Thibault Daudigeos, Alban Ouahab","doi":"10.1177/01708406241244522","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Often we unconsciously take for granted that there is not really an alternative to how we currently organize society – we tend to reify existing social order, misperceiving the way things are now as the way things must be. Such reification constrains our agency by discouraging the thought that we could do better. Alternative organizations undermine this reification by manifesting the real possibility of organizing differently. Such dereification is valuable in itself insofar as it lifts constraints on agency, facilitating intentional choice regarding the social systems we (re)produce. A case study of this dereification is offered by the Réseau Alimentaire Local (RAL), a network of French ‘solidarity groceries’ unified by the pursuit of more just and sustainable alternatives to the dominant model. Groups within the RAL develop their own software to manage these novel alternatives. We were struck, however, by some groups’ efforts to reify their own solutions, disparaging other approaches as mere attempts to ‘reinvent the wheel.’ The case thus raised a tricky question: can alternative organizations dereify existing social order without at the same time reifying their proposal, thereby reimposing constraints on agency? Our exploration through the RAL case grounds two contributions. First, conceptualizing reification in terms of materializing abstract ideas, we demonstrate how any given organizational configuration contributes to the materialization of multiple ideas simultaneously. We identify two forms of such multiplicity: vertical multiplicity, where nested relational networks materialize coherent ideas that differ only in their degree of specificity; and horizontal multiplicity, where intersecting relational networks materialize divergent ideas of the same degree of specificity. We argue that failure to recognize this multiplicity accounts for a great deal of materiality’s reifying capacity, while its recognition can facilitate new ways of approaching the dereification challenge. Our second contribution is therefore a strategy for resisting reification: materializing multiplicity.","PeriodicalId":48423,"journal":{"name":"Organization Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why reinvent the wheel? Materializing multiplicity to resist reification in alternative organizations\",\"authors\":\"Genevieve Shanahan, Stephane Jaumier, Thibault Daudigeos, Alban Ouahab\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01708406241244522\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Often we unconsciously take for granted that there is not really an alternative to how we currently organize society – we tend to reify existing social order, misperceiving the way things are now as the way things must be. Such reification constrains our agency by discouraging the thought that we could do better. Alternative organizations undermine this reification by manifesting the real possibility of organizing differently. Such dereification is valuable in itself insofar as it lifts constraints on agency, facilitating intentional choice regarding the social systems we (re)produce. A case study of this dereification is offered by the Réseau Alimentaire Local (RAL), a network of French ‘solidarity groceries’ unified by the pursuit of more just and sustainable alternatives to the dominant model. Groups within the RAL develop their own software to manage these novel alternatives. We were struck, however, by some groups’ efforts to reify their own solutions, disparaging other approaches as mere attempts to ‘reinvent the wheel.’ The case thus raised a tricky question: can alternative organizations dereify existing social order without at the same time reifying their proposal, thereby reimposing constraints on agency? Our exploration through the RAL case grounds two contributions. First, conceptualizing reification in terms of materializing abstract ideas, we demonstrate how any given organizational configuration contributes to the materialization of multiple ideas simultaneously. We identify two forms of such multiplicity: vertical multiplicity, where nested relational networks materialize coherent ideas that differ only in their degree of specificity; and horizontal multiplicity, where intersecting relational networks materialize divergent ideas of the same degree of specificity. We argue that failure to recognize this multiplicity accounts for a great deal of materiality’s reifying capacity, while its recognition can facilitate new ways of approaching the dereification challenge. Our second contribution is therefore a strategy for resisting reification: materializing multiplicity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48423,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Organization Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Organization Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406241244522\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organization Studies","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406241244522","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们常常会不自觉地认为,除了目前的社会组织方式之外,并不存在其他真正的选择--我们倾向于重新定义现有的社会秩序,误认为现在的方式就是必须的方式。