Main | In the Bubble: Designing in a complex world »
September 14, 2004
In praise of bureaucracy
| Title | In praise of bureaucracy | |
| Author | Paul du Gay | |
| Publisher | Sage publications, LTD | |
| Date | 2000 | |
| ISBN | 0-7619-5504-6 (pbk) ISBN | |
| Reviewed by | Rob van Kranenburg | |
| A book about bureaucracy and ethics throughout which a plural Weber runs, more specifically — as du Gay writes in his Introduction — about the ethos of bureaucratic office, is most necessary for two reasons: a critical insight into the nature of the current crisis of the businessman as a figure of authority (is it axiomatic of capitalism or a particular historical configuration?) and a critical insight into the nature of bureaucracy as a fundamental key to issues of sustainability: how can change itself be managed? How can context be managed? Paul du Gay explores the religious and romantic genealogy of bureau critique in the work of Alasdair MacIntyre, Zygmunt Bauman, and Tom Peters, a geneaology that is focussed on the fragmented role of the manager and the moral monoculture of the instrumentality supposedly fostered by bureaucracy. He questions the productivity of claiming ‘the inner conviction of the person of conscience’ as an absolute principle to which all personae are to be held accountable, as “in highly differentiated modern societies, plural spheres of life have given rise to quite different ethical personae that are ‘non-reducible’. (59) If this critique of the everyday experience of a perceived rational instrumentalism is coupled with a structural social-cultural emphasis on the value of change as something that is valuable in itself, almost even for itself - then any sphere of thought and action that is characterized by stability, is in conceptual and very real trouble: “ ‘Change’, in today’s management terminology, is often represented as an unalloyed good. Indeed, it has become a matter of serious criticism to accuse an institution or individual of being incapable of adjusting to ‘change’ or failing to grasp its multifarious ‘opportunities’. Transformation is the order of the day and those that cannot or wll not accede to and thrive on its demands are history (Clarke and Newman, 1997; du Gay, 1996).” In this clash between entrepreneurial management and administration, du Gay makes a strong plea for a powerful public bureaucracy as occupying the middle ground between entrepreneurial politics and the private sector. These issues are at the heart of our contemporary public domain. In Science and Technology in a Vulnerable World (2002), Lewis M. Branscomb, claims “ We must understand that the source of our vulnerability to terrorism is not the terrorists themselves. Our vulnerability is generated by our economic, social, and political systems. Our vulnerability comes about through something I call economic ecology. This idea holds that competition in the market economy maximizes efficiency and stability at the cost of resiliency. If you have a highly competitive market economy, everyone is driven to greater efficiency. But the public also wants stability. Stability, with only small perturbations, is built into the system. But this does not work unless you have a peaceful, obedient society that does not threaten to exploit these vulnerabilities. This society cannot avoid threats to leverage that very hyper-efficiency. One of our biggest problems is that the critical elements of our infrastructure are deeply linked. When one part is attacked, we see a domino effect on the other parts. The three most obvious infrastructure elements are energy, communications, and transportation. If you bring down any one of these three, the other two are affected. For example, if you bring the energy sector down, you cannot communicate and you cannot travel. There is a lot you cannot do. Terrorists understand that, and we must deal with this reality.” Theoretists must try to understand it too. A reevaluation of bureaucracy and the bureaucrat as a cultural figure, might be a productive beginning. As du Gay claims: “Perhaps it is time, once again, to appreciate the ethos of bureaucratic office — albeit in a suitably contextualized manner — as a positive extension of the repertoire of human possibilities rather than merely as a dehumanizing or disempowering subtraction.” Notes: SECRECY NEWS (Volume 2002, Issue No. 73, August 7, 2002) The impacts of September 11 on universities and particularly onscientific research were addressed by several prominent scientistsand academics at an April 2002 colloquium sponsored by the AmericanAssociation for the Advancement of Science. "Science and Technology in a Vulnerable World" and are available here: http://www.aaas.org/spp/yearbook/2003/yrbk03.htm To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, send email to secrecy_news-request@lists.fas.org with "subscribe" in the body of the message. | ||
Posted by Books Editor at September 14, 2004 09:33 PM