IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/halshs-03949820.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Relatedness & the ethics of writing organization

Author

Listed:
  • Jean-Luc Moriceau

    (IMT-BS - DEFI - Département Droit, Économie et Finances - TEM - Télécom Ecole de Management - IMT - Institut Mines-Télécom [Paris] - IMT-BS - Institut Mines-Télécom Business School - IMT - Institut Mines-Télécom [Paris], LITEM - Laboratoire en Innovation, Technologies, Economie et Management (EA 7363) - UEVE - Université d'Évry-Val-d'Essonne - IMT-BS - Institut Mines-Télécom Business School - IMT - Institut Mines-Télécom [Paris])

Abstract

In this Special Issue we invite authors to explore why it is epistemologically and ethically desirable to describe organization poetically. In an industrialized society that is increasingly in panic and defined by political conflict, the ethics of relatedness are not just epistemologically an issue but also ethically one. Relatedness and responsibility — and especially as motivated by the heritage of Levinas — remain a crucial impulse for an ethical society and within that society, ethical research. Researching organization needs to understand relatedness and not to define it out of existence. Research that denies relatedness, we submit, only strengthens the political-economic-organizational crises of our times. Organizational research has long been identified with a reductionist, analytic form of research. For instance, the ‘empirical analytical' tradition sees no role for the researcher's affect in research. But the repression of affect makes access to motivation, creativity and the sources of innovation nearly impossible. As Graham Harman (2016) expresses it, ‘undermining' (i.e. the reduction of the organization into its elements and the mapping of the relations between those elements) and ‘overmining' (i.e. identifying the organization with transcendental truths, first principles and metaphysical principles) both fundamentally hinder researcher/researched interaction. Organizational researchers usually write themselves out of their research, research processes are disconnected to their manifold contexts. The absence of relatedness prevents engagement, care and deep learning. Separation and distance preclude the challenging of one's presuppositions and thought. Thus we ask: What relational epistemology and research practices are needed to do justice to human relatedness in creating and maintaining sustainable organizations? How does one include affect, relatedness and care for others? How does one write texts that preserve relation, presence and responsibility? What ethics of organizational research and writing embody practical responsibility for a more just and cohesive society? To give but a few examples: · Lingis (2016) recounts personal situations in which many of us would consider him as a victim, but relationally on his position and invites the reader to reconsider one's conception of justice. · Veissière (2009, 2010) as a researcher on the streets of Bahia, feels as a ‘pimp' taking advantage of his researchees' vulnerability. He even comes to the realization that his way of trying to aid could be detrimental due to his academic habit of distancing. Deeper connection leads him to revise his descriptions and theories. · Stewart (1991) makes the case for contaminated knowledge, in which researchers fully engage themselves inthe group studied and include their own experience and their affect in their reflections. · Brosseau (2015) writes from a refugee position, and feels the need to research poetic writing in order to relate more authentically to society.

Suggested Citation

  • Jean-Luc Moriceau, 2018. "Relatedness & the ethics of writing organization," Post-Print halshs-03949820, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-03949820
    DOI: 10.1108/SBR-10-2018-127
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    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:hal:journl:halshs-03949820. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.