这种重构抑制了我们可以做得更好的想法,从而限制了我们的能动性。另类组织通过展示以不同方式组织的真正可能性,破坏了这种重构。这种 "去中心化 "本身就很有价值,因为它解除了对能动性的限制,有利于我们对(重新)产生的社会系统做出有意的选择。Réseau Alimentaire Local (RAL)提供了一个关于这种去中心化的案例研究,这是一个由法国 "团结杂货店 "组成的网络,他们团结一致,追求更公正、更可持续的方式来替代主流模式。RAL 内部的小组开发了自己的软件来管理这些新颖的替代品。然而,令我们印象深刻的是,一些团体努力重新定义自己的解决方案,贬低其他方法,认为它们只是试图'重新发明轮子'。因此,该案例提出了一个棘手的问题:替代性组织能否在取消现有社会秩序的同时,又不对其提案进行重新定义,从而对代理权重新施加限制?我们通过 RAL 案例进行的探索有两点贡献。首先,我们从将抽象概念具体化的角度对重新整合进行了概念化,从而证明了任何特定的组织结构是如何同时促进多种理念的具体化的。我们确定了这种多重性的两种形式:纵向多重性,即嵌套的关系网络将仅在具体程度上不同的一致理念具体化;以及横向多重性,即交叉的关系网络将具体程度相同的不同理念具体化。我们认为,未能认识到这种多重性在很大程度上导致了物性的重化能力,而认识到这种多重性则有助于以新的方式应对去重化挑战。因此,我们的第二个贡献是一种抵制重化的策略:将多重性物质化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Why reinvent the wheel? Materializing multiplicity to resist reification in alternative organizations
Often we unconsciously take for granted that there is not really an alternative to how we currently organize society – we tend to reify existing social order, misperceiving the way things are now as the way things must be. Such reification constrains our agency by discouraging the thought that we could do better. Alternative organizations undermine this reification by manifesting the real possibility of organizing differently. Such dereification is valuable in itself insofar as it lifts constraints on agency, facilitating intentional choice regarding the social systems we (re)produce. A case study of this dereification is offered by the Réseau Alimentaire Local (RAL), a network of French ‘solidarity groceries’ unified by the pursuit of more just and sustainable alternatives to the dominant model. Groups within the RAL develop their own software to manage these novel alternatives. We were struck, however, by some groups’ efforts to reify their own solutions, disparaging other approaches as mere attempts to ‘reinvent the wheel.’ The case thus raised a tricky question: can alternative organizations dereify existing social order without at the same time reifying their proposal, thereby reimposing constraints on agency? Our exploration through the RAL case grounds two contributions. First, conceptualizing reification in terms of materializing abstract ideas, we demonstrate how any given organizational configuration contributes to the materialization of multiple ideas simultaneously. We identify two forms of such multiplicity: vertical multiplicity, where nested relational networks materialize coherent ideas that differ only in their degree of specificity; and horizontal multiplicity, where intersecting relational networks materialize divergent ideas of the same degree of specificity. We argue that failure to recognize this multiplicity accounts for a great deal of materiality’s reifying capacity, while its recognition can facilitate new ways of approaching the dereification challenge. Our second contribution is therefore a strategy for resisting reification: materializing multiplicity.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Organization Studies
Organization Studies MANAGEMENT-
CiteScore
11.50
自引率
16.70%
发文量
76
期刊介绍: Organisation Studies (OS) aims to promote the understanding of organizations, organizing and the organized, and the social relevance of that understanding. It encourages the interplay between theorizing and empirical research, in the belief that they should be mutually informative. It is a multidisciplinary peer-reviewed journal which is open to contributions of high quality, from any perspective relevant to the field and from any country. Organization Studies is, in particular, a supranational journal which gives special attention to national and cultural similarities and differences worldwide. This is reflected by its international editorial board and publisher and its collaboration with EGOS, the European Group for Organizational Studies. OS publishes papers that fully or partly draw on empirical data to make their contribution to organization theory and practice. Thus, OS welcomes work that in any form draws on empirical work to make strong theoretical and empirical contributions. If your paper is not drawing on empirical data in any form, we advise you to submit your work to Organization Theory – another journal under the auspices of the European Group for Organizational Studies (EGOS) – instead.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信