Modernism, postmodernism, management and organization theory

UTSePress Research/Manakin Repository

Search UTSePress Research


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Clegg, Stewart en_US
dc.contributor.author Kornberger, Martin en_US
dc.contributor.editor en_US
dc.contributor.editor Locke, E en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2009-08-20T13:50:04Z
dc.date.available 2009-08-20T13:50:04Z
dc.date.issued 2003 en_US
dc.identifier 2003000698 en_US
dc.identifier.citation Clegg Stewart and Kornberger Martin 2003, 'Modernism, postmodernism, management and organization theory', in http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0733-558X(03)21003-X (ed.), Elsevier Science, London, pp. 57-88. en_US
dc.identifier.issn 0762310049 en_US
dc.identifier.other B1 en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10453/1182
dc.description.abstract Modernism and postmodernism may be thought of as either moments or movements. We argue for thinking of them as moments, essentially related to each other, rather than movements that literally have historical specificity. From this perspective what is modern and what is postmodern is always shifting, such that their nature is problematic, essentially contested and shifting. Rather than use contemporary examples to make these points, we prefer to refer to quite historical examples, because the modalities become much sharper and can be seen in clearer focus. Hence, we discuss Machiavelli and Caravaggio as precursors of the postmodern and Hobbes and Boyle as precursors of the modern. Obviously, there is an irony in our intent: given the claims to currency of the debates with which we frame the paper then reference to some classical sources serves to hose down debate and fix it in a sharper, cleaner form. While it will become evident that our sympathies are not with ?modernism?, it should become equally clear that we hold much of the representation of ?postmodernism? to be as much at error as we do the fixing of the modern in the frame of the empiricist, the positivist, and the scientific. For us, all these terms are equally problematic, and have been so ever since we began to first think we might be modern ? whether in art, social science or science. We conclude by addressing why, in the present, these classical debates should have migrated to the study of organizations. en_US
dc.publisher Elsevier Science en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0733-558X(03)21003-X en_US
dc.title Modernism, postmodernism, management and organization theory en_US
dc.parent Postmodernism and Management: Pros, Cons and the Alternative en_US
dc.journal.volume en_US
dc.journal.number en_US
dc.publocation London en_US
dc.identifier.startpage 57 en_US
dc.identifier.endpage 88 en_US
dc.cauo.name BUS.School of Management en_US
dc.conference Verified OK en_US
dc.for 150310 en_US
dc.personcode 960853 en_US
dc.personcode 030453 en_US
dc.percentage 100 en_US
dc.classification.name Organisation and Management Theory en_US
dc.classification.type FOR-08 en_US
dc.edition 1 en_US
dc.staffid 030453 en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record