Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reconciling Opposites in Organisation Studies: An Aristotelian Approach to Modernism and Post-modernism

  • Published:
Philosophy of Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In view of the current fragmentation in management and organisation studies, we argue that there is a need to elaborate techniques that help reconcile contradictory and superficially incommensurable standpoints. For this purpose, we draw on ‘pre-modern’ Aristotelian epistemological and methodological sources, particularly the idea of ‘saving the appearances’ (SA), not previously introduced into organisation studies. Using SA as our starting point, we outline a methodology that helps to develop reasonable and acceptable intermediary positions in contemporary debates between ‘modernism’ and ‘post-modernism’. We illustrate the functioning of SA in the case of three issues in the philosophy of science where ‘modernist’ and ‘post-modernist’ scholars seem to have incommensurable standpoints: the nature of scientific knowledge; the conception of causality; and the epistemology of practice. We show in particular how to use the logics of ‘qualification’, ‘new conception’, and ‘complementary combination’ to form the basis for mediating positions which could then be accepted by less extreme proponents of both ‘modernism’ and ‘postmodernism’.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. See eg Scherer, A G and Steinmann, H ‘Some remarks on the problem of incommensurability in organization studies’ Organization Studies 20 (1999) pp 519–544.

  2. Owen G E L ‘Tithenai ta phainomena’ in Nussbaum M C (ed) Logic, science and dialectic: Collected papers in Greek philosophy 1986 pp 239–251 London, Duckworth (1961); Lloyd G E R Aristotle: The growth and structure of his thought Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1968; Nussbaum M C Fragility of goodness: Luck and ethics in Greek tragedy and philosophy Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1986; and Kakkuri-Knuuttila M-L Dialectic and inquiry in Aristotle Helsinki, Helsinki School of Economics 1993.

  3. Rawls J A theory of justice Oxford, Oxford University Press 1971; Nussbaum M ‘Equilibrium: Scepticism and immersion in political deliberation’ in Sihvola J (ed) Ancient scepticism and the sceptical tradition (Acta Philosophica Fennica 66) 2000 pp 172–197). SA is also applied, for instance, in Kusch M Knowledge by Agreement: The Programme of Communitarian Epistemology Oxford, Clarendon Press 2002.

  4. The instrumental reading of SA in astronomy is given by Duhem P To save the phenomena: An essay on the idea of physical theory from Plato to Galilei Chicago/London, University of Chicago Press 1969 (1908). Eudoxus, a member of the Platonic school and famous for his theory of the concentric spheres, is presented as the first systematic developer of this method.

  5. Aristotle Topics Book I Ch 1 lines 100b21-23, Ch 10 lines 104a33-34; likewise in Rhetoric Book I Ch 7 lines 1364b13-16. For the works of Aristotle see Barnes J (ed) The complete works of Aristotle Vol I and II (Bollingen Series LXXI) Princeton, Princeton University Press 1984. We follow the practice of Aristotle scholarship in citing the name of the treatise, Book and Chapter and the line numbers based on the Bekker edition of 1832.

  6. The title ‘saving the appearances’ derives from Owen G E L ‘Tithenai ta phainomena’ in Nussbaum M C (ed) Logic, science and dialectic: Collected papers in Greek philosophy 1986 pp 239–251 London, Duckworth. It is used in Nussbaum M C Fragility of goodness: Luck and ethics in Greek tragedy and philosophy Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1986 pp 240–263, and Kakkuri-Knuuttila M-L Dialectic and inquiry in Aristotle Helsinki, Helsinki School of Economics 1993 and ‘The relevance of dialectical skills to philosophical inquiry in Aristotle’ Rhizai: A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science II 1 pp 31–74. The popular title has been ‘dialectical method’, to be explained by the fact that Aristotle’s method of inquiry in the practical sciences has traditionally been identified with dialectical argument (Ross Sir W D Aristotle London, Methuen 1971 (1923); Irwin T H Aristotle’s first principles Oxford, Clarendon Press 1988 and Witt C ‘Dialectic, motion and perception: De anima Book I’ in Nussbaum M C and Rorty A O (eds) Essays on Aristotle’s De anima pp 169–183 Oxford, Clarendon Press 1992). Barnes J speaks about the method of endoxa in his ‘Aristotle and the Method of Ethics’ Revue Internationale de Philosophie 133–134 1980 pp 490–511.

  7. It has been argued, however, that not all reputable opinions (endoxa) are appearances, as some of the opinions of the wise may contradict common-sense views and how things appear at first sight (Cooper J ‘Review of Martha Nussbaum 1986’ Philosophical Review 97 (1988) pp 543–565.

