SOCIAL POETICS: POSSIBILITIES FOR CRITICAL AND POSTMODERN RESEARCH

Ann L. Cunliffe, University of New Hampshire
IABD 2000 Las Vegas 

ABSTRACT

Many contemporary organizational analysts draw upon postmodern and critical themes to question conventional conceptions of the relationship between social reality, language and theorizing. They suggest language does not represent, but rather constitutes, our social realities. Thus, organizations, culture, roles and identities are seen as discursive constructions and interwoven narratives. I wish to offer some ideas for a way of incorporating these notions into organizational research. The ‘method’ I suggest is based on the practice of social poetics.
 
 

I. INTRODUCTION

Recent debates within postmodernism and critical management challenge representational views of language in favor of metaphorical approaches. Conventional notions emphasize the literal, denotative aspects (Lyotard, 1984); the capacity of language to describe the ‘real’ world in objective and accurate terms. Consequently, researchers adopt an outside-expert stance and monologic discourse to talk, in theoretical ways, about the experience of others (Shotter, 1998). In contrast, the work of postmodernists and poststructuralists (e.g., Derrida, 1980) and the ‘linguistic turn’ in the social sciences draws our attention to the constitutive nature of text and language; the elusive, context-dependent and creative aspects. This has resulted in organizational researchers developing practices grounded in language and text, for example, deconstruction (Chia, 1994), discourse analysis (Fairclough, 1993), conversational analysis (Tulin, 1997), and narrative analysis (Czarniawska, 1997). Some responses to this reframing of language have resulted in first-order research methods (studying how others use language to construct their realities), while other researchers have struggled to develop more reflexive methods (studying how all participants in the research process discursively construct research stories). I draw upon the latter to offer a dialogic, as opposed to monologic, perspective on research.

Drawing on postmodern and social constructionist suppositions, particularly the work of Shotter, a primary author in this field, I suggest talk is the primary medium of constructing our social/organizational realities and sense of self (Shotter, 1993). Similarly, we make sense of what is happening around us in the flow of our (managers, researchers, ‘ordinary’ people...) everyday dialogical activity. If we accept this premise, then studying how our dialogical practices might shape reality offers rich potential for understanding, articulating and living our lives in more deliberate ways; for "knowing how, knowing how to live, knowing how to listen" (Lyotard, 1984:18). This form of knowledge takes us beyond denotative statements, to knowing how to relate with others in more reflexive, responsive and critical ways. One approach to research that draws on these suppositions and attempts to incorporate a reflexive dialogic perspective is social poetics. I suggest this ‘method’, or what may be more appropriately termed a ‘practice’, offers a way of exploring how, in the flow of our embodied dialogical activity, we link ourselves to our surroundings and make sense of our experience through imaginative ways of talking.

II. SOCIAL POETICS

The dialogical perspective draws on the work of discursive psychologists, (e.g., Bakhtin, 1984; Wittgenstein, 1953, 1980) and social constructionist suppositions to suggest we are rhetorical beings who connect with and shape our surroundings through responsive discourse (Hatch, 1997; Shotter, 1996; Watson, 1994). Bakhtin (1984) suggests our dialogical relationships cannot be reduced to logic, categorization or theoretical forms of talk, instead we need to focus on the dialogic and relational moments in which we try to shape our surroundings. Such dialogue occurs in a zone of indeterminacy because it takes place between us in spontaneous, responsive and moment-to-moment interaction (Shotter, 1997). Consequently, our dialogue incorporates the otherness of language and meaning because it is always at the boundaries; my voice/your voice, my sense/your sense, what I am struck by/what you are struck by, and so on. How we navigate these boundaries in our conversations and begin to construct some kind of shared sense is an important issue for researchers and managers, both of whom are engaged in creating a sense of what is going on. Wittgenstein (1953, 1981) suggests this constructing process occurs in practices which are already concealed in our talk, which we take for granted because they are so familiar, and which could be surfaced to draw out new possibilities. Such possibilities include developing more reflective conversational practices as well as reflexive research practices. 

What are the implications of these suppositions for research? How may we explore ways in which we (researchers and other participants) construct our realities through our discursive practices? How might we grasp the often taken-for-granted aspects or moments of our conversations in which some kind of meaning is created? I suggest social poetics offers one approach because it focuses on the creative, imaginative language and dialogue that occurs between people as they attempt to act within, and make sense of, their social and organizational worlds. Social poetics draws attention to taken-for-granted ways of talking: to ways in which we experience ‘arresting moments’ when words, gestures, feelings strike us and move us to see, sense, act, or relate to others in certain ways (Shotter, 1996). Thus, our conversations (with managers, organizational participants, other researchers) are an important part of the research process because they are the moment-to-moment, responsive dialogue in which meaning unfolds. 

III POETIC ‘METHODS’

Poetic methods are non theoretical, unpredictable, practical ways of talking that occur in the living, responsive moment. They include our use of:

- metaphors, images, analogies, irony

- instructive forms of talk such as: ‘do this’, ‘look at that’, ‘listen..

- imaginative forms of talk used to reveal possibilities or new ways of 

connecting; ‘what would happen if....’

- gestures; pointing, shrugging....

Wittgenstein calls these "reminders" (1953, no. 89) because they direct our attention to taken-for-granted, embodied aspects of everyday forms of talk. Such forms of dialogue may create a range of responses or open up possibilities for creating a shared sense, further dialogue or action. When studying these methods it is important to discuss how our talk may help construct connections or disconnections from within the conversation itself. In this way, social poetics can help managers and researchers become aware of the constitutive and persuasive nature of dialogue and to articulate practice in more reflexive ways. I will highlight one particular aspect of this method, the potency of metaphors in creating and making sense of organizational life and in constructing a research story about the lives of managers. In doing so, I will offer examples from within conversations between managers and myself, and suggest how poetic forms of talk may have influenced our sense making process: an insider-participant stance. This is the practice of social poetics.

Metaphors: Creating Sense Through the ‘Other’

If we accept language as creative and metaphorical then reality takes on the characteristics of images created by language itself; our experience and knowledge of the world become inextricably linked. Metaphors are a key part of the linguistic creativity of the constructing process and are potent rhetorical devices because they may create vivid images and embodied responses which can lead to those arresting moments in which possibilities arise for constructing shared significances. Metaphors are used at a macroscopic level, as a world view or analytical tool, and a microscopic level, as part of everyday conversation (Ortony, 1993). The microscopic approach is particularly relevant to social constructionist inquiry because it focuses on language use and the speech act. From this perspective, metaphors are seen as illustrative devices (Alvesson, 1993) to enhance the process of shaping meaning, or as persuasive devices in helping others to see events in a particular way (Billig, 1987). I suggest the potency of metaphorical forms of talk arise from their implicit ‘otherness’ and their ability to provoke embodied responses and shared impressions.

Metaphors may also be seen as the language of the Other, because they carry an oppositional logic (Cooper, 1989): meaning is implied from the opposite of the image suggested. Thus, meaning is never fully present but "a kind of constant flickering of presence and absence together" (Sarup, 1989); an utterance which is a deliberate lie and in which the very act of lying helps give sense to a whole. In speaking metaphorically and using words from one context to make sense of another, we are not defining and bounding meaning, but startling the listener to contrast images of what is and is not.

My taped research conversations with managers offered many examples of how managers used poetic forms of talk to give me a sense of their lives. I began to realize how important these forms of talk were in helping create an impression of they made sense of their organizational experience. For example,

S : "Parts of the business aren’t talking about it. The Finance side is ..... it’s almost like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, they click their heels and they want to go back to Kansas - and you can’t go back. Humpty Dumpty’s off the wall - I’m sorry!" This language created arresting moments for me because the images engaged my attention and created a strong sense of how S. felt about his relationship with the Finance Department. It is perhaps the irony of contrasting the Finance Department with The Wizard of Oz that resonates; the illusion of differences/similarities that helped me connect and grasp a sense of internal organizational relations. Certain implicit assumptions lie within this dialogical practice: the words are not to be taken literally, there is a deliberate lie (the Finance people ‘click their heels’), and the speaker has feelings about the situation -- feelings s/he is attempting to evoke from the listener. We may sympathize, be incredulous that such things could happen, or laugh ironically and say ‘yes that’s my experience too!’. Metaphors can offer a potent way of connecting in dialogue when the images resonate. It is this aspect that makes them crucial to constructing a shared sense because they can provide ways of connecting with and moving others. However, this potency may also result in disconnection if we are repulsed by the image. Thus, the speaker has no control over the response and we continually debate our constructions of reality and selfhood with ourselves and others. In this way, language may create through its very indeterminacy, images and responses that can have a powerful influence on meaning and on living relationships. Poetic talk can make a crucial difference to the way we respond, act and make sense of our experience because it engages attention, invites response, leaves much open to the imagination, and gives color to a situation -- the listener is provoked, engaged or repulsed by the words.

I suggest poetic language may create shared organizational discourse which influences action. I spoke with a number of managers from one organization who, by their language, created a sense of organizational life as a ‘battlefield’:

V. "I come in in the morning now and I’m a skeptic, I say, ‘OK, first tell me about the casualties, I want to set priorities - what are the things that might take us out of business today? .... Right now we’re wrestling with keeping two boilers up and running..."

D. "You plan something then ‘Boom!’, something happens........"

J. "We’ve got to keep them (customers) in our camp."

 In this way, through responsive dialogue, a shared organizational discourse or architecture may be created, an imagined context or sense of organizational reality into which people act. I propose this process involves a complex, interwoven relationship in which it is difficult to distinguish between the world, the way we talk about/come to know the world, and the way we situate ourselves within it - how we decide what to do and who to be, are rooted in our everyday, poetic ways of talking about the ‘features’ of our ‘reality’. 
 
 

IV. SOCIAL POETICS AND CRITICAL RESEARCH

Social poetics is important to critical and postmodern research because it pushes us to be skeptical of conventional management discourse and its associated research practices; to question our notions of reality, what constitutes knowledge, our role as researchers/managers/organizational participants, and the nature of our research conversations. Conventional management inquiry is often monological; generalizations and interpretations of some assumed external (independent) or internal (within human consciousness) reality. A postmodern/social constructionist research agenda pursues a different path; one which celebrates the active subjectivity of our ways of making sense and the discursive resources we use to construct, make sense of, and act within our social world. This approach not only exposes the repressive influences of conventional inquiry on research and management practice, but encourages a more critical exploration of different ways of relating, making sense of and influencing others in our contested, intralinguistic landscape. As such, it encourages us to develop more reflexive forms of inquiry and practice.

V. REFERENCES

Alvesson, M. The Play of Metaphors. In Hassard, J. and Parker, M. (Eds.) Postmodernism and Organizations. London: Sage. 1993, 114-131

Bakhtin, M. M. The Dialogical Imagination: Four Essays by M. M. Bakhtin. M. Holquist (ed). Trans. C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Austin, TX: University of Texas Press 1981

Bakhtin, M. M. Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics. Edited and translated by C. Emerson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press 1984

Billig, M. Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1987

Chia, R. The Concept of a Decision: A Deconstructive Analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 31 (6) 1994

Cooper, R. Modernism, Postmodernism and Organizational Analysis 3: The Contribution of Jacques Derrida. Organization Studies, 10, (4) 1989, 479-502 

Czarniawska, B. Narrating the Organization: Dramas of Institutional Identity. University of Chicago Press: Chicago 1997

Derrida, J. Of Grammatology. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press 1980

Fairclough, N. Discourse and Social Change. Polity Press 1993

Hatch, M. J. Irony and the Social Construction of Contradiction in the Humor of a Management Team. Organization Science, 8, 1997, 275-288

Lyotard, J. F. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. University of Minnesota Press 1984

Ortony, A. (ed) Metaphor and Thought Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1993 

Sarup, M. An Introductory Guide to Poststructuralism and Postmodernism. Athens: University 1989

Shotter, J. Conversational Realities: Constructing Life through Language. London: Sage 1993

Shotter, J. Living in a Wittgensteinian World: Beyond Theory to a Poetics of Practices. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 26, (3) 1996, 293-311

Shotter, J. Telling of (not about) Other Voices: ‘Real Presences’ within a Text. Concepts and Transformations. 3, (1-2) 1998, 73-92

Tulin, M. F. Talking Organization: Possibilities for Conversation Analysis in Organizational Behavior Research. Journal of Management Inquiry, 6 (2) 1997 101-119

Watson, T. In Search of Management: Culture, Chaos and Control in Managerial Work. London: Routledge 1994

Wittgenstein, L. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell 1953

Wittgenstein, L. Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology, vols. I & II. Oxford: Blackwell 1980