Discussion: View Thread

  • 1.  Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Posted 11-03-2009 16:43


    Do not accustom yourself to use big words for little matters.
    -Samuel Johnson
    Romie F. Littrell, BA, MBA,PhD, FIAIR, An fánaí fiáin
    AUT Business School N.Z., romie.littrell@aut.ac.nz
    http://www.romielittrellpubs.homestead.com/
    http://www.crossculturalcentre.homestead.com/
    Facilitator, Leadership & Management in Sub-Sahara Africa Conferences
    Contents copyright Romie F. Littrell



  • 2.  Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Posted 11-04-2009 00:42
    Romie,
     
    I've offered a piece of one of my science fiction stories.  The Tregor have come away from their monasteries to educate two young humans intent on changing Human civilization with little concept of what that might require.
     
    Best,
     
    Gary
     

    "First Principle:  Civilization is a complex invention of sentient minds.  Non-sentient forces of nature include gravity, electro-magnetism, nuclear fission and fusion, evolution, erosion, fire, reforestation, and so on.  For all of its power and complexity, "nature" doesn't evolve civilizations.  We know very well that sentience is part of nature and thus that everything done by sentients is natural.  Still, we will distinguish "nature" from "civilization" on the basis that civilization evolves out of the inventions of sentient minds, often in conflict with the rest of nature.

    "Civilizations vary dramatically, yet virtually all have common features in two classes:  societies and constructs.  Societies are groups of people organized around shared interests or needs.  Societies vary in size from two people to the whole species.  Indeed, every sentient in a civilization belongs to many distinct and overlapping societies. 

    "Constructs are inventions that enable and structure civilizations.  A social construct is a set of rules about how societies are created, bounded, and changed.  A social contract is an agreement to obey the rules.  Complexes of constructs are social systems.  Durable complex social constructs are called social institutions.  Perhaps you recognize social institutions on Earth?" 

    Oops!  This was going to be interactive learning, not all lecture.  While I was organizing myself, my resident anthropologist spoke up.  "We tend to think of the major institutions as government, religion, industry, military, education, and the arts.  More and more, I think the Internet is a new institution."  Silence.  They wanted more.

    "Of course," I said, "Within each are countless other institutions.  As I begin to understand the concept of construct, every function, department, hierarchy policy, ... they are all constructs.  And the social norms that function in each are also constructs."

    "Yes," said Samuel.  "You begin to see.  Just as the number and variety of societies is almost limitless, constructs are everywhere – in layers, networks, webs, and tapestries, from grand and obvious to fine detail and almost negligible.  The entire synthesis of constructs into civilization and the ongoing synthesis of each of its many, many parts...all of these are all built on abstract rules invented by sentients and their societies.  Again... built on abstract rules invented by sentience.  Though rules may derive from evolutionary pasts, the constructs are the inventions of logic, reason, and emotion.

    "One primary construct of civilization, for instance, is division of labor.  Rules establish how those who develop science will be fed by those who grow food.  The construct called government is a segment of that division of labor whose job is, in part, to maintain order among the other divisions.  The construct of taxation pays for government.  Cities, states, and nations are constructs of government that serve local needs.  War is a construct for projecting or protecting institutions and their related societies. 

    "Over time, constructs and contracts take on lives of their own.  They form vast interwoven webs that resist change.  They become institutions so solid that societies may assume that this is the only way the world could logically work. 

    "All constructs are enabled by social contracts.  That is, constructs survive by conscious or tacit agreement of people and societies.  Over time, the vast majority of such contracts become completely unspoken.  People don't even know they've made agreements.  Their behaviors are programmed by the maze of constructs to the point that they have neither reason nor tools for questioning the way their worlds work.

    "Again:  No reason and no process for questioning the way their worlds work.

    "The First Principle lays a groundwork of language for thinking about and creating change in societies bound by invisible yet virtually indestructible borders and sets of rules.  At its core, changing society and civilization means changing the rules by which societies operate and interact.  In other words, such change alters social constructs and/or social contracts.

     

     
     

    ...................................................................

    Gary Lundquist

    GaryL@Market-Engineering.com

    Director@InnoSearchColorado.com

    303-840-9929

    Energizing Innovation

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Romie Littrell
    Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 2:43 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    I'm critiquing a research paper by a post-graduate student who has referenced a quotation from an article by Gray, Owen & Adams  (1996)  in which they anthropomorphise  "society", explaining society as "a series of social contracts between members of society and society itself". Society is a network of various kinds of linkages where people gather to do things. Society is not a conscious entity that does things of its own volition. Moreover, the things done there are transactions that occur in large numbers, at the volition of many people and institutions, motivated by a diverse array of reasons for engaging in them. People tell me what groups, societies, organisations did today, why it did that, what it is afraid of, what it is struggling to do, or what external influences are preventing it from accomplishing its intent. None of these statements is true. To re-emphasise, an organisation, group, society, or market is a place where people gather to do things, not a conscious entity that does things of its own volition that can be analysed as if it were a human being.

