This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (19) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Tsoukasl, H. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Panoptic Reason and the Search for Totality: A Critical Assessment of the Critical Systems Perspective

Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.

This paper reviews the main claims and assumptions of the critical systems perspective (CSP) and subjects them to vigorous criticism. It is argued that CSP is flawed on philosophical and sociological grounds. Philosophically, CSP is criticized for its use of ideological premises which are unsusceptible to scientific criticism, for its unrealistic assumptions concerning the alleged unitary nature of organizations and society, for an essentialist conception of human beings, and for its inability to distinguish between different types of systems research. Sociologically, CSP's inadequate conceptualization of power in organizations is discussed. CSP also espouses an apolitical conception of organizational actors, and fails to appreciate the inherently open nature of social systems which is manifested mainly through the emergence of unintended consequences. It is argued here that all the above deficiencies emanate from two fundamental premises: the panoptic status CSP accords to reason, and the totalizing nature of CSP's discourse. Both premises are criticized in this paper as indefensible.

Key Words: critical theory • power • problem management • systems • reason

Human Relations, Vol. 45, No. 7, 637-657 (1992)
DOI: 10.1177/001872679204500701


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. Prichard The Organization of Organizational Discourse Management Communication Quarterly, November 1, 2006; 20(2): 213 - 226. [PDF]

				H. Wilimoft Management and Organization Studies as Science? Organization, August 1, 1997; 4(3): 309 - 344. [Abstract]

				S. Linsteadl Objectivity, Reflexivity, and Fiction: Humanity, Inhumanity, and the Science of the Social Human Relations, November 1, 1994; 47(11): 1321 - 1346. [Abstract] [PDF]