  8. Plato already problematises the preconditions of meaningful dialogue in the Republic Book I (Remes P ‘Avoin keskustelu ja sen viholliset’ (Open discussion and its enemies, in Finnish) Tiede ja Edistys 2 2002 pp 101–119) contrary to Popper K The open society and its enemies Vol I The spell of Plato London 1947.

  9. If this is not the case, one can draw on sources of knowledge external to the debate.

  10. For the process of inquiry Aristotle applies the Platonic expression the way towards the principles, implying that this is supposed to yield the bases of demonstrations, while the demonstrations are to be identified with the way from the principles (Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics Book I Ch 4 lines 1095a30-1095b13).

  11. Aristotle Rhetoric Book I Ch 1 lines 1355b14-22; Smith R Aristotle’s Topics books I and VIII with excerpts from related texts: Translated with a commentary Oxford, Clarendon Press 1997 (comments on Book VIII Ch 5 lines 159a25-37); Kakkuri-Knuuttila ‘The relevance of dialectical skills to philosophical inquiry in Aristotle’ Rhizai: A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science II 1 pp 31–74.

  12. Bolton, R ‘The epistemological basis of Aristotelian dialectic’ in Devereux D and Pellegrin P (eds) Biologie, logique et metaphysique chez Aristote Paris, Éditions du CNRS 1990 pp 185–236 p 2; Kakkuri-Knuuttila M-L Dialectic and inquiry in Aristotle Helsinki, Helsinki School of Economics 1993.

  13. For Plato’s Phaidrus see Cooper J M (ed with introduction and notes) Complete works Indianapolis/ Cambridge, Hackett 1997.

  14. For a criticism of the traditional view introduced by Thomas Aquinas, according to which the Aristotelian ethics consists of a hierarchical deductive system of a priori rules, see Nussbaum M C Aristotle’s De motu animalium Princeton, Princeton University Press 1978 pp 168–169, 174–175.

  15. Lloyd G E R Aristotle: The growth and structure of his thought Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1968; Bolton R ‘Aristotle on the objectivity of ethics’ in Anton J P and Preus P A (eds) Essays in ancient Greek philosophy IV: Aristotle’s ethics Albany, State University New York 1991 pp 7–28; Nussbaum M C Fragility of goodness: Luck and ethics in Greek tragedy and philosophy pp 240–263 Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1986; Witt C ‘Dialectic, motion and perception: De anima Book I’ in Essays on Aristotle’s De anima in Nussbaum M C and Rorty A O (ed) pp 169–183 Oxford, Clarendon Press 1992; Kakkuri-Knuuttila, M-L Dialectic and inquiry in Aristotle Helsinki, Helsinki School of Economics 1993.

  16. Aristotle writes in the Nicomachean ethics Book I Ch 8 lines 1098b27-29: ‘Now some of these views have been held by many men and men of old, others by a few persons; and it is not probable that either of these should be entirely mistaken, but rather that they should be right in at least some one respect or even in most respects’.

  17. Bolton R ‘Definition and scientific method in Aristotle’s Posterior analytics and Generation of animals’ in Gotthelf A and Lennox J G (eds) Philosophical issues in Aristotle’s biology Cambridge, Cambridge University Press pp 120–166, 122.

  18. Aristotle Nicomachean ethics Book I Ch 8 lines 1098b9-12; Eudemian ethics Book I Ch 6 lines 1216b26-28. These two argument forms can also be identified in Plato (Tuominen M Ancient philosophers on principles of knowledge and argumentation Reports from the Department of Philosophy University of Helsinki 2001). They have clear affinities with Lakatos I ‘Falsification and methodology of scientific research programmes’ in Lakatos I and Musgrave A (eds) Criticism and the growth of knowledge: Proceedings of the international colloquium in the philosophy of science in London 1965 Vol 4 Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1970 pp 91–196 and Laudan L Progress and its problems: Towards a theory of scientific growth London, Kegan Paul 1977.

  19. Aristotle Physics Book IV Ch 4 lines 211a9-10; Nicomachean ethics Book VII Ch 14 lines 1154a22-25.

  20. Hardwig J ‘Epistemic dependence’ Journal of Philosophy 82 (1985) pp 335–349, ‘The role of trust in knowledge’ Journal of Philosophy 88 (1991) pp 693–704; Rolin K ‘Gender and trust in science’ Hypatia 17 (2002) pp 95–118; Kusch M Knowledge by agreement: The programme of communitarian epistemology Oxford, Clarendon Press 2002

  21. Barnes J ‘Proof and the syllogism’ Berti E (ed) Aristotle on science: The ‘Posterior Analytics’ (Proceedings of the Eight Symposium Aristotelicum) Padova, Antenore 1981 pp 17–59

  22. Senge P The fifth discipline: The art and practice of learning organization 1990; Kessels J ‘Socrates comes to market’ Reason in Practice The Journal of Philosophy of Management 1.1 (2001) pp 49–71

  23. Hassard J and Parker M (eds) Postmodernism and organizations Sage Newbury Park CA, 1993; Chia, R Organizational analysis as deconstructive practice Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 1996; Chia, R. (ed.) In the realm of organization: Essays for Robert Cooper, Routledge London, 1998; McKinlay A and Starkey K (eds) Foucault, management and organization theory London, Sage 1998; Linstead S (ed) Organization theory and postmodern thought London, Sage 2005; Cooper R and Burrell, G ‘Modernism, postmodernism and organizational analysis: An introduction’ Organization Studies 9 (1988) pp 91–112; Cooper R ‘Modernism, postmodernism and organizational analysis 3: The contribution of Jacques Derrida’ Organization Studies 10 (1989) pp 479–502; Calás M and Smircich L ‘Past postmodernism? Reflections and tentative directions’ Academy of Management Review 24 (1999) pp 649–671.

  24. Alvesson M ‘The meaning and meaninglessness of postmodernism: Some ironic remarks’ Organization Studies 16 (1995) pp 1045–1075

  25. Calás M and Smircich L ‘Past postmodernism? Reflections and tentative directions’ Academy of Management Review 24 (1999) pp 649–671

  26. Nagel E The structure of science London, Routledge and Kegan Paul 1961.

  27. MacIntyre A After virtue: A study in moral theory London, Duckworth 1981; Numagami T ‘The infeasibility of invariant laws in management studies: A reflective dialogue in defense of case studies’ Organization Science 9 (1998) pp 2–15.

  28. Boudon R Theories of social change Cambridge UK, Polity Press 1986.

  29. Lukka K and Kasanen E ‘The problem of generalizability: anecdotes and evidence in accounting research’ Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 8 (1995) pp 71–90.

  30. MacIntyre A op cit 1981; Numagami T loc cit 1998 pp 2–15

  31. Whitley R ‘The fragmented state of management studies: Reasons and consequences’ Journal of Management Studies 21 (1984) pp 331–348; Granovetter M ‘Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness’ American Journal of Sociology 91 (1985) pp 481–510; Knights D ‘Changing spaces: The disruptive impact of a new epistemological location for the study of management’ Academy of Management Review 17 (1992) pp 514–536; Knights D ‘Organization theory in the age of deconstruction: Dualism, gender and postmodernism revisited’ Organization Studies 18 (1997) pp 1–19.

  32. Winch P The idea of a social science and its relation to philosophy London, Routledge 1958; Lyotard J-F The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge Manchester, Manchester University Press 1979; Czarniawska B Writing management: Organization theory as a literary genre Oxford, Oxford University Press 1999; Hassard J and Parker M (eds) Postmodernism and organizations Sage Newbury Park CA, 1993; Chia, R Organizational analysis as deconstructive practice Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 1996; Chia, R. (ed) In the realm of organization: Essays for Robert Cooper London, Routledge 1998.

  33. McKinlay A and Starkey K (eds) Foucault, management and organization theory London, Sage 1998.

  34. Knights D ‘Changing spaces: The disruptive impact of a new epistemological location for the study of management’ Academy of Management Review 17 (1992) pp 514–536, ‘Organization theory in the age of deconstruction: Dualism, gender and postmodernism revisited’ Organization Studies 18 (1997) pp 1–19; Chia, R Organizational analysis as deconstructive practice Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 1996, Chia, R. (ed.) In the realm of organization: Essays for Robert Cooper London, Routledge 1998.

  35. Chia R Organizational analysis as deconstructive practice Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 1996; Löwendahl B and Revang Ö ‘Challenges to existing strategy theory in a postindustrial society’ Strategic Management Journal 19 (1998) p 769.

