An Antenarrative Analysis of Donald Trump’s Dialectical Leadership in Society

An Antenarrative Analysis of Donald Trump’s Dialectical Leadership in Society

David M. Boje, Ph.D.

December 11, 2016; Revised December 21 2016, New Mexico State University

Presented at the 6th annual Quantum Storytelling Conference, December 15 and 16, 2016, Las Cruces, New Mexico http://davidboje.com/quantum

ABSTRACT

What kind of leader is President-elect Donald Trump? My purpose is to argue that ‘antenarrative generative mechanisms’ (AGMs) are in the ontological domain of the ‘real’, which is antecedent to the domains of actual and empirical. My contribution is to leadership science. I work out AGMs as processes which in the open systems of leadership in society may or may not manifest as cause and consequent relationships in the actual events the emerge, or in the empirical experiences known as sensemaking experiments. I work this out in the recent events and experiences of the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States of America. In this quantum storytelling conference presentation, there are quantum entanglements, as waves of possible AGMs are collapsed into the events and experience narratives and counternarratives, which play out in the media, and in what Heidegger calls idle talk. In its thrownness in open systems, leadership in society is so many possible causal connections that may or may not connect, a leadership science must specify the antecedent ‘transcendental real’ as distinct from the sequences of evens which narratives and counternarratives inscribe with heroic or villain characters, and ‘empirical real’ of the experiment’s closed system controls.

Key words: Antenarrative Generative Mechanism, Quantum Storytelling, Open Systems, Counternarrative

INTRODUCTION

With the election of Donald Trump, what has the history of leadership in society to say? We would first have to agree on what is the history and when it cohered. We could date leadership in society, as science, to the Handbook of Leadership by Stogdill (1974), subsequently appropriated by Bass (1982 & 1990). Our answer would then be forty-two years, through their three editions. We could embellish and say the Handbook of Leadership has been the indispensable ‘bible’ for every serious student and scientist of leadership (Stogdill, 1974; Bass, 1982; Bass, 1990). Or we could be bolder still, and say, what is often said, that each edition reflects the growth and changes in the study of leadership science. However, you would immediately challenge, is there not an earlier history? After all, Ralph Melvin Stogdill (1904-1978) published his 1948 own first study of leadership (Stogdill, 1948) long before the 1974 handbook first edition. This way of dating would make leadership science a mere 68 years old. A moment’s reflection reveals the inadequacy of the answer. It would be more accurate to say leadership in society is at least 500 years old if we go further back and date leadership to Machiavelli’ The Prince (1513/2010). Or, we could go back two thousand years to Genesis, for great men, storytelling accounts of leadership in society. But are these part of leadership science, or merely stories of events?

Leadership science reminds me of what my leadership Professor Greg Oldham told us forty years ago: “leadership is dead, and has been dead for 50 years!” That would make it dead a total of 90 years, and dead before Stogdill, and then Bass, wrote handbooks of leadership. It is only recently that I understand, while countless theories of leadership abound, and hang on past their shelf life, it is leadership science that is long dead. The criterion of the falsification of these leadership theories must be based on scientific empirical testing of a law against rival auxiliary laws, rather than the transfactuality of active events and experience-narratives (or counternarratives), even of a Trump presidency. The transcendental realism is in opposition to the empirical realism comment to the leadership academy. From a storytelling perspective, it is AGMs that produce the leadership phenomena in question. The AGMs are not imaginary, but rather known as ‘real’ and what Bhaskar (1975: 16) calls a dialectical “process-in-motion”. I propose to test Trump ‘leadership; at that level.

 

What we need?  —Antenarrative waves freewheeling Carnivalesque Theater for Social Change in spacetimemattering

Is Donald Trump a ‘great man’ leader with seven habits, a ‘strong man’ leader, a ‘billionaire’ leader advancing late-modern capitalism, ‘authoritarian’ leader, a ‘republican’ leader, a ‘theatrical’ leader of spectacle, a ‘transactional’ leader, or a ‘transformational’ leader? I submit that the question cannot be answered because these are not scientific laws of a leadership science and are not worked out in open systems. A leadership science ‘law’ may or may not actualize in the domain of actual events, or in the domain of empirical experiences of retrospective sensemaking. In the press, president-elect Trump is characterized as leader types depicted in Figure 1. They form contradictory Alterities.

I believe leadership in society to be part of such quantum antenarrative processes of fore-caring, in advance. Fore-caring for an ethics of answerability, and an ethics of care for the society is fundamental to societal leadership.

“Beyond a certain median per capita [QUANTA] energy level, the political system and cultural context of any society must decay” – (Ivan Illich, Energy & Equity essay, bracket addition mine). We have to ask what Trump Leadership Alterities mean for the future of U.S. Society and the Planet.

What follows are the leadership notions being associated with president-elect Donald Trump.

alterities-of-trump-leadership-dialectic-boje

Figure 1: President-Elect Trump Alterities of Leadership (Drawing by D. Boje December 13, 2016, used by permission)

See for example:

Trump is strongman leader: Trump, Putin, Xi and the cult of the strongman leader: The rise of such personalized autocracy will lead to international instability by Gideon Rachman Oct 31 2016

Trump is authoritrian leader: Donald Trump Is Already Acting Like an Authoritarian Just days since the election, the worst fears about him are coming true. BY BRIAN BEUTLER  November 14, 2016

Trump is autocratic leader: Autocratic for the people: As Donald Trump’s populist wave recedes, an authoritarian regime in the making is revealed You can say this for Trump: He’s been unapologetically clear about his anti-democratic aims from the get-go by Bob Cesca

Trump is a billionaire leader: See his facebook page audience comments.

Trump is a Bully Boss: Trump is famous for his “You’re fired” Washington Post 2005; In a Land of Bullies, Trump Looks Familiar Hillary’s portraying Trump as a fictional Hollywood bully. But he’s more like the real ones we’ve been living with in the former Soviet Union for the last 20 years. By ANNA NEMTSOVA October 18, 2016

 Trump is a Twitter Tweeter:  Donald Trump, the Tweeter in Chief From the December 5, 2016, issue of THE WEEKLY STANDARD. 10:00 AM, NOV 25, 2016 | By FRED BARNES

Trump is a populist leader: How can a plutocrat like Trump be a populist leader? He’s a product of the right’s reaction to neoliberalism Donald Trump is the last person who should be expected to lead a working class movement by 
 Trump is a Fascist leader: Donald Trump’s political persona aligns with that of a fascist leader, according to 14 key signs One historian lamented that Trump’s win would “hearten fascists all over the world.” by

Art credit: Thomas Fluharty source

10 Ways to Tell if your Leader is a Fascist?

Summary of this source: Donald Trump’s political persona aligns with that of a fascist leader, according to 14 key signs

1. The cult of tradition. “Make America Great Again”

2. Rejection of modernism. Trump denies scientific truth of climate change

3. The cult of action for action’s sake. Trump waives daily intelligence briefings

4. Opposition to analytical criticism; disagreement is treason. Trump sadi he would pay legal fees for those who knock the crap out of protesters.

5. Exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. “… more than 900 hate crimes documented since the election suggest some correlation. So does the frequency with which Trump’s name appears in racist graffiti and is shouted by perpetrators of hate crimes.”

6. Appeal to a frustrated middle class. “Trump made overt appeals to whites who believe the American Dream is not so much slipping from their grasp as being snatched away by undeserving immigrants and other perceived outsiders”

7. Obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. “Trump obviously appealed to racial and religious nationalist sentiments among a majority of white Americans by scapegoating Mexican and Muslim immigrants on issues of crime, job losses and terrorism.”… Trump also propagated conspiracies by right-wing figures such as Alex Jones and Michael Savage which hold that globalism, aka the New World Order, threatens American interests.

8. Followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies. “Trump conjured up a vision of America in a downward spiral, a nation fallen from its lofty position in the world to one deserving of shame and ridicule. He spent much of the campaign telling Americans they weren’t just losing, but had become the butt of an embarrassing worldwide joke.”

9. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is permanent warfare.

“Trump has made expansion of the U.S military a primary aim, putting the country in a perpetually defensive stance. In the past, he has reportedly demanded to know why the U.S. shouldn’t use its nuclear weapons. In the weeks since the election, he has filled his cabinet with war hawks.”

10. Popular elitism.“Trump biographer Michael D’Antonio has written that Trump’s father instilled in his son that “most people are weaklings,” and thus don’t deserve respect. Trump, who has earned a reputation as a lifelong bully in both his public and private lives, has consistently bemoaned America’s weakness, resulting from the reign of weak cultural elites.”

 

What is alterity? Alterity is part of the human condition of leadership in capitalist society. Alterity (or 1M in Bhaskar’s (1993/2008: 42) dialectics is non-identity. Trump leadership 1M Alterities are in contradiction to one another, in dialectical opposition, where no synthesis is possible. How can Trump be populace-leader draining the swamp and autocratic-leader not listening to wants and needs of working class? In a December 8, 2016 study by the PEW Research Center, “About half (52%) call Trump a strong leader, but the public is less likely to assign other positive characteristics to him. Fewer than half describe Trump as honest (41%), inspiring (41%) or well-qualified (37%). Only about three-in-ten call him moral (31%) and just 26% say that he is a good role model.”[1] ABC asks “Is he the gracious winner of election night who called on the country to unite? Or is he the spiteful, often unhinged bully who wants to jail his opponent, apply a religion test to immigrants and build physical and tariff walls?”[2]

Quantum Storytelling is a fore-caring, preparing in advance to collapse waves of potential good into good events

Some Definitions

1.Quantum – (noun) Smallest quantity of radiant energy that any system possesses to exist

2.Quanta – Plural of quantum; quanta are waves & particles; matter & non-matter; mass & non-mass; here & there at same time; measurable & non-measurable

3.Quantus – Latin for ‘how much?’

4.Quantum Storytelling – Things tell stories because Every Thing is QUANTA & alive, entangled energy waves

There are four levels in Bhaskar’s dialectical critical realism (DCR), which we can apply to Trump leadership in society:

1M = Alterity non-identity generates destratification as the diversity of leader identities mix of dialectically-opposed leader-identities Trump has at least 10 identities and non-identities.

2E = Absence absenting leadership repairs by transformative negation against wants, needs, and well-being of society contrary to expectations of dialectics of freedom in theory/practice contradiction. Trump leaders by negation after negation.

3L = Alienation detotalization and retotalization dialectic, fragmented split-off impotent selves of Trump

4D = Agency of Trump to bring about future state of affairs and deagentification dialectic of decay, demise, and destruction that pose a performative contradiction

Bhaskar (1993/2008” 44) asserts that “change, is transformative negation or absenting” and change “causes are in space-time and effects are negations.” Trump in the material world, in spacetimemattering (as Bard 2007 terms it), is dealing with open-systemic society with its changes that is absolutely not a monovalent ontology, and not the canonical atomistic form of Cartesian-Newtonian billiard ball materialisms of action by contact. Rather, in our quantum storytelling sense, action-at-a-distance of a Tweeting Leader, Authoritarian Leader, Bully Boss, and so on (Figure 1) makes for a “radical autogenesis” in a complex society, Trump’s development of organic living-system out of non-living matter can spell the collapse and demise of democratic society (p. 46).

President-elect Trump has declared the (2E) absence of living wage in selecting Andrew Puzder for Labor Secretary, the end of Scott Pruitt as Attorney General bodes the end alternative energy development, Trump’s picks for Secretary of State is ExxonMobil CEO Tillerson, and the selection of Myron Ebell, a global warming skeptic and director of a Washington think tank funded by coal and oil interests to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is very telling about the future of climate action being drowned in climate denial. We will get to the other picks in the body of the paper. Democracy is caught in the grip of a strongman leader, truncated dialectic, where absenting the U.S. from Paris accord, NAFTA, minimum wage is spreading outwards spatially and stretching forward and backward temporally. The tangled loops of Trump leadership dialectics are virtual and hyperreality spectacle of making holes and voices in U.S. society.

The purpose of this article is the development of a dialectical realist ‘storytelling’ account of leadership science, to apply to leadership in society. Only then can we answer the question: what kind of leader in society, is Trump? The aim of this ‘storytelling account’ of Trump leadership must provided a comprehensive alternative to the leadership positivism which since the time of Stogdill and then Bass has fashioned the organizational behaviorist image of leadership science. The theory of societal (& organizational) leadership, the causal leadership-laws, is the main concern of this study. I will pose new arguments critical of the familiar leadership science theories (transactional, transformational, trait, power, substitutes) as well as against the popular and widely accepted theories (great man, X, Y, task, or relationship, and 7 habits).

I will argue that the constant conjunction of ‘leadership’ events, such as a presidential election of a billionaire business tycoon, is not a sufficient and necessary condition for a scientific law of leadership. Further following Roy Bhaskar (1975; 1993/2008; 2010), I will assert that it is only if leadership science can establish its scientific law that there is an adequate rationale for leadership theory of events. Further, the narrative or counternarrative sensemaking of events is not an adequate rationale for leadership theory of events, and much less for scientific law of leadership. There must be something antecedent to both narrative and counternarrative of a Trump leadership, else we just argue one extreme political view against another, the right versus the left, conservative versus progressive, and so on, in an endless regress.

The contribution to leadership science is to specify the ‘real’ ontological independence, a quantum entanglement of AGMs apart from the actual events (or sequences of events) they may or may not generate in open systems, or the closed systems of leadership experimentally designed control conditions. In this way, leadership science can aspire to some idea of universality of a known law that may be sustain in experimental activity and can be intelligible in some political or socioeconomic societal event called leadership in society. In leadership in society there are such open systems, in a constant entanglement and conjunction of events we cannot assume the efficacy of a leadership law.

I will make a ‘transcendental real’ contribution to leadership science, to make leadership experimenter’s positivist empirical activity more intelligible, as they study the causal agent of a societal sequence of events, by here identifying the antecedent causal law which enables the experimenter to identify the generative mechanism itself and the popular author to do sensemaking of actual experiences of Trump leadership. Specifically, my contribution is to posit that there is an ontological distinction between transcendental ‘real’ leadership science laws and those ‘patterns of events’ the experiment as cause agent does manipulate, then measure, and populace sensemaking of domain of empirical ‘experiences.’ Ontologically, the transcendental real is distinct from what happens in an open system of an organization, and both are ontologically distinct from the empirical real of an experimental manipulation and control in a closed system.

There is finally a contribution to quantum storytelling. The words ‘quantum storytelling’ produce an image of antenarrative waves freewheeling in spacetimemattering, before they collapse into some particle of living story or a dominant narrative or counternarrative.  This image is very congruent with my sense of the existence of AGMs as being antecedent, in advance of spacetimemattering of leadership events and experiences.  Whole societies, with many cultures can be carried during AGM processes. I believe leadership in society to be part of such processes.[3]

The structure of the presentation is as follows. In part one, I will review the efficacy of laws of leadership science in a ‘dialectical critical realist’ account as distinct from patterns of actual events, and form positivistic narratives or counternarratives of experience. Then, in part two, I analyze the Trump ‘leadership’ from a proposed critical leadership science. In part three, I assess the possible AGMs in Trump ‘leadership. This is followed by discussion of implications for a leadership science. We begin with critical realist theory of leadership science.

DIALECTICAL CRITICAL REALIST THEORY OF LEADERSHIP SCIENCE

PART ONE: What is Leadership Science, Ontologically? Dialectical critical realism (DCR) argues that it would be an anthropomorphic mistake for science to neglect the antecedent generative mechanisms or structures. The implication for leadership science is that antecedent processes are generative, rather than humans (hero or villain) being solo causal agents. Therefore an adequate account of leadership science must study the means of leaderly production, and the capacity to sustain independent or distinct existence of generative processes of ongoing leadership in society, which is under continuing process of transformation and flux of phenomena, as an open system. What Bhaskar terms ‘laws’ are not narratives or statements about ‘actual’ past events or ‘experiences’ (retrospective sensemaking narratives or counternarratives, backward looking at selective events), rather ‘laws’ are about ways of activity, thing Being-in-the-world (Bhaskar, 1975; Heidegger, 1962).

DCR is a non-Humean ontology that allows for generative mechanisms and structures that Humean atomistic event cause and effect assumptions ignore. Hume’s causation ontology occurs in the context of thinking about what and how we can know about ‘matters of fact’. Humean ontology rests on the ideas of a relation between two events (or object) in direct contact. As such, Humean cause and effect commits what Bhaskar (1975, 1991, 2010) calls the epistemic fallacy, reducing ontological processes to epistemic (ways of knowing), and to reductionistic empirical linear regularities that cannot account for action-at-a-distance or nonlinear patterns outside closed [system] conditions.

Antenarrative Generative Mechanisms (AGMs) In storytelling, the ‘real’ basis of causal laws is constituted by AGM’s distinct from events of actual, and empirical sensemaking experiences (see Figure 1). AGMs exist in the real processes-in-action, and can, but may not manifest in events and experiences. The empirical domain of actual and experience cannot attain to the real where AGMs exist antecedent and in advance of narrative and counternarrative.[4] Attempts limiting leadership science to sensemaking experience as the natural ground results in reducing ontology to epistemology (aka epistemic fallacy). AGMs are concerned with tendencies, how causal laws may manifest some pattern of events in open systems.

To describe a science law, one needs a theory (Bhaskar, 1975: 12), but not a reductionistic theory that collapses different ontologies into a monist account. For example, every classic leadership theory makes the author’s reductionist ascription of leaderly agency belonging to some character-hero or -villain, is an integral part of every narrative of leadership. I dispute this reductionist narrative, not with a counternarrative, but with antenarrative generative processes (or mechanisms) that are antecedent. At the core of my leadership theory is an antenarrative picture of a natural process, the ‘antenarrative generative mechanism’ (hereafter, AGM) at work in the leadership in society. Leadership in society is not a closed system, but rather is indeed an open system of a multiplicity of interdependent ‘storytelling’ organizations (government, business, school, university, non-profit, voluntary, and so on). And it is the working of AGMs that the ‘transcendental real’ antecedent bases of attribution of something to effect cause, in the ‘empirical real’ of closed system experiment that must be the focus of leadership science. Rather than the human hero or villain, I proposed it is process not person that constitutes leadership in society. The basic model is presented in Table one.

Table 1: Domains of Real, Actual, and Empirical are distinct – Adapted version of Roy Bhaskar (1975: 13) by Boje

Domain of Real Domain of Actual Domain of Empirical
Antenarrative Generative Mechanisms (AGMs)
Events in Living Story Webs of relation
Experiences of Retrospective Sensemaking Narrative or Counternarrative

 

AGMs are antecedent to patterns of living story events (without beginning or ending) that are rendered into retrospective sensemaking experiences with a beginning, middle, and end (or BME narrative linearity) (Weick, 1995). AGMs are necessary but do not always result in a consequent story event-ness or narrative sensemaking experience. The ‘real’, the ‘actual’, and positivistic empirical overlap, and are distinct from one another.

The weakness of leadership science is that it tries to found its laws on closed systems of leadership, viz. systems where a constant conjunction of events, or classical empiricism occurs in conformity to ideal models or theories imagined. Bhaskar’s dialectical critical realism has a higher standard, where laws that are generative of leadership phenomena are universal of the ‘real’ antecedent to their practical application in open systems or regularity in closed system experimental conditions. The dialectic of a leadership science goes beyond the step of classical empiricism model-building tradition, or the idealist tradition of leadership theorizing.

Bhaskar (2010) proposes two analytic tools to use. The tools are not independent. Rather, the second tool is a deeper elaboration of the first. I will apply the tool s to the problematic of Antarctic research teams attempting to achieve transdisciplinary outcomes.

DREIC Analytic Tool DREIC is a set of analytic method steps:

D – Description: Description of some pattern of events occurring between leaders and identifiable complex open systemic phenomena of a society.

R – Retroduction: Retroduction means tracing the possible antecedent AGMs that may or may not be manifesting by the leaders in society practices (communications or behaviors).

E – Elimination: Elimination of auxiliary hypotheses, competing alternative AGMs.

I – Identification: Identification of AGM that is most likely the deep structural antecedent, constituted in quantum field in space, in time, in mattering (or what Barad, 2007, calls the inseparability of spacetimemattering).

C – Correction: Correction by iteration of earlier closed systemic research findings that were not attentive to AGMs.

 

The second analytic tool is RRREIC.

RRREIC Analytic Tool RRREIC is used to analyze open systemic phenomena of extreme geographic conditions in its quantum field context.

R1 – Resolution: Resolution of example event into particular components

R2 – Redescription: Redescription of each component in contrast to its ideal way of acting

R3 – Retroduction: Tracing possible component antecedent in AGMs manifesting events

E – Examination: Examination and elimination of competing AGMs that could bring event about

I – Identification: Identification any transdisciplinary outcomes of AGM (efficacy & creative deviance)

C – Correcting: Correction earlier findings of closed systemic research paradigms

The next section develops the RRREIC analytic tool in more detail, and develops additional implications for leadership science.

R1 – Resolution Analysis

Given the complexity of open systemic societal contexts, there are multiple systems of interacting organizations that produce socioeconomic, sociomaterial, sociocultural, and sociopolitical outcomes. However ‘dead’ leadership theory can be faulted for not hypothesizing effects at the interorganizational and inter-nation levels of analysis that are operative in U.S. society and a multi-nation network of government agencies, transnational corporations, mass media, and so on.

R2 – Redescription Analysis

To establish the explanation in terms of Bhaskar’s ‘laminated systems’ means seeking resolution between psychological systems and Natural systems, between socioeconomic and human agency, between cosmological meaning and universal law, between reason and cause, between fact and value, and between theory and practice.

R3 – Retroduction Analysis

  1. S. Peirce used retroduction and abduction interchangeably. Retroductive logic (as opposed to indicative or deductive logic) postulates and explains generative mechanisms producing events and experiences. The question becomes what AGMs could explain this situation? Adductive analysis, by contrast is more of an intuitive guess, a surprising insight, that can become something retroductive (Boje, 2014, see story of Peirce abduction story of identifying the watch theif). What is the law-like operation of AGMs in the open-systemic of society? Retroduction unpacks the array of AGMs at work in a complex open system of hundreds of institutions. It deconstructs their component AGMS, operative potentially in the component parts of complex societal systems replete with multiplicities bound together. These AGM’s must also be analyzed holistically, in co-constituting events as nexus of AGMs in laminated open-systems. Bhaskar (2010: 7) stresses the important concept of intra-action, that like Barad (2007), he differentiates from “normal external-relational connotations of ‘interaction’.”[5] Each AGM can contain complexes of component parts that may in term in holistic intra-action involve a coalescing of forces of many AGM determinations.

Next we apply these analysis tools to the Trump leadership actions.

 

PART TWO: Critical Realism Account of Trump Leadership in Society

 

The efficacy of a law of leadership science must exist independent of the actual patterns of events of Trump election. Trump’s election could be the result of an accidental sequence Ea à Eb, is necessary if an only if there is an AGM process which stimulated the event described by a narrative or counternarrative of ‘Ea’ producing ‘Eb’ (Bhaskar, 1975” 19). Indeed it is because of Trump’s election we need to performer additional analysis, and only with laws of science that go beyond the sensemaking of the domain of the positivist empirical experiences.

R1 – Resolution Analysis of Trump Leaderhship We can begin with a resolution analysis of the intelligibility of sensemaking narratives of recent events, such as Trumps tweets about Boeing, must rely on leadership science so as not to misidentify as Tweet as leadership: “Boeing is building a brad new 747 Air Force One for future presidents, but cost are out of control, more than $4 billion. Cancel order!” (8:52 AM Dec 6 2016, Twitter.com). [6]

boeing-reaction-to-trump-tweet

Figure 2: MarketWatch Analysis of effects of Trump’s Tweet about Boeing

The Tweet affected stock prices, in a conflict of theory and practice. “Trump’s tweet cost Boeing shareholders more than $550 million” (Market Watch, Dec. 6, Twitter.com). Or, “Boeing Gives Trump Phone Call Within Hours of Trump’s Tweet Vowing To Work With Him To Reduce Costs on Air Force One” (Dec. 7, IBID.). We need leadership science to make sense of the domain of actual Trump events and experiences. “An experiences are often (epistemically speaking) ‘out of phase’ with events — e.g. when they are misidentified” (Bhaskar, 1975: 13). Leadership science needs some ontological training or education because the domains of the real, actual, and empirical are distinct.

R2 – Redescription Analysis of Trump Leadership

The antinomy of Trump leaderly socioeconomic changes to society and his own human agency is one of dialectical ongoing development of evermore contradictions. For example, the U.S. government is spending millions of dollars leasing two floors of Trump Towers to accommodate the Secret Service security of a president elect.[7] Trump says he cannot have a conflict of interest as President, with his billionaire global business interest.[8]

R3 – Retroduction Analysis of Trump Leadership

What Trumpian leadership has to reconcile is most telling in climate change. Climate change denial, by most every Trump appointee, has to negotiate its situatedness in four planes, across seven scales, and interactions of ten system entities (Bhaskar, 2010: 9-10).

Climate science studies of trends and facts are not convincing to science denier political and corporate Trump leadership. We must therefore call into question the way in which climate denial leader’s rhetoric is substituted for coherent integration of scientific findings.

The counternarrative impulse of climate science denial by political leadership has stalled the development of interdisciplinary climate science. Interdisciplinary science tools are required to meet complex challenges of climate science denial of the Trump leadership picks for cabinet posts and heads of government institutions.

We must begin to integrate across relatively adjacent climate science disciplines, such as between sciences of soil, water, air, and climate. The more difficult challenge is to integrate across more diverse disciplines such as economics, population, energy technology, biology, physics and chemistry of pollution, environmental literacy, linguistics, rhetoric, history, philosophy, ethics, and politics.

Here I am proposing that dialectical critical realism philosophy has contributions to make to interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, and cross-disciplinarity that goes beyond the monoist singular focus of climate denial.

We can effect change in interdisciplinary climate science by engaging in in critical thinking about the real empiric outcomes, the real risks of continued climate denial. We can form ‘climate council’s that are interdisciplinary, hold conferences, teach-ins, symposia, and field courses in interdisciplinary science. Critical thinking about the junk science the gas, oil, and coal funding of climate denial is necessary not just as counternarrative to climate denial, but to develop antenarratives (new bets on possible futures) alternative futures that can by fore-caring in advance of both narrative and counternarratives about climate, be brought into being. Its not about polemic discourse, developing more counternarratives to counternarratives. Rather, the antenarrative standpoint nurtures fore-having, fore-structuring, fore-conceptions, fore-telling that is all part of fore-caring for sustainable relationships between the Natural world and human societies. Doing the opposite of Trump leadership appointees is not enough. Rather antenarrative standpoint is about creating alternative future possibilities, and collapsing those waves into this spacetime.

Trump leadership of climate denial is an irrealism, a politics of greed, in the light of contemporary global ecological conditions of global warming and climate change.

Hoyes (2010) has seven theses to get away from the mono-single-cause narrative of CO2.

  1. Reuniting CO2 with greenhouse gases: CO2 is one of many greenhouse gases
  2. Reuniting CO2 with fossil energy
  3. Reuniting CO2 with energy
  4. Reuniting CO2 with consumption
  5. Reuniting CO2 with economic growth
  6. Reuniting CO2 with sustainable development
  7. Reuniting CO2 withpost-carbon society

Four Planes of Leadership:

  1. Material transactions of humans and their capitalism with Nature.
  2. Socioeconomic interactions between humans
  3. Social structures and social class
  4. Stratification and de-stratification of the embodied personalities of Trums

Seven Scales of Leadership

  1. Psychology sub-individual scale of leadership
  2. Biology scale of embodied leadership
  3. Micro level scale (as studied by Ethnomethodology )of leadership
  4. Meso scale contrast of factual role and prescribed functional roles of leadership
  5. Macro scale formation of regional economies and functioning of whole societies in global context of leadership
  6. Mega scale of whole (democratic) traditions and (commodity) civilization
  7. Planetary scale of cosmological whole and leadership

Ten System Entities of Leadership:

  1. Normative systems
  2. Psychological systems
  3. Social systems
  4. Living Organism in their environmental systems
  5. Ecological systems
  6. Biological systems
  7. Geological systems
  8. Chemical systems
  9. Physical systems
  10. Cosmological systems

This is the context of co-complexity, the fortiori reason why Trump leadership practices are meeting opposition.

 

PART THREE: Researching AGMs in Trump’s ‘Leadership’

 

One AGM to explore in Trump’s leadership is theatrical. As Michael Brenner (in press, p. 4), puts it:

“What is theater in all its various manifestation but an inverted mirror of its society, and what does it reflect? What does it mean to experience a distance between one’s role in daily life and “who one really is” in private? In what ways is a union or a corporation an artificial person, and what are the unconscious dimensions of that? And what, if anything, is a political state if not an artificial person, as Thomas Hobbes claimed 1651, or an ever-changing constellation of structurally situated individuals in positions to make decisions about economic policy, public morality and the use of force?”

 

“All organizations are perfectly designed to get the results they get.” à from Arthur Wayne Jones, as cited in David P. Hanna (1988: 38; 2001: 19)

In Trump-Land Theater, are we as audience witness to the staging of an inverted mirror of U.S. society? If so, what it reflects a mask of democracy morality in reverse, its unconscious Social Darwinism. Trump the artificial person-become-president, sees no conflict of interest in being CEO of the artificial individual called ‘Trump Corporation,” just part of Hobbesian ever-changing schizophrenia, a constellation of artificial persons. Who is in Trump’s cast of characters?

trump-leadership-theater

Figure 3 – The Trump Theater Cast of Characters [9]

What are the implications for Climate Action?  These are the facts:

—Average USA person’s carbon footprint

—20 tons carbon dioxide per year compared

—1.1 tons for average person in India

—5% of world’s population in the USA create

—20% of carbon dioxide emissions &

—30% of the world’s resources consumed.

—Carl’s Jr. Andy Puzder, the fast-food CEO chosen for Labor secretary, raised campaign cash for Trump and personally contributed $388,000 to the RNC and $150,000 to Trump’s joint fundraiser. He also gave $10,000 to Rebuilding America Now.

—ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson chosen for Secretary of State.

—Myron Ebell picked to lead his EPA transition team. Ebell is Director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the industry-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).

—Scott Pruitt to head up EPA, Oklahoma attorney general, who is a close ally of the fossil fuel industry.

Several billionaires who gave money to his campaign, others are generals supporting Trump:[10]

“Former Goldman Sachs partner Steven Mnuchin, the president-elect’s choice for Treasury secretary, served as Trump’s top fundraiser and personally contributed $430,000 to Trump and to the Republican National Committee’s joint fundraising account.

President-elect Donald Trump on Monday said he would appoint Gary Cohn, a longtime Goldman Sachs executive, to lead the powerful National Economic Council, giving the Wall Street insider a key job in developing the new administration’s economic policy. “The 26-year Goldman Sachs veteran brings with him the investment bank’s longstanding acknowledgement of climate change, which Trump has referred to as a Chinese hoax, and support for the international agreement to address it, which Trump has said he’ll abandon.”  Donald Trump’s Adviser From Goldman May Be His Most Environmentally Friendly Pick Yet Dec 21- 2016.

The bank accepts climate science and called for a “strong” climate treaty.

12/21/2016 02:31 pm

Pro wrestling magnate Linda McMahon, Trump’s pick to head the Small Business Administration, gave $6 million to Rebuilding America Now, a super PAC that backed Trump. She also gave $153,000 to Trump’s joint fundraising account and more than $400,000 to the RNC.

Billionaire investor Wilbur Ross, Trump’s choice for Commerce secretary, had a senior role on Trump’s fundraising team. He gave $200,000 to Trump’s joint fundraising account and $117,000 to the RNC.

Andy Puzder, the fast-food CEO chosen for Labor secretary, raised campaign cash for Trump and personally contributed $388,000 to the RNC and $150,000 to Trump’s joint fundraiser. He also gave $10,000 to Rebuilding America Now.

“If you are wondering how Trump will dismantle EPA regulations and staff, meet Myron Ebell, the man Trump has picked to lead his EPA transition team. Ebell is Director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the industry-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). Ebell’s official bio is here. DeSmogBlog, which tracks PR experts who are funded by polluters, has an alternative rundown here.”[11].And Scott Pruitt Mr. Trump has selected the Oklahoma attorney general, who is a close ally of the fossil fuel industry. Then add Trump’s pick for Secretary of State is ExxonMobil CEO Tillerson. The climate deniers are in control of the key cabinet positions, and institutions of government.

Another Trump Cabinet selection, Betsy DeVos, belongs to one of the top Republican donor families in the country. The Education secretary pick, however, was no booster of Trump’s. She gave $50,000 to a super PAC supporting Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Trump’s rival in the GOP primaries. She also wired the maximum amount to another of Trump’s primary rivals, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

And Todd Ricketts, owner of the Chicago Cubs, who has been picked to be deputy commerce secretary.[12]

And John F. Kelly Mr. Trump is expected to name the retired four-star Marine general, whose son was killed in combat in Afghanistan, for Homeland Security Secretary.

And for Defense Secretary, James N. Mattis Mr. Trump announced at a rally that he had selected General Mattis, who led a Marine division to Baghdad during the 2003 invasion of Iraq and led the United States Central Command from 2010-13. General Mattis, now retired, has been a critic of the Obama administration. He would need a waiver from Congress to lead the Pentagon because he has been out of uniform for less than seven years.

And for Transportation Secretary, Elaine L. Chao Mr. Trump has selected Ms. Chao, the labor secretary under President George W. Bush. Ms. Chao, who is married to the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, has been a fixture of the Republican establishment in Washington.

And for Health and Human Services Secretary, Tom Price Mr. Trump has selected Mr. Price, a six-term Republican congressman from Georgia and orthopedic surgeon who has led opposition to the Affordable Care Act. Mr. Price has said the law interferes with the ability of patients and doctors to make medical decision.

And for Housing and Urban Development Secretary, Ben Carson Mr. Trump has selected the former neurosurgeon and presidential candidate to be his nominee to lead HUD. Mr. Carson had previously said he did not want to work in government.

Jeff Sessions Mr. Trump has selected Senator Sessions, of Alabama, as his nominee. Mr. Sessions is a strong proponent of strict immigration enforcement, reduced spending and tough-on-crime measures. His nomination for a federal judgeship in 1986 was rejected because of racially charged comments and actions, which are very likely to become an issue as he faces another set of Senate confirmation hearings.

This particular election storytelling is still in a state of antenarrative ‘potentia’ fragments. Putting the wealthy billionaires on the Trump Theater stage is inverse-mirror image to the populist campaign that Mr. Trump ran courting support from working-class voters across the U.S.. “Anthony Scaramucci, a hedge fund executive and member of the Trump transition team, insisted on Wednesday that appointing wealthy investors did not contradict the campaign’s populist message” (WSJ, ). Mnuchin and Ross, are experienced at buying distressed properties, foreclosing on struggling homeowners, then quickly selling for a profit.

This is all good fodder for counternarrative, such as Saturday Night Live: “n a sketch focusing on Trump’s controversial Cabinet picks, Bryan Cranston reprised his “Breaking Bad” character Walter White to play the incoming president’s nominee to lead the Drug Enforcement Administration.”[13]

President-elect Trump’s choice of Andrew Puzder to run the Department of Labor raises questions and concerns about whether he will vigorously defend the interests of American workers,” Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said in a statement.

“The wealthy donors and others he appoints to office should be presumed incompetent and riddled with interest conflicts until proven otherwise. His emphasis on a cult of personal loyalty, insensitivity to conflicts of interest, alliances with bigots, and willingness to appoint people wholly ignorant of, and indeed hostile to, the tasks associated with a particular office, mean that the burden of proof should always be on Trump to demonstrate the competence and honesty of his appointees.” –Nancy Altman Founding Co-Director, Social Security Works and Ira Lupu F. Elwood and Eleanor Davis Professor of Law Emeritus, George Washington University Law School Never Normalize: Why Trump’s Presidency Is Illegitimate And How To Respond 12/20/2016 09:36 am

 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

An antenarrative for a positive future:

  1. 1. Walk and Bike more
  2. Change your Diet a little
  3. Scale down Energy Use
  4. Less Golf, More Water

We are trying to adjust to the prospective sensemaking of Trump leadership. Dialectical contradictions constitute and propel the Trump leadership in society. Could they become any more antagonistic? The many non-identities (Alterities) are so diverse and contrary they become their own self-organizing emergence and rhythmic of spatialized futures in the “context of global capitalist commodity, both figuratively and literally” (Bhaskar, 1993/2008: 53). The potentia of Trumpian leadership dialectic contradictions driving more reactions of societal proportion seem likely.

Is the absenting of climate action, dismantling the EPA, minimum wage, the privatizing of social security, Medicare, school vouchers, and so on, a good thing? It’s definitely the “politics of the new world disorder”, a billionaire politics on steroids (Bhaskar, 1993/2008: 53).

Dialectical critical realism (DCR) situates some interesting possibilities for leadership in society. The entanglement of autocratic, authoritarian, bully boss, strongman, and fascist leader traits with Twitter and populace leader qualities makes a mockery of the typical transactional-transformational approaches to leadership. Trump is both transactional (ask Boeing and Carrier) and transformational (as the Republican Party), and yet neither of these captures his dialectical performative contradictions and inconsistencies so askew from democratic freedom. In a process of absenting of everything from EPA to public education, minimum wage, to immigration, there is negation after negation, as human agent Trump strives to bring about a radically different state of societal affairs. It is a dialectical process.

 

REFERENCES

Bass, B. M. (1982). Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research, Revised and Expanded. 2nd Edition. Macmillan. 800 pages

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications. 3rd Edition. NY/London: Simon and Schuster.

Bhaskar, R. (1975). 1978. A Realist Theory of Science. London/NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. http://uberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Roy_Bhaskar_A_Realist_Theory_of_Science.pdf

Bhaskar, R. (1993/2008). Dialectic: The pulse of freedom. London/NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Bhaskar, R. (2010). Contexts of interdisciplinarity” interdisciplinarity and cliate change. Pp. 1-24 in Bhaskar, R.; Frank, Cheryl; Hoyer, Karl Georg; Naess, Petter’ Parker, Jenneth. (Eds.). (2010). Interdisciplinarity and climate change: Transforming knowledge and practice for our global future. London/NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Bhaskar, R.; Frank, Cheryl; Hoyer, Karl Georg; Naess, Petter’ Parker, Jenneth. (Eds.). (2010). Interdisciplinarity and climate change: Transforming knowledge and practice for our global future. London/NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Boje, D. M. (in review). Action Research Needs a Quantum Storytelling Theory of Action and Research. In review. Pre-press version at https://davidboje.wordpress.com/2016/11/18/action-research-needs-a-quantum-storytelling-theory-of-action-and-research/

Boje, D. M. (1995). “Stories of the Storytelling Organization: A Postmodern Analysis of Disney as ‘Tamara-land.’” Academy of Management Journal. 38(4): 997-1035.*http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/papers/DisneyTamaraland.html or print out the PDF version

Boje, D. M. (2008). Storytelling Organizations. London: Sage.

Boje, D. M. (2011). Storytelling and the Future of Organizations: An Antenarrative Handbook (London: Routledge Studies in Management, Organizations and Society)

Boje, D. M. (2012a). Quantum Storytelling. Free book on line. http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/448/The%20Quantum%20Physics%20of%20Storytelling%20in%20book%20format%20Jan%202011%20Boje.pdf

Boje, D. M. (2012b) Quantum Spirals for Business Consulting. Free book on line. http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/448/QUANTUM%20SPIRALS%20for%20Business%20Consulting%20a%20book%20by%20David%20M%20Boje%20July%209%202012.pdf

Boje, D. M. (2012c). Reflections: What does quantum physics of storytelling mean for change management?. Journal of Change Management, 12(3), 253-271.

 

Boje, D. M. (2014). Storytelling organizational practices: Managing in the quantum age. London/NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

 

Boje, D. M. & Henderson, T. L. (Eds.). (2014). Being Quantum: Ontological Storytelling in the Age of Antenarrative. Cambridge Scholars Publishing

 

Boje, D. M., Svane, M., Henderson, T. L., & Strevel, H. B. (in press). Critical corporate social responsibility in tamara-land: The role of tetranormalizing fractals. In R. Ocler (Ed.), Book chapter for a Springer collection, Rodolphe Ocler (ed.).

 

Boje, M., & Svane, M., Gergerich, E. (in press). Counternarrative and Antenarrative Inquiry in Two Cross-Cultural Contexts. Cross Cultural Management.

 

Machiavelli, N. (1513/2010). The prince. IL: University of Chicago Press.

 

Rosile, Grace Ann; Boje, David M.; Nez, Carma Claw. (2016). “Ensemble Leadership Theory: Collectivist, Relational, and Heterarchical Roots from Indigenous Contexts.” Leadership journal.CLICK HERE for online prepublication draft

 

Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. The Journal of psychology25(1), 35-71.

 

Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and practice. 1st Edition. NY/London The Free Press

 

Stogdill, R. M. (1975). The Evolution of Leadership Theory. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 1975, August, No. 1, pp. 4-6). Academy of Management.

 

Svane, M., & Boje, D. (2014). Merger strategy, cross-cultural involvement and polyphony. Between Cultures and Paradigms, IACCM 2014, University of Warwick, UK. Conference Proceeding. To be published in: European Journal of Cross-Cultural Competence and Management.

 

Svane, M., & Boje, D.; Gergerich, Erika M. (2015). Counternarrative and Antenarrative Inquiry in Two Cross-Cultural Contexts. Accepted for publication in Special Issue on counternarrative, European Journal of Cross-Cultural Competence.

 

Svane, M., & Boje, D. (2015). Tamara land fractal change management – in between managerialist narrative and polyphonic living stories. Sc’Moi, Standing Conference for Management and Organizational Inquiry, Las Vegas.

 

Varra, Eero; Sonenshein, Scott; Boje, David. M. (2015). “Narratives as Sources of Stability and Change in Organizations: Approaches and Directions for Future Research”, Academy of Management Annals. Nov 24 2015 published on Taylor & Francis Online. It is available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19416520.2016.1120963

 

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. CA: Sage.

Žižek, S. (2012). Less than nothing: Hegel and the shadow of dialectical materialism. Verso Books.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1] PEW Research Center, http://www.people-press.org/2016/12/08/1-views-of-president-elect-trump-and-his-administration/

[2] ABC Donald Trump: What kind of leader will the president-elect be?  Chris Uhlmann Updated 9 Nov 2016, 4:22pm

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-10/what-kind-of-leader-will-donald-trump-be/8011638

[3] My thanks to an exchange with Bonnie Oak Boesky in email Dec 11 2016, that prompted this insight.

 

[4] Boje blog posts on AGMs at https://davidboje.wordpress.com/

[5] Note: Barad and Bhaskar develop intra-activity separately and their notions are quite different. For Barad (2007) intra-activity is materiality with discourse, and the basis of this is the double-slit quantum physics experiment. For Bhaskar (2010: 9-10) the intra-activity is a dialectic process in a stratified ontology, of four planes, seven scales, and some ten system entities, which comprise laminated systems of complexity and fractality.

[6] Twittter.com Dec 6 & Dec 7 2016 https://twitter.com/search?q=Trump%20Boeing%20Tweet&src=typd

[7] Trump Tower security may take over 2 floors — and cost millions

By Julia Marsh November 24, 2016 | 7:04pm | Updated http://nypost.com/2016/11/24/trump-tower-security-may-take-over-2-floors-and-cost-millions/

[8] Trump Says ‘Can’t Have a Conflict of Interest’ as President

by John Voskuhl and Caleb Melby November 22, 2016, 12:04 PM MST November 22, 2016, 3:06 PM MST

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-11-22/trump-says-he-can-t-have-a-conflict-of-interest-as-president

[9] NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/politics/donald-trump-administration.html

[10] What Trump’s Cabinet picks reveal

BY JONATHAN SWAN AND ALLIE BICE – 12/09/16 06:00 AM EST http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/309576-what-trumps-cabinet-picks-reveal

 

[11] Huffington Post Meet Trump’s Pick To Dismantle EPA

11/06/2016 04:17 pm ET | Updated Nov 13, 2016

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-symons/meet-trumps-pick-to-disma_b_12832350.html?gclid=Cj0KEQiA1b7CBRDjmIPL4u-Zy6gBEiQAsJhTMBdl8BkGAdEObA6hfJKC1Nz8cCupTWzTtMaqN1CvqZkaAivB8P8HAQ

[12] Trump’s Economic Cabinet Picks Signal Embrace of Wall St. Elite

By LANDON THOMAS Jr. andALEXANDRA STEVENSON NOV. 30, 2016 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/business/dealbook/trumps-economic-cabinet-picks-signal-embrace-of-wall-st-elite.html?_r=0

 

[13] Watch SNL go after Trump’s Cabinet picks — by introducing Walter White as the head of DEA, Elahe Izadi December 11 at 10:24 AM https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/12/11/watch-snl-go-after-trumps-cabinet-picks-by-introducing-walter-white-as-the-head-of-dea/?utm_term=.fba93abf1bf4

 

The Ethics of Fore-Care of Standing with/Our Students (SOS) in Public Research University

sos-heart-of-care

Figure 1 – Heart of Care SOS (Photo and image by D. M. Boje Dec 7 2016, used by permission)

I am a theorist of fore-care. I am a participant in New Mexico State University Standing w/Our Students (SOS). SOS exhibits an ethics of fore-care is caring in advance. SOS is preparing in advance the possible futures of a community of relationality and care. Fore-caring is an antenarrative process that is antecedent to narrative and counternarratives. Fore-caring changes the narratives and counternarratives of the experiences of undocumented students. LGBT students, black, Hispanic, Native American, veteran students, and international students, including Muslim students.

 

Antenarrative Generative Mechanisms (AGMs) SOS in fore-caring prepares for moral agency, the becoming of an ethics of care by antenarrative generative mechanisms (AGMs). The AGMs are what I call the ‘heart of care’ that is all about fore-caring in four ways: fore-having, fore-structuring, fore-concepting, and fore-telling.

 

See Boje (2014) for definitions: Generations of blacksmiths for example, form an historic community grounding in advance the possibilities in “Being of care” the “futural” and in “authentic historicality”; (Heidegger, 1962: #150, p. 191) destining is an “interpretation” “grounded in something we have in advance – in a fore-having … fore-sight … fore-conception”; (#80, p. 110) “A warning signal, what is coming”; (#90, p. 111).

 

We have had our warning signal of what is coming. SOS is a historic community grounded in advance in possibilities, preparing the Becoming of Care, in an ethics of care that is ready-to-hand, not just present-at-hand. An example is our preparing in advance advising and enrollment materials for undocumented students (https://www.iacac.org/undocumented/questions/).

 

AGMs are what constitute the domain of storytelling. AGMs are fore-events that act and endure independent of the retrospective narrative experience.

Generative mechanisms according to Bhaskar (1975: 13) are distinct, in the ‘real’ and different from the actual and empirical. The ‘real’, the ‘actual’, and positivistic empirical overlap, and are distinct from one another. See blog post: Action Research Needs a Quantum Storytelling Theory of Action and Research

 

My purpose here is to propose Antenarrative Generative Mechanisms (AGMs) are ‘real’ and distinct from actual and empirical domains. Quantum storytelling is about the potential of AGMs generating story or narrative, in action-at-a-distance entanglements.

 

Transcendental realism ontology, both closed and open systemicity are subject to AGMs, which may or may not manifest living story webs of event patterns and sensemaking narrative experiences. This is because AGMs are not events, rather they are self-organizing independent generators of events, and experiences.

AGMs exist in the Real, and can manifest in events and experiences. The empirical domain of actual and experience cannot attain to the Real where AGMs exist.” See blog posts: A ‘Realist’ Shamanic Practice of Soul Retrieval for Wounded Warriors and Antenarrative Generative Mechanisms Are Independent of the Structural Equation Modeling Narrative! There is an ontological distinction between event patterns, experiences & their sensemaking), and the antecedent AGMs which have “real independence” in ‘open systems’ (Bhaskar, 1975: 13). “Hence one of the chief objections to positivism is that it cannot show why or the conditions under which experience is significant in science” (IBID., p. 13, boldness mine).

 

A dialectically conceived fore-caring for an ethics of care in an ecological community challenges the power of patriarchal leadership practices of higher education. We challenge them with what we call ensemble leadership practices (Rosile, Boje, & Nez, 2016). Ensemble leadership theory (ELT) is rooted in the indigenous world of prehispanic southwest, where leadership was entirely collective relationality process, enacted in storytelling and antenarrative multi-centered and decentered practices that are heterarchical rather than the hierarchy of patriarchy. From its ancient roots ELT breaks new ground as an alternative to patriarchy found in public research universities (PRU). Patriarchy is mono-disciplines, kept separated by hierarchical structures. ELT is interdisciplinarity by heterarchical (plurality of diverse structures, not a university governance rooted in patriarchal leadership hierarchy of command and control).

 

emergence-and-dependence-systems

Figure 2 – Emergence and Dependence of Systems (from Jenneth Parker 2010: 209)

 

In open systemicity (Boje, 2014) complexity systems, such as a public university are unmerged, unfinalized, and in various states of emergence and dependence (Parker, 2010). A PRU take s “systemic maintenance of care” (Parker, 2010: 206), and what I am calling fore-caring, the preparations in advance to enact an ensemble leadership in a biotic community, an interdependent and emergent community.

 

References

 

Bhaskar, Roy. (1975). A Realist Theory of Science. Leeds, UK: Leeds Books Ltd. http://uberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Roy_Bhaskar_A_Realist_Theory_of_Science.pdf

 

Boje, D. M. (1995). “Stories of the Storytelling Organization: A Postmodern Analysis of Disney as ‘Tamara-land.’” Academy of Management Journal. 38(4): 997-1035.*http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/papers/DisneyTamaraland.html or print out the PDF version

Boje, D. M. (2008). Storytelling Organizations. London: Sage.

Boje, D. M. (2011). Storytelling and the Future of Organizations: An Antenarrative Handbook (London: Routledge Studies in Management, Organizations and Society)

Boje, D. M. (2012a). Quantum Storytelling. Free book on line.

Boje, D. M. (2012b) Quantum Spirals for Business Consulting. Free book on line.

Boje, D. M. (2012c). Reflections: What does quantum physics of storytelling mean for change management?. Journal of Change Management, 12(3), 253-271.

Boje, D. M. & Henderson, T. L. (Eds.). (2014). Being Quantum: Ontological Storytelling in the Age of Antenarrative. Cambridge Scholars Publishing

Boje, D. M., Svane, M., Henderson, T. L., & Strevel, H. B. (in press). Critical corporate social responsibility in tamara-land: The role of tetranormalizing fractals. In R. Ocler (Ed.), Book chapter for a Springer collection, Rodolphe Ocler (ed.).

Boje, M., & Svane, M., Gergerich, E. (in press). Counternarrative and Antenarrative Inquiry in Two Cross-Cultural Contexts. Cross Cultural Management.

Rosile, Grace Ann; Boje, David M.; Nez, Carma Claw. (2016). “Ensemble Leadership Theory: Collectivist, Relational, and Heterarchical Roots from Indigenous Contexts.” Leadership journal.CLICK HERE for online prepublication draft

Svane, M., & Boje, D. (2014). Merger strategy, cross-cultural involvement and polyphony. Between Cultures and Paradigms, IACCM 2014, University of Warwick, UK. Conference Proceeding. To be published in: European Journal of Cross-Cultural Competence and Management.

Svane, M., & Boje, D.; Gergerich, Erika M. (2015). Counternarrative and Antenarrative Inquiry in Two Cross-Cultural Contexts. Accepted for publication in Special Issue on counternarrative, European Journal of Cross-Cultural Competence.

Svane, M., & Boje, D. (2015). Tamara land fractal change management – in between managerialist narrative and polyphonic living stories. Sc’Moi, Standing Conference for Management and Organizational Inquiry, Las Vegas.

Varra, Eero; Sonenshein, Scott; Boje, David. M. (2015). “Narratives as Sources of Stability and Change in Organizations: Approaches and Directions for Future Research”, Academy of Management Annals. Nov 24 2015 published on Taylor & Francis Online. It is available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19416520.2016.1120963

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. CA: Sage.

Žižek, S. (2012). Less than nothing: Hegel and the shadow of dialectical materialism. Verso Books.

 

 

 

 

A ‘Realist’ Shamanic Practice of Soul Retrieval for Wounded Warriors

I am a shamanic practitioner, and facilitate a shamanic drumming circle in Las Cruces, New Mexico based on Michael Harner (1980, 2013) books and over a dozen training seminars. Drumming circle clients oftentimes have ‘soul wounds’ and ‘soul loss’ that occur in trauma events, when a fragment of the soul protects our Self by leaving (Ingerman, 1990; Duran, 2006).  Some our wounded warriors. Others have Soul Wounds from other traumas. The rhythmic drumming we do has the capacity to facilitate altered states of consciousness (Harner, 1980: 66). Every thing, and we are living things, has soul. The soul is spiritual essence that is immortal Being of humans, plants, animals, rocks, mountains, as well as the elements of fire, water, earth, and air. Every thing has a spiritual essence, a soul that is immortal. These soul-things (or entities) are entangled with one another, capable of action-at-a-distance because they are not empirical objects. Rather the soul exists as its own flows of energy, and as waves of vital essence.

My purpose? Here and Now I want to do something with shamanic practitioners of Las Cruces that can help with the soul wounds and soul loss of veterans and homeless of our community. Healing the Soul Wound (Duran, 2006) and Soul Retrieval (1990) are both ways of healing the fragmented Self, to be an authentic whole Self again. Our shamanic practitioner encounters with fragmented soul retrieval can help our veterans and homeless overcome many kinds of trauma.

What causes soul loss? Trauma events cause soul loss, and this includes being in a care-giving profession or role, where you give vital essence and energy to some ‘Other’ person, and forget to retrieve your soul fragments. Trauma event includes trauma of combat, any kind of drug, sex, or work addiction where we inflict trauma on our own body, illness, accidents such as the stress of violence, the traumatic brain injury (TBI) from physical injury, the loss of loved ones, and sexual trauma of rape and incest.

What happens to soul fragments? In an event of soul loss, our soul fragments decide to escape, and flee the pain, in order to let remains of our soul survive the pain. The survival strategy lets us hold the remaining life-energy together for a short while, but soon it drains us, taking more and more life-energy to keep it together. With soul loss, Ingerman (1990: 12) asserts, “The light has gone from our existence.” This loss of soul fragment leaves us with less light, less power, and less memory. It is the feeling “I’m not all here” (IBID. p. 13). We can feel abandoned, less joyful, less energetic, more depressed. A soul less than whole Self, is not able to handle the pain of simple life events, and cannot reclaim memory experiences that have left the Self.

What is the consequent of traumatic soul loss? The consequent of soul loss is a ever-increasing space of emptiness deep inside our spiritual essence that is in need of healing. The consequent of soul loss is an absence of vitality of life because our whole Self is no longer whole and can no longer attain its desired intimacy, joy, and love of life.

Can we retrieve soul fragments in ordinary reality (OR)? No! No amount of retrospective sensemaking narrative of our past experiences will be able to retrieve our lost soul fragments. This is because searching the trauma events, or reliving by way of narrative sensemaking (re) experiencing of trauma is looking in the wrong world. Reliving trauma event, again and again, is done with our military and veterans, in order to desensitize them to the violent event. The results for our veterans returning from combat have been less than spectacular.

What are the shamanic practices of soul retrieval? Shamanic practitioners have trained and are skilled at creating ‘altered states of consciousness’ (ASOC) in order to journey to the REAL of Non-Ordinary-Reality (NOR), to other worlds that are entirely ‘Real’. There are three worlds that co-exist: Lower World, Middle World, and Upper World, each with many levels to explore. The Middle World of ordinary reality (OR) is where events of trauma occur, and it is also our ordinary reality (OR) of experiences of sensemaking that looking backward to relive trauma events but cannot ever find lost soul fragments there because you are looking in the wrong world. Our fragments of lost soul have left for the serenity of Upper World and the compassion and care of Lower World existence in order for the remaining soul fragments to survive in Middle World ordinary reality (OR).

Table 1: Domains of Real, Actual, and Empirical are distinct – Adapted version of Roy Bhaskar (1975: 13) by Boje

  Real Domain Actual Domain Empirical Domain
Antenarrative Generative Mechanisms (AGMs)    
Events of Trauma in Living Story Webs of relation  
Experiences of Retrospective Sensemaking Narrative

AGMs exist in the Real, and can manifest in events and experiences. The empirical domain of actual and experience cannot attain to the Real where AGMs exist. See blog post”

Action Research Needs a Quantum Storytelling Theory of Action and Research

My professional study is storytelling. Storytelling is a combination of retrospective narratives of experience, our living stories in Middle World, and what I call antenarratives (Boje, 2001, 2008 2011, 2014) that reside in the ‘Real’ Worlds, the Lower and Middle Worlds. Antenarrative means generative mechanisms of the real that exist before (antecedent to) narrative experience, and are beyond living story events we are living our in our Middle World existence. Shamanic practitioners can journey by altered states of consciousness (ASOC) to Lower World and to Upper World, and even journey in Middle World, in search of lost soul parts.

Transcendent Realism This is the transcendental ‘Real’ where lost soul fragments exist, can be found by journeying to Non-Ordinary Reality (NOR), and returned to our ordinary Reality (OR) in Middle World. The transcendental ‘Real’ is antecedent, with many Antenarrative Generative Mechanisms (AGMs) in the independent existence of the “Real” Lower World and “Real” Upper World of nonordinary reality (NOR).

The Heart-of-Care The AGMs are what I call the ‘heart of care’ that is all about fore-caring in four ways: fore-having, fore-structuring, fore-concepting, and fore-telling.

heart_of_care_agm

Figure 1: Heart of Care of Antenarrative Generative Mechanisms (AGMs) [drawing by D. M. Boje, November 15, 2016] See more on this at

Antenarrative Generative Mechanisms Are Independent of the Structural Equation Modeling Narrative!

The Authentic Whole Self The whole Self suffers when fragments of the soul leave, are given away in acts of care for ‘Others’, or are abducted by needy and greedy humans. The authentic Self is no longer Being-a-Whole-in-the-World. Rather, energy is spent making up for Soul Loss fragments that have departed. The remaining fore-caring (fore-having, fore structuring, fore-concepting, and fore-telling) is attuned to Soul Loss and hungers to find them, to be Whole again.

fragment_soul_loss

Figure 2: Remains of Heart of the Soul after Fragments Depart (drawing by D. M. Boje November 15, 2016)

An Ontological Interpretation of Soul Fragments This is my own ontological Interpretation of the Situation of Soul Loss and Retrieval. We project the possibility of recovering lost fragments of our Soul Loss. In the Shamanic Journeying there is the potentiality for disclosedness of the location of lost Soul Fragments in a fore-caring that is ahead-of-itself antecedent in the AGMs. The shamanic practitioner journeys along-side the client, in a fore-caring, in the Non-Ordinary Reality (NOR). The shamanic practitioner falls into Lower World or ascends into Upper World to do Soul Retrieval.

An ethic of Caring, a conscience that obliges us to bring into our scope of shamanic practitioner work a fore-having, grounded in the primordial existence of the Soul. We must ‘see’ not in a sensemaking empirical way of the five positivistic senses. By contrast, the ‘Real’ kind of Seeing a shamanic practitioner does grasps the unity of the Self, the possibility of becoming an authentic Whole-Soul-Being-in-the-Middle World since all the fragments of Self already in-advance have antecedent Being-in-the-Real-of-Middle-and-Upper-Worlds. As Heidegger (1962: #237) puts it, “We cannot cross out the ‘ahead-of-itself’ as an essential item in the structure of care.”

The attestation of AGM state of Being ‘Real’ phenomenologically is in its “potentiality-for-Being-one’s-Self” (Heidegger, 1962” #268). But, we can easily get lost in the they-self of the Middle World, having given fragments of our Soul away in caring for Others, or in having them taken away in trauma event after trauma event. It is easy in Middle World to be ensnared into one addition event after another, and the habits of addition events can be hard to break free from.

Ontological Roots We can say that addiction itself has ontological roots in Middle World, and that healing comes from restorying fragments of the Heart-of-Care from Upper and Lower Worlds where AGMs are ‘Real’ in their potentiality-for-Being in anticipatory resoluteness, a “disclosedness of the meaning of the Being of care” (Heidegger, 1962: #321, italics original). The ‘Spirit’ that exists spatially and in the temporalizing of temporality is not a ‘Spirit’ that falls into the spacetime of the Middle World, its Euclidian space, or its clock time: “’Spirit’ does not fall into time; but factical existences falls as falling from primordial authentic temporality” (Heidegger, 1962: # 436). In other words Spirit of Upper and Lower World does not fall into the clock time of Middle World, but our Soul can fall from primordial ‘Real’ of authentic temporality into the addictions of Middle World, or into Soul Loss from trauma. In this way there is a dialectical relation between Spirit and Soul Loss.  See

What is Triadic Dialectic for Management and Organization Inquiry

Preface (continued)

There is also the counterforce of “the authenticity of care itself” in the potentiality for retrieving Soul Fragments, becoming an authentic-whole-Self-Being-in-the-world (# 301). Heidegger (1962: 435) concludes be reminding us that “Hegel shows how it is possible for Spirit to be actualized historically ‘in time’” not in clock time of Middle World nor in the Gospel of Greed of consumption and exploitation, but rather in the ethic of care in the “concretion of the Spirit” that has its potentiality in the ‘Real.’ The ‘Real’ is not events, nor experience, but rather the existence of the potentiality of the ethic of care, our own conscience attunement to caring. AGMs operate in processes of fore-caring for the true, the good, the just, and the beautiful, not for some Gospel of Greed. See:

AUTHENTIC CARING-CAPITALISM’S EMERGING DIALECTIC WITH GLOBAL-BILLIONAIRE-GREED-CAPITALISM

References

Bhaskar, Roy. (1975). A Realist Theory of Science. Leeds, UK: Leeds Books Ltd. http://uberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Roy_Bhaskar_A_Realist_Theory_of_Science.pdf

Boje, D. M. (2008). Storytelling Organizations. London: Sage.

Boje, D. M. (2011). Storytelling and the Future of Organizations: An Antenarrative Handbook (London: Routledge Studies in Management, Organizations and Society)

Boje, D. M. (2012a). Quantum Storytelling. Free book on line.

Boje, D. M. (2012b) Quantum Spirals for Business Consulting. Free book on line.

Boje, D. M. & Henderson, T. L. (Eds.). (2014). Being Quantum: Ontological Storytelling in the Age of Antenarrative. Cambridge Scholars Publishing

Boje, D. M., Svane, M., Henderson, T. L., & Strevel, H. B. (in press). Critical corporate social responsibility in tamara-land: The role of tetranormalizing fractals. In R. Ocler (Ed.), Book chapter for a Springer collection, Rodolphe Ocler (ed.).

Boje, M., & Svane, M., Gergerich, E. (in press). Counternarrative and Antenarrative Inquiry in Two Cross-Cultural Contexts. Cross Cultural Management.

Harner, M. J. (1990). The way of the Shaman. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Harner, M. (2013). Cave and Cosmos: Shamanic Encounters with Another Reality. North Atlantic Books.

Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time, trans. J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson.

Ingerman, S. (1990). Soul retrieval. San Francisco, Calif. HarperSanFrancisco.

#shamanic-practitioner

Action Research Needs a Quantum Storytelling Theory of Action and Research

Antenarrative Generative Mechanisms are Real, Before Narrative and Story Formation! In this blog post, I argue that there are two paradigms of ‘action’, one classical, and the other quantum, which could give new life to Action Research (AR). Currently, AR is dominated and coopted by the classical action paradigm, which does not allow for the sort of action-at-a-distance entanglements of quantum storytelling we discuss and debate at the Annual Quantum Storytelling Conference  (http://davidboje.com/quantum).

Generative mechanisms according to Bhaskar (1975: 13) are distinct, in the ‘real’ and different from the actual and empirical. My purpose here is to propose Antenarrative Generative Mechanisms (AGMs) are ‘real’ and distinct from actual and empirical. Table 1 presents the model.

Table 1: Domains of Real, Actual, and Empirical are distinct – Adapted version of Bhaskar (1975: 13) by Boje

  Real Actual Empirical
AGMs    
Events  
Experiences

AGMs are antecedent to patterns of living story events (without beginning or ending) that are rendered into retrospective sensemaking experiences with a beginning, middle, and end (or BME narrative linearity) (Weick, 1995). AGMs are necessary but do not always result in a consequent story event-ness or narrative sensemaking experience. The ‘real’, the ‘actual’, and positivistic empirical overlap, and are distinct from one another.

agm_model_boje

See previous blog post that develops concepts in Figure 1 above 

For Bhaskar the positivistic empirical realm is entirely anthropocentric (or humanist) in its social activity, and reductionist, as opposed to what Bardians call posthumanist (with more than just the human species doing its exclusive sensemaking experiencing by its five senses). In the epistemic fallacy of positivistic empirical, the ontology of the real, and the actual, are reduced to the epistemology of the empirical (reducio ad absurdum).

Bhaskar distinguished between ‘classical paradigm of action’ and what we will call here, a ‘quantum paradigm of action.’ The Newtonian ‘classical paradigm of action’ is referred to as ‘empirical realism’ where real and actual get reduced to empirical experience sensemaking in relatively closed systems. This is dialectic to transcendental realism (where AGMs and Real ontologically connect).

Towards a Quantum Storytelling Theory of Action at a Distance In the “Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum theory” we get what colleagues and I call ‘quantum storytelling’ beyond Newtonian “action-by-contact” (Bhaskar, 1975: 61). Action-by-contact paradigm is dialectically opposed to the Quantum theory of action-at-a-distance. Action-by-contact is worked out in ‘closed systems’ while action-at-a-distance is an AGM generative of potential antecedents and consequents actualizing a relationship in ‘open systems’ or what I call ‘systemicity’ of unmerged and unfinalized that do not attain closure in any kind of linearity, unidirectionality, and instead are multi-causal, nonlinear, where antecedents and consequents may or may not link up (Boje, 2008, 2014). Nor, does the open systemicity revolve around humancentric, and is rather posthumanist in its quantum storytelling (Boje & Henderson, 2014).

In quantum storytelling, action-at-a-distance is identified, described, and predicted phenomena in open systemicity. This means that Karl Popper’s solutions to problems of induction, only work in empirically regulated and controlled conditions of closed system experimentation to meet conditions of falsification of alternative models, entirely cut off from open system complexity dynamics (Bhaskar, 1975: 66, 69). Bhaskar is willing to risk Popper’s wrath, in positing transcendental realism as a dialectic opposition to empirical realism. Open systemicity, in contrast to closed systems, are a plurality of antecedents in search of a plurality of consequents.

In closed systems the principle of organizations assumes actions-by-contact, in their additivity, and atomicity (p. 76), which works for Newtonian positivistic empirical science, and is much to regressive and reductionistic for systemicity. In closed systems action occurs in a world that consists of “independent and atomistic events” (p. 81). Quantum storytelling assumes action-at-a-distance, events in non-additivity are entangled, and atoms composed of infinitesimally smaller entities.

This has implications for Action Research (AR). The epistemic positivistic empiricism of atomicity in ‘classical action paradigm’ requires additive events in raw sensemaking of experience, in quite linear process, in series of actions-by-contact. A billiard ball sort of model of AR results, where there are wholes greater than sum of atomistic parts, and parts and wholes are in limit conditions of closed systems. Quantum storytelling is about the potential of AGMs generating story or narrative, in action-at-a-distance entanglements.

Transcendental realism ontology, both closed and open systemicity are subject to AGMs, which may or may not manifest living story webs of event patterns and sensemaking narrative experiences. Tendencies of AGM exist in the ‘real’ that are unfulfilled, yet potentialities, in the actual, and empirical. Something is really generated the event pattern, and the experiences of sensemaking. Take as an example the ‘free market’ narrative, where equilibrium is expected as some sort of balance of buying and selling (Bhaskar, 1975: 99-100). Is the so-called ‘free market’ be pulled in two directions at once (buying & selling), or is the multi-directionality of market balancing act a problematic model? From an AGM approach, there is something generating the particular directions, and the concept of balance is a fictive mask concealing the influences. This is because AGMs are not events, rather they are self-organizing independent generators of events, and experiences. “But both antecedents and consequents are events in open systems” (p. 102). An AGM may be set in motion in systemicity, in a condition of undisclosability (opacity, non-transparency) and be undetected by an observer or participant observer. That does not mean that the AGMs are not ‘real’ and are not generating story event aliveness or retrospective narrative sensemaking experiences.

AR, in a transcendental realist analysis of action-at-a-distance, there are AGMs that action researchers (& participants) can become aware of, and others that they may not be attuned to, and remain undisclosed. Quantum thing in the quantum storytelling world situate limits on action because action-at-a-distance does not have atomistic, additivity, and action-in-contact assumptions.

Drawing by Marita Svane in Boje and Svane article

Figure 2: This is a depiction of the 5 B’s of Antenarrative assignment process, with Heidegger (1962) fore- concepts.  See blog post where above figure is explained

AGMs would focus AR attention on identifying, describing, and predicting (where possible) the particular ‘fore’s’: fore-having, fore-structuring, fore-concept, and fore-telling that make up what we call –fore-caring in advance and preparation in advance. That fore-caring in all its fore’s are the antecedent conditions necessary to accomplish living storyability, and narrative sensemaking. These fore’s may be said to be agential, to be agents rooted in the nature of the world in all its glorious systemicity.

Bhaskar, Roy. (1975). A Realist Theory of Science. Leeds, UK: Leeds Books Ltd. http://uberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Roy_Bhaskar_A_Realist_Theory_of_Science.pdf

Boje, D. M. (2008). Storytelling Organizations. London: Sage.

Boje, D. M. (2011). Storytelling and the Future of Organizations: An Antenarrative Handbook (London: Routledge Studies in Management, Organizations and Society)

Boje, D. M. (2012a). Quantum Storytelling. Free book on line.

Boje, D. M. (2012b) Quantum Spirals for Business Consulting. Free book on line.

Boje, D. M. & Henderson, T. L. (Eds.). (2014). Being Quantum: Ontological Storytelling in the Age of Antenarrative. Cambridge Scholars Publishing

Boje, D. M., Svane, M., Henderson, T. L., & Strevel, H. B. (in press). Critical corporate social responsibility in tamara-land: The role of tetranormalizing fractals. In R. Ocler (Ed.), Book chapter for a Springer collection, Rodolphe Ocler (ed.).

Boje, M., & Svane, M., Gergerich, E. (in press). Counternarrative and Antenarrative Inquiry in Two Cross-Cultural Contexts. Cross Cultural Management.

 

 

AUTHENTIC CARING-CAPITALISM’S EMERGING DIALECTIC WITH GLOBAL-BILLIONAIRE-GREED-CAPITALISM

 

How can we transition from ‘Global-Billionaire-Greed-Capitalism’ into and Authentic ‘Caring-Capitalism’? The first step is in becoming aware of the many internal contradictions in Global-Billionaire-Greed-Capitalism (hereafter GBGC). GBGC has actualized historically an increasing inequality of wealth. 1,810 billionaires in 2016 control $6.5 trillion dollars of world wealth. (http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/).

forbes top 10.png

Forbes top 10 Billionaires in 2016

Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders (2015, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-koch-brothers_us_55d9ca6ee4b0a40aa3ab3642) was critical of billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch and some other billionaires who “corrupted” political and economic system of “greedy” billionaires destroying American democracy by infusing huge sums of cash into campaigns and election.

Among Forbes list of 1,810 billionaires), a few of them (Warren Buffett, Mohamed El-Erian), according to Time,

“… have begun to speak out publicly about the need for a new and more inclusive type of capitalism, one that also helps businesses make better long-term decisions rather than focusing only on the next quarter. The Pope has become a vocal critic of modern market capitalism, lambasting the “idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy” in which “man is reduced to one of his needs alone: consumption” (May 12 2016 Rana Foroohar, http://time.com/4327419/american-capitalisms-great-crisis/).

 

forbes 2nd top 10.png

Forbes 2nd 10 Billionaires in 2016

The Walton brothers and sister each have 30 plus billion, from keeping Wal-Mart workers begging for Medicare, while forcing Third World supply chain contractors to globally engage in slave labor tactics.

The purpose here is to develop a new kind of ‘Caring-Capitalism’ as viable and dialectic alternative to the Gospel of Greed of the vast majority of the 1,810 billionaires. Ronald Glassman (2016) argues for a kind of Caring-Capitalism is the new middle class alternative. It is not the kind of Ben & Jerry’s Caring-Capitalism that asserts that it’s possible for ‘free market’ entrepreneurs to to make lots of money and still provide employees with an unusually high quality of life.  Rather, for Glassman, the old ‘free market economic system’ with its high-tech efficiency, and fluctuating business cycles (boom & bust) is still the path for the middle class to take to becoming super rich. Both Glassman and Ben & Jerry’s Caring-Capitalism argues the free market, in its ‘neoliberal ideology’ will take care of people better than any elected government (Chun, 2009; Vrasti, 2011).

There are many kinds of capitalism which are not sell outs to neoliberal ideology, not just the one of Ben & Jerry, an apologetic narrative for the GBGC that most of the 1,810 billionaires of capitalism subscribe to and treat as a TINA (There Is No Alternative) narrative.

Uncovering Caring-Capitalism My purpose is uncover a counternarrative ‘Caring-Capitalism’ that is more ‘real’ and more ‘authentic than the neoliberal versions. It is a dialectical concretion of the ethic of care, an ‘Antenarrative Generative Mechanism’ (AGM) that is already before narrative and counternarratives, and before living stories still in the middle, without end or beginning. AGM is what Heidegger (1962” # 301) says “must already be presupposed as a whole when we distinguish between theoretical and practical behavior” otherwise the dialectic of Caring-Capitalism opposing GBGC is baseless and existentially ungrounded. Caring-Capitalism must be “the authenticity of care itself” in its potentiality-for-Being able to oppose the many internal contradictions of GBGC (IBID.). The GBGC internal contradictions have an entire history of concealments, how the Gospel of Greed is a reincarnation of Herbert Spencer’s Social Darwinism. We are witnesses to what Robert Reich (2011, http://robertreich.org/post/13567144944) calls the Rebirth of Social Darwinism. That legitimated robber barons like Jay Gould, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and John D. Rockerfeller to widen the chasm between rich and poor, in a free market survival of the fittest struggle, where only the billionaires are fit to survive, as the products of natural selection.

Social Darwinism offered a moral justification for the wild inequities and social cruelties of the late nineteenth century. It allowed John D. Rockefeller, for example, to claim the fortune he accumulated through his giant Standard Oil Trust was “merely a survival of the fittest.” It was, he insisted “the working out of a law of nature and of God” (Reich, 2011).

In 2016, 1,810 billionaires have a death grip on global capitalism, in a reincarnated Social Darwinism, free market greed justified by a TINA narrative, where Ben & Jerry’s brand of Caring-Capitalism, is an inadequate counternarrative, just more free market greed apologetics.

The consequence of the GBGC TINA narrative is it rationalizes and legitimizes our current global capitalism that enslaves most humans, destroys the planet ecosystems, while being praised as rational ‘free market’ business sense. Piketty’s (2014) solution is to tax the 1,810 billionaires who have amassed wealth into fewer and fewer hands, and living off the rent of inherited money that in the case of globalization is destructive to democratic society and has created an inegalitarian downward spiral.

What are the signs that the top 20 billionaires in Forbes list are mostly Greedy?  We are watching 24,000,000 children go hungry to avoid inconveniencing the 20 billionaires. It’s an unthinkable trade-off, but it’s happening. Although the 2013 SNAP (food stamp) budget of $78 billion is less than the 2012 investment earnings of 20 wealthy Americans, SNAP is being cut while not a penny extra is taken from the multi-billionaires” (Salon, 2015, http://www.salon.com/2015/06/23/4_horrible_ways_capitalism_is_slowly_destroying_us/). Hanson Drew (Forbes, 2016), says “Unless It Changes, Capitalism Will Starve Humanity By 2050.” How bad is the extinction crisis?

  • Species are going extinct at a rate 1,000 times faster than that of the natural rate over the previous 65 million years
  • Since 2000,6 million hectares of primary forest have been lost each year.
  • Even in the U.S., 15% of the population lives below the poverty line. For children under the age of 18, that number increases to 20%
  • The world’s population is expected to reach 10 billion by 205

Christopher Wright and Daniel Nyberg (2015), book: Climate Change, Capitalism and Corporations argues that businesses are locked in a cycle of exploiting the world’s resources in ever more creative ways. Celebrity billionaires Richard Branson and Bill Gates, say the only way to reverse climate change is for entrepreneurs to make money from it.

GBGC has the internal contradiction that the ultra-wealthy billionaires are disrupting global capitalism, throwing it into one crisis after another. We can say that GBGC’s internal contradictions, its growing gap of Haves and the Have-Nots is bringing about its own demise, its own negation. GBGC is mutating in ways that are destroying the planet ecology, its ability to be inhabitable. .

You would think, given its internal contradictions, that GBGC would collapse, and out of its ashes a new, perhaps more Carin-Capitalism would take root in the cleared space. However, this is not the case. Naomi Klein (2007a: 49), for example, describes the resoluteness of Disaster Capitalism using each new crisis as a way to advance its ruthless vision of greed:

“After each new disaster, it’s tempting to imagine that the loss of life and productivity will finally serve as a wake-up call, provoking the political class to launch some kind of “new New Deal.” In fact, the opposite is taking place: disasters have become the preferred moments for advancing a vision of a ruthlessly divided world, one in which the very idea of a public sphere has no place at all. Call it disaster capitalism.”

Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1961 warned us against this sort of disaster capitalism, in his critique of the military industrial complex that would replace the State with its own ‘corporate’ enterprise for “waging war, securing borders, spying on citizens, rebuilding cities, treating traumatized soldiers” (p. 50).

 

More Later…

 

References

Chun, C. W. (2009). Contesting neoliberal discourses in EAP: Critical praxis in an IEP classroom. Journal of English for Academic Purposes8(2), 111-120.

Glassman, R. (2016). Caring Capitalism: A New Middle Class Base for the Welfare State. Springer.

Klein, N. (2007a). Disaster capitalism. Harper’s Magazine315, 47-58.

Klein, N. (2007b). The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. Macmillan.

Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Belknap Press.

Vrasti, W. (2011). ” Caring” Capitalism and the Duplicity of Critique. Theory & Event14(4).

Wright, C., & Nyberg, D. (2015). Climate Change, Capitalism, and Corporations: Processes of Creative Self-destruction. Cambridge University Press.

 

 

 

 

Antenarrative Generative Mechanisms Are Independent of the Structural Equation Modeling Narrative!

Antenarrative generative mechanisms exist in the quantum nature of things in ways that are independent of narrative. My colleagues and I have been theorizing and studying several kinds of antenarrative generative mechanisms.

Drawing by Marita Svane in Boje and Svane article

This is a depiction of the 5 B’s of Antenarrative assignment process, with Heidegger (1962) fore- concepts.

Figure 1: Antenarrative Generative Mechanisms (AGMs) (Drawing by Marita Svane in Svane & Boje, 2014, 2015). Key: BME stands for beginning, middle, end narrative coherence emplotment

In particular, antenarrative generative mechanisms are ontologically the ‘fores’ before, beneath, between, and bets in the becoming that are independent of both living story webs of lived experience (life in-the-middle) and independent of dominant narratives and counternarratives (see Boje, 2014 fore definitions of the fores, and articles listed in references for actual studies).

My purpose: In this essay, I want to argue that the intelligibility of sensemaking in organizational science itself presupposes the intransitivity of antenarrative generative mechanisms through which narrative and counternarrative formation and outcomes are obtained. In short, antenarrative generative mechanisms are not in a transitive  sequence after living stories and before narrative and counternarrative

Antenarrative generative mechanisms are quantum things existential, intransitive, and independent of narrative and counternarrative manifestations.  Antenarrative generative mechanisms (fore-having to fore-care in Figure 1) are grounded in the ‘real‘ something that endures and acts in characteristic ways.

Roy Bhaskar (1975: 49-50) makes a point we can apply to antenarrative generative mechanisms. In closed systems with the controlled conditions of a lab experiment, the causal laws , and causal agents of particular generative mechanisms can be identified empirically (sometimes), however in open systems there are countervailing generative mechanisms and countervailing causes that make generative mechanisms identification more a tendency, a potentiality of what may or may not be in play.

Antenarrative generative mechanisms, (AGMs) therefore, in the open systems of organizing (and organization) are ‘real’ but do not always become causal agents, since there are competing causal generative mechanisms.

As Mike Bonifer reminds me, these relationships, however are not linear, so there’s no tight, bound, deterministic set  of predictable phenomena or easy-to-track cause-effect BME narratives that can be, let’s say, ‘seen ahead of time.’ there’s too much environmental influence. Instead, there are tendencies and probabilities that emerge from the field. At which point we can choose or design a new game/AGM, or we can modify the original to produce stronger signals, and more congruence and coherence from the field.

In Bhaskar’s (1975) theory of transcendental realism, ‘real’ is more encompassing than the ‘actual’ and both are greater than the ’empirical’ positivism.  There is an ontological distinction between event patterns, experiences & their sensemaking), and the antecedent AGMs which have “real independence” in ‘open systems’ (Bhaskar, 1975: 13). “Hence one of the chief objections to positivism is that it cannot show why or the conditions under which experience is significant in science” (IBID., p. 13, boldness mine).

Take for example the empirical positivism of ‘Structural Equation Modeling’ in opposition to AGMs. SEM depreciates the role of theory, whereas AGM demands it. SEM positivism does not demonstrate the AGMs (or other causal mechanisms) outside the ‘closed systems; of experimental conditions, where event pattern conjunctions are verified in statements of sensemaking of experiences. From the SEM empirical positivism results, generalizations are made in a narrative account (an ethnostatistics rhetoric of interpreting the model equations). In SEM studies, the intelligibility of the retrospective sensemaking of the empirical experiences in the closed system occurs independently of open system event patterns, experiences before sensemaking, and any antecedent AGMs are dismissed from the empiric playing field. Bhaskar argues that the domain of the ‘real’ is distinct from the domains of the ‘actual; and the much narrower domain of of ’empirical positivism’. Living story ‘event-ness’ is enacted in both the domain of the ‘real; and the domain of the ‘actual.’ AGMs are ways of acting of things, antecedent to humans doing social constructions of sensemaking, or narrating this or that event pattern, or conducting empirical positivism, such as SEM. The things themselves are ‘telling a story’ (as William James, 1907: 97 puts it) is an accounting of some AGMs antecedent to human species making sense.

agm_model_boje

Figure 2: Three domains (real > actual > empirical positivism) within the three kinds of realities: AGM, Event Patterns, and Experiences (& their sensemaking) – original drawing by Boje, Nov. 14 2016

The weakness of SEM is that it ties its causal laws and set of variable statements to a ‘closed system’ rather than continuing empirical-testing in ‘open systems.’ In ‘Open systems’ the relation of antecedent cause and consequent effect is loosely coupled because there are always alternative causes and AGMs that can and do come into play. The science dialectical development in the opposition of SEM with AGMs in this example, has no foreseeable ending (never a synthesis). this is because as each level of reality is discovered, a new theory is eventually constructed, and in AGMs is empirically tested (or can be) to discern what happens on each level , using available or new experimental techniques and new sense-extending  observational equipment. However, as in the Double Slit experiment, the law-like behavior of waves and particles, resides in the ‘real’ antecedent to the observed event patterns and their experiences (& observational sensemaking). It does not lie in the event nor in the experience domains, which are affected.

What Bhaskar (1975, 1993) is proposing is a dialectic science that goest the next step to challenge the problems of induction (Popper) with falsification.  SEM portends to do falsification, by setting one model against auxiliary models of variable relations. The problem of course, is reductionism, where the real and actual are reduced to the domain of empirical positivism. Bhaskar calls this the epistemic fallacy, the reduction of ontologies to just epistemology.  There is a dialectic here between empirical positivism and antecedents such as AGMs.  The creative model tests of SEM imagines AGM to be irrelevant. However, ‘transcendental realism; of AGM calls for empirical-testing of the empirical generalizations of SEM (their transcendental idealism is called into question), which calls for an “empirical scrutiny” (Bhaskar, 1975: 15).

In this dialectic the science of organization grows and develops by opposing transcendental realism (e.g. AGM) with empirical realism (and its transcendental idealism generalizations, e.g SEM). The theoretic assumption is that AGMs can come to be know as ‘real,’ in the process of meaning, their Being-in-the-world itself, in the entities, in thing-ness, that has what Jane Bennett calls onto-story.

Jane Bennett (2001) first coined the notion, ‘onto-story’ in her writing on enchantment and disenchantment. Her work builds upon Stephen White’s notions of weak ontology and its role in social theory. Weak ontology is defined by Bennett as a style of theorizing that includes a set of claims about humans and the fundamental character of the world, even when such claims are contestable. She then develops onto-stories of enchanted materialism.  Her ontology approach is rooted in Deleuze and Guattari, how the refrain plays in an onto-tale of enchantment.

Bennett (2004: 347) draws upon “Lucretius, Spinoza, Gilles Deleuze, Bruno Latour” to develop an ontological “materialism of lively matter to be placed in conversation with the historical materialism of Marx and the body materialism of feminist and cultural studies.” Bennett contends that “thing-power materialism is a speculative onto-story, an admittedly presumptuous attempt to depict the nonhumanity that flows around and through humans”(p. 347)). In onto-story, “agency, is the property of an assemblage” (p. 354). In Bennett’s (2010) more recent book, Vibrant Matter, there is a concept of onto-story, how the assemblage applying Latour’s (2005) actor-network-theory is ontological-storytelling. Things have a history and are swept up in some path of existence, in the middle of some situation in space and time.  Bennett (2010) calls it ‘onto-story,’ or ontological storytelling, of our human relationship the material assemblage:

“The way chemicals affect our moods or our bodily functions is a clear exemplar. Matters can hinder our will, and even act as “quasi agents” to affect our will through their thing power” (Bennett, 2010: xii).

 More at Boje book on Advanced Interviewing Methods for Organization Science.

To summarize, my deductive theory is that antenarrative generative mechanisms (AGMs) ontology is independent of the empirical positivism ontology, such as the retrospective sensemaking in organization science in these ways:

  1. Retrospective sensemaking narratives (and counternarratives) acts of perception (Weick, 1995) presuppose the intransitivity of antenarrative generative mechanisms. For narrative sensemaking to occur, to cohere, there must be antenarrative generative mechanisms.
  2. In fact, it is the independence of antenarrative generative mechanisms that are the very means by which the ‘meaning’ of sensemaking perception empirically depends.
  3. Antenarrative generative mechanisms (AGMs_ are fore-events that act and endure independent of the retrospective narrative experience.
  4. We can demonstrate this in fore-caring, which is scientifically trainable for observers to be aware of particular fores (fore-having, fore-structuring, fore-conception, fore-telling, & fore-care) in Heideggerian ontology that antecedes and changes  empirical ontological retrospective sensemaking objects of perception and experience.  Fore-telling itself is an antenarrative generative mechanism necessary to prospective sensemaking.
  5. Antenarrative generative mechanisms  (AGMs_must have a distinct Being-ness, a once-occurrent event-ness of Being (as Bakhtin puts it) in space, in time, in mattering which as Barad (2003, 2007, 2011) are inseparable spacetimemattering of quantum things that are independent yet entangled with retrospective sensemaking experience. Quantum things-ness telling a story (as William James, 1907: 97 puts it) is an accounting of something antenarrative.
  6. Indeed, I do not think narrative (& counternarrative) is the primary object of storytelling processes out of which events and state of event sequence are being reconstructed retrospectively in sensemaking (Boje, in press). Rather, narrative (& counternarrative) along with living stories and antenarrative generative mechanisms  (AGMs_are what constitutes the domain of storytelling.
  7. Quantum things are independent events of sensemaking experience (perceptions) and actualize the unperceived, in the absence of the human species (which is the basis of posthumanist philosophy of science). Antenarrative generative mechanisms (AGMs) can be perceived or remain unperceived event-ness. In the later, it is still meaningful posthumanist philosophy.
  8. There must therefore be (for all the above deductive components) an dependence of antenarrative generative mechanisms (AGMs), particularly in the open systems (& systemicities) of complex organizations, that is more intelligible in closed systems where the causal relations are more selective in experimentation. In the open systems of organizing and organization, there are assemblages, ensembles, and while existent, the antenarrative generative mechanisms remain as potential partners with narrative (& counternarrative) and the web of living stories, all of which make for the entanglement of a storytelling domain.

With this as the basis of the independence of AGMs, I would like to conclude with quantum storytelling.

What is Quantum Storytelling? In William James (1907: 97) terms, “things tell a story.” Now in quantum storytelling, all the things are living, alive in a native ‘living story’ sense (Gladstone, 2012; Boje, 2014). Quantum things tell stories of the flux of interacting, complex, and unfinished organizing projects relates to Hitchin and colleagues (2015) , focus on untold stories, their multiplicity, and sociomateriality in ‘real’ spacetimemattering (Barad, 2002, 2007; Boje & Henderson, 2014; Henderson & Boje, 2015; Strand, 2011) of organizations. Quantum storytelling (Hitchin, 2015: 221) attends to attractors, fractals, virtual fragments, stings, flux contingencies, complexity, contradictions, and the forever inability of obtaining consensus, synthesis or harmony between untold and fragmented stories and the overarching, dominant, representational narratives.

You are welcome to attend the annual quantum storytelling conference held each December in Las Cruces New Mexico. http://davidboje.com/quantum for details.

References

 

Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter.” Journal of Women in Culture and Society. Vol. 28 (3): 801-831). On line at http://www.kiraoreilly.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/signsbarad.pdf

Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham/London: Duke University Press.

Barad, K. (2011). Nature’s queer performativity. Qui Parle: Critical Humanities and Social Sciences19(2), 121-158. Accessed on line May 25, 2016 https://tidsskrift.dk/index.php/kkf/article/download/51863/95446

Bennett, J. (2001). The enchantment of modern life: attachments, crossings, and ethics. Princeton University Press.

Bennett, J. (2004). The force of things steps toward an ecology of matter.Political theory32(3), 347-372.

Bennett, Jane (2010). Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. NC: Duke University Press.Bhaskar, Roy. (1975). A Realist Theory of Science. Leeds, UK: Leeds Books Ltd. http://uberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Roy_Bhaskar_A_Realist_Theory_of_Science.pdf

Boje, D. M. (1995). “Stories of the Storytelling Organization: A Postmodern Analysis of Disney as ‘Tamara-land.'” Academy of Management Journal. 38(4): 997-1035.*http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/papers/DisneyTamaraland.html or print out the PDF version

Boje, D. M. (2012). Reflections: What does quantum physics of storytelling mean for change management?. Journal of Change Management, 12(3), 253-271.

Boje, D. M. (2014). Storytelling Organizational Practices: Managing in the Quantum Age. London/NY: Routledge.

Boje, D. M. (in press). Two Theories of Counternarrative: Communicative Constitution of Organizations (CCO) and Storytelling Organization Theory (SOT) special issue, on Counternarrative, accepted Nov 5, 2016, European J. of Cross-Cultural Competence and Management.     See pre-press PDF.

Boje, D. M. (2008). Storytelling Organizations. London: Sage.

Boje, D. M. (2011). Storytelling and the Future of Organizations: An Antenarrative Handbook (London: Routledge Studies in Management, Organizations and Society)

Boje, D. M. (2012a). Quantum Storytelling. Free book on line.

Boje, D. M. (2012b) Quantum Spirals for Business Consulting. Free book on line.

Boje, D. M. & Henderson, T. L. (Eds.). (2014). Being Quantum: Ontological Storytelling in the Age of Antenarrative. Cambridge Scholars Publishing

Boje, D. M., Svane, M., Henderson, T. L., & Strevel, H. B. (in press). Critical corporate social responsibility in tamara-land: The role of tetranormalizing fractals. In R. Ocler (Ed.), Book chapter for a Springer collection, Rodolphe Ocler (ed.).

Boje, M., & Svane, M., Gergerich, E. (in press). Counternarrative and Antenarrative Inquiry in Two Cross-Cultural Contexts. Cross Cultural Management.

Gladstone, J. (2012). Old Man and Coyote Barter: An inquiry into the spirit of a Native American business philosophy. Dissertation, New Mexico State University, unpublished.

Haraway, D. (2007). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Pp. 109-134 in Kristin Asdal, Brita Brenna and Ingunn Moser (Eds.) Technoscience The Politics of Interventions. Norway: Unipub.

Henderson, T. & Boje, D. 2015, Organizational Development and Change Theory. Managing Fractal Organizing Processes. Routledge.

Hitchin, Linda (2015). Method and story fragments: Working through untold method. Pp. 213-238 in Hitchin, L., Izak, M., & Anderson, D. ((Eds.) Untold Story Futures. Untold Stories in Organizations. NY/London: Routledge.

Izak, M., & Hitchin, L. (2014). Special Issue: Untold Stories in Organizations. Tamara Journal for Critical Organization Inquiry, 12(1): po. 506.

Heidegger, M. (1929/1962/2008). Being and Time. Translated by John Macquarrie & Edward Robinson in 1962 from the 1929 German, with 2008 introduction by Taylor Carmon. NY: Harper Row.

Hitchin, L., Izak, M., & Anderson, D. (2015). Untold Story Futures. Untold Stories in Organizations, 239-248 in Hitchin, L., Izak, M., & Anderson, D. ((Eds.) Untold Story Futures. Untold Stories in Organizations. NY/London: Routledge. http://crawl.prod.proquest.com.s3.amazonaws.com/fpcache/4833d585cb3cedbc06f4eaf2ebd5b64c.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJF7V7KNV2KKY2NUQ&Expires=1476025784&Signature=SpxajwtYtKE2%2FHHbfKn6ITiSHVo%3D

James, W. (1907). Pragmatism. A new name for some old ways of thinking. New York: Longmans.

Svane, M., & Boje, D. (2014). Merger strategy, cross-cultural involvement and polyphony. Between Cultures and Paradigms, IACCM 2014, University of Warwick, UK. Conference Proceeding. To be published in: European Journal of Cross-Cultural Competence and Management.

Svane, M., & Boje, D.; Gergerich, Erika M. (2015). Counternarrative and Antenarrative Inquiry in Two Cross-Cultural Contexts. Accepted for publication in Special Issue on counternarrative, European Journal of Cross-Cultural Competence.

Svane, M., & Boje, D. (2015). Tamara land fractal change management – in between managerialist narrative and polyphonic living stories. Sc’Moi, Standing Conference for Management and Organizational Inquiry, Las Vegas.

Varra, Eero; Sonenshein, Scott; Boje, David. M. (2015). “Narratives as Sources of Stability and Change in Organizations: Approaches and Directions for Future Research”, Academy of Management Annals. Nov 24 2015 published on Taylor & Francis Online. It is available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19416520.2016.1120963

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. CA: Sage.

Žižek, S. (2012). Less than nothing: Hegel and the shadow of dialectical materialism. Verso Books.

 

What will Trump’s Election mean for the Public Research University?

Capitalism has achieved a new Social Order in its late modern global capitalism. The corporate executive,  Donald Trump, is now is President of the US.

Extending from David Harvey, I will venture to say, this election will not do anything positive to help the Public Research University (PRU). Trump has made no promises for the PRU. I would like to suggest it is moving rapidly away from John Dewey’s ideas about democracy into the PRU as Academic Capitalism.

There is something distinctive about the current variant of neoliberal Public Research University (PRU) education. There has been a shift in collective intelligence (John Dewey) form clan, to hierarchy, to market. Can the PRU reconnect with its social mission, to elevate the collective intelligence of the people to guide what John Dewey (1937) calls ‘collective action; ?

  • “The foundation of democracy is faith in the capacities of human nature; faith in human intelligence and in the power of pooled and cooperative experience.  It is not belief that these things are complete but that if given a show they will grow and be able to generate progressively the knowledge and wisdom needed to guide collective action….  While what we call intelligence be distributed in unequal amounts, it is the democratic faith that it is sufficiently general so that each individual has something to contribute, whose value can be assessed only as it enters into the final pooled intelligence constituted by the contributions of all.”—  John Dewey, “Democracy as a Way of Life”, a 1937 speech cited in Introductory Readings in Philosophy, Robert R. Ammerman and Marcus G. Singer, eds. (Wm. C. Brown, 1960) pp. 276-277.

The Public Research University (PRU)of full participation of all, is being thoroughly transformed and dismantled, into a generator of inequality. The push toward mass public higher education for all has been displaced by a push to maximizing economic efficiency in the ‘global knowledge economy.’

Lawrence Busch tells it like it is. He critiques all the journal ranking, the university ranking, the obsessing the faculty, auditing us incessantly:

he PRU is now shifted form global knowledge society (access to pubic higher education) to a global knowledge economy (gap in access). In short, now we have a neoliberal knowledge economy PRU that is actually widening the gap between the Haves and Haves-Nots.

The PRU now contributes to inequality, rather than to its role after WWI in reducing inequality. See Holmwood (2014) http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02601370.2013.873213

I want to make a factual case, and will start with the income gams in the postwar decades, followed by decline in recent decades.

income_equality_gains

source https://mises.org/blog/2015-fbi-report-homicides-still-near-1950s-levels

The PRU had made a contribution to the democratic life of a nation after WWII, until the decline began in the 1970s. Now look what happens after the 1973 oil crisis:

income-ineqities-1980s-on

Now the PUR is expected only to contribute to a nation’s economic growth. Training for career employment of skilled workforce, and development of research that has commercial value to corporations. Teaching is being separated from research, as adjuncts and teaching assistants increasingly take over teaching undergraduate courses, while  new faculty seeking tenure and fully tenured faculty do the research. Ellen Shrecker the historian, has got an amazing history of the shift in the PRU from WWII till now.

WATCHED Ellen Shrecker

1:10:11

“Something massive and important has happened in the United States over the past 50 years: Economic wealth has become increasingly concentrated among a small group of ultra-wealthy Americans: (Alvin Chang, May 23 2016, vox.com).

The rich got richer, and the poor got poorer since the 1970s. http://www.vox.com/2016/5/23/11704246/wealth-inequality-cartoon  “So here we are in the 1930s. This is when we start seeing a strengthening of labor unions, a federal minimum wage, the establishment of Social Security and unemployment insurance, and increased taxes on the wealthy and corporations. Economist Paul Krugman calls this phenomenon “The Great Compression” because these policies created a lot more parity — and held inequality at bay for about 40 years.”

If nothing is done to redress income inequalities by improving access to PRU, the prediction is there will be 25 percent less upward mobility (vox.com).

Effective operation of a ‘free’ market for PRU education is now the priority, while producing democratic citizens is marginalized. PRU access is no longer open to every student who would like to pursue it. Rather those students with access to tuition discounts, and to loan debt, have access.

See Holmwood, J. (2011). A manifesto for the public university. A&C Black. and Holmwood, J. (2014). From social rights to the market: neoliberalism and the knowledge economy. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 33(1), 62-76. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02601370.2013.873213

    1. John Holmwood – The university, democracy and the public interest – 19 January 2016

      For more information on the University of Brighton’s Centre for Applied Politics, Philosophy and Ethics (CAPPE) Lecture Series on …

The corporate form of PRU, matches the transformation of the corporation itself. And the corporation is becoming more like the university, in the emergence of the knowledge economy.  The PRU is now a management structure of cost centers and managerial decision making in a marketization of all PRU functions, and its subordination to global, market-based knowledge economy. This promotes widening inequality, pricing it out of the possibility for more and more students. This is a radical system modification of the university, and its role in society, and the market economy. Democratic inclusion becomes less and less possible with the deterioration of the PRU role in increasing social mobility by increasing access to education.

The ending of direct public funding of PRU is having an impact on student loan debt, and is accelerating inequity, that is dramatically affecting our democratic life, and reemergence of inequality and lack of social and economic mobility. It is the de-professionalization of public and social services, as they serve customers rather than clients, and is reduced from deomocratic-citizen to bureaucracy to the market (in a fulfillment of the corporation under conditions of transaction cost economics) in order to marketize shareholder value by marketizing the internal economy of the PRU..

Meanwhile the Top 1%  who were contained after the creation of social security, and the labor movement of 1913, after the 1973 oil embargo, made a steady climb to attain wealth accumulation.

incomerollercoaster

Source of image http://the-business-scholar.blogspot.com/2014/06/culture-change-at-chrysler-group-llc-pe.html

In the beginning universities operated by adhocracy (flexible, adaptable, and informal organizational structure without bureaucratic policies or procedures).  Faculty became clan governed and had the space to create, have agility, and live in constant change. The PRU in hierarchy, was all about control, with the leader coordinating everything the faculty and student does with the help of digital technology and high does of Taylorism, Fayolism, and Weberism to kee the bureaucratic PRU humming along. The PRU has moved from adhocracy to clan, to TFW hierarchy, and now to market bases of transaction cost economics. This is a radical shift in the PRU, with the last phase from TFW hierarchy to market-focused university reproducing inequality in the society.  With marketization of PRU, it is no longer in the service of democratic knowledge.

clan-hierarchy-market

source of image: http://the-business-scholar.blogspot.com/2014/06/culture-change-at-chrysler-group-llc-pe.html

Market is seen as a way of aggregating knowledge of PRU faculty and students.  The Mass education is now seen as a distortion of markets. The neoliberal ideology says the market can align faculty research and teaching to serve market needs.The commitment of PRU to reduce income inequalities has shifted, and only economic efficiency and academic capitalism counts. There is an increasing subordination of PRU to market mechanisms inits academic capitalism form. The internal form of the PRU changes in ways that is relevant to democracy. There is a de-professionalizaiton of the faculty role into subordination to the administrative hierarchy by increases in Taylorism, Fayoloism, and Weberism (The TFW virus).

As a Market-Economy, the PRU orientation is to compete, its leaders are hard-drivers, and the value drives is market share, and the theory of effectiveness is aggressively competing to meet customer expectations. In the socioeconomic approach to management, we help organizations move out of Taylorism-Fayolism-Weberism  (TFW virus) into the Adhocracy, where being Agile once more becomes possible.

The State is no longer interested in solving social problems, or in a ‘problem based learning; (PBL). Rather the interest is in the performativity indicators (outcomes assessment, journal article ranking, university rankings, accreditation) that set standards to discipline behavioral change in PRU.

The focus now of the PRU is on redefining the faculty labor contract, and social rights and medical benefits of graduate research assistants and teaching assistants , while treating them as employees of the university rather than as students, and how this upholds employer rights over its employees.

Why have we forgotten the charge of universities in the public sphere (Habermas) in the 1950s and 1960s, and the improper functioning public sphere since the 1970s.  The public sphere is not reduced to its corporate form, managerial hierarchy, and the dismantling of the PRU, and unbundling the mission of citizenship.

The problems of Late modern capitalism since the 1970s has everything to do with utilitarian shift of the PRU, derived form the corporation, and its market that is becoming the PRU market.

After the 1980s, the relation of PRU to its context shifted, and a particular corporate context took over. Public education was to upgrade all jobs, and decrease income inequality.

We are witnessing a reduction of the space of the public university in order to establish the hegemony of the corporation, in its promotion of Academic Capitalism.

The university as a knowledge economy in 2016 exhibits key socioeconomic dysfunction to drive down working conditions and wages of the PRU itself in a process of deskilling faculty, staff, and eventually the administrative hierarchic order.

Products of research are being sold to the highest bidder. We are getting a reengineering of PRU research that assumes structural determinants of behavior of faculty, students, and staff. We have the rise of anti=social sciences in an arcane form of behavioral sciences (John Hollywood).

John Dewey argued that the public depends on dialogue, with politics as the interplay of publics. The market is outside of dialogue, and in that sense, anti-democratic.

The neoliberal knowledge economy regime is narrowing the possiblity of any inclusion of poverty and lower class students, and making middle class access more and more prohibitive PRU higher education . It is a narrow focus on non-inclusive economic growth as the wealthy class opts out of the mass higher education model that was viable after WWII until the 1973 oil embargo. In sum, in 2016 the PRU is no longer inclusive of the lower class or middle class. The system is now designed for tuition and fees to rise, and have no cap, which is the language of global higher education regime is more efficient form of Academic Capitalism.

PRU are being reengineered, and unbundled, as the functions of the university are being outsourced  and privatized to the so-called ‘free market” (which does not exist) under the banner of an efficiency of PRU. Free market is actually bifurcated, with those in student, faculty, and staff positions being disciplined and punished by the ‘free market’ while the wealthy corporations and 1% billionaires are granted access to a welfare market.

Research is being commodified in the PRU. In the Entrepreneurial State, the PRU accepts the risk for the research, while the corporation reaps the benefits of the research. And the research under the drive to quickly get to market, is decreasing the creativity of research.

PRU is reengineered to seek corporate for-profit partners. The new partnerships set up to derive profit from sectors of the PRU, in order to make those profits available to shareholders. For example, speed up commercializations of faculty knowledge (research) by patenting and licensing to commercialize the commons.

STEM subjects have continued public funding by federal government, and are therefore protected, as compared to non-STEM subjects.

What should a PRU be?  We need to understand our own complicity in the  de-professionalization of our faculty work. If we are bystanders, sticking our heads in the sand, then the marketization of the university goes on without any resistance.

What comes next? I think Chris Newfield has his finger on the pulse of the PRU. We have gone through a major shift, and its going to take the Left to stand up and be counted, which they were not willing to do yesterday, in the Trup

Newfield, C. (2008). Unmaking the public university: The forty-year assault on the middle class. Harvard University Press.

  1. Newfield, Christopher

    1:01:12

    What Comes After the Neoliberal University? Escalating Conflicts over Higher Education Part 1

    The Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal bin Abdulaziz Alsaud Center for American Studies and Research (CASAR) organized a lecture by …
  2. I hope Chris is right, and the left will get more active, and bring the kinds of reforms of the 1930s.

s
search
c
compose new post
r
reply
e
edit
t
go to top
j
go to the next post or comment
k
go to the previous post or comment
o
toggle comment visibility
esc
cancel edit post or comment
%d bloggers like this: