Pluralism, Change, and Corporate Community

Abstract

ed out of its concrete relations and/or roles can be coherently thouqht of as a functioning self, and that such a can be a decision maker. The self that decides in Rawls' position is decidedly isolated from its social attributes, and the framework which emerges from the theory is a peculiarly atemporal, rationally constructed frame imposed from above upon the contingencies of real life existence and isolated from historically changing conditions. 2. That these philosophers provide a unified perspective is assumed in this article, but this claim is defended at some length in Rosenthal (1986). 3. This use of the pragmatists is basically the same as that utilized by Rosenthal (1986) as well in other books and articles by Buchholz and Rosenthal. 4. Deconstructionist theory, like pragmatism, rejects the ideal of the organization as a smoothly running machine. Likewise, it recognizes that total consensus within an organization, far from being the ideal goal, threatens its very well being (Hassard, 1993). But while deconstruction like pragmatism turns to the relational ingredients of corporate dynamics, each does so in very different ways. While pragmatism turns to the pluralistic features of community and the importance of diversity and conflict in the dynamics of community growth, deconstruction turns to what has been called the prevalence of creative (Gergen, 1989). And while pragma tism turns to the sense of community in which even the most dissenting voice enters into the ongoing dynamics of community life with the adjustments and accommodations this requires, deconstruction turns to a dynamic tension between empowerment and disempowerment in order for organizations to sustain themselves. Understanding corporate dynamics in terms of tensions and creative confusion versus a pluralistic community of voices in communicative interaction are quite different end-products offered respectively by deconstruction and pragmatism as results of a shared rejection of abstract rationality, mechanistic conformity, and other modernist views inherent in traditional theories of the corporation. In short, the different approaches represent the politics of power versus the politics of community.