  36. A typical modernist conception of language and reality, often called ‘representationalism’, resembles metaphysical (or conceptual) realism, according to which the world is like a ready sliced cake, and proper conceptual distinctions represent the objective classifications given by the ‘universals’. In the Platonist version of realism, the universals (ideas) are general models in which singular objects participate, while in the Aristotelian version, the universals (forms) are instantiated in the singulars (Butchvarov P ‘Metaphysical realism ‘in Audi R The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1995). According to nominalism, there are no universals, neither in the objects nor in the mind; the only existents are singular beings with their similarities and differences. Conceptualism deviates from nominalism by allowing room for universals in the human mind (Butchvarov P ‘Conceptualism ‘in Audi R (ed) The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy Cambridge, Cambridge UP 1995; Loux M J ‘Nominalism’ in Craig E (ed) Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy New York, Routledge 1998). Both nominalism and conceptualism are in harmony with the constructivist position (Hacking I The social construction of what? Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, Harvard UP 1999).

  37. MacIntyre A op cit 1981.

  38. Czarniawska B Writing management: Organization theory as a literary genre Oxford, Oxford University Press 1999.

  39. Hume D An enquiry concerning human understanding Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill 1955; Mackie J L The cement of the universe: A study of causality Oxford, Clarendon Press 1980; Salmon W C Causality and explanation New York, Oxford University Press 1998.

  40. This is indicated by presentations of causal analysis in textbooks on statistical methods, in which correlation is assumed as a necessary, though not a sufficient, condition of causal relations. See Moore D S and McCabe G P Introduction to the practice of statistics New York, Freeman 2003; also Suppes P A probabilistic theory of causation (Acta Philosophica Fennica) Helsinki 1970; Papineau D ‘Correlations and causes’ British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 42 (1991) pp 397–412.

  41. March J G and Sutton R I ‘Organizational performance as a dependent variable’ Organization Science 8 (1997) pp 698–706.

  42. Burrell G and Morgan G Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis London, Heinemann 1979; Burrell G ‘Normal science, paradigms, metaphors, discourses and genealogies of analysis’ In: S R Clegg, C Hardy, W R Nord (ed) Handbook of organization studies London, Sage 1996; Chia, R Organizational analysis as deconstructive practice Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 1996.

  43. Winch P The idea of a social science and its relation to philosophy London, Routledge 1958 p 94.

  44. Salmon W C Causality and explanation New York, Oxford University Press 1998.

  45. Löwendahl B and Revang Ö ‘Challenges to existing strategy theory in a postindustrial society’ Strategic Management Journal 19 (1998) pp 755–773.

  46. Aristotle Metaphysics Book IX Chs 1–7; Frede M ‘Aristotle’s notion of potentiality in Metaphysics IX’ in: Scaltsas T, Charles D and Gill M L (ed) Unity, identity, and explanation in Aristotle’s ‘Metaphysics’ Oxford, Clarendon Press 1994 pp 173–193; Witt C Ways of being in Aristotle: Potentiality and actuality in Aristotle’s ‘Metaphysics’ Ithaca & London, Cornell UP 2003; Kakkuri-Knuuttila M-L and Vaara E ‘Back to the roots of the linguistic turn: Arguments against causal social research reconsidered’ In: Linstead S and A (eds) Thinking organization (Routledge studies in business organizations and networks) London, Routledge 2005 pp 17–38

  47. We believe that many unnecessary complications are caused by speaking about dispositions in connection with following social rules. See Kripke S Wittgenstein on rules and private language Oxford, Blackwell 1982; Bloor D Wittgenstein, rules and institutions London, Routledge 1997.

  48. Bhaskar R A realist theory of science Leeds, Leeds Books 1975, The possibility of naturalism: A philosophical critique of contemporary human sciences Brighton, Harvester Press 1979; Harré R and Madden E H Causal powers: A theory of natural necessity Oxford, Basil Blackwell 1975; Cartwright N How the laws of physics lie Oxford, Clarendon Press 1983; Cartwright N Nature’s capacities and their measurement Oxford, Clarendon Press 1989.

  49. Eg Ackroyd, S. and Fleetwood, S. Realist perspectives on management and organizations. London, Routledge 2000.

  50. Bhaskar R op cit 1975; Harré, R and Madden E H op cit 1975; Cartwright N op cit 1983; Cartwright N op cit 1989

  51. Interestingly, even Winch himself later gave up his initial position regarding causality. In the preface to the second edition of his The Idea of Social Science and Its Relation to Philosophy 1990 he states that causal relations in the social realm can be captured with the help of a notion of causation alternative to the Humean one.

  52. Of course, to be fully acceptable for most post-modernists, the social ontology of the scientific realists should be suitably modified (see footnote 35).

  53. Foucault M The history of sexuality Vol I Introduction Hurley R (tr) New York, Pantheon 1978

  54. Schön D A op cit 1983

  55. Hempel, Carl G and Oppenheim, P ‘Studies in the logic of explanation’ Philosophy of Science 15 (1948) pp 135–175

  56. Schön D A op cit 1983; Tsoukas H ‘Forms of knowledge and forms of life’ in Chia R (ed.) In the realm of organization: Essays for Robert Cooper London, Routledge 1998 pp 43–66

  57. Brown J S and Duguid P ‘Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working; learning, and innovation’ Organization Science 2 (1991) 40–57; Nonaka I ‘A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation’ Organization Science 15 (1994) 14–37; Tsoukas H ‘Forms of knowledge and forms of life’ in Chia R (ed.) In the realm of organization: Essays for Robert Cooper London, Routledge 1998 pp 43–66; Tuomi I Corporate knowledge: Theory and practice of intelligent organizations Helsinki, Metaxis 1999; Luntley M ‘Knowing how to manage: Expertise and embedded knowledge’ Reason in Practice: The Journal of Philosophy of Management 2.3 (2002) pp 3–14

  58. MacIntyre A op cit 1981

  59. Knights D ‘Changing spaces: The disruptive impact of a new epistemological location for the study of management’ Academy of Management Review 17 (1992) pp 514–536; McKinlay A and Starkey K (eds) Foucault, management and organization theory London, Sage 1998

  60. Alvesson M and Willmott H Making sense of management: A critical introduction London, Sage 1996

  61. Löwendahl B and Revang Ö ‘Challenges to existing strategy theory in a postindustrial society’ Strategic Management Journal 19 (1998) p 769

  62. Brown J S and Duguid P ‘Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working; learning, and innovation’ Organization Science 2 (1991) 40–57; Luntley M ‘Knowing how to manage: Expertise and embedded knowledge’ Reason in Practice 2 (2002) pp 3–14; Nonaka I ‘A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation’ Organization Science 15 (1994) 14–37; Schön D A The reflective practitioner Aldershot, Avebury 1983; Tuomi I Corporate knowledge: Theory and practice of intelligent organizations Helsinki, Metaxis 1999.

  63. The title ‘reflective practitioner’ derives from Schön D A The reflective practitioner Aldershot, Avebury 1983. See Klemola U-M and Norros L ‘Analysis of the clinical behaviour of anaesthetists: recognition of uncertainty as a basis for practice’ Medical Education 31 (1997) pp 449–456; ‘Methodological considerations in analysing anaesthetists’ habits of action in clinical situations’ Ergonomics 42 (1999) pp 1521–1523; ‘Practice-based criteria for assessment of the anaesthetists’ habits of action: Outline for a reflexive turn in practice’ Medical Education 35 (2001) pp 455–464; Norros L Acting under uncertainty: The core-task analysis in ecological study of work Espoo, VTT Publications 546 2004.

  64. Senge P The fifth discipline: The art and practice of learning organization 1990; Argyris C Knowledge for action: A guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change San Francisco Ca, Jossey-Bass 1993; Schön D and Argyris C Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice Reading Ma, Addison-Wesley Longman 1996

  65. Czarniawska B Writing management: Organization theory as a literary genre Oxford, OUP 1999

  66. See, for instance, Nelarine Cornelius and Nigel Laurie ‘Capable management: An interview with Martha Nussbaum’ Philosophy of Management 3.1 (2003) pp 3–16.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration, Helsinki, Finland

    Eero Vaara (Professor of Management and Organization)

Authors
  1. Marja-Liisa Kakkuri-Knuuttila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eero Vaara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eero Vaara.

Additional information

We would like to thank the following persons for helpful and encouraging comments: Peter van Baalen, Paul Griseri, Kaisa Heinlahti, Esko Kilpi, Juha Laurila, Kari Lukka, Ashly Pinnington, Pirkko Pohjoisaho-Aarti, Kristina Rolin and two anonymous referees. This paper is a revised version of a paper presented at the conference Developing Philosophy of Management — Crossing Frontiers at St Anne’s College, Oxford 26 — 29 June 2002 organised by this journal in association with the Forum for European Philosophy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kakkuri-Knuuttila, ML., Vaara, E. Reconciling Opposites in Organisation Studies: An Aristotelian Approach to Modernism and Post-modernism. Philos. of Manag. 6, 81–98 (2007). https://doi.org/10.5840/pom2007616

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/pom2007616

Keywords

Search

Navigation