IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wea/econth/v8y2019ip1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Hierarchical Inconsistencies: A Critical Assessment of Justification

Author

Listed:
  • Juozas Kasputis

    (Institute of Advanced Studies Kőszeg (iASK), Polanyi Centre, Hungary)

Abstract

The existential insecurity of human beings has induced them to create protective spheres of symbols: myths, religions, values, belief systems, theories, etc. Rationality is one of the key factors contributing to the construction of civilisation in technical and symbolic terms. As Hankiss (2001) has emphasised, protective spheres of symbols may collapse – thus causing a profound social crisis. Social and political transformations had a tremendous impact at the end of the 20th century. As a result, management theories have been revised in order to deal with transition and uncertainty. Francis Fukuyama's (2000) approach is supportive of hierarchical organisation as the best solution when facing a 'disruption'. The notion of Homo Hierarchicus has been based on, allegedly, rational presumptions. This paper contributes to the discussion on hierarchy within contemporary organisations. It criticises so-called 'natural' and 'rational' necessities justifying hierarchy. A key issue identified by the paper is the formalisation of language in claiming value-free knowledge and 'detached' observation as the basis for neutral rationality and aspired efficiency. This should be seriously reconsidered as hindering rather than aiding understanding of social complexity. All in all, Homo Hierarchicus appears to be misleading rather than helping symbolic sphere or construct.

Suggested Citation

  • Juozas Kasputis, 2019. "Hierarchical Inconsistencies: A Critical Assessment of Justification," Economic Thought, World Economics Association, vol. 8, pages 1-12, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wea:econth:v:8:y:2019:i::p:1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://et.worldeconomicsassociation.org/papers/hierarchical-inconsistencies-a-critical-assessment-of-justification/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://et.worldeconomicsassociation.org/files/2019/12/WEA-ET-8-2-Kasputis.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stuart Holland, 2015. "After Ricardo – after Marx – after Keynes: comparative advantage, mutual advantage and implications for global governance," Review of Keynesian Economics, Edward Elgar Publishing, vol. 3(1), pages 29-44, January.
    2. Stuart Holland & Teresa Carla Oliveira, 2013. "Missing Links: Hume, Smith, Kant and Economic Methodology," Economic Thought, World Economics Association, vol. 2(2), pages 1-46, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Flavia Di Mario & Andrea Micocci, 2017. "Smith’s invisible hand: controversy is needed," The Journal of Philosophical Economics, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, vol. 11(1), pages 53-82, November.
    2. Stuart Holland & Andrew Black, 2018. "Cherchez la Firme: Redressing the Missing – Meso – Middle in Mainstream Economics," Economic Thought, World Economics Association, vol. 7(2), pages 15-53, November.
    3. Hubert Gabrisch, 2015. "On the twin deficits hypothesis and the import intensity in transition countries," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 205-220, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wea:econth:v:8:y:2019:i::p:1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Jake McMurchie (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/worecea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.