> Ian wrote:
>
> > The only real problem I've
> >had with the book is it's distracting minutiae which do nothing to
> >enliven the dialogue between the 2 and the use of Bhaskar's
philosophy
> >of science, which is problematic to say the least....
>
> Can you easily summarize how it's problematic for you? I actually
> just borrowed Andrew Collier's intro to RB (which everyone says is
> enormously helpful to read before plunging into RB's actual texts),
> and it might be helpful to read it with the hermeneutics of Ian's
> suspicion in the back of my mind.
>
> Maureen
============
Well, the book doesn't spend as much time on juxtaposing the 2 on such
issues, institutions, power-discipline, subjectivities etc. as one
would've hoped for, so at times the text veers into academic debates
over who said what about Marx and about how Marxists got upset over
Foucault's statements about Marx[ism] around the time of "The Order of
Things". While interesting, these chapters don't mesh with the most
interesting chapter on cost accounting, industrial relations and human
resources management. Clearly, these are perfect issues for fusing F &
M on the microdynamics of power-knowledge, and the production of
subjectivities at the level of firms, public bureaucracies and the
like. I'm waiting on a book titled "Making Sense of Management" by
Mats Alvesson and Hugh Willmott which looks real promising on
blending F&M and critical theory in looking at organizational theory.
Marsden also mentions < http://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/ejrot/ > which
looks interesting too. Administrative Science Quarterly has also
published quite a bit of stuff that explores some of the issues that
Marsden does in meshing F&M, especially F.
Marsden also attempts to use RB to get at what Marx was doing when he was scribbling in all those notebooks; his models of causality, modes of reasoning and explanation etc. Marx as methodologist and all that. The problem with this is that it does not illuminate the possibilities for juxtaposing M & F, for even if M worked the way Marsden thinks RB thinks M did, F definitely comes at philosophy of science, language etc. from a totally different perspective than RB which is another problematic issue altogether. My skepticism peaked when Marsden called RB "the most influential contemporary realist philosopher." [I know Justin's gotta be laughing at that one].
As for RB, he is of no help when reading actual scientists' works and his approach to ontology does not help in trying to understand what are some of the most critical scientific theories/theorizations of the day IMO. He'd last 2 minutes with John Wheeler, E.T. Jaynes and Tommaso Toffoli [physicists] and less than one minute with Robert Ulanowicz, Thomas Starr and Robert Peters [ecologists]. Justin could tell you all about it with regards to the Phil. of Science crowd.
Ian