Lecture 3 – Theories, Frameworks and critiques
This lecture is Ian Angel’s personal vision of theories and frameworks. Building on Nietzsche, he acknowledges that he is a
sceptic and that we advance through the world, sensing our way by means of multiply overlapping schemas, fictions, maps
“synthetic a priori judgements”, “cognitive orientations to reality”. According to Dr Angel, they are biased and incomplete.
I- Categories and schema
Schemas are underlying patterns or structure, cultural frameworks that we use in order to analyse the world. According to Ian
Angel each schema is unique to a person has its own interpretation of it, interpretation that can evolve with time. Following
Nitzsche, “He who considers more deeply knows that, whatever his acts and judgements may be, he is always wrong”. But being
wrong is not necessarily a bad thing. However, in order to build something out of his theory, Nietzsche has coined the concept of
“instrumental fiction”, it is being wrong in Nietzsche’s term but the possibility to be right in most people’s vision.
II- The four paradigms of social theory
Burrell and Morgan created a matrix on the ways in which an individual will look at the human society. They classify any one
view of society within a matrix of two pairs of extreme interpretative positions.
The first dimension identifies an interpretation as being either “objective”
or “subjective” in nature. The second dimension contrasts the “sociology
of regulation” (advocating a view of society in terms of integration and
cohesion) with the “sociology of radical change” (claiming that society is
in a continual state of crisis).
Regulation
Objective
Subjective
FUNCTIONALIST
INTERPRETIVIST
Radical
RADICAL
RADICAL
Change
STRUCTURALIST
HUMANIST
According to B&M, each view of society adheres to just one of four quite
distinct and mutually exclusive paradigms: Functionalist, Interpretivist,
Radical Structuralist and Radical Humanist. What is more, B&M assert that each paradigm contradicts the views of the other
three. Therefore each sociological theory must be based in just one paradigm, since each is examining social phenomena in totally
different ways. Consequently, arguments between proponents of different paradigms cannot be easily resolved because they are
not arguing about points of fact, but arguing from different perspectives about different things - even the words they use have
different meanings for each group. Geoff Walsham sums up this dilemma very succinctly: “theory is both a way of seeing and a
way of not seeing”.
- The Functionalist Paradigm: This category is the conventional mode of thinking about almost every aspect of our world, in
most of academia and business. Functionalists claim there is a science of society, just as physics is the science of nature, that
rational observers come to the same conclusions about a situation because of an objective reality and logic inherent in that
situation. Functionalists say that social reality is governed by immutable laws of causality that can be discovered through the
scientific method, based on unbiased observation, supported by empirical evidence, and then used to advantage to explain and
build cohesive and stable structures in society: the fundamental tenets of social engineering. However, such a normative approach
tends to dehumanize the situation.
- The Interpretivist Paradigm: Following the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, interpretivists set out to understand and share their
explanation of the human condition, both individual and collective. They see a shared reality, created by the human mind, and
NOT as physical matter in an objective world. Knowledge derives from human experience and is necessarily highly subjective,
with the observer being simultaneously both subject and object of the discourse. Like functionalists, they are somewhat fatalistic,
believing in a stable world, that is as it is, however, they cannot accept the universal validity of the scientific mode of enquiry.
- The Radical Structuralist Paradigm: While sharing the ‘scientific’ and objective view of functionalists, they see
contradictory forces rather than stabilizing ones at work in society. They believe that their theoretical understanding of society
enables them to make radical changes and overturn the status quo and all its injustices, to the benefit of those groups in society
they see as deserving; that history is on their side. The theories of Karl Marx are archetypical of this position.
- The Radical Humanist Paradigm: Diametrically opposed to functionalists, radical humanists see that paradigm as a slave
mentality. They believe societal change comes through vision and ideas, not by manipulating the algorithms of an assumed
inevitable causality. They claim our ‘understanding’ of the world is created, not discovered; that gains come from investing in
human potential and not from an obsession with discovering de facto universal infrastructures in society. Their goal is
emancipation of the individual from the cognitive domination of ‘the powers that be’ within the status quo, any status quo particularly overturning the currently dominant mind-set of ‘scientism’, with its tendency to alienate human consciousness.
III- Critiques
The most basic critique that can be made against this matrix is its simplistic vision. However, it is being applied widely in the
literature and in academia. In the following professor Angel explains why he is anti-functionalist, the dominant ideology in IS.
According to Herbert Marcuse, there is a vicious circle of cognitive tyranny within technology that has crushed humanity down to
a “one dimension man”, who is subservient to the technological structures of his own making. And, human behaviours in the
B&M matrix are boxes, acts of choice imposed by the observer. Therefore one could say that there is no such thing as objectivity.
The only way then to work in IS would be to link any activity to a company’s strategy in order to give it legitimacy.
1- Sameness vs similarity
Another issue is the one of sameness vs similarity. Quite often we identify things that are similar in order to say that they are the
same, thus losing in granularity. Moreover, because of our subjectivity, people who think they share the same social system, they
might not share the exact same perspectives on them. According to Ian Angel we develop “socially acceptable schemas” which
are the fruit of our education.
Dr Angel explains the assumption of sameness because of what it entails: temporary regularities, which we can use as the basis of
maps that guide us through the “turbulence of existenc”.
2- Logic
Ian Angel goes even further. If we consider that two elements can be the same, we can build logic and mathematics. However,
Nietzsche states that “but it was prevailing tendency to treat the similar at once as identical, an illogical tendency – for nothing is
identical – which first created all the foundations of logic”.
3- Numbers, measurements and statistics
Numbers are a way to count elements in a category. However if you assume that categories do not exist, numbers have no
meaning. It unfolds that measurements are also faulty. In order to be able to survive though, Dr Angel considers that we must
accept “sameness” and “number” as a practical choice, but with circumscribed appropriateness, while at the same time denying its
universal validity. The final element that can be criticized thus is statistics.
As Dr. Angel stresses, however, numbers are more and more used in our management culture. Even if some people have seen the
shortcomings of such ways of dealing with things, numbers are still used.