迈向批判性工作和组织心理学中的模糊伦理:从 "空白 "到 "问题 "主观性

IF 5.9 1区 哲学 Q1 BUSINESS
Parisa Dashtipour, Nathan Gerard, Duarte Rolo
{"title":"迈向批判性工作和组织心理学中的模糊伦理:从 \"空白 \"到 \"问题 \"主观性","authors":"Parisa Dashtipour, Nathan Gerard, Duarte Rolo","doi":"10.1007/s10551-024-05760-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In recent years, a scholarly movement has taken hold that is critical of work and organizational psychology (WOP). Referred to as critical work and organizational psychology (CWOP), this movement problematizes some of the foundational premises of WOP, including its lack of reflexivity on its own values and ethics. While bringing increased attention to reflexivity and ethics as vital to critical theorizing and praxis, CWOP has yet to concertedly engage with ethics. This conceptual paper has two aims. The first is to outline existing ethical approaches in CWOP. Reviewing the literature, we suggest there are currently three tentative critical–ethical positions: (1) a critique of mainstream WOP for its ethical failures, (2) espousal of a radical humanist ethics, and (3) an ethics of ambiguity. The latter is embedded in CWOP literature, but not yet articulated as such. Our second aim is therefore to make an ethics of ambiguity a recognized and explicitly embraced form of ethics that is rooted in a sustained engagement with the conceptualization of subjectivity as such. To clarify the risks inherent to theorizing ethics without a sufficiently robust understanding of subjectivity, we juxtapose ‘blank subjectivity’ with ‘troubled subjectivity,’ two notions informed by psychoanalysis and psychosocial studies. We argue that a theory of subjectivity as troubled is at the heart of an ethics of ambiguity. The paper concludes by discussing the contribution of an ethics of ambiguity to CWOP, while also pointing to some convergences between the different critical–ethical positions.</p>","PeriodicalId":15279,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Business Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Toward an Ethics of Ambiguity in Critical Work and Organizational Psychology: From ‘Blank’ to ‘Troubled’ Subjectivity\",\"authors\":\"Parisa Dashtipour, Nathan Gerard, Duarte Rolo\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10551-024-05760-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In recent years, a scholarly movement has taken hold that is critical of work and organizational psychology (WOP). Referred to as critical work and organizational psychology (CWOP), this movement problematizes some of the foundational premises of WOP, including its lack of reflexivity on its own values and ethics. While bringing increased attention to reflexivity and ethics as vital to critical theorizing and praxis, CWOP has yet to concertedly engage with ethics. This conceptual paper has two aims. The first is to outline existing ethical approaches in CWOP. Reviewing the literature, we suggest there are currently three tentative critical–ethical positions: (1) a critique of mainstream WOP for its ethical failures, (2) espousal of a radical humanist ethics, and (3) an ethics of ambiguity. The latter is embedded in CWOP literature, but not yet articulated as such. Our second aim is therefore to make an ethics of ambiguity a recognized and explicitly embraced form of ethics that is rooted in a sustained engagement with the conceptualization of subjectivity as such. To clarify the risks inherent to theorizing ethics without a sufficiently robust understanding of subjectivity, we juxtapose ‘blank subjectivity’ with ‘troubled subjectivity,’ two notions informed by psychoanalysis and psychosocial studies. We argue that a theory of subjectivity as troubled is at the heart of an ethics of ambiguity. The paper concludes by discussing the contribution of an ethics of ambiguity to CWOP, while also pointing to some convergences between the different critical–ethical positions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15279,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Business Ethics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Business Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05760-6\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Business Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05760-6","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

近年来,一场批判工作与组织心理学(WOP)的学术运动风起云涌。这场运动被称为批判性工作与组织心理学(CWOP),它对工作与组织心理学的一些基本前提提出了质疑,其中包括工作与组织心理学对自身价值和伦理缺乏反思性。批判性工作与组织心理学(CWOP)将反思性和伦理作为批判性理论和实践的关键,引起了越来越多的关注,但CWOP还没有协调一致地参与到伦理中来。本概念性论文有两个目的。首先是概述 CWOP 现有的伦理方法。通过回顾文献,我们认为目前有三种初步的批判性伦理立场:(1) 批判主流 WOP 的伦理失败,(2) 支持激进的人文主义伦理,以及 (3) 模糊性伦理。后者已被纳入 CWOP 文献,但尚未得到明确表述。因此,我们的第二个目标是使模糊性伦理学成为一种得到认可和明确接受的伦理学形式,它植根于对主体性概念化的持续参与。为了澄清在没有充分理解主体性的情况下将伦理学理论化所固有的风险,我们将 "空白主体性 "与 "问题主体性 "并列起来,这两个概念来自精神分析和社会心理学研究。我们认为,作为困扰的主体性理论是模糊伦理学的核心。本文最后讨论了模糊伦理学对 CWOP 的贡献,同时也指出了不同批判性伦理学立场之间的一些共通之处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Toward an Ethics of Ambiguity in Critical Work and Organizational Psychology: From ‘Blank’ to ‘Troubled’ Subjectivity

In recent years, a scholarly movement has taken hold that is critical of work and organizational psychology (WOP). Referred to as critical work and organizational psychology (CWOP), this movement problematizes some of the foundational premises of WOP, including its lack of reflexivity on its own values and ethics. While bringing increased attention to reflexivity and ethics as vital to critical theorizing and praxis, CWOP has yet to concertedly engage with ethics. This conceptual paper has two aims. The first is to outline existing ethical approaches in CWOP. Reviewing the literature, we suggest there are currently three tentative critical–ethical positions: (1) a critique of mainstream WOP for its ethical failures, (2) espousal of a radical humanist ethics, and (3) an ethics of ambiguity. The latter is embedded in CWOP literature, but not yet articulated as such. Our second aim is therefore to make an ethics of ambiguity a recognized and explicitly embraced form of ethics that is rooted in a sustained engagement with the conceptualization of subjectivity as such. To clarify the risks inherent to theorizing ethics without a sufficiently robust understanding of subjectivity, we juxtapose ‘blank subjectivity’ with ‘troubled subjectivity,’ two notions informed by psychoanalysis and psychosocial studies. We argue that a theory of subjectivity as troubled is at the heart of an ethics of ambiguity. The paper concludes by discussing the contribution of an ethics of ambiguity to CWOP, while also pointing to some convergences between the different critical–ethical positions.

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
CiteScore
12.80
自引率
9.80%
发文量
265
期刊介绍: The Journal of Business Ethics publishes only original articles from a wide variety of methodological and disciplinary perspectives concerning ethical issues related to business that bring something new or unique to the discourse in their field. Since its initiation in 1980, the editors have encouraged the broadest possible scope. The term `business'' is understood in a wide sense to include all systems involved in the exchange of goods and services, while `ethics'' is circumscribed as all human action aimed at securing a good life. Systems of production, consumption, marketing, advertising, social and economic accounting, labour relations, public relations and organisational behaviour are analysed from a moral viewpoint. The style and level of dialogue involve all who are interested in business ethics - the business community, universities, government agencies and consumer groups. Speculative philosophy as well as reports of empirical research are welcomed. In order to promote a dialogue between the various interested groups as much as possible, papers are presented in a style relatively free of specialist jargon.
×
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