포스트모더니즘

소개

포스트모더니즘에 관한 논문입니다.
참고하실분 쓰세요. ^^*

목차

Ⅰ. 문제의 제기
Ⅱ. 포스트모더니즘 조직연구의 정체성
1. 포스트모더니즘의 개념적 논의
2. 포스트모더니즘 조직연구의 정체성
Ⅲ.포스트모더니즘 조직이론의 문제틀(problematic)

본문내용

1. 포스트모더니즘의 개념적 논의
단조롭고 획일적인 ‘모더니티’ 건축양식에 대한 대항으로 시작된 포스트모더니즘은 문학비판과 철학 및 문화연구를 거쳐 거의 모든 학문 영역에 그 영향력을 확대하고 있다(Ryan, 1988; Lash, 1990; Parker, 1990). 포스트모더니즘(또는 모더니즘과의 비교)에 대한 관점과 접근방식의 다양성은 이에 대한 합의된 정의의 도출을 어렵게 하고 다양한 해석의 공존을 초래한 것도 사실이다(Parker, 1992; Rousenau, 1992; Chia, 1995).
포스트모더니즘의 개념적 논의와 관련해 선결되어야 하는 것이 접두사 `포스트`(post)에 대한 해석이라고 할 수 있다. 포스트에 대한 해석은 크게 두 가지 방향으로 접근할 수 있을 것이다. 첫째는 일종의 시기구분으로서 모더니즘 `이후‘(post)의 시기로 규정될 수 있다(Parker, 1990; Alvarado, 1996; 이윤희, 1996). 즉 현대 ’이전‘(pre-modern) - 현대(modern) - 현대 ’이후‘(post-modern)의 시간적 흐름을 나타내는 것으로 볼 수 있다. 이는 포스트모더니즘이 모더니즘과 근본적인 단절이라기보다는 모더니즘 ‘이후의’, 또 모더니즘적 사상을 창조적으로 발전계승하였다는 것을 의미한다. 이 경우 포스트모더니즘은 “후기- 현대주의(모더니즘)”의 의미를 갖게 될 것이다. 두 번째는 포스트모더니즘을 단순한 시기구분 및 시간적 흐름이상의 의미를 갖는 것으로 해석할 수 있다(Parker, 1992; Chia, 1995). 즉 포스트모더니즘의 출현동기가 모더니즘의 계승이라기보다는 기술적 합리성에 근간을 둔 기존의 모더니즘적 사유 및 정향성과 구분되는 또는 근본적인 단절에 있다면, 이는 ‘탈(또는 반) 현대주의’로 보는 것이 타당할 것이다(이윤희, 1992: 245).
그렇다면 포스트모더니즘에 대한 양자의 접근 중 어떠한 접근이 보다 타당할 것인가, 또는 본 연구에서는 어떠한 접근을 수용할 것인가의 문제가 남는다. 이러한 물음에 답하기 위해서는 포스트모더니즘적 사유의 정향성을 정리해 볼 필요가 있다.

참고자료

· Althusser, L. (1965). For Marx. London: New left books.
· Alvarado, F. (1996). Concerning Postmodernity and Organizations in the Third World: Opening a Debate and Suggestions for a Research Agenda. Organization Science. 7(6): 667-681.
· Alvesson, M. (1993). The Play of Metaphors. 114-131. Postmodernism and Organizations. Alvesson, M. and Karreman, D. (2000). Varieties of Discourse: On the Study of Organizations through Discourse Analysis. Human Relations. 53(9): 1125-1149.
· Astley, W. (1985). Administrative Science as socially Constructed Truth. ASQ. 30: 497-513.
· Baumann, Z. (1988). Viewpoint: Sociology and Post-modernity. Sociological Review. 36(4): 790-813.
· Benson, J. (1977). Organization: A Dialectical View. ASQ. 22: 1-21.
· Benton, T. (1975). Philosophical Foundations of the Three sociologies. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
· Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. (1967). The Social Construction of Reality. NY: Doubleday and Company.
· Boje, D. (1991). The Storytelling Organization: A Study of Story Performance in an Office-Supply Firm. ASQ. 36: 106-126.
· Burrell, W. and Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. London: Heinemann.
· Cannella, Jr. A. and Paetzold, R. (1994). Pfeffer`s Barriers to the Advance of Organizational Science: A Rejoinder. AMR. 19(2): 331-341.
· Chia, R. (1995). From Modern to Postmodern Organizational Analysis. Organization Studies. 16(4): 579-604.
· Chilton, P. and Illyin, M. (1993). Metaphor in Political Discourse Analtsis: The Case of the `Common European House`. Discourse and Society. 4(1): 7-31.
· Clegg, S. (1990). Modern Organizations. London: Sage.
· Cooper, R. and Burrell, G. (1988). Modernism, Postmodernism and Organizational Analysis: An Introduction. Organizational Studies. 9(1): 91-112.
· Faucault, M. (1980). Power and Knowledge. NY: Pantheon Books.
· Gergen, K. (1992). Organization Theory in the Postmodern Era. 207-226. in Reed, M. and Hughes(eds.) Rethinking Organization. London: Sage.
· Gioia, D. and Pitre, E. (1990). Multiparadigm Perspectives on Theory Building. AMR. 15(4): 584-602.
· Giddens A. (1979). Central Problems in Social Theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.
· Goodsell, C. (1992). The Public Administrator as an Artisan. PAR. 52(3): 246-253.
· Hassard, J. (1988). Overcomming Hermeticism in Organization Theory: An Alternative to Paradigm Incommensurability. Human Relations. 41(3): 247-259.
· Hassard, J. (1991). Multiparadigms and Organizational Analysis: A Case Study. Organization Studies. 12(2): 275-299.
· Hassard, J. (1993). Postmodernism and Organizational Analysis: an Overview. 1-24. Postmodernism and Organizations. Hassard, J. and Parker, M.(eds.). Sage.
· Hatch, M. J. (1997a). Organization Theory: Modern Symbolic and Postmodern Perspectives. Oxford University Press.
· Hatch, M. J. (1997b). Irony and the Social Construction of Contradiction in the Homor of a Management Team. Organization Science. 8: 275-288.
· Hearn, J. and Parkin, P. (1992). Gender and Organizations: A Selective Review and a Critique of a Neglected Area. 46-66. Mills and Tancred, Gendering Organizational Analysis. Sage.
· Heracleous, L. and Hendry, J. (2000). Discourse and the Study of Organization: Toward a Structurational Perspective. Human Relations. 53(10): 1251-1286.
· Jeffcutt, P. (1993). From Interpretation to Representation. 25-48 in Postmodernism and Organizations. Hassard, J. and Parker, M.(eds.). Sage.
· Jeffcutt. P. (1994). From Interpretation to Representation in Organizational Analysis: Postmodernism, Ethnography and Organizational Symbolism. Organization Studies. 15(2): 241-272.
· Jun. J. S. (1997). Interpretive and Critical Perspectives: An Introduction. Administrative Theory and Praxis. 19(2): 146-153.
· Lane, L. (1986). Karl Weick`s Organizing: The Problem of Purpose and the Search for Excellence. Administration and Society. 18(1): 111-135.
· Lash, S. (1990). Sociology of Postmodernism. London: Routledge.
· Law, K. and Chi-Sum Wong. (1999). Miltidimensional Constructs in Structural Equation Analysis: An Illustration Using the Job Perception and Job Satisfaction Constructs. Journal of Management. 25(2): 143-160.
· Linstead, S. (1993). Deconstruction in the Study if Organizations. 49-70. in Hassard, J. and Parker, M. (eds), Postmodernism and Organizations. London: Sage.
· Lyotard, J-F. (1984). The Postmodern Condition: A Report of Knowledge. Manchester University Press.
· Mills, A. (1992). Organization, Gender, and Culture. 93-111. in Mills and Tancred, Gendering Organizational Analysis. Sage.
· Mills, A. and Tancred, P.(ed.)(1992). Gendering Organizational Analysis. Sage.
· Morgan, G. (1980). Paradigms, Metaphor, and Puzzle-Solving in Organization Theory. ASQ. 25: 605-622.
· Morgan, G. (1983). Beyond Method. Beverlt Hills. CA.: Sage.
· Morgan, G. (1984). Opportunities Arising From Paradigm Diversity. Administration and Society. 16(3): 306-327.
· Morgan, G. (1986). Images of Organization. Sage.
· Nohria, N. & Berkely (1994). The Virtual Organization: Bureaucacy, Technology and the Implosion of Control. In Heckscher, C. & Donnellon (1994). The Post-Bureaucractic Organization: New Perspectives on Organizational Change. Sage Publications.
· Parker, M. and McHugh, G. (1991). Five Texts in Search of an Author: A Response to John Hassard`s `Multiple Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. Organization Studies. 12(3): 451-456.
· Parker, M. (1992). Postmodern Organizations or Postmodern Organization Theory?. Organization Studies. 13(1): 1-17.
· Pfeffer, J. (1993). Barriers to the Advance of Organizational Science: Paradigm Development as a Dependent Variable. AMR. 18(4): 599-620.
· Powell, W. W (1990). Neither Market Nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organization. In Staw, B. M. & Cummings, L. L. (ed.). Research in Organizational Behavior. 12: 295-336. Greenwich, CT:JAI.
· Ryan, M. (1988). Postmodern Politics, 559-576. in Featherstone(eds), Theory, Culture and Society. Special Issue.
· Sanders, P. (1982). Phenomenology: A New Way of Organizational Research. AMR. 7: 353-360.
· Scherer, A. and Steinmann, H. (1999). Some Remarks on the Problem of Incommensurability in Organization Studies. Organization Studies. 20(3): 519-544.
· Schultz, M. and Hatch, M. (1996). Living With Multiple Paradigms: The Case of Paradigm Interplay in Organizational Culture Studies. AMR. 21(2): 529-557.
· Scott. W. (1981). Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. NJ.: Prentic-Hall.
· Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis. ASQ. 28: 339-358.
· Weaver, G. and Gioia, D. (1994). Paradigms Lost: Incommensurability vs Structurationist Inquiry. Organization Studies. 15(4): 565-583.
· Weick, K. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
· Weick, K. (1990). Technology as Equivoque: Sensemaking in New Technologies. 1-44. in Goodman, P., Sproull, L., and Associates. Technology and Organizations. Jossey-Bass
· Wick, A. and Freeman, R. (1998). Organization Studies and the New Pragmatism: Positivism, Anti-positivism, and the Search for Ethics. Organization Science. 9(2): 123-140.
· Wittgenstein, L. (1963). Philosophical Investigations. trans. Anscombe. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
· Zey-Ferrell, M. (1981). Criticism of the Dominant Perspective on Organization. The Sociological Quarterly. 22: 181-205.