Journal of Business Ethics

, 90:15 | Cite as

Reflections on Metaphor and Identity in the Cyber-Corporation

Article

Abstract

This essay attempts to establish an alternative and more accurate way of thinking about the modern business corporation, its role in society, and its frequently sociopathic behavior. It proposes that corporations as they currently exist are a product of rationalist, positivist thought of the nineteenth century, and have in recent decades emerged from their increasingly complex conditions of existence into autonomous, self-regulating entities that can best be described as cyber-corporations or cybercorps. The cybercorp, as an emergent being, is capable of acting on the (human) subsystems from which it has emerged, determining their behavior. Human individuality, and in particular individual ethical sensibility, is sacrificed to the organizational culture of the cybercorp in a way that is analogous to the life-experience of ants in a colony. The pertinent organizational culture and its values are hegemonic and can be effectively challenged only if their source in the cybercorp is clearly recognized.

Keywords

collective beings corporations and emergence corporations and identity corporations and rationalism cybercorp cyber-corporation enterprise culture organizational culture 

References

  1. Bauman, Z. 1998. Work, Consumerism and the New Poor (Buckingham: Open University Press).Google Scholar
  2. Beck, U. 1992. Risk Society (London: Sage).Google Scholar
  3. Caranfa, A.: 1978, Further Thoughts on Machiavelli: A Critique of Strauss’ Machiavelli (University Press of America, New York), p. 48.Google Scholar
  4. P. Clayton, 2004. Mind and Emergence: From Quantum to Consciousness (New York, Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  5. J. S. Coleman 1982. The Asymmetrical Society (Syracuse, Syracuse University Press).Google Scholar
  6. Dale, E.: 1960, The Great Organizers (McGraw-Hill, New York), p. 185.Google Scholar
  7. Doyle Farmer, J. and A. A. Belin: 1990, ‹Artificial Life: The Coming Evolution’, in Proceedings in Celebration of Murray Gell-Man’s 60th Birthday (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).Google Scholar
  8. French, P. A.: 1979, ‹The Corporation as a Moral Person’, American Philosophical Quarterly 16, 207–215.Google Scholar
  9. E. Fromm, 1950. Psychoanalysis and Religion (New York, Bantam Books).Google Scholar
  10. du Gay, P.: 1996, ‹Governing Organizational Life’, in Consumption and Identity at Work (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks).Google Scholar
  11. Gioia, D.: 1992, “Pinto Fires and Personal Ethics: A Script Analysis of Missed Opportunities,” Journal of Business Ethics, 11(5/6), 372–382.Google Scholar
  12. Grossberg, L.: 1997, ‹It’s a Sin: Politics, Postmodernity and the Popular’, in Dancing in Spite of Myself: Essays on Popular Culture (Duke University Press, Durham), pp. 191–252.Google Scholar
  13. Hall, S.: 1988, ‹The Toad in the Garden: Thatcherism Among the Theorists’, in C. Nelson and L. Grossberg (eds.), Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture (University of Illinois Press, Urbana), pp. 35–56.Google Scholar
  14. Hamper, B.: 1991, Rivethead: Tales from the Assembly Line (Warner Books, New York).Google Scholar
  15. P. Hancock and M. Tyler, 2001. Work, Postmodernism and Organization: a Critical Introduction (London, SAGE Publications).Google Scholar
  16. N. K. Hayles, 1999. How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics. (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
  17. Hodgson, B. (ed.): 2004, The Invisible Hand and the Common Good (Springer, New York).Google Scholar
  18. Hölldobler, B. and Wilson, E. O.: 1995, Journey to the Ants (Belknap Press of the Harvard University Press, Cambridge).Google Scholar
  19. N. Kennedy, 1989. The Industrialization of Intelligence. New York: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
  20. Lux, K.: 1990, Adam Smith’s Mistake: How a Moral Philosopher Invented Economics and Ended Morality (Shambala, London)Google Scholar
  21. Macpherson, C. B.: 1985, The Rise and Fall of Economic Justice (OUP, Oxford)Google Scholar
  22. Mansfield, H. C.: 1996, Machiavelli’s Virtue (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago).Google Scholar
  23. H. Marcuse, 1964. One-Dimensional Man (New York, Beacon Books).Google Scholar
  24. Mayer, C. J.: 1990, ‹Personalizing the Impersonal: Corporations and the Bill of Rights’, The Hastings Law Journal, 41, 577–667.Google Scholar
  25. Melman, S.: 1987, Profits Without Production (University of Philadelphia Press, Philadelphia).Google Scholar
  26. G. Minati and E. Pessa, 2006. Collective Beings (New York, Springer).Google Scholar
  27. P. Mirowski, 2002. Machine Dreams: Economics Becomes a Cyborg Science. (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  28. L. E. Mitchell, 1995. “Cooperation and Constraint in the Modern Corporation: An Inquiry into the Causes of Corporate Immorality.” (Texas Law Review, 73, 477–538).Google Scholar
  29. D. F. Noble, 1977. America by Design: Science, Technology and the Rise of Corporate Capitalism (New York, Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  30. Peterson, G. R.: 2006, ‹Species of Emergence’, Zygon 41(3), 689–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Polanyi, K.: 1947[2001], The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time (Beacon Press, Boston).Google Scholar
  32. Reed, M.: 1987, ‹In Praise of Duality and Dualism: Rethinking Agency and Structure in Organizational Analysis’, Organizational Studies 18(1), 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. M. Reed, 1996. “Organizational Theorizing: A Historically Contested Terrain,” in S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy and W.R. Nord (eds.), Handbook of Organizational Studies (London, SAGE).Google Scholar
  34. W. Rowland, 2005. Greed, Inc.: Why Corporations Rule Our World. (New York, Arcade Publishing).Google Scholar
  35. Strauss, L.: 1958, Thoughts on Machiavelli (The Free Press, Glencoe, IL), Chap. 1.Google Scholar
  36. C. Taylor, 1989. Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity. (Cambridge, Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
  37. C. Taylor,1991. The Malaise of Modernity (Toronto, Anansi).Google Scholar
  38. J. Tomkins, B. Victor and R. Adler, 1992. “Psycholegal Aspects of Organizational Behavior: Assessing and Controlling Risk,” in D. K. Kagehiro and W. S. Laufer (eds.) Handbook of Psychology and Law, pp. 523–541 (New York, Springer-Verlag).Google Scholar
  39. W. A. Weisskopf, 1971. Alienation and Economics (New York, Dell Publishing).Google Scholar
  40. Willmott, H.: 1998, ‹Re-Cognizing the Other: Reflections on a “New Sensibility” in Social and Organizational Studies’, in R. Chia (ed.), In the Realm of Organization: Essays for Robert Cooper (Routledge, London).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Atkinson CollegeYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations