Abstract
The roots of organization theory can be traced back to several disciplines, mostly within social sciences: economics, sociology, political sciences, and psychology. This initial mixture of influences continues in the present development of organization theory, and in studies informed by it. If anything, the eclecticism of organization theory grows, as sources of inspiration multiply, recently including also anthropology and literary theory. The positive effect of this state of affairs is an unusually high level of creativity and experimentation, both less encouraged in the parental disciplines, where norms are stricter and rules more clearly formulated. The negative effect is a relative lack of self-reflection, of awareness of the discipline’s possibilities and limitations. A successful advancement of any theoretical field requires both; creativity and experimentation need to be reinforced and consolidated by reflection and analysis. This article is such reflection directed toward one of the developments acquiring a distinct place in organization theory since the 1980s: symbolist organization studies. It is based on the assumption that a historical insight into the roots of symbolism and the routes by which it came to organization studies will help to incorporate it more fully into the body of organization theory. It is this author’s belief that such an incorporation will be highly advantageous for understanding the phenomenon of organized life, so central to the contemporary world.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Literatur
Its influence on painting and other arts is also traced through poetry (see e. g Delevoy 1978), and all of it is often connected to the fin-de-siecle atmosphere. “Symbolism was less a school than the atmosphere of a period”, says the jacket to Delevoy’s book, and the author himself makes an analogy between the present interest in symbolism and “the thought of the dangerous and possibly fatal transition through the junction of two stretches of time” (1978, p. 12).
In some readings, however, modernism was a step backward in relation to symbolism, which was properly taken up by postmodernism only (Porter 1990a).
The classification which follows concerns texts rather than authors (for instance, Merelman is a sociologist) and is arbitrary like all such classifications.
Psychology was never much influenced by symbolism, being interested in “mental representations” rather than in sign systems. Psychoanalysis, on the other hand, is an important influence but will be treated here as a general cultural impact rather than a “social science” in itself.
It was also Hegel and Wundt who provided the most important ingredients for Bely’s particular brand of symbolism (Cioran 1973).
Depending on who is attempting the review, organization culture is presented as a stream within organizational symbolism or vice versa.
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1997 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Czarniawska-Joerges, B. (1997). Symbolism and Organization Studies. In: Ortmann, G., Sydow, J., Türk, K. (eds) Theorien der Organisation. Organisation und Gesellschaft. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-95661-3_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-95661-3_16
Publisher Name: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-531-12945-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-322-95661-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive