It is very frustrating when you look through your notes on a academic, hi-liter marked "something written by a smart person" paper and you find the word "Really?!!" scrawled next to something.
For some reason, the first half of Mumby's piece annoyed me no end. It didn't seem to go anywhere - seemed like a glorified summary. I concede that he may have partly had that in mind when he set out to prove that organizational processes are fundamentally mediated by power, but "Really??!!!" In addition, it didn't help that he mentioned the penchant of org. comm. scholarship for believing (even if it was in the past) that "organizational behavior is viewed as explicable through mathematical, economic models of decision making, hence making power irrelevant as an explanatory construct".
It is fascinating to me that in a world where people need no proof for any Messiah or Swami's message of the Lord, they still act like they need proof for interactions and processes which seem so obvious to the non-academe.
p.s: This is why I intensely dislike the "scientific" label. I am not saying it does not work, it just does not work for me. Only a "scientist" would ever be self absorbed enough to hypothesize about whether something as ritual and simplistic as power relations exist in any human interaction.
------------------------
On another note, I was watching a piece on the situation in Tibet and the progression of the history of this strategic location in Asia, when the words of the Power Elite were brought to life. They were reflected in the actions of the CIA which funded guerrilla warfare in the region (against the PRC) and conveniently withdrew their support when China emerged as an economic superpower and threatened to terminate trade relations with America if it did not stem its support for the Tibetan cause. Slowly, but surely, I could see the insidious nature of this triangle of power, with the economic, military and the political seeping into and saturating policy action. No matter how loudly or emphatically Michael Stipe sings about Tibet in D.C., we end up dancing to the tunes of the truly powerful.
For some reason, the first half of Mumby's piece annoyed me no end. It didn't seem to go anywhere - seemed like a glorified summary. I concede that he may have partly had that in mind when he set out to prove that organizational processes are fundamentally mediated by power, but "Really??!!!" In addition, it didn't help that he mentioned the penchant of org. comm. scholarship for believing (even if it was in the past) that "organizational behavior is viewed as explicable through mathematical, economic models of decision making, hence making power irrelevant as an explanatory construct".
It is fascinating to me that in a world where people need no proof for any Messiah or Swami's message of the Lord, they still act like they need proof for interactions and processes which seem so obvious to the non-academe.
p.s: This is why I intensely dislike the "scientific" label. I am not saying it does not work, it just does not work for me. Only a "scientist" would ever be self absorbed enough to hypothesize about whether something as ritual and simplistic as power relations exist in any human interaction.
------------------------
On another note, I was watching a piece on the situation in Tibet and the progression of the history of this strategic location in Asia, when the words of the Power Elite were brought to life. They were reflected in the actions of the CIA which funded guerrilla warfare in the region (against the PRC) and conveniently withdrew their support when China emerged as an economic superpower and threatened to terminate trade relations with America if it did not stem its support for the Tibetan cause. Slowly, but surely, I could see the insidious nature of this triangle of power, with the economic, military and the political seeping into and saturating policy action. No matter how loudly or emphatically Michael Stipe sings about Tibet in D.C., we end up dancing to the tunes of the truly powerful.
Comments