Dear Cliff
I would like to subscribe to your mailing list. Here is the relevant
Bio, and a
summary outline of my work.
Name: Justin Arbuckle
Email address: jarbuckle@solo.pipex.co.za
URL of home page:
Postal address: PO Box 7 Gillits KwaZulu-Natal South Africa
Phone: 031 7642742
Affiliations: none
How did you hear about PCP? Internet curiosity
I am presently employed as a general system analyst and am pursuing
Doctoral study. Below is a brief summary of the main points of my
research.
1. A change in structure, strategy or internal processes must receive
its impetus from within the organisation. This impetus needs
expression via =93speech acts=94, i.e. people need to be =93told=94
(symbolically) about the changes. This is only possible and effective
if the reasons and implications for this change (i.e. if the concept
of this change can be extended ) can be justified in terms of words,
symbols, rules of grammar etc. used in the organisation.
2. The language used within an organisation (lexicon) is a
well-ordered sub-set of the common discourse used external to the
organisation, by virtue of its relation to the types of actions and
events which have =91meaning=92, or which describe actions, for that
organisation in its interaction with the external system.
3. Given this material =93descriptive=94 requirement of language within =
organisations, the language within an organisation represents its
structure and processes.
4. By these statements (1 and 2) then, the options for change from
within an organisation are a function of an extant organisational
language.
5. This relationship between the external common language and the
organisational language shows organisational communication with the
external system, to be a =91non-linear=92 process itself where the forced=
introduction of new terms cause break-downs in inter-system
communication. What are the parameters (limits) of these crises?
6. The identification of the types of causes of such systemic crises
is possible by virtue of a comparison of two differently evolving
systems, Political Organisations and Corporate Entities.
7. Expanding on (5): Two concepts which supposedly underpin the
existence of political discourse can be identified; =91Belief=92
(political) and =91Action=92 (corporate). By deconstructing these
concepts within the respective organisational discourses we are able
to determine those structural parameters which qualify the
organisation=92s interpretation (marginalisation) of these concepts.
8. That we might moot that there are an infinity of beliefs borne of
personal experience, suggests that =91belief=92 itself cannot be a
sufficient discriminating basis for defining communication within a
few well-subscribed political organisations. It is suggested that the
Speech Action of the organisation which cohere with =91statements=92
which the individual holds to be true is such a sufficient
requirement. So, belief might determine coherence, but once that
individual enters an organised political discourse, belief is of
necessity (due to the need for communication with others holding
different beliefs) subverted and what matters is what is expressible
both within and without the organisation.
9. The functioning of corporate entities however, is precisely
premised upon belief. Similar to the above situation, a disposition
to enter into a discourse comprising reference to certain actions
(commercial) might start the process. But, once involved in the
functions of an open economy the object of all action is the same,
but the belief of what constitutes the most successful business
discourse (the most successful way to go about creating value) is the
distinguishing characteristic of such action. This is clearly seen in
distinguishing the economic platforms of the major two-party
democracies, i.e. USA and Britain. That is, both use the same
canonical concepts to motivate for divergent economic revival
strategies, but these concepts are mediated by belief in what the
present structure (economy) can give effect to (express).
10. Note that when we refer to belief and action in the above two
paragraphs, we must be careful not to get caught up in an extensional
analysis, rather we are concened with deconstructing the discourse
according to these =93traces=94 which constitute discriminating =91foci=92=
of
the two types of systems=92 modes of expression and communication.
11. Using (7) and (8) we might accomplish (4) and (5).
12. Commercial Discourse (at time t) is therefore a function of
Political discourse (t) and previous commercial discourse (t-1).
These inputs are =93commodity fetishised=94 and by virtue of the
established belief-determinant inherent in the relationship between
the commercial infrastructure and the social superstructure, only
those political modalities which are =91believed=92 to offer =93profitabl=
e=94
new opportunities are given expresion as outputs of commercial
discourse. These then become the objects of action for future
politcal expression.
13. Political organisations are then subject to similar criteria of
process efficiency in communicating their beliefs (read: methods of
action) and are therefore constrained by this previous round of
commercial discourse.
I hope that you consider this of interest to the list.
Thank you for your assistance.
Justin.
Then all of a sudden [he] looked like he had something very good,
something sharp as a tack, to say to me...It was a false alarm,
though...All of a sudden then I wanted to get the hell out of the
room...I could feel a terrific lecture coming on. (JDS)