    Any agreement, disagreement, other ideas?

    Gray, R, Owen, D., & Adams, C. (1996). Accounting and Accountability; Changes and Challenges in Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting, Harlow: UK: Prentice-Hall Europe.
    <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
    <!--[endif]-->


    Do not accustom yourself to use big words for little matters.
    -Samuel Johnson
    Romie F. Littrell, BA, MBA,PhD, FIAIR, An fánaí fiáin
    AUT Business School N.Z., romie.littrell@aut.ac.nz
    http://www.romielittrellpubs.homestead.com/
    http://www.crossculturalcentre.homestead.com/
    Facilitator, Leadership & Management in Sub-Sahara Africa Conferences
    Contents copyright Romie F. Littrell



  • 3.  Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Posted 11-04-2009 01:10

    On Nov 3, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Romie Littrell wrote:

    [...]  an organisation, group, society, or market is a place where people gather to do things, not a conscious entity that does things of its own volition that can be analysed as if it were a human being.
    Contents copyright Romie F. Littrell

    In general systems theory an organization, etc., is not a place. Better to see it as a locus or collection of entities (persons), interoperating in mutually agreed ways. Such multiply-ordered set exhibits patterns of behavior, e.g., an orchestra or a conspiracy. The mutual agreements are fragile and sometimes capricious but strictly a function of the respective humans. A good model of these mutual interactions is described in Rudolph Starkermann's Amity vs. Enmity. Stop the interactions and the 'organ' ceases to function.


  • 4.  Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Posted 11-04-2009 02:35

    Would it be an incorrect anthropomorphism to assert, for example, that "Our team won"?   Or would it only become incorrect if the assertion were expanded to something like, "Our team really wanted to win"?   And, if you're correct that individuals can't have contracts with society, does that also mean that there can be no contract between you and the school where you work? 

     

    Lee

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Romie Littrell
    Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 3:43 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

     

    I'm critiquing a research paper by a post-graduate student who has referenced a quotation from an article by Gray, Owen & Adams  (1996)  in which they anthropomorphise  "society", explaining society as "a series of social contracts between members of society and society itself". Society is a network of various kinds of linkages where people gather to do things. Society is not a conscious entity that does things of its own volition. Moreover, the things done there are transactions that occur in large numbers, at the volition of many people and institutions, motivated by a diverse array of reasons for engaging in them. People tell me what groups, societies, organisations did today, why it did that, what it is afraid of, what it is struggling to do, or what external influences are preventing it from accomplishing its intent. None of these statements is true. To re-emphasise, an organisation, group, society, or market is a place where people gather to do things, not a conscious entity that does things of its own volition that can be analysed as if it were a human being.

    Any agreement, disagreement, other ideas?

    Gray, R, Owen, D., & Adams, C. (1996). Accounting and Accountability; Changes and Challenges in Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting, Harlow: UK: Prentice-Hall Europe.

    Do not accustom yourself to use big words for little matters.

    -Samuel Johnson

    Romie F. Littrell, BA, MBA,PhD, FIAIR, An fánaí fiáin
    AUT Business School N.Z., romie.littrell@aut.ac.nz
    http://www.romielittrellpubs.homestead.com/
    http://www.crossculturalcentre.homestead.com/
    Facilitator, Leadership & Management in Sub-Sahara Africa Conferences
    Contents copyright Romie F. Littrell

     



  • 5.  Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Posted 11-04-2009 13:32
    I there a difference between using team as a plural noun and anthropomorphizing a team? I think perhaps there is. Anthropomorphizing a team, group, nation state, culture can be dangerous--quick ways to tyranny by the majority and the silencing of minority or less powerful voices.  The ultimate example of the anthropomorphized organization is the corporation that is regarded as an individual under the law.   This is illustrated beautifully in the movie, The Corporation.  I think it's important to be explicit about what we are doing when we anthropomorphize groups and how we are managing the risks when we theorize.

    Mary Fambrough


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Bolman, Lee G. <BolmanL@UMKC.EDU>
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Sent: Tue, Nov 3, 2009 11:34 pm
    Subject: Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Would it be an incorrect anthropomorphism to assert, for example, that "Our team won"?   Or would it only become incorrect if the assertion were expanded to something like, "Our team really wanted to win"?   And, if you're correct that individuals can't have contracts with society, does that also mean that there can be no contract between you and the school where you work? 
     
    Lee
     
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Romie Littrell
    Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 3:43 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations
     
    I'm critiquing a research paper by a post-graduate student who has referenced a quotation from an article by Gray, Owen & Adams  (1996)  in which they anthropomorphise  "society", explaining society as "a series of social contracts between members of society and society itself". Society is a network of various kinds of linkages where people gather to do things. Society is not a conscious entity that does things of its own volition. Moreover, the things done there are transactions that occur in large numbers, at the volition of many people and institutions, motivated by a diverse array of reasons for engaging in them. People tell me what groups, societies, organisations did today, why it did that, what it is afraid of, what it is struggling to do, or what external influences are preventing it from accomplishing its intent. None of these statements is true. To re-emphasise, an organisation, group, society, or market is a place where people gather to do things, not a conscious entity that does things of its own volition that can be analysed as if it were a human being.

    Any agreement, disagreement, other ideas?

    Gray, R, Owen, D., & Adams, C. (1996). Accounting and Accountability; Changes and Challenges in Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting, Harlow: UK: Prentice-Hall Europe.

    Do not accustom yourself to use big words for little matters.
    -Samuel Johnson
    Romie F. Littrell, BA, MBA,PhD, FIAIR, An fánaí fiáin
    AUT Business School N.Z., romie.littrell@aut.ac.nz
    http://www.romielittrellpubs.homestead.com/
    http://www.crossculturalcentre.homestead.com/
    Facilitator, Leadership & Management in Sub-Sahara Africa Conferences
    Contents copyright Romie F. Littrell
     


  • 6.  Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Posted 11-04-2009 14:22
    Well, FWIW, I don't have any quarrel with saying something like "our team won" or "our company is a leader in its field" or any number of other, similar statements. They are verifiable assertions. I would have trouble with statements like "our team believes in itself" or "our company shows compassion toward its employees." These latter statements attribute human characteristics to non-human entities.

    As for a contract between you and the school where you work, there can indeed be such a contract, legal and binding, because the school is or is part of a legal entity and can in fact enter into binding contracts, own property, etc. (No, they can't vote - at least not yet.)

    --
    Regards,

    Fred Nickols
    Managing Partner
    Distance Consulting, LLC
    nickols@att.net
    www.nickols.us

    "Assistance at A Distance"

    -------------- Original message ----------------------
    From: "Bolman, Lee G." <BolmanL@UMKC.EDU>
    >
    > Would it be an incorrect anthropomorphism to assert, for example, that "Our team
    > won"? Or would it only become incorrect if the assertion were expanded to
    > something like, "Our team really wanted to win"? And, if you're correct that
    > individuals can't have contracts with society, does that also mean that there
    > can be no contract between you and the school where you work?
    >
    >
    >
    > Lee
    >
    >
    >
    > From: Management Education and Development Discussion
    > [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Romie Littrell
    > Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 3:43 PM
    > To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    > Subject: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations
    >
    >
    >
    > I’m critiquing a research paper by a post-graduate student who has referenced
    > a quotation from an article by Gray, Owen & Adams (1996) in which they
    > anthropomorphise “society”, explaining society as “a series of social
    > contracts between members of society and society itself”. Society is a network
    > of various kinds of linkages where people gather to do things. Society is not a
    > conscious entity that does things of its own volition. Moreover, the things done
    > there are transactions that occur in large numbers, at the volition of many
    > people and institutions, motivated by a diverse array of reasons for engaging in
    > them. People tell me what groups, societies, organisations did today, why it did
    > that, what it is afraid of, what it is struggling to do, or what external
    > influences are preventing it from accomplishing its intent. None of these
    > statements is true. To re-emphasise, an organisation, group, society, or market
    > is a place where people gather to do things, not a conscious entity that does
    > things of its own volition that can be analysed as if it were a human being.
    >
    > Any agreement, disagreement, other ideas?
    >
    > Gray, R, Owen, D., & Adams, C. (1996). Accounting and Accountability; Changes
    > and Challenges in Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting, Harlow: UK:
    > Prentice-Hall Europe.
    >
    >
    >
    > Do not accustom yourself to use big words for little matters.
    >
    > -Samuel Johnson
    >
    > Romie F. Littrell, BA, MBA,PhD, FIAIR, An fánaí fiáin
    > AUT Business School N.Z., romie.littrell@aut.ac.nz
    > http://www.romielittrellpubs.homestead.com/
    > http://www.crossculturalcentre.homestead.com/
    > Facilitator, Leadership & Management in Sub-Sahara Africa Conferences
    > Contents copyright Romie F. Littrell
    >
    >
    >